Research and analysis

Million Hours Fund evaluation: phase two second interim report

Published 19 June 2026

Million Hours Fund background and context

The Million Hours Fund (MHF) supports existing ‘open access’ youth services,^{[footnote 1]} funding additional youth workers, volunteers, venue hire, and resources. This increases weekly opening hours or session availability each week and helps organisations to provide extra support to young people (YP) in areas where they may be at risk of anti-social behaviour (ASB), whether as victims or offenders. Tackling ASB is important because research shows it can have negative impacts on individuals’ wellbeing, on their behaviours and health, and on local community cohesion.^{[footnote 2]}

The MHF was part of the 2022 to 2024 Conservative government’s ASB Action Plan, which set out policies and programmes to tackle the issue of ASB across England and Wales. The current Labour government continued and extended the MHF. Part of the ASB Action Plan was to provide at least one million extra hours of youth services with government funding in ‘ASB hotspots’ in England, which The National Lottery Community Fund match funded. These hotspots were based on youth population and police information on numbers of incidents of ASB. Funded activities must take place in, or benefit YP living in, one or more of the eligible areas.

In February 2022, the government announced the National Youth Guarantee (NYG), with over £500 million investment to ensure that “by 2025, every young person in England should have access to regular out-of-school activities, adventures away from home and opportunities to volunteer”. Part of the NYG promises to ‘level up’ the delivery of youth service activities in target areas across the country. The MHF complements the NYG.

The MHF has a total funding allocation of £41 million. This is delivered across three phases.

The ‘Summer Funding programme’ (Phase 1)

Phase 1 provided small grants of up to £10,000 to help 427 grantholders expand their offering for YP over the summer holiday period (3 July to 4 August 2023). Although Phase 1 primarily focused on the summer holiday period, grantholders had up to 12 months to spend the funding.

Phase 2 of the MHF

Phase 2 is providing grants between £30,000 and £100,000 to grantholders from December 2023 to March 2026. Delivery start dates vary. Some grantholders received grant confirmation as early as December 2023 and others as late as April 2024. While some completed their delivery in March 2025, the majority will finish in March 2026. This is the focus of this report. The total funding allocated for Phases 1 and 2 was £22 million, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and The National Lottery Community Fund committing £11 million each.

Phase 3 of the MHF

Phase 3 is a £19 million extension, announced in August 2025. It is providing grant funding from November 2025 and will run until March 2027. This phase builds on learning from earlier phases, with updated eligible wards selected using recent police data and current youth population figures to ensure funding is targeted to areas with the greatest need.

Fortia Insight, formerly RSM UK Consulting LLP’s Strategy, Economics and Policy Consulting team, together with Leaders Unlocked (LU), were commissioned by DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund to conduct a process and impact evaluation of the MHF Phases 1 and 2.^{[footnote 3]} This interim report brings together evidence gathered from various sources and presents this against key process and impact research questions, detailed in Annex C: Data tables. To explore the impact of the MHF on YP, the evaluation uses a dose-response approach. This approach examines whether the regularity and duration of participation in MHF-funded activities leads to differences in YP’s outcomes of interest, including wellbeing, building relationships, and participation in ASB. The evaluation also uses contribution analysis to assess whether the MHF ToC holds true. Annex B: Detailed methodology discusses the methodology in detail. This report follows the first interim report, published in August 2025, which covered the first year of delivery of the MHF with data collection from January to October 2024. This is the second interim report which covers the second year of delivery of the MHF with data collection from February to September 2025. This interim report focuses exclusively on Phase 2 of the MHF delivery. It does not include detailed analysis of the Summer Funding programme (Phase 1) or Phase 3. Phase 3 will be evaluated separately by Fortia Insight and LU, working alongside a new partner, the Education Policy Institute (EPI).

The third and final evaluation report of the MHF Phase 2 is planned for September 2026. The final phase of fieldwork with grantholders will build on the findings presented here to provide a more complete picture of the MHF’s impact. It will specifically seek to:

• understand what types of mentoring, whether formal or informal, and with staff or with older peers, grantholders deliver, and how they deliver them
• explore the pathways that exist for YP after they attend activities funded through the MHF, either with the grantholder or externally
• collect evidence of how grantholders incorporated youth voice into the design of their activities
• collect evidence of what, if anything, grantholders learned from their experience with the MHF and what they have done differently or plan to do differently as a result of their experience with the MHF
• collect further insights about how community perceptions of YP have changed as a result of the MHF

1. Executive summary

1.1 Introduction

The MHF aims to achieve positive outcomes for:

• MHF grantholders, their staff, and volunteers, by increasing their capacity to deliver youth activities, developing their skills and knowledge, and improving their ability to meet the needs of YP
• YP, by increasing their wellbeing, confidence, and life skills, fostering positive relationships with staff and volunteers and reducing the risk factors associated with ASB
• local communities, through improved perceptions of YP, stronger community cohesion, and increased feelings of safety

This second interim evaluation report brings together evidence to assess the delivery and impact of Phase 2 of the MHF. It draws on comprehensive data collection, including:

• online surveys with 166 grantholders and 515 YP
• in-depth interviews with 43 grantholders, 51 YP, and 2 national and 9 local stakeholders
• monitoring information from 238 grantholders

The findings cover the period from November 2024 to September 2025 and build upon the first interim report that covered the period from January to October 2024 and was published in 2025.^{[footnote 4]}

1.2 Method overview

The evaluation combines process and impact evaluation strands. The process evaluation explores stakeholders’ experiences of the MHF delivery, the reach of the MHF, and the types of activities delivered and for whom. The impact evaluation examines the outcomes and impacts achieved for YP participating in activities, the organisations involved in the MHF, and the communities where funded projects are based. It also considers stakeholders’ views on what constitutes ASB, how the MHF has influenced ASB, and the factors that reduce risk or strengthen protective factors for ASB.

To assess the impact of the MHF on YP, the evaluation uses a dose–response approach, which analyses whether the frequency and duration of participation in the MHF-funded activities is associated with differences in outcomes such as wellbeing, relationship-building, and involvement in ASB, in the absence of a comparison group. The evaluation applies contribution analysis to test whether the MHF’s Theory of Change (ToC) remains valid and to understand the extent to which observed outcomes can reasonably be attributed to the MHF.

Youth voice is a central feature of the evaluation. A group of young evaluators conducted interviews with YP during site visits to the MHF-funded projects. They also reviewed interview topic guides for YP interviews and presented their findings to DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund. This approach ensures that YP’s perspectives and experiences are embedded in the evaluation findings.

Further detail on the methodology, the research questions, analytical approaches and supporting data tables, is provided in Annex B: Detailed methodology.

1.3 Key findings

The MHF has substantially expanded the scale and reach of youth provision in targeted areas through 238 grantholders. With their grants from the MHF, grantholders hired new staff and extended the working hours of existing staff. They trained staff and volunteers, paid for venue hire, and purchased new equipment. In total, the MHF grantholders delivered at least 2.6 million additional hours of youth activities by June 2025, substantially exceeding the MHF’s headline target of at least one million additional hours.

These additional activities varied: the most common was sports and informal physical activities (36% of grantholder survey respondents offered this as their main activity), followed by workshops and drop-in sessions such as cooking classes (13%). Other types of activities included general open access youth club sessions (9%), special interest clubs such as science clubs (5%), and art and creative or IT and media activities (4% each). A small minority of 3% or less of grantholders who completed the grantholder survey offered the following types of activities as their main activity: one-to-one support mentoring, volunteering activities, detached or street-based youth work, staff training, or volunteer training. Additionally, 14% indicated they offered multi-activity provision. Despite the substantial number of additional hours of positive activities, many grantholders interviewed by the evaluation team reported additional unmet demand. These grantholders operated waiting lists or reduced their advertising to manage demand from YP.

A flexible approach to the use of funding was important to enable grantholders to meet the demand from YP. It was a key facilitator to the success of the MHF, enabled by DCMS’s partnership with The National Lottery Community Fund. Both DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund were flexible in how and when grant funds are used. However, The National Lottery Community Fund’s grant management processes enable grantholders to pivot activities to meet demand, as long as the activities achieve the desired outcomes, without the need to make changes to grant agreements.

For YP, the evaluation finds a complex but insightful picture where the quality of relationships with youth workers has emerged as a critical factor for positive change. This is in line with the findings of previous research (Rhodes, 2004; Jones et al., 2011). YP attending MHF activities experience increased confidence, alongside other intended outcomes such as improved mental and physical wellbeing. The evaluation also found evidence of unanticipated outcomes for YP, such as the development of positive relationships with their older peers.

There is some evidence from grantholders of improved integration of YP and youth organisations in their communities. However, importantly, the evaluation did not collect insights from members of local communities to report on the latter’s perceptions of youth ASB. This is important because these perspectives would provide crucial insights into the extent to which the types of activities the MHF funded can meaningfully shift the dial on community views of YP. Community perceptions will be a specific area of focus for the evaluation of Phase 3 of the MHF.

Further detail on key findings is listed below.

1.3.1 Grantholder experience and programme delivery

Positive delivery experience and flexible funding
Grantholders reported a very positive experience of the MHF’s grant administration processes, with 95% satisfied with the clarity of communications and 94% with the speed of responses from The National Lottery Community Fund. The flexibility of the grant, allowing organisations to adapt spending in response to the evolving needs of YP, was consistently highlighted as a critical success factor for effective delivery. One grantholder noted, “It was really helpful to be able to adjust it [the budget]; we weren’t penalised”.

Funding usage and activities
The MHF grant was primarily used to cover core delivery costs, including paying for youth worker time (86%), purchasing equipment and resources (79%), recruiting additional youth workers (61%), and hiring venues (61%).^{[footnote 5]} Consistent with the first interim report, sports and informal physical activities were the most common type of provision offered (36%), often used as a gateway to engage YP before introducing them to other developmental activities such as mentoring, issue-based workshops (for example, on knife crime or online safety), and practical skills sessions.

Reaching the target beneficiaries
Provision is effectively targeted at YP from deprived areas (95% of grantholders). Furthermore, 79% of grantholders targeted YP from minority ethnic backgrounds. The MHF is likely reaching those most at risk of ASB, with 90% of grantholders reporting that their target groups are at risk of intimidatory behaviour,^{[footnote 6]} 73% at risk of causing nuisance to neighbours, and 64% at risk of gang-related activity. The full report identifies that structured referral pathways through the police, schools, and youth justice services are essential for engaging the highest-risk cohorts. However, there are differing views on who commits ASB. Some grantholders are not aware whether the YP attending their activities take part in ASB. In the YP survey, the most common types of ASB that YP reported taking part in were littering, hanging out in public spaces, and annoying or swearing at strangers. In interviews, almost all YP reported not taking part in any ASB. There were also differing views on what behaviours constitute ASB: for instance, depending on the context, hanging out in public spaces could be seen as ASB or as normal behaviour. This reinforces the complexities involved in reducing youth ASB.

Gender influences the types of activities that YP attend
In interviews most grantholders reported mixed-gender attendance. However, some noted that sports activities such as football, boxing, and gym sessions, as well as music studio activities, tended to attract more boys and young men. Boys and young men were less likely to take part in arts, creative, or youth club sessions, unless these also included a sports or music component. In response to lower engagement from girls and young women, some grantholders introduced ‘girls-only’ sessions to create safe spaces and encourage participation among this group, which successfully increased attendance.

Organisational outcomes and sustainability concerns
The funding has significantly increased organisational capacity, with 96% of grantholders agreeing that the MHF enabled them to provide additional services they otherwise could not have delivered (2% disagreed, 1% neither agreed nor disagreed). It also strengthened local partnerships, with 92% of grantholders establishing new community contacts, and raised the visibility and credibility of organisations. However, a major challenge highlighted by almost all grantholders is long-term sustainability. Many expressed significant concern about a “cliff-edge” of losing experienced staff and having to scale back their expanded provision when the MHF funding concludes. At the same time the evidence suggests that the multi-year nature of the MHF was beneficial to grantholders and YP due to the ability to deliver positive activities over an extended period of time.

1.3.2 Understanding the link between attendance and outcomes

In the absence of a suitable comparison group, this evaluation uses a dose-response analysis to explore the relationship between participation and outcomes. While this approach does not address issues such as selection effects, it does allow for the assessment of the potential impact of these effects by comparing outcomes for individuals with different levels of engagement, characteristics, and geography. The findings in this second report build upon and attempt to clarify the trends identified in the previous interim report.

Wellbeing and involvement in ASB
As in the first interim report, the analysis shows that YP who attend more frequently report lower levels of wellbeing, for instance fewer positive feelings about their school, home, or work, and higher involvement in some ASB (for example, swearing at strangers, dropping litter). This does not imply that the MHF is ineffective. Assessing this would require a comparison with peers that have not attended MHF activities and also live in ASB hotspots. Such a comparison was not feasible for this evaluation. However, the evaluation now better understands the background to these findings. For instance, in interviews YP said that they found staff at youth organisations to be more approachable than teachers or parents, which may be why YP who attend more frequently reported fewer positive feelings about school or their family. In addition, the MHF grantholders deliver their activities in areas where ASB, including among YP, is more prevalent. This may help explain why YP who attend more frequently report higher levels of involvement in ASB.

Trends on trust in staff
A key finding from the first interim report was a negative correlation between attendance in the MHF activities and trust in staff. In contrast, this year’s analysis found emerging evidence of a positive relationship between more frequent attendance and feeling listened to by staff. A potential explanation of this finding is that longer engagement in the MHF activities may be resulting in more trust being built by YP in staff. This reinforces the finding that positive, trusted relationships with youth workers are a driver of positive change and illustrates how longer term funding is required to see the impacts of building relationships. Another potential explanation could be that YP who do not trust staff did not complete this year’s survey.

Youth centres as a ‘safe space’
The first interim report found that around one in ten YP responding to the YP survey felt unsafe at the funded activities. This year’s data sheds further light on the context for this finding. While 90% of YP feel ‘safe’ or ‘very safe’ at the MHF activities, those who attend more frequently, and felt unsafe at the MHF activities, are also more likely to report feeling unsafe at home. This may indicate that generally lower feelings of safety are the reason why these YP do not feel safe during the MHF activities either. In interviews with YP, it was also discussed that those who feel unsafe elsewhere do feel that MHF activities are a safe place for them to go and this is supported by the YP survey. This reframes the understanding of the MHF’s role, highlighting its importance as a secure environment for YP who may feel that they lack that safety elsewhere.

1.3.3 Further insights from the dose-response analysis

Beyond the headline findings above, the analysis revealed several important relationships between MHF engagement and outcomes for YP.

The impact of engaging in the MHF activities evolves over time

• Wellbeing and confidence are highest in the first three months of attendance, dip between 4 months and 9 months, and then improve again from 10 months onwards. This data suggests an initial positive impact of attendance followed by a phase of deeper challenge and then long-term growth.
  
• Similarly, involvement in more serious ASB (fighting and drug use), while generally low, was found to increase up to the 9 month mark before falling from 10 months onwards. This may indicate that it takes a substantial period of sustained engagement to achieve a positive impact on these behaviours, reinforcing the need for longer term funding.
  

The type of activity matters

• Engaging in mentoring and volunteering is associated with developing a trusted relationship with staff.
  
• Participation in sports and physical activities is positively linked to better feelings about personal appearance.
  
• Engaging in unstructured “hanging out” activities where YP spend time with other YP is associated with lower life skills, lower wellbeing regarding school, and higher instances of minor ASB.
  

The mechanism of change

• The analysis suggests that building a trusted relationship with staff is the central mechanism for achieving positive outcomes.
  
• YP who trust staff are less likely to get into fights, receive noise complaints from neighbours, deliberately damage public property, spray graffiti, or use drugs.
  
• Higher trust in staff is also directly linked to better life skills, such as being more likely to feel empathy for others and having better self-control.
  
• The report also found that guidance, support, and informal mentoring by older peers contributes to YP building positive relationships with their older peers. Such relationships appear to be an important, if unanticipated, outcome of attending the MHF activities.
  

1.3.4 Outcomes for YP, staff, and communities

Outcomes for YP
The quality of relationships is paramount. As many as 93% of YP reported having a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ relationship with staff. This trust is foundational to feeling safe and building confidence, with 85% of YP reporting their confidence being high to very high since participating. As one young person noted, “The staff make it a safe space… You’re not going to be judged.” Some YP attending the MHF activities move on to volunteering or to paid work with the youth organisation after taking part in its activities.

Outcomes for grantholder staff
The MHF contributed directly to professional development. The vast majority of grantholders (88%) reported their staff had increased their skills and knowledge as a result of the grant, with 70% reporting the same for volunteers. Investment was made in crucial training areas including Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) training, first aid, trauma-informed practice, and de-escalation techniques. Qualitative feedback indicates that the MHF helped meet a previously unmet demand for training, enabling staff and volunteers to access continuous professional development (CPD), safeguarding, and specialist courses.

Outcomes for communities
Data from grantholders about community outcomes is positive. The vast majority of grantholders (88%) agreed their project is contributing to improved community integration. Stakeholders reported that visible, positive activities helped to change negative perceptions of YP, with one council representative noting it makes YP feel “part of that city centre rather than just part of a problem”. Furthermore, 72% of grantholders believe their project is contributing to a reduction in recorded ASB, a view supported by stakeholder accounts of localised drops in ASB incidents. However, there is no reliable data on recorded ASB committed by YP and the evaluation has not been able to collect evidence on outcomes for local communities from members of the communities directly, which means these findings are anecdotal.

1.4 Recommendations and next steps

The evidence in this report leads to the following key recommendations for DCMS, The National Lottery Community Fund, other funders, and grantholders:

Recommendation 1

DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund should strongly consider delivering funds set up in a similar way to and for a similar duration as the MHF in future, as this is the best way to achieve desired outcomes and impacts.

Rationale: The partnership between these two organisations works well. Multi-year funding is essential to achieving lasting behavioural changes for YP. It is also essential for allowing grantholders to attract and retain qualified staff and volunteers with whom YP can build trusted relationships.

Recommendation 2

For future funds, DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund should support grantholders to build and maintain structured referral pathways and partnerships to engage YP specifically at risk of, or already involved in, ASB.

Rationale: Such referral pathways are essential and effective. Where local networks between organisations already exist that can facilitate referral pathways, funders should encourage grantholders to build on and strengthen those networks rather than creating completely new ones. Funders should allocate sufficient resources for grantholders’ partnering activities, and where possible signpost grantholders to potentially relevant local networks.^{[footnote 7]} The most effective partnerships for this are with schools, police (including Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs)), Youth Justice Services, and local authority teams.

Recommendation 3

Grantholders should deliver activities in locations that are familiar and accessible to YP, such as parks, housing estates, or other community spaces they already use, rather than relying solely on unfamiliar venues.

Rationale: Engagement with YP was more effective when activities took place in spaces YP already frequent. This approach was particularly effective for those less likely to seek out formal youth provision, helping to reduce barriers to participation and increase inclusivity. A few grantholders initially trialled delivery in locations unfamiliar to the YP and found engagement and retention challenging.

Recommendation 4

Grantholders should plan for potential over-subscription and higher-than-expected repeat attendance, including strategies to manage capacity and maintaining equitable access.

Rationale: The MHF-funded activities were sometimes oversubscribed, with many grantholders operating waiting lists or having to reduce advertising to manage numbers. At the same time, participation can drop significantly during winter months due to cold and dark evenings, as well as during periods like Ramadan or school exams. Delivery plans should anticipate this volatility, and budgets should account for potential mitigations like hiring indoor venues, higher heating costs, or extra safety equipment (for example, reflective clothing for outdoor work).

Recommendation 5

Grantholders should plan activities that are attractive and inviting for all likely and/or desired beneficiary groups. To improve engagement with groups like older teens (16-18) and girls, grantholders should consider targeted strategies such as girls-only sessions and female-led activities (for girls) and offering clear progression pathways like volunteering or paid roles and project endpoints like certificates or performances (for older teens).

Rationale: The report found that young girls are less likely to take part in mixed-gender sports activities and that older teens welcome activities that offer certificates or have other value for their future personal and professional lives.

Recommendation 6

Grantholders should empower YP through co-design of activities. Youth voice and co-design are central to successful delivery.

Rationale: Involving YP in shaping activities through feedback forms, youth committees, or informal conversations creates a sense of ownership and ensures the provision meets their needs.

Recommendation 7

Grantholders should utilise the most effective promotional channels.

Rationale: The most successful methods for reaching YP are youth-focused social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok, and direct engagement in schools through assemblies and lunchtime pop-ups. Word of mouth is another effective recruitment tool, with many participants joining because they were invited by friends or siblings.

Recommendation 8

Grantholders should deliver activities that focus on behaviour change.

Rationale: A relational approach based on mentoring, building trust, and using restorative conversations after incidents of violence or verbal aggression appears effective in helping YP develop emotional regulation and reduces the likelihood of behavioural escalation. Grantholders should incorporate targeted educational sessions on issues relevant to local YP, such as knife crime, substance misuse, and online safety, often delivered in partnership with police or specialist agencies.

Recommendation 9

For future funds, DCMS and other funders should consider naming and branding that emphasises intended outcomes for YP and communities rather than delivery volumes or numeric targets.

Rationale: The name “Million Hours Fund” placed a heavy focus on a single delivery metric, which risked narrowing the public and ministerial perception of success. Future funds should be named and branded in a way that reflects their intended outcomes (for example, youth safety, community cohesion) rather than limited to their outputs (for example, hours delivered).

2. Data used in this report and limitations

This section outlines the data used in this report and the limitations of the evaluation. Further detail on the methodology, including analytical approaches and supporting data tables, is provided in Annex B: Detailed methodology.

2.1 Data sources used for this interim report

Below is an overview of the data sources used to produce this interim report:

An online evaluation survey of grantholders

An online survey was distributed to 233 organisations, achieving a 71% response rate, with 166 responses included in the analysis. The survey was live from February to March 2025 and gathered information on how grantholders used the funding, the activities they delivered, their experiences of delivery, and the outcomes they observed for YP, their organisations, and local communities.

In-depth interviews with 43 grantholders

We conducted online interviews with grantholder staff from April to July 2025. These interviews explored the activities delivered, how these activities benefit YP, and the wider impact on their organisations, staff, volunteers, and local communities.

Online survey of YP

We conducted a survey of YP, open from June to August 2025, with 515 responses included in the analysis. The survey asked about the profile of YP, their interactions with the MHF activities, and outcomes including relationships with staff and volunteers, wellbeing, life skills and practical skills, and involvement in ASB.

Site visits

Site visits were conducted with six grantholders located in Bristol, Felixstowe, Gainsborough, Leicester, Newcastle, and Wigan. During these visits, young evaluators, supported by staff from LU, carried out 51 in-person interviews with YP participating in the MHF activities. The site visits explored YP’s experiences of the activities, the types of activities delivered, and the outcomes they reported, including those related to ASB.

Interviews with DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund

We conducted an interview each with DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund staff, focused on their experiences of implementation and delivery, monitoring, reporting, and evaluation processes, risk management, and lessons learned to date.

Interviews with local stakeholders

We conducted nine interviews with representatives from local authorities, police forces, and local VCS organisations. These interviews covered the local context for ASB, perceptions of YP and awareness of the MHF.

Monitoring information (MI)

MI was collected by The National Lottery Community Fund from 238 grantholders. The data included the number of additional hours of youth work delivered, total and average numbers of YP that attended activities, and total number of new YP that attended activities.

The findings presented in this report are based on evidence collected during 2025 for this interim evaluation. They do not include data or findings from the previous interim report published in 2024. Where areas for further exploration were identified in the previous interim report, we indicate where these have been addressed or remain outstanding. A face-to-face meeting between the evaluator, DCMS, and The National Lottery Community Fund in October 2025 provided an opportunity to collectively reflect on the findings of the evaluation. The meeting included a presentation of site visit findings from the young evaluators. These reflections were used to surface the key findings and their implications for the executive summary of this report.

Gemini was used to draft the executive summary and condensed findings and lessons learned of this report. The resulting drafts were manually reviewed (cross-checked and revised) by the evaluation team to verify that all information in them was factual and that the interpretation of that information was appropriate. AI was used in no other way in the evaluation. The evaluation team retained full responsibility for methodology, analysis, findings, and recommendations.

2.2 Limitations

This section details some of the main limitations of our evaluation, including challenges encountered with data collection and analysis, and their implications for this report’s findings.

Stakeholder interview limitations

Arranging local stakeholder and community member interviews proved more challenging than anticipated and grantholders were also unable to refer the evaluation team to sufficient relevant local contacts. This means that the evaluation drew on a smaller sample of local stakeholder and community member interviews than planned. As a result, insights into community outcomes in this report are limited and rely mainly on the views of grantholders.

YP survey limitations

As mentioned in the previous interim report, the YP survey was administered as an anonymous survey link as this was the most practical way to deliver the survey without holding personal information of YP. This means we were unable to assess overall response rates due to the base size being unclear, as it is not possible to ascertain which responses came from which MHF project. This also means we cannot make definitive statements on how representative the findings are of the overall cohort of grants (although we can estimate the regional spread based on self-reported location information from YP). The parental/guardian opt-out process excluded grantholders engaging YP under 16 through detached youth work, as many lacked parents’/guardians’ contact information and were therefore unable to complete the opt-out process.

Dose-response

As mentioned above, the dose-response approach examines how differences in activity frequency relate to outcomes, with the hypothesis that greater participation leads to better results. However, as an observational method, it identifies associations rather than proving causality. It is important to account for differences in risk levels among individuals, as those more “at risk” may receive more interventions. Without fully controlling for such factors (observable or not) findings may be biased. While statistical adjustments (meaning regression) can address some disparities, unobservable factors like family or peer influences may still skew results.

Lack of counterfactual group

The feasibility of a comparative counterfactual analysis was explored during the inception phase: a comparison group was not identified. Due to the absence of a comparison group, the evaluation cannot make a robust assessment to determine whether the changes (both positive and negative) in any intended outcomes are directly attributable to the MHF activities, as opposed to other factors.

Attribution issues

As explored in the previous interim report, the MHF is one of several funds delivered by both DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund. Participating YP may have taken part in other programmes before, during, or after their engagement with MHF. Although each programme/fund aims to develop a specific set of skills, they are all designed to enhance YP’s personal skills. This creates an attribution challenge for the evaluation, whereby it is difficult to be sure whether the outcomes achieved by participants are due to their participation in the MHF. To mitigate the attribution problem, the evaluation uses contribution analysis. Contribution analysis is a theory-based evaluation approach. It uses mixed-methods data sources to assess the strength of evidence available against a series of contribution claims which are designed to understand the extent to which an intervention contributed to observed outcomes.

2.3 Next steps of the evaluation

The publication of the final evaluation report is planned for September 2026. In advance of that report, the evaluation team will conduct further interviews with grantholders (February to April 2026), DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund staff (April and May 2026), and with local stakeholders (April and May 2026), and conduct a final wave of the grantholder evaluation survey (January and February 2026).

3. Process evaluation findings

3.1 Introduction

This section presents findings from the process evaluation, addressing the research questions (RQs) set out in Annex B: Detailed methodology. The analysis draws on interviews with grantholders, YP, and DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund staff; on the grantholder survey; and on MI. It focuses on the delivery of the MHF, including the types of activities funded, the YP reached, grantholders’ experiences of delivery, and YP’s experiences of participation.

3.2 Additional hours and types of activities delivered

3.2.1 Additional hours

MI data from 238 grantholders up to the end of June 2025 indicates that the MHF has supported the delivery of at least 2.6 million additional hours of youth activities.^{[footnote 8]} This means the MHF exceeded its original target of one million additional hours by 31 March 2026. On average, each grantholder delivered 485 additional hours, with sessions typically engaging around 25 YP per hour.

The MHF stakeholders suggested that the MHF’s name and branding may have placed too much focus on the “million hours” numerical target, attracting ministerial and public attention to the “million‑hours” headline. While this aided visibility of the MHF, the MHF stakeholders highlighted that it risked narrowing perceptions of success to a single measure, and subsequent messaging sought to emphasise the MHF’s wider intent and objectives.

3.2.2 Types of activities being funded

Table 1 summarises the types of activities that grantholders are providing for YP with the MHF grant funding. The grantholder survey (base=166) shows that the most common activities are sports and informal physical activities (36%). The previous interim report highlighted the need to clarify what classifies as sports and informal physical activities. Interview data from grantholders shows that football and boxing were the most common, alongside karate, basketball, table tennis, dance, and cycling.

Survey responses indicate that 14% of grantholders offer multi-activity provision, combining physical activities with other activities including creative arts, gaming, or one-to-one mentoring. Workshops and drop-in sessions are offered by 13% of survey respondents. Grantholder interviews provided further detail about these workshops and sessions, describing workshops focused on employability and leadership (for example CV writing, interview preparation), issue-based topics (for example drugs and alcohol, vaping, knife crime, online safety, healthy relationships), and practical skills (for example first aid, cooking, driving theory).

Table 1: Types of MHF-funded activities (Grantholder survey, March 2025, base=166)

Activity type	Percentage of grantholders (%)
Sports and informal physical activities	36
Multi-activity provision	14
Workshops and drop-in sessions, for example, cooking classes	13
General open access youth club sessions	9
Special interest clubs, for example, science clubs, music clubs, book clubs	5
Art and creative activities	4
IT and media activities	4
One-to-one support mentoring	3
Volunteering activities including youth social action	3
Other	2
Detached or street-based youth work	1
Staff training	1
Volunteer training	1

DCMS staff interviewed noted that the broad eligibility criteria for activities were well received by the sector and likely contributed to the high volume of applications from youth organisations.

3.3 Profile of YP who participate in the MHF

The grantholder survey collected data on the age profile of YP who participate in activities funded by the MHF, as detailed in Table 2. Grantholders had the option to select as many options as applied to them, which means the percentages do not total 100%. Grantholder survey data (base=165) shows that the vast majority of grantholders support YP aged 11 to 18, while a smaller but substantial proportion (33%) reported working with 18 to 25-year-olds with special education needs and disabilities (SEND). This is consistent with the aims and target reach of the MHF.

Table 2: Age profile of YP (Grantholder survey, March 2025, base=165)

Age group	Percentage of grantholders (%)
Under 11	91
11 to 13	98
14 to 16	97
16 to 18	74
18 to 25 (SEND)	33

Grantholder survey responses also provide insight into the demographic and socio-economic profile of participants (Table 3). Grantholders had the option to select as many options as applied to them, which means the percentages do not total 100%. The largest proportions of grantholders reported working with YP from low-income areas and minority ethnic backgrounds.

Table 3: Demographic and socio-economic profile of YP (Grantholder survey, March 2025, base=165)

Profile of YP	Percentage of grantholders (%)
YP from deprived or low-income areas	95
YP from minority ethnic backgrounds	79
YP who may have lived temporarily or long-term in children’s homes or care settings	50
YP with disabilities	49
YP that identify as LGBTQ+	31
YP that identify as transgender	16
N/A – do not typically work with a specific type or profile of young person	15
YP at risk of or already involved in the criminal justice system	4
Other	4

Grantholder interviews confirmed this pattern and explained that these characteristics typically reflect the demographic and socio-economic profile of their local communities, rather than being the result of targeted outreach or exclusion criteria.

SEND and neurodiverse conditions were not included as grantholder survey response options; however, grantholder interviews frequently mentioned supporting YP with autism and ADHD. Interviewees described adapting provision to meet these needs, for example by adjusting staff-to-YP ratios and offering alternatives to high-stimulus environments.

Some of [the YP] have autism or present other challenges. In my other job I predominantly work with adolescents on the autism spectrum, and so we know how to suit the therapy for those young people.

– Grantholder interview, July 2025

Most grantholders reported mixed-gender attendance in their interviews. However, some reported lower attendance from girls and young women. These grantholders were generally delivering sports activities such as football, boxing, and gym sessions, as well as music studio activities. They noted that these activities tended to attract more boys and young men. While this feedback does not confirm that girls and young women attended fewer activities overall, interview feedback suggested lower engagement specifically in these types of provision. In response to lower engagement from girls and young women, some grantholders introduced ‘girls-only’ sessions to create safe spaces and encourage participation among this group. A few grantholders also reported regular attendance by non‑binary and LGBTQ+ YP.

Interview data also highlighted that some grantholders work with YP who are outside mainstream education, including those excluded from school, attending alternative provision, or enrolled in pupil referral units (PRUs). This was often linked to referral pathways and partnerships with local authorities or the police, as discussed further in Section 3.5.1.

Table 4 summarises the types of ASB that YP participating in the MHF‑funded activities are most at risk of,^{[footnote 9]} based on the grantholder survey. The most commonly cited ASB was intimidatory behaviour (for example threatening or unruly behaviour, harassment, and loitering in public spaces) followed by nuisance to neighbours (for example playing loud music, vehicle nuisance, and uncontrolled animals). Only 3% of grantholders reported that none of the YP involved in their activities were at risk of engaging in or being involved in ASB. It is important to note that the survey wording (‘at risk’) may have been interpreted broadly by grantholders, potentially including both risk of perpetrating ASB and risk of experiencing or being targeted by it. This may reflect cases where grantholders aimed to engage YP at risk of ASB, but in practice those individuals did not participate in the activities, or other factors limited their involvement.

Table 4: Types of ASB YP involved in the MHF activities are most at risk of (Grantholder survey, March 2025, base=165)

ASB type	Percentage of grantholders (%)
Intimidatory behaviour	90
Causing nuisance to neighbours	73
Vandalism, graffiti, fly-tipping and littering	65
Gang-related activity	64
Drug use and paraphernalia	64
Other	4
N/A – YP not at risk of any ASB	3

Most grantholders interviewed described participants as being at risk of taking part in ASB rather than currently engaged in it. They linked this to the way delivery of activities is targeted: provision is focused on hotspot locations with historic or current ASB, and on groups considered at higher risk of involvement in ASB. This was reflected in the site visit interviews with YP, where most suggested they did not engage in ASB themselves; however, many observed ASB in their local areas by adults and other YP, for example, drinking in public and fighting. At the same time, some interviewed grantholders reported that a proportion of their participants are actively involved in ASB, citing examples such as organised fights, vandalism, gang activity or association, and drug and alcohol use. Where grantholders judged YP to be actively involved, this was often because access to the project was via targeted referrals from the police, Youth Justice, or social care, which indicated recent incidents or concerns. A small number of grantholders work exclusively with cohorts who have been, or are currently, engaged in ASB. Some YP interviewed did mention peers or people they knew engaging in ASB and suggested they may have been inclined to engage with those peers out of boredom or lack of activities had it not been for the MHF activities they attended (see Section 4.2.1.2 for further detail on YP’s views on ASB).

There is collaboration between us, the school, and the police; if something happens, the school and our team are informed.

– Grantholder interview, July 2025

Conversely, a few grantholders were unsure whether the YP participating in their activities were involved in ASB, as they do not discuss these issues with the YP and have limited or no access to real-time ASB data.

It’s not a question that we ask them, it’d be a bit difficult to answer that…It is difficult for us to get real-time feedback around incidents of anti-social behaviour.

– Grantholder interview, April 2025

As explored in more detail in Section 4.2.1, the majority of YP surveyed reported being involved in ASB rarely. Due to the way in which we collect data from YP, it is not possible to determine whether the YP surveyed are materially different from those discussed by grantholders in interviews. As such, caution is needed when comparing these two sources.

3.4 Funding usage

Table 5 presents an overview of how grantholders have spent the MHF grant they received from The National Lottery Community Fund according to their responses to the grantholder survey. Grantholders could select multiple options, so percentages do not sum to 100%.

Table 5: The MHF grant spending (Grantholder survey, March 2025, base=165)

Grant spending	Percentage of grantholders (%)
Paying for youth worker time	86
Purchasing equipment and other resources for activities	79
Recruiting additional youth workers (paid staff)	61
Hiring venues for activities	61
Overhead costs, for example, overall management, administration costs, rent and utilities	58
Training costs	45
Recruiting additional volunteers	39
Paying for volunteer expenses	38
Costs related to keeping venues open for longer, for example, heating and lighting	36
Other	7
Purchasing food and drink	5

86% of grantholder survey respondents (base=165) used the MHF grant to pay for youth worker time and 61% to recruit additional youth workers. Grantholder interviews confirm that staffing is the primary area of spend, covering youth worker time, delivery, and coordination, aligned with the MHF expectations. While some grantholders interviewed reported that the grant enabled them to recruit additional staff, most extended existing staff hours.^{[footnote 10]} Interviewees did not report consistent evidence of salary increases as a result of the MHF funding. In a few cases, interviewees noted that the grant helped retain staff who might otherwise have been let go.

We were going to let go of some staff… we were able to retain the staff and hire a support worker.

– Grantholder interview, April 2025

Where additional youth workers were recruited specifically for the MHF delivery, grantholder interviews suggest that retention beyond the grant period is uncertain and will depend on securing future funding. Interviewees generally indicated that extended staff and volunteer hours were temporary, linked to the duration of the MHF funding, rather than permanent contractual changes. A couple of grantholders noted that offering two-year contracts improved recruitment and retention, but most expect increases in hours or roles to end when the grant concludes. This was an area identified in the previous interim report as requiring further exploration and will be revisited in the final grantholder evaluation interviews to assess whether any of these changes have been sustained beyond the grant period.

Getting an admin person was really positive… When you can say we’ve got two years of funding available, that really helps rather than needing ‘help for just the next couple of weeks’.

– Grantholder interview, July 2025

Survey responses show that 79% of grantholders used the grant to purchase equipment and resources. Interview examples include bikes for cycling sessions, music production equipment, and materials for specialist workshops. Almost half (45%) of grantholder survey respondents reported using the grant for training costs. Grantholder interviews described training in safeguarding, first aid, trauma-informed practice, behaviour management, and mental health awareness.

Grantholders interviewed appreciated the flexibility in how the MHF grant could be spent. Several grantholders said this flexibility was critical to effective delivery, allowing them to adapt activities in response to changing interests among YP rather than being constrained by a fixed grant agreement. For example, one grantholder explained that they were able to reallocate venue hire underspend to pay external providers to deliver new types of activities demanded by the YP.

It was really helpful to be able to adjust it [the budget]; we weren’t penalised.

– Grantholder interview, July 2025

3.5 Experience of project delivery

This section explores grantholders’ delivery experiences, including partnerships, staff expertise, youth-led engagement, and seasonal challenges. This section primarily draws on the grantholder survey and interviews, and where relevant draws on interviews with YP, stakeholders, DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund staff.

3.5.1 Reaching and engaging with YP

As noted in the previous interim report, we examined the range and effectiveness of promotional methods used by grantholders to engage YP. Interviews described a broad mix of promotional approaches aimed at both YP and their parents or guardians. The most effective channel for reaching YP was using youth-facing social media, particularly Instagram and TikTok. YP interviewed suggested their parents saw Facebook adverts about the youth spaces, which prompted them to enrol their children.

Many grantholders promoted activities through school and college assemblies and lunchtime pop-ups. YP confirmed this in interviews. Some mentioned staff at the youth organisation visiting their school. Offline methods, such as flyers, posters in shops and community centres, and local noticeboards, were used less frequently and were generally viewed by grantholders as less effective than online or school-based approaches. Grantholders frequently cited word of mouth as highly effective, with participants inviting friends and siblings. Some grantholders maintained a visible presence in their local communities through branded kit, vans, or pop-up stands in parks, while others reached YP and their parents via local media and partners such as community hubs, imams, police, and Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) organisations. According to grantholders, these approaches were not designed to specifically target YP at risk of, or actively engaged in, ASB; rather, they aimed to support open-access provision.

Grantholder interview data also highlighted that delivering activities in familiar locations where YP already attend, such as parks or estates, was consistently more effective than expecting YP to attend unfamiliar venues, particularly for those unlikely to seek out youth provision.

We changed our tactic… partner up with other organisations where the young people were, rather than expecting them to come to us.

– Grantholder interview, May 2025

One area identified in the previous interim report as requiring further exploration was investigating referral pathways into the MHF, especially for YP involved in ASB. Referral pathways are structured processes through which partner organisations, such as schools, police, and youth justice teams, identify YP and connect them to grantholder activities. Referral pathways were described in interviews as central to engaging YP, specifically those at risk of ASB or engaged in ASB. Many grantholders worked with police and PCSOs, using hotspot mapping and local intelligence to specifically identify YP involved in, or at risk of, ASB. Several received referrals from Youth Justice and Youth Offending Services and partnered with schools (for example Heads of Year, SEND leads, pastoral mentors) to identify pupils less likely to engage with traditional support. Collaboration with local authority teams in ASB, social care, and health was also common. Detached youth workers were frequently cited as key to meeting YP in their own environments and diverting them into safe spaces. The specific approaches used to support YP from detached youth work to attend, and their effectiveness, will be explored in more detail in our final report.

I will go across the whole borough, and I will find out what youth clubs are doing… when I am on the streets and there are young people not engaging in youth clubs and messing about [sic!] I am able to refer them and if necessary, I will go there [to the grantholder] with the young person.

– PCSO stakeholder interview, May 2025

Following a finding in the previous interim report, we explored issues of over- and under-subscription and how grantholders mitigated them. Grantholder interviews reported strong demand for the MHF-funded activities. Many described being oversubscribed at project or session level, with waiting lists, capped numbers, or reduced advertising to manage ratios. Repeat attendance often exceeded expectations as projects became established. No grantholders interviewed reported major undersubscription affecting delivery. Where mentioned, it was limited to specific session times or activities.

For the first month we were averaging about 30 [attendees]… by the second month about 80 to 100 [attendees] and now about 200 to 240 on each Thursday night.

– Grantholder interview, July 2025

Some groups of YP were described as harder to engage, meaning they were less likely to attend through standard outreach and needed additional support or tailored activities. This included older teens (aged 16-18) and girls and young women. Interviewees outlined targeted strategies which improved engagement, including ‘girls-only’ sessions, female-led activities (for example football coached by women), and offering progression endpoints such as live performances, matches, or certificates. This section reflects the additional detail requested in the previous interim report; further exploration of this topic will be included in the final report.

3.5.2 Partnerships

38% of grantholder survey respondents (base=166) are working in partnership with at least one other organisation to deliver their MHF project. A partnership is defined as a formal or informal agreement with one or more organisations that supported delivery either directly or indirectly. Among those working in partnership (base=62), 26% worked with one partner, 42% worked with two or three partners, and 25% worked with four or more partners. 7% did not provide a figure for the number of partners they were working with. Most partnerships were pre-existing: 82% of grantholders (base=62) had worked with their partners before the MHF, suggesting that the MHF built on and strengthened existing relationships rather than creating new ones.

Grantholders described working with a range of local organisations, including schools and colleges, police, Youth Offending Services, local councils, VCS organisations, health services, and faith or community hubs.

Building on the previous interim report, one finding that needed further examination was understanding the role of formal and informal partnership agreements and relationships. Most partnerships were informal, based on operational relationships such as mutual referrals, regular contact, and drop-ins. Some grantholders had formal agreements, particularly where multiple partners were involved, using consortium contracts or memoranda of understanding (MoUs).

Table 6 illustrates the roles of partner organisations. Just over half of grantholders in partnership reported using partners to recruit or refer YP to activities.

Table 6: Role of partner organisations (Grantholder survey, March 2025, base=62)

Role of partners	Percentage of grantholders (%)
Recruitment or referral of YP for project activities	56
Providing additional or enhanced activities for projects	55
Provision of space or equipment to conduct activities	48
To enhance staff capacity	47
Onward referral to additional services following engagement in your project	47
Delivering the project	34
To enhance volunteer capacity	21
Training youth workers and/or volunteers	11
Other	10

Through interviews with grantholders, we explored the roles of different local organisations in project delivery and the benefits of these partnerships.

• Police forces (including PCSOs, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs)) shared intelligence on local hotspots and individual young person cases, referred YP at risk of or involved in ASB, and provided on-site presence at sessions. In some cases, officers delivered workshops on issues such as knife crime, or they actively participated in activities alongside YP to build rapport and trust.

I work with [one of the MHF grantholders] and I do workshops and bring my ward sergeant into youth clubs to speak to the young people about stop and searches and their feelings about it.

– PCSO stakeholder interview, May 2025

• Local schools and colleges referred YP, often those known to pastoral teams, and sometimes hosted sessions on-site which made attendance more consistent for students attending these schools and colleges. Many projects had a school link person who supported information-sharing, safeguarding, and continuity between school and after-school provision.
• Local councils and local authorities contributed in several ways, including providing access to venues, supporting detached youth work, sharing data to target provision, and commissioning ward-level delivery. Councils often coordinated community safety and helped with logistics such as securing sports pitches or permissions for use of public spaces for activities. Their involvement enabled projects to operate in the right locations and to respond flexibly to local needs.

“Through our links with social care and the local authority … we were able to get a better picture of where it would be good to target.” – Grantholder interview, April 2025.

• Youth Offending Services referred YP known to be at risk or already involved in offending. They shared risk information, and co-designed case plans that aligned attendance at the MHF-funded activities with broader support and intervention strategies. Although fewer grantholders used this approach, it proved effective in engaging YP who were already involved in, or at risk of, ASB. There is no available evidence on the time and resource implications for grantholders in implementing this approach.
• Local VCS, faith and community organisations amplified communications, provided space, signposted YP, and offered practical support to help deliver activities during sessions.
• Health services (including NHS teams, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), and sexual health services) delivered advice within sessions, reducing barriers to access. For example, sexual health teams set up informal stalls in youth spaces.

Most (87%) grantholders (base=62) agreed or strongly agreed that partnerships were essential to delivery. Only 5% strongly disagreed or disagreed with this statement. Grantholders interviewed commonly reported that partnerships added clear value by extending reach beyond usual networks and helping to engage YP who were previously unknown or harder to reach. Grantholders also described partnerships as strengthening delivery by bringing specialist expertise, venues, and trusted referral routes, which broadened the offer and kept YP involved for longer. A very small number of grantholders interviewed noted that partnerships played a more limited or ad hoc role in their project, often due to capacity constraints, but these cases did not indicate negative impacts on delivery.

3.5.3 Approach to tackling ASB and impact on youth ASB

Grantholders described the types of ASB that YP participating in their activities are either at risk of engaging in or are involved in, as well as the types of ASB prevalent in the areas where activities are delivered and where participants live.

• Disruption in public spaces was the most commonly cited type of ASB, including loitering, intimidation of the public, loud music, shoplifting, and unsafe cycling or e-scooter use.
• Peer conflict, including organised fights after school, was also frequently mentioned.
• Gang-related ASB and exploitation, including concerns relating to drugs and knife crime, were reported by many grantholders.
• Vandalism and graffiti were occasionally cited.
• Online and social media-related bullying was mentioned by many grantholders, though typically framed as affecting YP as victims rather than perpetrators. While not always described as ASB, it was still a key concern for many grantholders.

Grantholders typically do not target specific types of ASB through their activities. Where particular types of ASB were addressed specifically through activities, such as through focused workshops on vaping and smoking, or sessions led by PCSOs on knife crime, these were usually developed in response to conversations with YP or emerging concerns observed by staff and delivery partners within their communities. However, it should be noted that vaping and smoking are not usually considered ASB. This points to a lack of common understanding of what does and does not constitute ASB.

Grantholders described a range of approaches that contributed to their ability to tackle ASB, either directly or indirectly:

Targeted outreach in ASB hotspots
The most commonly cited approach to addressing ASB by grantholders was focusing their work in locations and at times when YP are most at risk of participating in ASB or being subject to it. For example, delivering detached youth work in identified ASB hotspots, such as high streets and housing estates during the evening. Grantholders selected areas based on staff and volunteer local intelligence and referrals from police, local authorities, youth offending services, and schools. Once grantholders engaged YP in these environments, they were able to build relationships, offer immediate support, and divert them into structured activities. Grantholders generally reported this approach as effective, with effective engagement often facilitated through practical tools such as offering warm food and hot drinks, which worked particularly well in colder months. In cases where a location did not attract YP after several attempts, grantholders would move on to another site, though this was described as infrequent.

Mentoring and relationship-based support
A widely used approach involved providing YP with consistent adult support through mentoring. Grantholders emphasised the importance of building trust, setting clear boundaries, and using restorative conversations following incidents of violence or verbal aggression. According to grantholders, these relationships helped YP develop emotional regulation and reduced the likelihood of escalation.

Preventative education and risk awareness
Many grantholders incorporated targeted educational sessions focused on issues such as knife crime, exploitation, substance misuse, and the wider impacts of ASB. These sessions were often delivered in partnership with police or specialist agencies and aimed at raising awareness, challenging harmful behaviours, and promoting empathy for others in the community.

Progression pathways to leadership and employment
A minority of grantholders focused on creating progression pathways to leadership, volunteering, and employment. These approaches aimed to provide YP with clear next steps, accredited training, and opportunities to take on positive roles in their communities. Grantholders described this future-focused approach as particularly effective in sustaining engagement and promoting long-term change such as improved employability, increased life aspirations, and an expected reduced risk of involvement in ASB.

Grantholders reflected on the limitations of their approaches in addressing ASB, noting several factors beyond the scope of their funded activities. Grantholders highlighted that they cannot influence adult behaviours in shared community spaces, where adults may openly engage in ASB such as substance use, disruptive behaviour, or vandalism. These behaviours can undermine grantholders’ efforts to promote positive behaviours among YP. Projects funded by the MHF operate within set hours. While grantholders can influence YP’s attitudes and choices during sessions, their ability to affect behaviour outside delivery hours is limited. The vast majority of grantholders also pointed to wider systemic drivers of ASB, such as poverty, family circumstances, online harms, and broader social inequalities, which fall outside the remit of youth provision.

We can’t do anything about their parents, the [YP] often go back home to chaos.

– Grantholder interview, July 2025

We only do 15 hours; resources are a limitation.

– Grantholder interview, April 2025

3.5.4 Role of volunteers

Volunteers played an important but varied role in delivering the MHF-funded activities, with most grantholders interviewed involving volunteers in some capacity. Common roles included peer mentoring and session support. Some volunteers contributed to planning, internal monitoring and evaluation activities, and logistics. In a few cases, volunteers progressed from shadowing to leading parts of sessions. Others followed accredited pathways, received training and references, and gained experience for CVs or university applications.

Grantholders valued volunteers for their relatability to young participants and the additional capacity they provided. Grantholders explained that YP often viewed volunteers as relatable because they had lived experience of issues YP were facing or had grown up in the local area where the project was delivered. However, grantholders also highlighted challenges, particularly around availability and retention. Many volunteers were only available on an ad hoc basis, making consistency difficult. One project reported converting some volunteer roles into paid positions to ensure reliability. Roles requiring specialist skills or enhanced safeguarding, such as mentoring and street-based work, were generally unsuitable for volunteers and remained staff-led.

3.5.5 Youth-led engagement

Many grantholders interviewed highlighted that youth voice and co‑design were central to the successful delivery of their MHF projects. Approaches included formal structures such as youth committees and steering groups, as well as informal methods like gathering feedback during sessions. Grantholders who involved YP in shaping activities felt this created a sense of ownership over the spaces and led to provision that better reflected YP’s needs and interests.

Almost all YP interviewed during site visits suggested they felt listened to by staff. Many gave examples of staff taking on board their suggestions for additional activities or new equipment, for example music equipment. During site visit interviews, YP described several ways staff captured their input, such as through feedback forms and informal conversations. Examples of acting on youth feedback included staff allowing a young person to host gaming activities independently at the centre or acting on feedback that YP did not want to continue with group singing lessons. Another example of empowerment was staff giving YP creative control to direct a music video.

We have feedback sheets [once every month or twice a month] to give our views about the lessons that we like or don’t like, and even where we’d like to travel to.

– Young person interview, 2025

In cases where it was not possible to act on the feedback, some YP were understanding and aware of constraints on funding and the inability to extend services or have more one-to-one time with staff.

3.5.6 Experience of grant monitoring requirements

Most grantholders found the MHF grant monitoring process straightforward, proportionate, and manageable, with many noting that it was less administratively burdensome than other funders’ requirements. The majority praised the flexibility and supportiveness of The National Lottery Community Fund staff, noting that officers were responsive to queries and approved sensible changes or reallocation of underspend. Requirements and online forms were generally clear, and practical guidance was available when needed. The National Lottery Community Fund staff echoed this view, noting that where monitoring reports returned by grantholders were sound, monitoring remained light‑touch and support was proportionate.

However, a minority of grantholders were confused about how to count attendances, hours, and reporting periods (for example, whether to count individual contacts or unique participants, and how to record session hours versus participant hours), which led to avoidable corrections. This challenge was also noted by DCMS during their interview.

3.5.7 What worked well

In the grantholder survey, respondents identified several factors that helped facilitate delivery of their MHF‑funded activities.

Over three quarters (77% [base=163]) highlighted internal expertise, including staff and volunteer knowledge and skills, as a key facilitator. Grantholders interviewed indicated that high youth engagement and a strong sense of safety were linked to experienced youth workers with local knowledge, lived experience and specialist training. Some projects employed specialists (for example, counsellors, creative practitioners, or staff with a clinical background in behaviour management), which provided additional expertise and depth to the programme. Others drew on staff and volunteers with strong local ties and lived experience, making provision more relatable for YP.

YP interviewed broadly reported high trust with staff at the MHF sites. They gave many examples of staff listening to their feedback and adapting or adding new activities or ways of working where possible. YP appreciated both formal and informal feedback mechanisms, citing feedback forms as well as feeling listened to by staff (see Section 4.2.1.2 for further detail on YP’s relationship with staff at the centres).

Our coaches do an absolutely smashing job with the young people, they talk their language, and the kids love it, they can relate to them.

– Grantholder interview, July 2025

About two in three (68%) grantholder survey respondents (base=162) said partnerships with local organisations were a key facilitator (see Section 3.5.2). In addition, 66% (base=164) reported that access to facilities and resources supported delivery.

During delivery, many grantholders sought approval from funding officers to adjust their plans. They consistently highlighted the flexibility and responsiveness of The National Lottery Community Fund, which enabled timely changes when initial plans did not work as expected. Approved changes included switching from under‑performing venues to places YP already attend and re‑profiling hours and budgets. Funding officers responded promptly to queries, followed up to confirm approvals and, where helpful, held Microsoft Teams calls or made in‑person visits to provide context for decisions. This flexibility helped grantholders align provision more closely with demand.

If the project hasn’t gone exactly as they thought or they need to make changes to delivery we’ll get far more involved, sometimes a visit is quite pertinent.

– The National Lottery Community Fund interview, September 2025

Grantholders reported very high levels of satisfaction with communications from The National Lottery Community Fund during the MHF delivery. In the grantholder survey, 95% of respondents (base=164) were satisfied or very satisfied with the clarity of communications, and 94% were satisfied or very satisfied with the speed of responses to queries. Interview feedback from The National Lottery Community Fund staff indicated that pairing grantholders with the same funding officer throughout the grant period supported continuity and provided the contextual understanding needed for effective support.

Interviews with both DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund staff highlighted a highly positive and collaborative partnership. Both parties spoke very favourably about the strength of their working relationship, underpinned by mutual respect for each other’s expertise and open, proactive communication. DCMS staff emphasised the significant benefits of working with an established delivery partner and using tried‑and‑tested grant‑making processes enabled rapid set‑up, with clear guidance already available for funding officers. Familiarity with The National Lottery Community Fund’s grant‑making processes also reduced administrative burden for grantholders who already knew those processes. Regular touchpoints and the MHF’s Programme Board supported timely decisions, with the evaluation team engaged throughout to share insights and adjust delivery where needed.

3.5.8 What worked less well

Staffing was the most commonly reported barrier to delivery with 16% of grantholder survey respondents (base=163) citing staff availability as negatively impacting on project planning and delivery. Some grantholders interviewed described difficulties recruiting people who have both youth‑work skills and activity‑specific expertise (for example, coaching in particular sports). Grantholders also described difficulties with scheduling large volumes of additional hours reliably across multiple venues. For some grantholders, accreditation and onboarding requirements for new staff delayed increases in delivery capacity, creating short‑term gaps before additional staff could begin supporting activities. As mentioned in Section 3.5.3, where volunteers were used, variable availability and attendance limited consistency. Across many projects, consistent staffing was seen as critical to building trust with YP and sustaining week‑to‑week retention.

Building on an issue raised in the previous interim report, this analysis examines seasonal impacts on delivery and participation, and the mitigations applied. Most grantholders interviewed reported winter‑related drops in turnout, particularly for detached or outdoor activities, with darkness and cold reducing YP’s willingness to travel or take part. It often took a few weeks to build up engagement after a reduction in attendance. Sometimes delivery was adapted by moving sessions indoors or switching from sports provision to creative or media offers during winter months or Ramadan. Other adaptations included tweaking timings during examination periods and using holiday periods and longer evenings for more additional sessions. Some also faced higher winter venue costs (for heating) and invested in additional safety measures (for example, reflective clothing or accessories). These actions helped sustain reach but did not remove seasonal volatility. In future data collection we will assess the extent to which grantholders factored in mitigations for seasonal challenges into their delivery and expenditure plans.

During Ramadan we had a bit of a gap. When we went back, we had to work twice as hard to build back up the bonding we had all built with the cohort.

– Grantholder interview, May 2025

The previous interim report prompted further exploration about grantholder engagement with parents and guardians during delivery of MHF-funded activities, and the potential benefit of this. Grantholder survey data indicated that 59% of respondents (base=163) viewed parents’ and carers’ involvement as neither a barrier nor a facilitator to delivery. Interview evidence is consistent with this finding. Contact typically focused on consent processes, drop‑off and pick‑up conversations, and occasional showcase events rather than active involvement in day-to‑day delivery. For a small number of grantholders, parental safety concerns constrained attendance, for example, a reluctance for their YP to be participating in activities in specific town‑centre locations due to a perception that these locations were less safe. Grantholders suggested that these patterns are not unique to MHF-funded activities but reflect broader parental attitudes towards youth provision.

With the target age range of the Million Hours Fund, we’d only have contact with [parents] if the need should arise.

– Grantholder interview, April 2025

Many grantholders raised concerns about sustaining staffing and capacity once the MHF funding ends. Despite the grant’s multi‑year duration, some highlighted end‑of‑grant sustainability risks that hindered continuity planning, particularly where provision had expanded or staff hours had increased under the MHF. Several organisations reported a risk of losing experienced staff or scaling back delivery if replacement funding is not secured.

4. Impact evaluation findings

4.1 Introduction

This section presents findings from the impact evaluation, addressing the RQs set out in Annex B: Detailed methodology. The analysis draws on the YP survey, the grantholder survey, and interviews with YP, grantholders, and local stakeholders. It focuses on the impact the MHF has had on its beneficiaries, including the YP participating in funded activities, the grantholders and their staff and volunteers, and local communities. Data from the YP survey was used for dose-response analysis to examine the relationship between participation in the MHF activities (the dose) and the resulting outcomes for YP (the response).

4.2 Outcomes for YP

This section presents findings on YP’s wellbeing, confidence, life skills, relationships, and ASB involvement, using data from the YP survey and from YP and grantholder interviews.

4.2.1 YP outcomes

The demographics, activities and outcome questions, and response breakdowns outlined below are consistent with the previous interim report’s results, showing broadly similar patterns.

4.2.1.1 Demographic characteristics of the YP survey sample

The second wave of the YP survey was completed by 515 respondents, collecting basic demographic information described below. This has provided a snapshot profile of the YP attending the MHF activities up to the beginning of September 2025.

Age
Respondents were distributed across all ages. Most (60%) were between 11 and 15 years of age, with 12 and 14 being the most represented ages (15% for each age group).

Gender
Just over half of respondents (54%) reported being male against 42% female. The remaining 4% preferred not to respond or reported their gender identity as non-binary or other.

Ethnicity
Over half of respondents (54%) described themselves as White, followed by Asian and Asian British respondents (19%). Other ethnic groups reported were: Black, Black British, Caribbean or African (13%), Dual or multiple ethnic groups (8%), other ethnic backgrounds (4%), with 2% of respondents not disclosing their ethnicity.

Geographical distribution
Over a third of respondents (37%) lived in the North of England (North West 15%, North East 12%, Yorkshire and Humber 10%). Almost a quarter of respondents (23%) lived in London, with the rest spread across the Midlands (18%), South (13%), and East of England (10%).

4.2.1.2 Activities and Outcomes

Frequency of attendance and engagement
Most (77%) of YP attended the MHF activities either once a week (41%) or twice a week (36%). For the other quarter, attendance went down as the number of activities per week went up, with fewer YP going to three or more activities each week. Only 2% of YP attended ‘more than five times a week’.

Over a third of YP (37%) attended the MHF activities for three to four hours per week, followed by 36% of YP attending one to two hours per week and 9% of YP attending five to six hours per week.

The trend showed that fewer YP attend for longer hours. Around 1% of YP attended 15+ hours per week.

Figure 1: Graph showing weekly attendance of YP (n=515)

Times per week	Percentage of YP
Once	41%
Twice	36%
3 times	11%
4 times	8%
5 times	2%
More than 5 times a week	2%

Figure 2: Graph showing attendance of YP in hours per week (n=515)

Hours per week	Percentage of YP
1-2 hours per week	36%
3-4 hours per week	37%
5-6 hours per week	9%
7-8 hours per week	4%
9-10 hours per week	3%
11-12 hours per week	2%
13-14 hours per week	2%
15+ hours per week	1%
Don’t know	4%

Time since first attendance
Almost a third (32%) of YP first started attending the MHF activities more than 12 months ago. Nearly another third (29%) started attending between 6 and 12 months ago (16% 7-9 months ago, 13% 10-12 months ago) and another roughly one-third (29%) less than 6 months ago (12% 1-3 months ago, 17% 4-6 months ago) respectively.

Figure 3: Graph showing YP’s time since they started attending (n=515)

Time since attending	Percentage of YP
1-3 months ago	12%
4-6 months ago	17%
7-9 months ago	16%
10-12 months ago	13%
More than 12 months ago	32%
Don’t know or don’t remember	10%

Type of activities attended
The MHF activities attended by YP have been grouped into four main groups from the response options in the YP survey. These are: sport and physical activity; hanging out (with other YP or adults that work in the centre); clubs and workshops (for example, science clubs, music clubs, book clubs or drop-in sessions for example, cooking classes, or IT/media activities, for example, radio, podcasts, etc.); and mentoring and volunteering. Sport and physical activities were the most popular (62%) activity selected.^{[footnote 11]} This includes exercising, playing football and other sports, including cue sports such as pool and snooker, and table tennis. This aligns with the grantholder survey, which found that sports and informal physical activities were the most common activity provided by grantholders. Hanging out (16%) and clubs and workshops (15%) are the second activity groups that YP attend the most.

Figure 4: Graph showing type of activity (n=492)

Activity type	Number of YP
Sports and physical activities	306
Mentoring and volunteering	30
Hanging out	80
Clubs and workshops	76

Wellbeing
The measure used to assess wellbeing was the Understanding Society Youth Questionnaire.^{[footnote 12]} YP were asked about how they feel about their school or work, appearance, family and friends. For each of these dimensions, they gave an answer reflecting how they felt on that day. Responses have been aggregated and grouped in a five-point scale from very high wellbeing to very low wellbeing. The majority (87%) of YP reported their feelings towards the four wellbeing dimensions being very high (31%), high (22%) or moderate (34%). Less than 15% of respondents felt low (11%) or very low (2%).

Confidence
The survey asked YP how much they agreed or disagreed with statements about their confidence in making new friends, trying new activities, talking to adults, and saying no to their friends since participating in the MHF activities. Responses have been aggregated and grouped in a five-point scale from very high confidence to very low confidence. The majority (94%) of YP reported their confidence being very high (40%), high (45%) or moderate (10%). Less than 6% of respondents reported low (less than 5%) or very low (1%) confidence level.

Life skills
The measures used to assess YP’s life skills have been taken from the Young People’s Survey.^{[footnote 13]} This is a self-report survey used to assess YP’s functional mental and behavioural skills in six domains of socio-emotional skill functioning (meaning emotion management, empathy, initiative, problem solving, responsibility, and teamwork).

Functional skills are defined as the best an individual can do with no additional support (for example, being able to manage emotions without help from a youth worker in a provision setting). They are good indicators of how YP are likely to perform in most life settings. Functional skills are relatively enduring skills which people learn and apply in different settings (for instance, they may learn them in school or at their youth club and apply them in their home or at work). These skills are not static, but change generally requires effort, practice, and patience. When the YP were asked to think about what usually happens in their life and describe how they see themselves in general, the following findings shown in the graph below emerged.

Figure 5: Graph showing YP life skills

Outcome	Excellent	Good	Moderate	Poor	Very poor
Emotion management	17%	19%	42%	18%	5%
Empathy	22%	39%	28%	7%	4%
Problem solving	16%	28%	36%	14%	6%
Teamwork	8%	30%	46%	14%	2%

YP’s survey responses indicate that most YP attending the MHF activities have moderate to high socio-emotional skills.^{[footnote 14]} It is important to note that the YP survey results provide a snapshot in time and, therefore, do not indicate an improvement or a change over time, whether this may be due to the MHF activities or not. However, the high levels of empathy and emotional management, in particular, may indicate that the structured and supportive environment provided by the MHF enables these critical life skills. The moderate to high levels of problem-solving and teamwork skills may also reflect the positive impact of the MHF’s engagement activities. This is supported by interview findings, with YP who took part in sporting activities suggesting that there were changes to their behaviour and skills as a result of discipline and coaching they received during sports. For all areas discussed so far (wellbeing, confidence, life skills), the lowest level of skills or most negative statements were reported by the smallest proportion of YP.

Relationship with grantholder staff and volunteers
YP were asked in the survey to agree or disagree with statements about the relationship with staff at the organisation where they participate in youth activities. These included statements on trust, staff doing what they say they will do, staff listening to the young person and staff being available when needed.

Responses have been aggregated and grouped in a four-point scale of very good, good, poor, and very poor relationships with staff. The majority (59%) of YP reported having a ‘very good’ relationship with staff and a third (34%) feel that they have a ‘good’ relationship. Less than 2% reported having a ‘poor’ relationship with staff and less than 6% reported having a ‘very poor’ relationship. Almost half (48%) also felt very comfortable reporting problems to staff and over a third (35%) felt comfortable. Only 1% feel uncomfortable and less than 5% feel very uncomfortable.

YP below the age of 15 were asked about their experience of making friends with older children at the youth sessions in site visit interviews. Many described these experiences as positive, suggesting older children were helpful and provided guidance both in relation to the activities they engaged in as well as other topics. For example, older peers helped improve the technique of younger children in sports activities or helped them learn musical instruments. Other YP mentioned valuing the life advice from older peers, for example, guidance around which A-level subjects to pursue. Many YP interviewed suggested feeling comfortable in the knowledge that they could speak to older peers for support if they needed to.

I would describe them as respectful, kind, and nice people. They support you when you’re dribbling [basketball] and on the court. Outside of the court we talk to each other about everything.

– Young person, Bristol

When asked if they feel safe while participating in the MHF activities at their youth organisation, most (58%) YP reported feeling ‘very safe’ and 32% feel ‘safe’, less than 1% of YP felt ‘unsafe’ and less than 5% felt ‘very unsafe’, in line with the previous years’ YP survey findings. 26 respondents who indicated feeling ‘unsafe’ or ‘very unsafe’ were also asked a follow up question about their feeling of safety in other places. Over two thirds also reported feeling ‘very unsafe’ at school (69%), home (73%) and while hanging out in the street (68%). This suggests that most YP who felt unsafe during MHF activities also had a wider feeling of insecurity in places across their community.

Almost all YP interviewed felt safe or very safe in the spaces where activities were run. Some YP framed safety in terms of feeling safe from judgement from others and felt they could be themselves in the MHF-funded spaces. This was framed by some YP as in contrast to a school environment where they cited negative relationships with teachers and authority figures. One young person noted how being in a safe space gave them confidence to express themselves, for example, by changing their appearance (for example, dying their hair).

The staff make it a safe space for all the young people. You’re not going to be judged, and if another young person is judging you then the staff will sort it out.

– Young person, Wigan

Others noted that staff did not leave young children unsupervised and were attentive and proactive on field trips. A few YP mentioned incidents of bad behaviour from other children attending the sites, however, they commended the staff for being good at diffusing situations and being able to manage conflict well.

Several YP described home environments as isolating or stressful, making youth services a safe alternative space. For some, the youth centre became a refuge from boredom, family tension, or unsafe neighbourhoods, which may heighten awareness of risks at home when they return. Some YP mentioned living in “rough” or “dodgy” areas, suggesting that higher attendance may be a result of exposure to unsafe conditions, as YP feel more safe at youth services than at home or school. Some YP mentioned how specific incidents, such as stabbings in their local area, have made them feel unsafe outside of the MHF-funded activities.

ASB
The YP were also asked about the frequency of their engagement in ASB in the last year. Responses have been aggregated to show the average level of ASB across the sample. A majority of YP rarely (77%) or occasionally (17%) took part in ASB. However, around 5% of YP commit ASB frequently, while only 1% do so very frequently. This aligns with findings from site visit interviews with YP who mostly suggested they had not engaged in ASB.

Interviews with YP attending activities at the MHF sites gave insight into the context and motivation for involvement in ASB. YP highlighted the normalisation of ASB through social media and peer reinforcement as key factors perpetuating ASB. A number of interviewees witnessed their peers engage in ASB or negative behaviours. These interviewees felt that YP have a need to receive validation from their friends which sometimes results in them engaging in ASB.

Another perception from interviewees is that boredom is a motivating factor for YP to engage in ASB. YP highlighted a lack of activities, goals, and guidance as common elements associated with other YP who engage in ASB. A lack of positive role models and problems with families were also mentioned as contributing factors. Many grantholders reported that their staff and volunteers act as role models for YP, demonstrating positive attitudes and behaviours that YP mirror. This was particularly true for volunteers who were considered relatable, such as those from the local area who have experienced similar circumstances and challenges.

Some YP suggested that less harmful behaviours can be perceived as ASB, for example, smoking in a group is perceived as ASB as opposed to smoking individually. This raises the nuance of community perceptions of YP and how that might influence which activities are seen as ASB.

Stakeholders also reflected that in addition to boredom and lack of role models, there is an economic driver which influences lack of access to opportunities. YP cannot afford to take part in activities and, therefore, spend time in groups in public spaces which can result in negative perceptions from community members.

I think there’s a cost‑of‑living issue. There’s less free provision for holiday clubs… so people perceive they can’t afford paid activities. Therefore, [YP] do that informal hanging around, which is then perceived negatively.

– District council stakeholder interview, April 2025

I’ve seen a lot of kids come here who had behavioural issues and got angry, I’ve seen how they calmed down and how their protective wall come[s] down. They were violent before they came here. I’ve seen everyone that’s come here change in a positive way.

– Young person, Leicester

4.2.2 Dose response analysis

In line with the previous interim report, the study employed a dose-response analysis, aiming to detail the relationship between a dose (an activity funded by the MHF, or multiple activities) and the response (outcomes for YP). We recognise that the dose-response analysis does not address issues such as selection effects. However, this approach allowed us to assess the potential impact of these effects by comparing the outcomes for those with different levels of engagement, characteristics, and geography. To examine this relationship, we formulated a set of Key Evaluation Questions (KEQs) that the YP survey was designed to address (refer to Tables 8 to 12 below for a detailed explanation of the variables used and the full analysis).

The analysis presented below provides an assessment of the KEQs using the dose-response approach. The approach used to assess trends is outlined in Table 7.

Table 7: Approach to assessing trends and categorisation of evidence

Answer to key evaluation questions	Threshold of variation[footnote 15]	Categorisation of evidence
No evidence or no variation	<1.5%
Partially	1.5 to 5%	Weak evidence
Partially	5 to 10%	Emerging evidence
Yes or no	10 to 20%	Moderate evidence
Yes or no	>20%	Strong evidence

The analysis highlighted trends suggesting a link between participation in the MHF activities and outcomes for YP. In particular, a number of links were found between participation in MHF activities and respondents’ wellbeing, relationships with GH staff and instances of ASB. The following sub-sections present an overview table listing the relevant KEQs, the YP survey questions used for the dose response analysis and related evidence, followed by a more detailed discussion of the findings alongside explanatory evidence from YP and grantholder interviews where possible. KEQs with no identified trends or where findings were uncertain due to small sample sizes or limited variation are not discussed in detail in this section. Even where trends were identified, small sample sizes meant that no variation by individual characteristics was identified. Compared to the previous interim report, this report identifies more trends. This could potentially be due to the increase in the number of survey responses received, increasing the sample sizes available for dose response analysis.

4.2.2.1 Impact of frequency of attendance

Table 8 outlines the dose-response findings for the KEQs related to frequency of attendance. Overall, findings varied: some evidence suggests that more frequent attendance positively affects confidence and life skills, while other results indicate a negative impact on wellbeing, ASB, and relationships with grantholder staff and volunteers. These findings are broadly in line with the previous interim report, although there were more trends identified.

Table 8: KEQs and strength of evidence assessment – frequency of attendance

Key evaluation question	Dose-response combination survey questions	Dose-response evidence
Do those who attend more frequently report higher levels of wellbeing?	Dose: activities attended – times a week and hours per week. Response: outcome in wellbeing.	No. There is moderate evidence indicating a negative relationship between attending more frequently and feeling good about school or work. No. There is moderate evidence indicating a negative relationship between attending more frequently and feeling good about family. Partially. There is weak evidence indicating a negative relationship between attending more frequently and feeling good about friends.
Do those who attend more frequently report higher levels of confidence?	Dose: activities attended – times a week and hours per week. Response: outcome in confidence.	Yes. There is moderate evidence indicating a positive relationship between attending more frequently and feeling confident talking about problems to older young people.
Do those who attend more frequently develop a trusted relationship with grantholder staff or volunteers, or feel safer at MHF activities, home, school and in the streets?	Dose: frequency of activities attended – times a week and hours per week. Response: trusted relationships and feelings of safety.	Partially. There is emerging evidence indicating a positive relationship between attending more frequently and feeling listened to. No. There is moderate evidence indicating a negative relationship between attending more frequently and feeling safe at home. This finding is based on a small sample size and should be interpreted with caution.
Do those who attend more frequently report better life skills?	Dose: frequency of activities attended – times a week and hours per week. Response: life skills.	Partially. There is emerging evidence indicating a positive relationship between attending more frequently and seeking help from others when needed.
Do those who attend more frequently report lower levels of anti-social behaviour?	Dose: activities attended – times a week and hours per week. Response: levels of anti-social behaviour.	No. There is evidence indicating that those who attend more frequently report higher levels of anti-social behaviour, particularly in annoying or swearing at strangers and dropping litter. Partially. There is emerging evidence indicating that those who attend more frequently are more likely to hang out with friends outside shops or on the streets at night.

The following sections present the dose-response findings in more detail, alongside relevant qualitative findings from YP and grantholder interviews.

Do those who attend more frequently report higher levels of wellbeing?

No
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence that those who attend more frequently report fewer positive feelings about school or work, and their family. There is also weak evidence that those who attend more frequently report fewer positive feelings about their friends.

In keeping with findings from 2024, YP interviewed indicated a preference for the MHF activities over school. Others cited feeling more comfortable with staff at their youth facility as staff were seen to be more approachable and attentive to their feelings compared to parents and teachers. Staff sharing the young persons’ interests was another reason cited for having higher trust.

It would be a lot easier to speak to someone here [Staff] while you’re doing an activity, it would be easier than sitting down with your parents. I don’t like school, and I don’t like talking to teachers. If I wanted to speak to someone I would probably come here first (as the first port of call) and then maybe raise it with teachers afterwards.

– Young person, Wigan.

Do those who attend more frequently report higher levels of confidence?

Yes
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence indicating that those who attend more frequently report higher confidence to talk about their problems to older YP.

This finding is in line with evidence from YP interviews where respondents reported having positive experiences with older peers at their youth activities. Older peers helped them with activities but also provided guidance and support for education-related topics, such as helping them decide what A-level subjects to take or how to prepare for exams. Many YP mentioned feeling comfortable speaking to older people who attend or help out at the MHF-funded activities outside of the centres. YP also widely reported increased confidence in speaking to others in general, which could explain the link between this and speaking to older peers.

Do those who attend more frequently develop a trusted relationship with grantholder staff and volunteers?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those who attend more frequently feel listened to by staff.

YP interviewed suggested they felt listened to by staff. Staff were cited as attentive to YP’s needs and, for many YP, also acted on feedback. This included introducing new activities based on YP’s requests and interests, as well as getting new music or sports equipment. YP interviewed described the MHF activities as a helpful way to facilitate conversations with staff. This was framed in juxtaposition to home or school where they had difficulty speaking to parents or teachers about their problems directly. Another aspect raised was staff’s effective conflict resolution and emotional management practices. YP felt they were listened to by staff at the MHF activities in contrast to school where negative behaviour is often punished.

No
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence that those who attend more frequently feel unsafe at home.^{[footnote 16]}

Survey respondents who reported feeling unsafe at the MHF-funded sites were routed to a question asking about their feelings of safety at home. While a minority of YP survey respondents indicated they feel unsafe at the MHF-funded activities and were asked about their feelings of safety elsewhere, there were no interview respondents that suggested feeling unsafe at the MHF-funded sites. Therefore, there is no further qualitative evidence to explain this finding. Interview data does include a few examples of YP who feel safe at the MHF-funded sites feeling unsafe at home or at school.

Do those who attend more frequently report better life skills?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those who attend more frequently seek help from others.

Interviews with YP suggested participating in MHF activities enabled them to communicate more effectively with older people at the activity sites and outside. There were also many examples of YP asking older peers for support with their technique in sports, music, and dance activities. The MHF activities that involved coaches were highlighted by YP as contributing to their confidence to ask for help and motivation to improve their skills.

Do those who attend more frequently report lower levels of ASB?

No
The dose-response analysis provided evidence indicating that those who attend more frequently report higher levels of ASB activity, particularly in annoying or swearing at strangers (moderate evidence) and dropping litter in the street (strong evidence).

This finding emerged from a small sub-set of survey respondents that suggested that they engage in ASB. This does not imply that the intervention is ineffective, as assessing this would require a comparison with peers that have not attended MHF activities and also live in ASB hotspots. There was also no supporting evidence from the interviews to explain the link to greater frequency of attendance. This is due to almost all YP interviewed claiming they did not engage in ASB themselves. Some YP pointed out that certain negative behaviours can become the ‘norm’ such as playing loud music and are perceived as ‘minor’ or resulting in little or no harm. This could be attributed to the area in which YP interviewed live being ASB hotspots. Some interviewees suggested other YP in their area ride bikes on pavements and play loud music.

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those who attend more frequently are more likely to hang out with friends outside shops or on the streets at night.

References to ASB at night from interviews note that other YP or adults play loud music or get into loud arguments on the streets.

4.2.2.2 Impact of length of engagement

Table 9 outlines the dose-response findings for the KEQs related to length of engagement.^{[footnote 17]} Uneven relationships were found between length of engagement and wellbeing, confidence, ASB, and relationships with grantholder staff and volunteers. No relationship was found between length of engagement and life skills. The dose question (Q7) was not included in the previous iteration of the survey; therefore, we cannot make comparisons with the previous interim report.

Table 9: KEQs and strength of evidence assessment – length of engagement

Key evaluation question	Dose-response combination survey questions	Dose-response evidence
Is there a relationship between duration of engagement and wellbeing?	Dose: activities attended – duration of engagement. Response: outcome in wellbeing.	Yes. There is moderate evidence indicating an uneven relationship between duration of engagement and wellbeing across school or work, appearance, family and friends. Wellbeing is highest among YP who began attending 1 to 3 months prior to the survey. This is followed by a decline for those engaged for 4 to 9 months. However, from 10 to 12 months onward, wellbeing improves across all domains.
Is there a relationship between duration of engagement and confidence?	Dose: activities attended – duration of engagement. Response: outcome in confidence.	Partially. There is emerging evidence indicating an uneven relationship between duration of engagement and confidence across making new friends and talking about problems. Confidence is highest among those who began attending 1 to 3 months prior to the survey. This is followed by a decline for those engaged for 4 to 9 months. However, from 10 to 12 months onward, confidence improves across both domains.
Is there a relationship between duration of engagement and development of a trusted relationship with grantholder staff or volunteers, or feeling safer at MHF activities, home, school and in the streets?	Dose: duration of engagement. Response: trusted relationships and feelings of safety.	Yes. There is moderate evidence indicating an uneven relationship between duration of engagement and developing trusted relationships with staff across multiple domains. Trusted relationships are lowest among those who began attending 1 to 3 months prior to the survey. From 4 to 12 months, trust increases across all domains. However, beyond 12 months, levels of trust decline slightly.
Is there a relationship between changes in participation levels over the past six months and better life skills?	Dose: duration of engagement. Response: life skills.	No clear evidence or variation.
Is there a relationship between duration of engagement and levels of anti-social behaviour?	Dose: duration of engagement. Response: levels of anti-social behaviour.	Partially. There is emerging evidence indicating an uneven relationship between duration of engagement and some types of ASB. Incidents such as getting into fights and drug use increase between the first 3 months and months 7 to 9, then decrease after 10 to 12 months to below initial levels. Overall frequency of these behaviours remains low.

The sections below explore how the length of engagement (for example, how many months a young person had attended when completing the survey) intersects with other outcome areas.

Is there a relationship between duration of engagement and wellbeing?

Yes
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence of a non-linear relationship between duration of engagement with the MHF activities and wellbeing across all four domains. Wellbeing is highest among those who began attending the MHF activities 1–3 months prior to completion of the survey. This is followed by a decline for those who engaged for 4 to 9 months. However, when attending from 10 to 12 months onward, wellbeing showed improvement across all four domains.

Qualitative evidence from YP did not include the duration of engagement, however, inferences can be made based on feedback from YP on their experience of first joining or trying new activities at the MHF-funded sites. Many YP who had been signposted to the youth spaces by friends or who had friends already attending were excited to join. Feedback from YP on trying new activities indicated initial anxiety, followed by heightened feelings of wellbeing and confidence as they began to master a new skill or sport. Some YP showed frustration with picking up activities they found difficult, such as singing or improving in sports activities, which could potentially explain a drop in wellbeing. However, there may be other reasons not captured by interviews for wellbeing to drop during this time period. Some YP who were less satisfied with the activities at the MHF-funded sites suggested the need for new activities or trying to engage in different roles within the same activity, for example, wanting to try a different position in the football team. This could also be an indicator of reduced wellbeing over time. Examples of YP making lasting friendships and plans for the future could indicate increased wellbeing from attending sessions over a longer period (10 to 12 months).

Is there a relationship between duration of engagement and confidence?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence of a non-linear relationship on the length of engagement in the MHF activities and confidence across two domains: making new friends and talking about problems to older YP. Confidence is highest among youth who began attending the MHF activities 1 to 3 months prior to completion of the survey. This is followed by a noticeable decline for those engaged for 4 to 9 months. However, from 10 to 12 months onward, confidence shows improvement across both domains.

This trend may have a similar explanation to those for wellbeing described above. Based on some qualitative data from interviews, YP may gain early confidence from positive feedback and encouragement from staff, with evidence of pre-existing friendships as factors encouraging YP to attend. One potential inference is that confidence may decline over time as YP compare their skill level to older peers but then increase in the long-term as they become more adept or take on mentoring and volunteering roles. As with the finding on wellbeing above, it is not possible to assess the duration of engagement of interviewees, therefore, inferences are based on feedback at a given point in time. Some YP mentioned older peers helping them with shooting techniques in basketball, while others mentioned support in football training. Older peers were also mentioned by YP learning musical instruments as being helpful and available to assist them.

Is there a relationship between duration of engagement and development of a trusted relationship with grantholder staff and volunteers?

Yes
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence of a positive relationship between length of engagement in the MHF activities and the development of trusted relationships with staff across all six domains. Those who started attending 1 to 3 months before the survey was completed reported the lowest levels of trust. Trust increased in all domains for those engaged for 4 to 12 months. After 12 months of engagement, reported trust with staff decreased across all domains.

Interviews with YP indicated high trust with staff members across all sites. The positive association between duration of engagement with the MHF activities and increased trust in staff could be attributed to staff listening to YP and actioning their feedback around what activities to offer or how they were delivered. Those with high trust cited feeling ‘heard’ or having their opinions ‘valued’ by staff. A potential explanation for the decrease in trust after 12 months is staff turnover at the sites as some interviewees showed disappointment when a staff member they were close to had to move on or leave due to funding constraints. However, there is little direct evidence linking staff turnover to trust from interview data.

Is there a relationship between duration of engagement and levels of ASB?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence of a non-linear relationship between duration of engagement with the MHF activities across two types of ASB: getting into fights with other YP and using drugs. The frequency of these types of ASB increases during the first three months and from the seventh to ninth month of involvement in MHF activities, but they generally decrease after ten to twelve months of involvement. It should be noted that the frequency of both types of ASB was low across all durations of engagement.

While some YP interviewed observed positive changes in behaviour of peers attending MHF activities whom they knew engaged in ASB, a small number suggested peers hung out in groups after the sessions with other YP who did not attend the MHF activities. They attributed this to boredom and a pre-existing culture or normalisation of activities such as hanging out in a group and smoking or vaping in parks. Longer engagement correlates with interview findings around positive role models influencing YP’s behaviour as observed by YP attending the MHF activities. Many YP mentioned how attending the MHF activities not only made them aware of the risks associated with types of ASB, but helped them develop behaviours that reduced the risk of them engaging in ASB, for example, having a routine or understanding the importance of maintaining their health. It should be noted that duration of engagement was not captured in the interviews, therefore, the above explanation could also be achieved over a short period of time.

I used to swear a lot and fight people, but now I don’t swear and fight, I’m trying to stop it at school as well… My last fight was like 6 weeks ago.

– Young person, Newcastle

4.2.2.3 Impact of different types of activities

The YP survey explored the different types of activities YP engage in at their youth centres. These can be structured, such as basketball or learning music, or unstructured time in which YP can spend time in a safe space with peers and safe adults.

Table 10 outlines the dose-response findings for the KEQs related to types of activities.^{[footnote 18]} Overall, there is some evidence that ‘hanging out’ activities are associated with lower wellbeing and life skills, and higher ASB. In contrast, there is weak evidence suggesting a positive relationship between sports and physical activities and wellbeing. While findings related to sports and physical activities align with the previous interim report, findings on ‘hanging out’ activities differ. In the previous interim report, only weak evidence suggested a lower need to seek external help amongst those participating in ‘hanging out’ activities.

Table 10: KEQs and strength of evidence assessment – types of activities

Key evaluation question	Dose-response combination survey questions	Dose-response evidence
Is there evidence that those attending a specific activity report higher levels of wellbeing?	Dose: type of MHF activities. Response: outcome in wellbeing.	No. There is moderate evidence indicating a negative relationship between participation in hanging out activities and feeling good about school or work. Partially. There is emerging evidence indicating a positive relationship between attending sports and physical activities and positive feelings about appearance.
Is there evidence that those attending a specific activity report higher levels of confidence?	Dose: type of MHF activities. Response: outcome in confidence.	No clear evidence or variation.
Is there evidence that those attending a specific activity develop a trusted relationship with grantholder staff or volunteers, or feel safer at MHF activities, home, school and in the streets?	Dose: type of MHF activities. Response: trusted relationships and feelings of safety.	Partially. There is emerging evidence indicating that those engaged in mentoring and volunteering activities are more likely to develop trusted relationships with staff across all domains. However, this finding is based on a small sample size and should be interpreted with caution.
Is there evidence that those attending a specific activity report better life skills?	Dose: type of MHF activities. Response: life skills.	Partially. There is emerging evidence indicating a negative relationship between participation in hanging out activities and life skills.
Is there evidence that those attending a specific activity report lower levels of anti-social behaviour?	Dose: type of MHF activities. Response: levels of anti-social behaviour.	Partially. There is emerging evidence indicating that those participating in hanging out activities report higher levels of some types of anti-social behaviour, including swearing at strangers, hanging out outside shops or on the streets at night, and dropping litter.

The sections below present the findings from the dose response in more detail alongside the relevant qualitative findings from YP and Grantholder interviews.

Is there evidence that those attending a specific activity report higher levels of wellbeing?

No
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence that those participating in ‘hanging out’ activities (with other YP or adults that work in the centre) report fewer positive feelings about school or work.

Interviews with YP indicate that those who hang out with peers at the MHF-funded sites tend to feel bored or excluded by school or work. Many YP highlighted how the youth spaces they attend can feel safe, informal, and validating, which contrasts with the (perceived) punitive framework in a formal school setting or at home in some cases. This validation comes not only from staff at the sites listening to YP’s concerns but also from discussions with peers who may be experiencing similar challenges at home or school. YP appreciated how staff helped them to manage their emotions, with some contrasting this to how their behaviour or issues are dealt with in formal settings.

You can have a laugh with the staff, whereas you can’t have a laugh with teachers. We have a lot of jokes, and I feel I can’t have that with teachers.

– Young person, Gainsborough

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating those who attend sports and physical activities report higher positive feelings about the way they look/their appearance.

YP who took part in sports activities, the most common MHF activities, experienced increased confidence in trying new things and greater motivation as they developed skills and mastery of the sport. This was further enhanced by positive feedback from coaches and peers. Some interviewees that took part in gender segregated activities cited positive feelings of self-image and less pressure to appear a certain way.

Is there evidence that those attending a specific activity develop a trusted relationship with grantholder staff and volunteers?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those who attend mentoring and volunteering activities are more likely to develop trusted relationships with staff across all six domains.^{[footnote 19]}

This is further linked to YP feeling valued by being given autonomy to conduct tasks or activities or when supporting the delivery of activities in MHF-funded sites, for example, helping to plan a session or supporting with coaching sports. This suggests a cycle, where engaging in mentoring and volunteering activities helps build trust with staff.

Is there evidence that those attending a specific activity report better life skills?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those participating in ‘hanging out’ activities (with other YP or adults that work in the centre) report lower life skills across all six domains.

This could be explained by the nature of the activity. While some YP value informal spaces to interact with peers, unstructured time does not intentionally include skill-building activities. In the instance of hanging out with adults who work at the centres, YP have indicated that this builds soft skills, for example, being more confident or knowing how to speak to others. However, milestones or achievements in these softer skills are not clearly defined, so YP may not immediately recognise the benefits or report improvements.

Is there evidence that those attending a specific activity report lower levels of ASB?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those participating in ‘hanging out’ activities (with other YP or adults that work in the centre) report higher levels of three types of ASB: - annoying or swearing at strangers; - hanging out with friends outside shops or on the streets at night; and - dropping litter in the street.

This is in line with observations from YP that some less-intensive activities such as hanging out in a group setting can be wrongly perceived by community members as ASB. The observation of YP who engage in ASB ‘normalising’ behaviours can also explain why socially disruptive behaviour such as swearing at strangers occurs in group settings. While littering was mentioned by interviewees, there was no direct linkage to ‘hanging out’ activities at the MHF-funded sites.

There are more young people doing ASB in this area [than adults], even from 8 to 16 years, like spitting at you and swearing at you. They do it because there’s nothing to do, they have no goals and not enough guidance from family.

– Young person, Newcastle.

4.2.2.4 Impact of geographical location

This section explores whether there are any trends across different geographical locations in relation to wellbeing, confidence, trust in staff and skills. Although the sampling of sites for YP interviews considered geographical spread, the evidence is not representative of the entire regions and is therefore excluded from this sub-section. Table 11 outlines the dose-response findings for the KEQs related to geographical location.^{[footnote 20]} There were no trends identified in the previous interim report, in part due to small sample sizes making it difficult to identify variation for certain groups of respondents.

Table 11: KEQs and strength of evidence assessment – geographical location

Key evaluation question	Dose-response combination survey questions	Dose-response evidence
Does the geographical location of where activities are delivered influence levels of wellbeing?	Dose: location. Response: outcome in wellbeing.	Partially. There is emerging evidence indicating a negative relationship between attending activities in the North East, South East and West Midlands and feelings about school or work and appearance.
Does the geographical location of where activities are delivered influence levels of confidence?	Dose: location. Response: outcome in confidence.	Partially. There is emerging evidence indicating a negative relationship between attending activities in the West Midlands and confidence talking to adults and talking about problems to older young people.
Does location influence the development of a trusted relationship with grantholder staff or volunteers, or feelings of safety at MHF activities, home, school and in the streets?	Dose: location. Response: trusted relationships and feelings of safety.	Partially. There is weak evidence indicating that those attending MHF activities in the South East are less likely to develop trusted relationships with staff across all domains. Partially. There is weak evidence indicating that those attending MHF activities in the North East and West Midlands are more likely to develop trusted relationships with staff across all domains.
Does the geographical location of where activities are delivered influence the level of life skills?	Dose: location. Response: life skills.	Partially. There is emerging evidence indicating that those attending activities in London are more likely to demonstrate positive life skills, including calming down when upset, thinking before acting and respecting other viewpoints.
Does the geographical location of where activities are delivered influence levels of anti-social behaviour?	Dose: location. Response: levels of anti-social behaviour.	No clear evidence or variation.

While we are currently unable to present any qualitative findings alongside the dose response results, we may be able to use the remaining grantholder interviews, as well as site visits and grantholder interviews for the MHF3 evaluation, to explore this further.

4.2.2.5 Impact of the quality of relationship with staff/volunteers

Table 12 outlines the dose-response findings for the KEQs related to relationships with grantholder staff and volunteers.^{[footnote 21]} Overall, there is limited evidence suggesting that those who trust staff are more likely to have better life skills and report lower levels of anti-social behaviour. No trends were identified in the previous interim report.

Table 12: KEQs and strength of evidence assessment – relationship with staff/volunteers

Key evaluation question	Dose-response combination survey questions	Dose-response evidence
Is there evidence that the quality of relationships with grantholder staff or volunteers affects wellbeing?	Dose: relationship with grantholder staff or volunteers. Response: outcome in wellbeing.	No clear evidence or variation.
Is there evidence that the quality of relationships with grantholder staff or volunteers affects confidence?	Dose: relationship with grantholder staff or volunteers. Response: outcome in confidence.	No clear evidence or variation.
Is there evidence that the quality of relationships with grantholder staff or volunteers affects life skills?	Dose: level of relationship with grantholder staff or volunteers. Response: life skills.	Yes. There is moderate evidence that those who trust staff are more likely to feel bad when someone gets their feelings hurt. Partially. There is emerging evidence that those who trust staff are more likely to stop themselves from doing things that may be harmful.
Is there evidence that the quality of relationships with grantholder staff or volunteers affects levels of anti-social behaviour?	Dose: level of relationship with grantholder staff or volunteers. Response: levels of anti-social behaviour.	Partially. There is emerging evidence that those who trust staff are less likely to get into fights and receive noise complaints from neighbours. There is also weak evidence that they are less likely to deliberately damage public property, spray paint walls or signs, or use drugs.

The following sections explore in more detail whether the quality of relationships with staff at the sites affects life skills and levels of ASB of the YP who attend.

Is there evidence that the quality of relationships with grantholder staff/volunteers affects life skills?

Yes
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence indicating that those who trust staff are more likely to feel bad when someone gets their feelings hurt. There is also emerging evidence that those who trust staff are more likely to be able to stop themselves from doing things that might be bad for them.

YP who reported being better able to manage their feelings also indicated high trust with staff, suggesting staff felt like ‘friends’ and shared common interests. This was also linked to feelings of autonomy and empowerment at the centre, often in contrast to school, and being allowed to ‘be myself’. YP also observed and appreciated how staff managed conflict in the centre and de-escalation techniques. This may have influenced their learned behaviour to manage emotions and have empathy for others.

If ever anyone’s upset, the tutors are always there to speak to, they resolve things and things never escalate.

– Young person, Leicester

Is there evidence that the quality of relationships with grantholder staff/volunteers affects levels of ASB?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence that those who trust staff are less likely to get into fights and receive noise complaints from neighbours. There is also weak evidence that they are less likely to deliberately damage public property, spray paint walls and traffic signs or use drugs.

Some YP directly attributed attending the organisation to reductions in negative behaviours such as fighting and swearing. As with the above finding, the way staff manage conflict and behavioural incidents at the organisation is appreciated and valued by YP and described as different to how behaviour is managed at school or at home. Some YP engaged in sports activities directly linked wanting to improve their fitness and skills to avoiding harmful activities like smoking and taking drugs. For the specific behaviours mentioned above, many YP at the centres observed graffiti or drug use in their areas, but rarely self-reported engaging in ASB themselves, with some YP explicitly rejecting those activities. This could suggest that instead of ASB being seen as the norm, positive routines and constructive activities are taking its place, indicating a behavioural shift where MHF activities are helping YP move away from harmful activities and towards positive ones.

4.3 Outcomes for grantholders

This section draws on grantholder interviews and the grantholder survey to explore outcomes and impacts observed by grantholders for their organisations, and to assess the extent to which these align with the outcomes and impacts outlined in the ToC.

4.3.1 Increased organisational capacity

All grantholders interviewed reported using the MHF funding to increase organisational capacity. Approaches varied, and included introducing new sessions and activity types, extending session hours, recruiting additional staff and volunteers, and increasing existing staff and volunteer hours. Other strategies included lengthening youth centre opening times, delivering in new locations (for example, new postcodes, schools, mosques, and parks), and expanding physical space (such as moving from one to two rooms to meet demand). In the grantholder survey, 96% (base=164) agreed or strongly agreed that the MHF enabled them to provide additional services they otherwise would not have delivered.

We employed two new staff members and increased the hours of another staff member.

– Grantholder interview, April 2025.

We had one room and very quickly we were at capacity… we’ve now been able to hire two rooms.

– Grantholder interview, April 2025

4.3.2 Increased and formalised volunteering routes

Many grantholders formalised and expanded their volunteering pathways. Several developed ‘grow‑your‑own’ pathways to support YP’s progression from participant to young leader or peer volunteer, with some moving into paid roles. Others introduced structured young leader programmes with clear roles, training, and supervision, enabling volunteers to support delivery and build skills for future employment. To meet increased demand, many also expanded their volunteer base significantly.

We have now developed a “grow your own” volunteer pathway to paid work.

– Grantholder interview, July 2025

Up until January we had 8 volunteers, but now we have 14 volunteers… they want to gain experience for their university applications and CVs.

– Grantholder interview, May 2025

4.3.3 Relationships with local organisations

Grantholder interviews and survey responses indicated that broadening local relationships was a common outcome. 92% (base=164) agreed or strongly agreed that the MHF enabled them to establish new contacts within the community. Many grantholders established new, or strengthened existing, partnerships with schools, councils, the police, youth services, and faith and community groups. These partnerships helped reach YP in previously unreached areas and increased visibility where need was highest. In some cases, relationships became more formalised through clearer referral roles and improved safeguarding information flows. Partnerships are explored in more detail in Section 3.5.2.

4.3.4 Visibility and credibility of grantholders

Many grantholders reported gains in profile and credibility, which in turn created new opportunities. Several leveraged the MHF delivery to secure continuation or match funding and to seed spin‑off projects. Others noted that higher visibility with local partners and funders led to more invitations to safeguarding or strategy meetings and community events. Expanded delivery and new activities also enhanced local reputation, making provisions more attractive to YP and families. A small minority did not seek additional visibility, because they were already oversubscribed with waiting lists, but still reported credibility benefits in discussions with commissioners and partners.

We’re engaging young people that we wouldn’t normally engage… a lot have been in their rooms making music for years.

– Grantholder interview, April 2025.

It’s given us more profile and credibility… projects have been birthed out of this.

– Grantholder interview, April 2025

4.3.5 Increased stability of youth organisations

Several grantholders reported that the MHF funding improved their organisational stability by enabling longer-term planning, retaining and recruiting staff, and embedding new delivery models. Many described using the MHF grant period to strengthen their monitoring and evaluation practices, build partnerships, and develop sustainable approaches to youth work. A number of organisations are actively applying for further funding, including government and local authority grants and contracts, to maintain their expanded provision beyond the MHF grant period. However, many grantholders highlighted ongoing risks to stability, noting that continued expanded delivery remains heavily dependent on securing additional funding.

4.4 Outcomes for staff and volunteers

This section draws on grantholder interviews and the grantholder survey to explore outcomes and impacts observed by grantholders about their staff and volunteers at their grantholder organisation, and to assess the extent to which these align with the outcomes and impacts outlined in the ToC.

4.4.1 Recruitment increased and retention improved

Most organisations reported expanding their workforce during the MHF period, either by recruiting new staff or increasing contracted hours for existing team members. Several grantholders converted trusted volunteers into paid roles to scale up quickly and maintain delivery standards. The two‑year funding commitment was consistently cited as a key factor in attracting and retaining staff. Organisations noted that being able to offer longer‑term security helped them compete in a challenging labour market and reduced the churn often associated with short‑term projects. This stability allowed teams to build stronger relationships with YP and avoid the repeated “reset” or adjustment periods associated with frequent staff changes.

While a few organisations still faced difficulties recruiting qualified youth workers in tight local markets, many mitigated this by drawing on internal pipelines such as former participants, apprentices, and sessional coaches. These approaches helped maintain continuity and ensured that delivery teams remained familiar and trusted by YP throughout the project.

When you can say ‘we’ve got two years of funding’, that really helps, rather than ‘help for the next couple of weeks’.

– Grantholder interview, July 2025

4.4.2 Skills development and qualifications

Survey data shows that 88% of grantholders (base=164) reported staff increasing their skills and knowledge, and 70% reported the same for volunteers. Interviews confirmed that many organisations invested in training to strengthen delivery and safeguarding. Common areas included DSL training, first aid, mental health first aid, trauma‑informed practice, and de‑escalation and restorative approaches. Activity‑specific accreditations, such as sports coaching and creative media qualifications, were also widely reported and applied immediately in sessions. Specialist qualifications, such as Level 3 Youth Work and accredited coaching or creative skills, were seen as essential for maintaining consistent, high‑quality provision and offered visible progression routes for junior staff and volunteers.

We’ve had staff complete first aid; one went through their DSL; others gained coaching accreditation.

– Grantholder interview, July 2025.

Our team completed trauma‑informed, de‑escalation and restorative training, which we applied straight away in sessions.

– Grantholder interview, April 2025

4.4.3 Deeper relationships and better engagement with YP

The MHF strengthened relationships between staff, volunteers, and YP, leading to improved engagement and retention of YP. Survey data shows that 88% of grantholders (base=164) reported gaining a clearer understanding of YP’s needs and preferences as a result of the grant. Interviews highlighted that consistency of staffing and familiar faces were key to building trust, reducing behavioural issues, and creating a sense of safety.

4.5 Outcomes for communities

This section summarises evidence of community-level outcomes, including improved perceptions of YP, stronger community cohesion, and enhanced feelings of safety, based on interviews with grantholders and local stakeholders.

4.5.1 Improved community integration

88% of respondents to the grantholder survey (base=164) agreed or strongly agreed that their MHF-funded project is contributing to improved community integration in their local area. Most grantholders reported some or a small amount of improvement in community integration. Common examples included stronger relationships between YP and local police, parents volunteering, and YP taking on visible, pro-social roles in shared spaces. Grantholders reported that these activities helped embed YP more visibly in everyday community life. For some grantholders, this was the result of deliberate efforts to encourage social mixing and intergroup contact. Open-access sessions brought together YP from different schools, postcodes, and backgrounds, while social action projects (for example care home visits) and community events fostered intergenerational connections.

Visible, place-based delivery also strengthened the community presence of youth services and relationships with local stakeholders. Outreach and pop-up sessions in parks and other high-footfall areas showcased positive youth activity, encouraged spontaneous engagement with residents and businesses, and enabled practical collaboration.

The community can see young people engaging with something structured and open… you can walk past and see them talking with adults, chatting to the MP, or playing ping‑pong… It contributes to feelings of community — the same young people seen later outside McDonald’s are perceived differently.

– District council stakeholder interview, August 2025

4.5.2 Greater feeling of community

Many grantholders described a stronger sense of community and belonging around youth spaces. Youth hubs were often referred to as a “home from home,” with YP demonstrating stewardship (for example tidying shared areas) and families engaging more readily with staff. This sense of belonging sometimes extended beyond the hub to the wider local area, particularly where delivery included detached or city-centre activities.

The hub feels like a family, everyone is interconnected, it’s a home from home…They look after the centre, picking up rubbish and making sure things are kept tidy.

– Grantholder interview, July 2025.

They’ve done a lot of it in the city centre… it makes young people feel like they are part of that city centre rather than just part of a problem in the city centre… This gives them a connection with their city centre… those young people… might work on the High Street… it is a community as much as their local community back on their estate.

– City council stakeholder interview, April 2025.

Stakeholders and grantholders described trusted, welcoming youth spaces as informal community assets. Stakeholders such as local justice staff preferred meeting YP in these settings, reflecting wider community trust in youth centres as safe, neutral ground.

4.5.3 Improved perception of YP

Many grantholders observed shifts towards more positive public perceptions of YP. Contributing factors included social media engagement, local press coverage authored by YP, and visible pro-social participation (for example showcases, volunteering). Feedback from parents, partners, and police reinforced these changes. Parents reported pride and confidence in their children’s involvement, while police welcomed seeing YP engaged at the hub rather than on the street.

4.5.4 Safety within the local community

Many grantholders reported that their MHF-funded projects contributed to increased safety and reassurance within the local community. 72% of grantholder survey respondents (base=165) agreed or strongly agreed that their MHF-funded project is contributing to reducing rates of recorded ASB and other youth-related crimes in their area. While grantholders interviewed were less certain about direct reductions in recorded ASB, they provided a few examples of lower instances of specific types of ASB near their youth provision, such as fewer seasonal reports of ASB, reduced congregation at certain venues, and faster, more joined-up responses to low-level incidents through established community contact points. Stakeholder interviews corroborated these observations, citing both anecdotal evidence and local data.

It’s definitely making a difference in terms of reducing anti-social behaviour in that area because I think what [the grantholder] does is work with them [the YP] on their behaviour, they help get them into jobs, they get them access to extra tuition, if they’ve been excluded from school, they’ll go and have words with the school and discuss how to get them on a path back into schooling… It’s definitely making a really tangible difference to anti-social behaviour in the south of the borough.

– Local Youth Sector Umbrella organisation stakeholder interview, April 2025.

The police dashboard on nights that the [detached youth work] van is there’s a drop in ASB from about 6 to about 8 or 8:30pm, then a little climb afterwards as kids go home, but nowhere near prior levels.

– City council stakeholder interview, July 2025

66% of grantholder survey respondents (base=166) also agreed or strongly agreed that their project contributed to a reduction in YP’s involvement in gang-related activities. While this was not strongly evidenced in interviews, there were a few examples of participants being less involved in gang activity or related behaviours such as drug dealing or carrying a knife.

5. Reflections on the Theory of Change

This section provides an updated reflection on the MHF ToC. It does so by considering the evidence in this report against five contribution statements which collectively reflect the key impact pathways in the ToC. The ToC can be found in Annex A: Theory of Change. Overall, the evidence in this report finds that the ToC holds true in most respects, including outcomes for grantholders and for YP. Despite this, there is no reliable data to track change in reported youth ASB. The evaluation has also been unable to collect data from members of local communities. This means that impacts on reported and perceived levels of ASB, and on community integration and safety, are informed by qualitative evidence and stakeholder perspectives that are context-specific rather than representative of the overall cohort. The contribution statements and available evidence are as follows:

Contribution statement one

The MHF increased youth organisations’ capacity, as well as their knowledge and skills. This enabled them to provide YP access to positive activities that meet YP’s needs.

The evidence available suggests that the MHF has increased the capacity, knowledge and skills of grantholders, their volunteers and staff. Using the MHF funding, grantholders provided YP with access to a variety of positive activities, ranging from sports and physical activities to mentoring and volunteering opportunities. Grantholder interviews showed a very strong demand for these types of activities from YP. In some cases, grantholders were oversubscribed. In total, they delivered over 2.6m hours of such activities up to June 2025. Close to 60% of YP reported attending the MHF activities at least twice a week, with almost two thirds attending 3 hours or more on a weekly basis. The evidence in this report shows that the MHF is meeting YP’s needs while reinforcing that even more activities like those offered by the MHF grantholders are necessary to meet demand from YP. Importantly, while grantholders used the funding flexibly to respond to YP’s needs, the report also shows that time-limited programmes create funding cliff-edges that limit the extent to which the MHF can contribute to grantholder impacts such as youth sector stability and sustained organisational growth.

Contribution statement two

YP increased their participation in positive activities which supported improvements in their confidence, emotional wellbeing and skills for life.

Over half of the YP who responded to the survey at the time of the first interim report indicated they increased their attendance at the MHF activities in the preceding six months. Since then, YP’s attendance has remained high and a third (32%) of YP who responded to the latest survey reported that they started attending at least one year ago. Similarly, many grantholders interviewed reported that a significant proportion of their attendees participated throughout most of the project delivery period, therefore indicating attendance for over a year. There are many interesting, and at times counterintuitive, findings relating to impacts of the MHF attendance on YP’s confidence, wellbeing, and skills for life: on the one hand, frequent attendance appears to have positive impacts on confidence and skills for life. On the other hand, the dose-response analysis showed that more frequent attendance is correlated with low levels of wellbeing. Further analysis in this report suggests, however, that this correlation may reflect that the MHF grantholders are successfully reaching YP who have negative experiences outside the youth organisation. The dose-response analysis also found that the length of attending activities may influence wellbeing and confidence outcomes, but not in a linear way: for the first few months of attending the MHF activities, these outcomes increase before a decline between 4 and 9 months of attendance. Attendance of 10 or more months is linked with an increase in wellbeing and confidence.

Contribution statement three

The MHF allowed youth organisations to reduce risk factors and increase protective factors for ASB, leading to a reduction in recorded and perceived ASB in funded areas.

Two factors have emerged as important in contributing to other outcomes and impacts for YP: building trusted relationships with staff and volunteers and feeling safe at the youth organisation. Both are outcomes of attending the MHF activities. Among others, trusted relationships with staff are associated with a lower likelihood of engaging in low-level ASB activities. While there is no reliable data to track recorded youth ASB rates and this evaluation has not been able to collect feedback from members of local communities about their perception of youth ASB to date, the evaluation finds evidence that more frequent attendance at the MHF activities is related to YP feeling more confident to confide in their older peers, to talk about their problems, and to feel listened to. In interviews, YP reported making new friends at youth clubs and valued being able to spend their time with positive activities in safe places, rather than being bored. In addition to these intended outcomes, there is also evidence that attending the MHF activities has at least one unanticipated positive outcome: building trusted relationships with older peers. All of this suggests that the MHF is building protective factors for ASB (for example, confidence, positive relationships) while reducing risk factors for ASB (for example, spending time in places where YP are at risk of either experiencing or taking part in ASB).

Contribution statements four and five

The MHF contributed to an improved perception of YP and youth organisations in the local area and the MHF helped to establish a stronger sense of community in areas with funded activities, helping communities to feel safer.

The evaluation has been unable to collect data from local community members about their perception of YP and of youth ASB to date. Anecdotal evidence from grantholders and some local stakeholders, however, suggests that youth organisations have built informal and formal partnerships that helped them reach vulnerable YP. Youth organisations also appear to have improved their local reputation.

Annex A: Theory of Change

Figure 6 below presents the ToC diagram for the MHF.

Figure 6: Theory of Change (ToC) diagram

Diagram showing the programme theory of change for the Million Hours Fund. It illustrates how identified barriers, including capacity and access issues for youth organisations and young people, are addressed through funding, resources and activities such as expanded youth provision and staff training. These lead to outputs including additional hours of support and increased participation in youth activities, which contribute to short- and longer-term outcomes such as improved youth engagement, skills, wellbeing and organisational capacity, ultimately supporting impacts including prevention of antisocial behaviour, improved community perceptions, and safer local areas.

Annex B: Detailed methodology

Research questions

Table 13 below presents the process evaluation research questions (RQs) that the evaluation aims to address. It also indicates the extent to which this interim evaluation, as well as the previous interim report, has been able to address each question. “FA” indicates that the research question can be fully answered, “PA” indicates it can be partially answered, and “NA” indicates it cannot be answered at this stage. As this evaluation is being conducted mid-way through the delivery period and faced some data collection limitations, several RQs can only be partially addressed at this point.

Table 13: Process evaluation research questions

Process evaluation research questions	Interim report (2024)	Interim report (2025)	Final report (2026)
RQ1: Who applied for the MHF, what funding was given and to whom?	PA	PA	FA
RQ2: What are stakeholders’ views of the MHF, how it was set up and how it has been delivered?	PA	PA	FA
RQ3: How many hours and positive activities are being provided through the funding? Has there been an increase in activities? Has the diversity of activities increased and if so, how and by how much?	PA	PA	FA
RQ4: How many YP has the funding reached (new and current attendees)?	NA	PA	FA
RQ5: Are there any external factors that have affected the delivery and effectiveness of the MHF?	NA	PA	FA

Similarly, Table 14 presents the impact evaluation RQs and the extent to which they have been addressed in this report, as well as the anticipated coverage in the final evaluation. At this stage, we have been able to report substantially on outcomes for YP, grantholders, staff, and volunteers. However, evidence on outcomes and impacts for local communities remains limited at this interim stage.

Table 14: Impact evaluation research questions

Impact evaluation research questions	Interim report (2024)	Interim report (2025)	Final report (2026)
RQ6: Is there an increase in YP participating in youth provision in funded organisations?	PA	PA	FA
RQ7: Have more YP developed trusting relationships with youth sector adults, and do they feel safer?	PA	PA	FA
RQ8: To what extent have outcomes, including wellbeing, social and emotional skills and wider life skills, been experienced by YP who attend funded activities?	PA	PA	FA
RQ9: What is the change, if any, in ASB in funded hotspots? Can it be established whether funding has contributed to any reduction? Have public perceptions of ASB in these areas changed?	PA	PA	FA
RQ10: What, if any, are the short-term benefits to organisations taking part in the MHF?	PA	PA	FA
RQ11: How many volunteers have been mobilised because of the funding, including new and existing volunteers?	PA	PA	FA
RQ12: What are the impacts, positive or negative, on volunteers involved in delivering the MHF?	PA	PA	FA

Data sources

Grantholder survey

The grantholder survey was designed to capture evidence relating to process and impact evaluation questions that were not addressed through standard quarterly reporting. This included information on how grantholders used the funding and the types of activities delivered. The survey also sought to understand the profile of YP supported through the MHF and the outcomes observed for them within grantholders’ organisations and wider communities. In addition, the survey explored grantholders’ experiences of communications with The National Lottery Community Fund.

The survey was live from February to March 2025. It was distributed directly to 233 grantholders via email, with two reminder emails sent during this period. In total, we received 166 complete responses, representing a response rate of 71%.

Grantholder interviews

The MHF grantholders were interviewed as part of our process and impact evaluation. The purpose of the interviews was to gain deeper insight into the types of activities funded by the MHF, grantholders’ experiences of delivering their projects, and how their projects benefitted YP, their organisation and the wider community, and how they contributed to the broader MHF fund-wide outcomes. The sampling approach for grantholder interviews ensured representation from all geographical regions in England, different grant sizes, and based on type of activity offered to YP where possible (broadly including a mix of general youth provision, detached youth work, arts clubs and sports activities).

43 grantholder interviews were conducted between April and July 2025.

YP survey

The YP survey gathered insight directly from YP engaged in the MHF activities. We drew on standardised questions and tools to measure ASB when developing the questions. The final version included questions on demographics (age, location, gender and ethnicity), type, frequency and intensity of project activities they engaged in, outcomes from engaging in projects, relationships with project staff and types of ASB they may have engaged in. The survey was distributed to all grantholders along with information sheets and instructions on how to distribute the link to YP. The survey did not collect names or addresses of YP or the organisations they attended. This means neither the young person completing the survey nor the relevant grantholder is identifiable through the YP survey, and the responses cannot be linked with any other surveys (for example, the evaluation survey of grantholders). An opt-out consent process was adopted for YP under 16, whereby parents/guardians received a letter from grantholders with survey information two weeks before it was shared with YP. Parents and guardians were able to opt their child out from receiving the survey by contacting the MHF grantholder organisation. For YP 16 and above, their consent was sought via the cover page of the survey where they were provided information on the survey and could select an opt-out option. The survey was live from June to August 2025.

We received 793 responses including 546 complete and 247 partial responses. We were unable to calculate the base size of the survey as we do not have accurate information on the total number of YP engaged through the MI data. The final analysis includes 515 usable responses after discounting duplicates and opt-outs. During data cleaning 278 cases were deemed unsuitable to be included in the analysis for three main reasons:

• Partial Responses: all 247 partial responses were excluded.
• Opt-out: respondents who opted out or did not answer key outcome questions were removed from the dataset.

Manual corrections were applied where participants listed their organisation instead of their location. Local authority and regional data were added where applicable.

Descriptive statistics and outcomes analysis

Approach to grouping responses

Age (Q1):

• Younger than 11
• 11–15
• 16–17
• Older than 17

Location (Q2): Responses were converted to align with the regions of England.

Gender (Q3): Responses were checked for invalid entries. Valid entries were grouped into three categories (n=429), with low counts in certain responses justifying the consolidation into:

• Male
• Female
• Other/Prefer not to say

Ethnicity (Q4): Responses were checked, and no further regrouping was necessary for the full sample (n=515).

Attendance per Week (Q5 and Q6):

• Q5 (times per week) was presented in the same categories as the survey question, with n=515.
• Q6 (hours per week) was similarly categorised, with n=515.

Time since first attendance (Q7): Presented as per the survey question, with a full sample of n=515.

The MHF Activities (Q8): Due to low counts in some categories, the activities were grouped for analysis (n=492) as follows:

• Sports/Physical Activities
• Hanging Out
• Clubs and Workshops
• Mentoring and Volunteering

Wellbeing (Q9)

The scale for the Wellbeing question (Q9) was inverted from the survey’s original format to make it more intuitive for analysis, where one = not happy at all, and five = completely happy. Responses were aggregated and grouped into a five-point scale based on the averages of the respondents’ answers to sub questions about wellbeing. The categories were as follows:

• Very Low Wellbeing: ≤ 1.9
• Low Wellbeing: ≤ 2.9
• Moderate Wellbeing: ≤ 3.9
• High Wellbeing: ≤ 4.4
• Very High Wellbeing: ≤ 5.0

Confidence (Q10)

The scale for the Confidence question was based on respondents’ agreement with confidence statements, where one = strongly disagree and five = strongly agree. ‘Not sure’ responses were excluded from the averages. Responses were grouped into the following five-point confidence scale:

• Very Low Confidence: 1.0 to 1.75
• Low Confidence: 1.76 to 2.75
• Moderate Confidence: 2.76 to 3.5
• High Confidence: 3.51 to 4.25
• Very High Confidence: 4.26 to 5.0

Life Skills (Q13)

As mentioned in the main body, the measures used to assess YP’s life skills were adapted from the YPS, which includes domains such as Emotion Management, Empathy, Initiative, Problem Solving, Responsibility, and Teamwork. Respondents were assigned scores on a scale from one (low) to five (high) based on their self-reported life skills. Below are the breakdowns for each life skill:

• Emotion Management (Q13a and Q13b):
  • Q13a: “I easily calm myself down when upset.”
  • Q13b: “I stop myself from doing things that might be bad for me.”
  • Implemented categories for Emotional Management based on the averages of these two questions:
    • Very Poor Emotional Management: 1.0 to 1.9
    • Poor Emotional Management: 2.0 to 2.9
    • Moderate Emotional Management: 3.0 to 3.9
    • Good Emotional Management: 4.0 to 4.4
    • Excellent Emotional Management: 4.5 to 5.0
• Empathy (Q13c):
  • Q13c: “I feel bad when someone’s feelings get hurt.”
  • Implemented categories for Empathy:
    • Very Poor Empathy: one
    • Poor Empathy: two
    • Moderate Empathy: three
    • Good Empathy: four
    • Excellent Empathy: five
• Problem Solving (Q13d):
  • Q13d: “I take time to think about how others might react before saying something.”
  • Implemented categories for Problem Solving:
    • Very Poor Problem Solving: one
    • Poor Problem Solving: two
    • Moderate Problem Solving: three
    • Good Problem Solving: four
    • Excellent Problem Solving: five
• Teamwork (Q13e and Q13f):
  • Q13e: “I seek help from others when I need it.”
  • Q13f: “I respect others’ points of view, even if I disagree.”
  • Implemented categories for Teamwork based on the averages of these two questions:
    • Very Poor Teamwork: 1.0 to 1.5
    • Poor Teamwork: 1.6 to 2.5
    • Moderate Teamwork: 2.6 to 3.5
    • Good Teamwork: 3.6 to 4.5
    • Excellent Teamwork: 4.6 to 5.

Relationship with Staff/Volunteers (Q11)

YP were asked to agree or disagree with statements regarding their relationship with staff at the organisation where they participate in youth activities. These statements focused on trust, staff reliability, and whether staff listened to the young person. Average responses for sub questions a: “I feel able to trust them”, b: “They do what they say they’ll do”, c: “They have listened to me”), d: “They are available when I need them” were aggregated and grouped into the following four-point scale. Responses marked as “Not Sure”, and N/A were excluded from the averages:

• Very Poor Relationship: 1.0 to 2.0
• Poor Relationship: 2.01 to 3.25
• Good Relationship: 3.26 to 4.25
• Very Good Relationship: 4.26 to 5.0

Q11e and Q12 (Feeling of Safety)

Respondents to Question 11e were asked about their feelings of safety, and their responses were categorised into five levels with the following thresholds:

• Very Unsafe: ≤ one
• Unsafe: ≤ two
• Neutral: ≤ three
• Safe: ≤ four
• Very Safe: ≤ five

Those who reported feeling unsafe or very unsafe were asked about their feeling of safety at school, home and while hanging out on the street (Q12). The categories above were also used for analysing the responses to each part of Question 12.

Q11f (Feeling comfortable reporting problems)

Respondents to Question 11f were asked whether they feel comfortable reporting problems at their youth organisation, and their response were categorised into five levels:

• Very Uncomfortable: one
• Uncomfortable: two
• Neutral: three
• Comfortable: four
• Very Comfortable: five

Anti-social Behaviour (Q14)

Respondents were grouped into four categories based on the averaged of the frequencies of ASB throughout the different sub questions. ‘Don’t Know’ responses were not counted in the calculation of averages. The categories implemented are as follows:

• Very Low Frequency: 1.0 to 1.75 — Rarely exhibits anti-social behaviour.
• Low Frequency: 1.76 to 2.5 — Occasionally exhibits anti-social behaviour.
• High Frequency: 2.51 to 3.25 — Frequently exhibits anti-social behaviour.
• Very High Frequency: 3.26 to 4.0 — Very frequent anti-social behaviour.

Limitations for survey analysis and interpretation

Social desirability bias^{[footnote 22]}
As delivery staff have distributed the survey there is a risk of bias. This has been mitigated by designing the questions using existing and relevant validated surveys, as well as allowing participants to self-complete, whilst having staff there to support them if issues of literacy arise.

Attribution issues
The MHF is one of several funds delivered by both DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund. Participating YP may have taken part in other programmes before, during, or after their engagement with the MHF. Although each programme/fund aims to develop a specific set of skills, they are all designed to enhance YP’s personal skills. This created an attribution challenge for the evaluation, whereby it is difficult to be sure whether the outcomes achieved by participants are due to their participation in the MHF.

Survey design
Some of the validated scales used were not used in their entirety, and this may have affected their validity (meaning they would have been validated on the full scale). This approach was used to reduce survey length and adjust timeframes to the programme delivery timescales.

Survey sample size
Not all YP taking part in the programme completed a survey. Findings are based on a sample size which may not fully reflect the broader range of the MHF participants.

Lack of counterfactual group
The feasibility of a comparative counterfactual analysis was explored during the inception phase; a comparison group was not identified. Due to the absence of a comparator group, the evaluation cannot make a robust assessment to determine whether or not the changes (both positive and negative) in any intended outcomes are directly attributable to the MHF programme activities, as opposed to other factors.

Site visit interviews with YP

In partnership with LU, a group of young evaluators received training and guidance to conduct site visits involving interviews with YP at six different grantholder locations. The sites were selected to ensure a mix of activity types and representation across the regions of England where the MHF operates Bristol (South West), Felixstowe (London and East of England), Gainsborough (Yorkshire and the Humber), Leicester (East and West Midlands), Newcastle (North East), and Wigan (North West).

Following an initial call with a staff member from each grantholder to confirm suitability, the six sites were scheduled for visits in July and August 2025. Grantholders were provided with an information sheet and consent letter to obtain parental consent for participants under 16. These consent forms were verified by LU and the young evaluators prior to interviews. For participants aged 16 and over, consent was obtained in person before the interviews. Interviewees had two weeks after their interview to withdraw their statements if they wished. Separate interview guides were developed for under-16 participants to ensure age-appropriate content.

The interviews explored themes similar to those in the YP survey, including motivations for joining, enjoyment of activities, perceived benefits or changes following participation, relationships with staff and volunteers, and views on ASB. In total, the young evaluators conducted 51 interviews across the six sites. Table 15 below shows a breakdown of interviews per site visit.

Table 15: Site visit interviews

Location	Number of responses
Bristol	13
Felixstowe	8
Gainsborough	7
Leicester	11
Newcastle	7
Wigan	5

Following the conclusion of the site visits, the young evaluators analysed the findings and presented them in an online workshop to DCMS, The National Lottery Community Fund, and the evaluation partners in October 2025.

Interviews with DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund

As part of the process evaluation, we conducted two interviews in September 2025: one with staff from DCMS and another with staff from The National Lottery Community Fund. These interviews explored experiences of fund implementation and delivery, reporting and monitoring processes, evaluation activities, risk management, and lessons learned from the MHF to date.

Interviews with local stakeholders

We recruited local stakeholders by asking grantholders at the end of their interviews to share contact details for partners or local stakeholders they had mentioned, or to facilitate introductions. We conducted nine interviews with representatives from local authorities, police forces, and local VCS organisations. Interview topic guides were tailored to each participant group but broadly covered their role and activities, the local context for ASB, perceptions of YP and awareness of the MHF.

MI

This includes data from grantholders as part of their quarterly monitoring to The National Lottery Community Fund. This is collected via an online form which covers various aspects of progress on delivery of funded projects. We analysed the following data points for this interim report:

• Total number of additional hours of youth work delivered.
• Total number of YP that attended activities.
• Average number of YP that attended activities.
• Total number of new YP that attended activities.

Analysis

Grantholder survey

We received 166 complete survey responses. Partial responses were excluded as they were either duplicates or too incomplete to use. A comprehensive data cleaning process was undertaken to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the dataset. This included reviewing the quality of responses to identify any outliers (none were found) and ensuring all data were correctly formatted for analysis in Excel. For open-text responses under “Other” options in multiple-choice questions, we assessed whether they could be recategorized under existing options, grouped into new categories, or retained as unique responses where appropriate. Following data cleaning, the survey results were analysed, and descriptive statistics were produced for each question.

Dose-response

In the absence of a suitable comparison or control group, we proposed a dose–response study as the most feasible approach to examine the impact of the MHF. This approach uses clearly defined KEQs and aligns with the previous interim report’s analysis for compatibility. A study employing dose-response analysis aims to detail the relationship between a dose (an activity funded by the MHF, or multiple activities) and the resulting response (outcomes for YP). It does so by examining how differences in activity frequency relate to outcomes, with the hypothesis that greater participation leads to better results. We recognise that the dose-response analysis does not address issues such as selection effects, but this approach allowed for an assessment of the potential impact that these effects might have on the results (for example by comparing the impact for those with various levels of engagement, characteristics, geography).

However, as an observational method, it identifies associations rather than proving causality. It is important to account for differences in risk levels among individuals, as those more “at risk” may receive more interventions. Without fully controlling for such factors—observable or not—findings may be biased. While statistical adjustments (meaning regression) can address some disparities, unobservable factors like family or peer influences may still skew results. To examine this dose-response relationship, we formulated a set of KEQs that the YP survey was designed to address.

Inferring group size and statistical significance from demographic and engagement data using the dose-response approach is theoretically feasible but impractical due to low response rates among certain sub-groups, which likely prevents meaningful statistical conclusions.

Qualitative analysis

Interviews with grantholders, stakeholders, and DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund staff were conducted online via MS Teams and lasted 45 to 60 minutes, depending on the stakeholder group. These were recorded for transcription purposes. Interview recordings were transcribed directly into an analysis framework with separate spreadsheets dedicated to each stakeholder group. Qualitative data from YP’s interviews and focus groups were compiled into notes by the young evaluators and LU, then shared with Fortia Insight in MS Word format. The data was coded into the analysis framework with relevant sections from the interviews and focus groups transcribed to corresponding sections in the framework. This framework was structured around the interview guides for each stakeholder group which were driven by the MHF research questions and objectives.

Themes and trends were identified for each section of the framework for different stakeholder groups, with keyword searches used to draw out evidence against specific outcomes. The qualitative framework will be updated iteratively as we conduct interviews and find new themes that will stimulate targeted discussions in forthcoming interviews.

Contribution analysis

The evaluation team formulated five contribution statements in consultation with DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund. Collectively, these statements reflect the different ways in which the MHF was expected to contribute to impacts for YP, organisations and communities, as illustrated by the MHF ToC (see Annex A: Theory of Change).

Contribution analysis is an iterative approach that draws on evidence as it emerges to determine whether a programme or project is contributing to desired impacts, how strong the evidence for this contribution is, or whether other factors potentially explain observed impacts.

For this second interim report, the evaluation assessed what evidence exists against each contribution statement to reflect on the validity of the ToC.

Annex C: Data tables

Includes detailed tables of survey responses, demographic breakdowns, and dose-response analysis results.

Description of YP survey sample tables

Q1: Age – n = 515

Age categories	Number of respondents	Percentage of respondents
Younger than 11	24	4.66
11	34	6.60
12	77	14.95
13	68	13.20
14	78	15.15
15	52	10.10
16	62	12.04
17	51	9.90
18	42	8.16
Older than 18	27	5.24

Q2: England’s Region – n = 511

England’s region	Number of respondents	Percentage of respondents
London	115	22.50
North West	77	15.07
North East	62	12.13
South East	60	11.74
West Midlands	53	10.37
East of England	50	9.78
Yorkshire and the Humber	49	9.59
East Midlands	37	7.24
South West	8	1.57

Q3: Gender Identity – n = 515

Gender	Number of respondents	Percentage of respondents
Male	277	53.79
Female	216	41.94
Non-binary	12	2.33
Prefer not to say or other	10	1.94

Q4: Ethnic Background – n = 515

Ethnicity	Number of respondents	Percentage of respondents
White	276	53.59
Asian or Asian British	98	19.03
Black, Black British, Caribbean or African	65	12.62
Dual or multiple ethnic groups	42	8.16
Other ethnic group	22	4.27
Prefer not to say	12	2.33

Q5: Time per week attending the MHF activities – n = 515

Times a week	Number of respondents	Percentage of respondents
Once a week	213	41.36
2 times a week	184	35.73
3 times a week	58	11.26
4 times a week	41	7.96
5 times a week	9	1.75
More than 5 times a week	10	1.94

Q6: Hours per week attending the MHF activities – n = 515

Hours a week	Number of respondents	Percentage of respondents
1 to 2 hours per week	187	36.31
3 to 4 hours per week	191	37.09
5 to 6 hours per week	45	8.74
7 to 8 hours per week	23	4.47
9 to 10 hours per week	18	3.50
11 to 12 hours per week	12	2.33
13 to 14 hours per week	11	2.14
15 or more hours per week	6	1.17
Don’t know	22	4.27

Q7: Time since first attendance at the MHF activities – n = 515

Time since first attendance	Number of respondents	Percentage of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	63	12.23
4 to 6 months ago	87	16.89
7 to 9 months ago	80	15.53
10 to 12 months ago	38	13.20
More than 12 months ago	167	32.43
Don’t know or don’t remember	50	9.71

Q8: The MHF activities – n = 492

Activity	Number of respondents	Percentage of respondents
Sports and physical activities	306	62.20
Hanging out	80	16.26
Clubs and workshops	76	15.45
Mentoring and volunteering	30	6.10

Q9: Wellbeing

Wellbeing area	1 – not happy at all	2	3	4	5 – completely happy	Total
School or work	23.09% (118)	22.90% (117)	32.88% (168)	13.11% (67)	8.02% (41)	511
Appearance	31.90% (163)	26.81% (137)	30.53% (156)	6.65% (34)	4.11% (21)	511
Family	50.00% (256)	23.05% (118)	17.38% (89)	6.84% (35)	2.73% (14)	512
Friends	46.38% (237)	28.57% (146)	17.03% (87)	6.26% (32)	1.76% (9)	511

Q10: Confidence

Confidence statement	1 – strongly disagree	Disagree	Not sure	Agree	5 – strongly agree	Total
I feel confident to make new friends	1.17% (6)	4.70% (24)	15.46% (79)	47.75% (244)	30.92% (158)	511
I like to try new activities	0.78% (4)	2.54% (13)	9.20% (47)	50.29% (257)	37.18% (190)	511
I feel confident talking to adults	1.18% (6)	5.51% (28)	18.31% (93)	41.34% (210)	33.66% (171)	508
I feel confident talking about my problems to older young people	4.30% (22)	8.20% (42)	26.95% (138)	40.23% (206)	20.31% (104)	512
I feel confident saying ‘no’ to my friends	2.55% (13)	5.10% (26)	19.22% (98)	39.22% (200)	33.92% (173)	510

Q11: Relationship with staff

Statement about staff relationships	1 – strongly disagree	Disagree	Not sure	Agree	5 – strongly agree	N/A – did not engage with any staff	Total
I feel able to trust them	5.86% (30)	0.78% (4)	4.30% (22)	33.01% (169)	55.86% (286)	0.20% (1)	512
They do what they say they will do	4.53% (23)	1.18% (6)	8.07% (41)	37.20% (189)	48.82% (248)	0.20% (1)	508
They have listened to me	5.11% (26)	0.79% (4)	3.93% (20)	39.69% (202)	49.71% (253)	0.79% (4)	509
They are available when I need them	4.69% (24)	0.98% (5)	8.79% (45)	40.43% (207)	42.77% (219)	2.34% (12)	512
I feel safe participating in MHF activities at my youth organisation[footnote 23]	4.70% (24)	0.39% (2)	3.91% (20)	32.49% (166)	57.93% (296)	0.59% (3)	511
I feel comfortable reporting problems at my youth organisation	4.31% (22)	0.98% (5)	9.20% (47)	35.23% (180)	47.36% (242)	2.94% (15)	511

Q13: Life skills

Life skills statement	Never	Rarely	Sometimes	Often	Very often	Total
I easily calm myself down when feeling upset	4.47% (23)	15.95% (82)	42.22% (217)	26.85% (138)	10.51% (54)	514
I easily stop myself from doing things that might be bad for me	4.31% (22)	11.94% (61)	34.05% (174)	30.92% (158)	18.79% (96)	511
I feel bad when someone gets their feelings hurt	3.90% (20)	7.02% (36)	28.07% (144)	38.60% (198)	22.42% (115)	513
I take time to think about how others might react before saying something	5.87% (30)	13.89% (71)	36.20% (185)	27.98% (143)	16.05% (82)	511
I seek help from others when I need it	5.66% (29)	14.06% (72)	39.65% (203)	28.71% (147)	11.91% (61)	512
I respect other points of view, even if I disagree	3.32% (17)	4.49% (23)	35.74% (183)	37.70% (193)	18.75% (96)	512

Q14: ASB

Anti-social behaviour statement	Never or almost never	Sometimes	Frequently	Very frequently	Don’t know	Total
I have annoyed or sworn at strangers (adults or older people)	46.88% (240)	32.42% (166)	10.16% (52)	6.05% (31)	4.49% (23)	512
I have got into fights with other YP	57.06% (291)	28.24% (144)	8.24% (42)	3.33% (17)	3.14% (16)	510
My neighbours complained to my family	73.08% (372)	12.57% (64)	3.93% (20)	3.14% (16)	7.27% (37)	509
I have hung out with friends outside shops or on the streets at night	44.01% (224)	28.29% (144)	12.97% (66)	12.57% (64)	2.16% (11)	509
I have deliberately damaged public property (for example streets, transport or public spaces)	74.80% (380)	14.76% (75)	4.92% (25)	2.17% (11)	3.35% (17)	508
I have spray painted walls or signs	87.62% (446)	6.09% (31)	3.14% (16)	0.79% (4)	2.36% (12)	509
I have used drugs (for example balloons, weed or pills)	78.24% (399)	12.94% (66)	3.53% (18)	1.96% (10)	3.33% (17)	510
I have dropped litter in the street	38.58% (196)	38.19% (194)	11.42% (58)	8.46% (43)	3.35% (17)	508

Data tables for KEQs where a trend was identified

Impact of frequency of attendance

Do those who receive attend more frequently report higher levels of wellbeing?

No
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence that those who attend more frequently report fewer positive feelings about school or work, and their family. There is also weak evidence that those who attend more frequently report fewer positive feelings about their friends.

Level of wellbeing question categories (Q9a)	Average attendance a week (times a week) (Q5)	Number of respondents
1 – not happy at all	2.50	40
2	1.99	67
3	1.99	168
4	1.88	117
5 – completely happy	1.90	116

Variation calculation: [(1.90-2.50)/6] = -10.06% - moderate evidence.^{[footnote 24]} (Comparison between categories one and five (Q9a) over Q5 categories)

Level of wellbeing question category (Q9a)	Average attendance (times per week)(Q6)	Number of respondents
1 – not happy at all	2.50	40
2	1.99	67
3	1.99	168
4	1.88	117
5 – completely happy	1.90	116

Variation calculation: [(3.52-4.68)/8] = -14.49% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between categories one and five (Q9a) over Q6 categories)

Level of wellbeing category (Q9c)	Average attendance (hours per week)(Q6)	Number of respondents
1 – not happy at all	3.08	40
2	2.76	67
3	2.74	168
4	2.64	117
5 – completely happy	2.67	116

Variation calculation: [(3.64-4.56)/8] = -11.49% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between categories one and five (Q9c) over Q6 categories)

Level of confidence category (Q9d)	Average attendance (times per week)(Q5)	Number of respondents
1 – strongly disagree	2.45	6
2 – disagree	2.05	24
3 – not sure	2.03	79
4 – agree	2.02	244
5 – strongly agree	1.92	158

Variation calculation: [(1.92-2.22)/6] = -4.99% - weak evidence. (Comparison between categories one and five (Q9d) over Q5 categories)

Level of confidence category (Q10d)	Average attendance (hours per week)(Q5)	Number of respondents
1 – strongly disagree	3.67	6
2 – disagree	2.72	24
3 – not sure	2.69	79
4 – agree	2.75	244
5 – strongly agree	2.63	158

Do those who attend more frequently develop a trusted relationship with grantholder staff and volunteers?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those who attend more frequently feel listened to by staff.

Feeling listened to category (Q11c)	Average attendance (times per week)(Q5)	Number of respondents
1 – strongly disagree	2.27	26
2	1.25	4
4	1.92	202
5 – strongly agree	2.00	253

Variation calculation: [2.00-(2.27+1.25)/2)]/6 = 4.00% - weak evidence. (Comparison between the average of categories one and two, and category five (Q11c) over Q5 categories)

Feeling listened to category (Q11c)	Average attendance (hours per week)(Q6)	Number of respondents
1 – strongly disagree	3.68	26
2	2.00	4
4	3.93	202
5 – strongly agree	3.90	253

Variation calculation: [3.90-(3.68+2.00)/2)]/8 = 13.2% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between the average of categories one and two, and category five (Q11c) over Q6 categories)

No
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence that those who attend more frequently feel unsafe at home.^{[footnote 25]}

Feeling safe at home category (Q12b)	Average attendance (times per week)(Q5)	Number of respondents
1 – strongly disagree	2.58	19
2	0	0
4	1.50	2
5 – strongly agree	1.20	5

Variation calculation: [(1.20-2.58)/6] = -23.00% - strong evidence. (Comparison between categories one and five (Q12b) over Q5 categories)

Feeling safe at home category (Q12b)	Average attendance (hours per week)(Q6)	Number of respondents
1 – strongly disagree	3.83	19
2	0	0
4	2.50	2
5 – strongly agree	3.00	5

Variation calculation: [(3.00-3.83)/8)] = -10.42% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between categories one and five (Q12b) over Q6 categories)

Do those who attend more frequently report better life skills?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those who attend more frequently seek help from others.

Seek help from others (Q13e - frequency of statements)	Average attendance (times per week)(Q5)	Number of respondents
1 – never	1.76	29
2	1.81	72
3	2.07	203
4	1.95	147
5 – very often	2.15	61

Variation calculation: [(2.15-1.81)/6)] = 5.70% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between categories two and five (Q13e) over Q5 categories)

Do those who attend more frequently report lower levels of ASB?

No
The dose-response analysis provided evidence indicating that those who attend more frequently report higher levels of ASB activity, particularly in annoying or swearing at strangers (moderate evidence) and dropping litter in the street (strong evidence).

Level of ASB (Q14a – annoying or swearing at strangers)	Average attendance (hours per week)(Q6)	Number of respondents
1 – never or almost never	3.44	240
2	4.23	166
3	4.44	52
4 – very frequently	4.90	31

Variation calculation: [(4.90-3.44)/8)] = 18.26% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between categories one and four (Q14a) over Q6 categories)

Level of ASB (Q14h – dropping litter in the street)	Average attendance (hours per week)(Q6)	Number of respondents
1 – never or almost never	3.35	196
2	4.03	194
3	4.41	58
4 – very frequently	5.55	43

Variation calculation: [(5.55-3.35)/8)] = 27.48% - strong evidence. (Comparison between categories one and four (Q14h) over Q6 categories)

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those that those who attend more frequently are more likely to hang out with friends outside shops or on the streets at night.

Level of ASB (Q14d – hanging out outside shops or on streets)	Average attendance (hours per week)(Q6)	Number of respondents
1 – never or almost never	3.62	224
2	4.07	144
3	4.58	66
4 – very frequently	4.13	64

Variation calculation: [(4.13-3.62)/8)] = 6.38% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between categories one and four (Q14d) over Q6 categories)

Impact of length of engagement

Is there a relationship between duration of engagement and wellbeing?

Yes
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence of a non-linear relationship between duration of engagement with the MHF activities and wellbeing across all four domains. Wellbeing is highest among those who began attending the MHF activities 1–3 months prior to completion of the survey. This is followed by a decline for those who engaged for 4 to 9 months. However, when attending from 10 to 12 months onward, wellbeing showed improvement across all four domains.

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average wellbeing (school or work)(Q9a)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	4.00	63
4 to 6 months ago	3.16	86
7 to 9 months ago	3.25	79
10 to 12 months ago	3.22	67
More than 12 months ago	3.55	164

Variation calculation: [(4.00-3.16)/5] = 16.74% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between 1-3 month ago and 4-6 months ago (Q7) over Q9 categories)

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average wellbeing (appearance)(Q9b)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	4.17	63
4 to 6 months ago	3.52	86
7 to 9 months ago	3.66	79
10 to 12 months ago	3.63	67
More than 12 months ago	3.88	164

Variation calculation: [(4.17-3.52)/5] = 13.03% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between 1-3 month ago and 4-6 months ago (Q7) over Q9 categories)

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average wellbeing (family) (Q9c)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	4.52	63
4 to 6 months ago	3.79	86
7 to 9 months ago	3.89	79
10 to 12 months ago	3.70	67
More than 12 months ago	4.33	164

Variation calculation: [(4.52-3.70)/5] = 16.45% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between 1-3 month ago and 10-12 months ago (Q7) over Q9 categories)

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average wellbeing (friends)(Q9d)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	4.38	63
4 to 6 months ago	3.94	86
7 to 9 months ago	3.82	79
10 to 12 months ago	3.96	67
More than 12 months ago	4.28	164

Variation calculation: [(4.38-3.82)/5] = 11.16% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between 1-3 month ago and 7-9 months ago (Q7) over Q9 categories)

Is there a relationship between duration of engagement and confidence?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence of a non-linear relationship length of engagement in the MHF activities and confidence across two domains: making new friends and talking about problems to older YP. Confidence is highest among youth who began attending the MHF activities 1–3 months prior to completion of the survey. This is followed by a noticeable decline for those engaged for 4 to 9 months. However, from 10–12 months onward, confidence shows improvement across both domains.

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average confidence (making new friends)(Q10a)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	4.39	63
4 to 6 months ago	4.17	87
7 to 9 months ago	4.04	80
10 to 12 months ago	4.33	68
More than 12 months ago	4.29	167

Variation calculation: [(4.39-4.04)/5] = 6.85% - emerging evidence. Comparison between 1-3 month ago and 7-9 months ago (Q7) over Q10 categories)

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average confidence (talking about problems)(Q10d)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	4.09	63
4 to 6 months ago	3.81	87
7 to 9 months ago	3.65	80
10 to 12 months ago	3.88	68
More than 12 months ago	3.99	167

Variation calculation: [(4.09-3.65)/5] = 8.74% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between 1-3 month ago and 7-9 months ago (Q7) over Q10 categories)

Is there a relationship between duration of engagement and development of a trusted relationship with grantholder staff/volunteers?

Yes
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence of a positive relationship between length of engagement in the MHF activities and the development of trusted relationships with staff across all six domains. Those who started attending 1–3 months before the survey was completed reported the lowest levels of trust. Trust increased in all domains for those engaged for 4 to 12 months. After 12 months of engagement, reported trust with staff decreased across all domains.

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average relationship with staff (trust)(Q11a)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	3.90	63
4 to 6 months ago	4.43	87
7 to 9 months ago	4.46	80
10 to 12 months ago	4.40	68
More than 12 months ago	4.37	167

Variation calculation: [(4.46-3.90)/5] = 11.02% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between 7-9 month ago and 1-3 months ago (Q7) over Q11 categories)

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average relationship with staff (do what they say)(Q11b)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	3.77	63
4 to 6 months ago	4.30	87
7 to 9 months ago	4.49	80
10 to 12 months ago	4.41	68
More than 12 months ago	4.31	167

Variation calculation: [(4.49-3.77)/5] = 14.39% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between 7-9 month ago and 1-3 months ago (Q7) over Q11 categories)

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average relationship with staff (feeling listened to)(Q11c)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	3.79	63
4 to 6 months ago	4.44	87
7 to 9 months ago	4.47	80
10 to 12 months ago	4.47	68
More than 12 months ago	4.33	167

Variation calculation: [(4.47-3.79)/5] = 13.52% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between 10-12 month ago and 1-3 months ago (Q7) over Q11 categories)

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average relationship with staff (availability)(Q11d)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	3.78	63
4 to 6 months ago	4.23	87
7 to 9 months ago	4.33	80
10 to 12 months ago	4.38	68
More than 12 months ago	4.25	167

Variation calculation: [(4.38-3.78)/5] = 11.91% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between 10-12 month ago and 1-3 months ago (Q7) over Q11 categories)

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average relationship with staff (feeling safe)(Q11e)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	3.95	63
4 to 6 months ago	4.53	87
7 to 9 months ago	4.58	80
10 to 12 months ago	4.53	68
More than 12 months ago	4.43	167

Variation calculation: [(4.58-3.95)/5] = 12.60% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between 7-9 month ago and 1-3 months ago (Q7) over Q11 categories)

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average relationship with staff (reporting problems)(Q11f)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	3.78	63
4 to 6 months ago	4.31	87
7 to 9 months ago	4.40	80
10 to 12 months ago	4.48	68
More than 12 months ago	4.27	167

Variation calculation: [(4.48-3.78)/5] = 13.87% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between 10-12 month ago and 1-3 months ago (Q7) over Q11 categories)

Is there a relationship between duration of engagement and levels of ASB?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence of a non-linear relationship between duration of engagement with the MHF activities across two types of ASB: getting into fights with other YP and using drugs. The frequency of these types of ASB increases during the first three months and from the seventh to ninth month of involvement in MHF activities, but they generally decrease after ten to twelve months of involvement. It should be noted that the frequency of both types of ASB was low across all durations of engagement.

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average ASB (getting into fights)(Q14b)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	1.52	63
4 to 6 months ago	1.57	87
7 to 9 months ago	1.78	80
10 to 12 months ago	1.48	68
More than 12 months ago	1.49	167

Variation calculation: [(1.78-1.48/5] = 5.83% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between 10-12 month ago and 7-9 months ago (Q7) over Q14 categories)

Duration of engagement (Q7)	Average ASB (drug use)(Q14g)	Number of respondents
1 to 3 months ago	1.17	63
4 to 6 months ago	1.30	87
7 to 9 months ago	1.54	80
10 to 12 months ago	1.38	68
More than 12 months ago	1.15	167

Variation calculation: [(1.54-1.15)/5] = 7.88% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between more than 12 month ago and 7-9 months ago (Q7) over Q14 categories)

Impact of different types of activities

Is there evidence that those attending a specific activity report higher level of wellbeing?

No
The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence that those participating in ‘hanging out’ activities (with other YP or adults that work in the centre) report fewer positive feelings about school or work.

Type of activity (Q8)	Average wellbeing (school or work)(Q9a)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	3.43	75
Hanging out	3.00	80
Mentoring and volunteering	3.70	30
Sports and physical activities	3.48	302

Variation calculation: [(3.70-3.00)/4] = 17.50% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between mentoring and volunteering and hanging out (Q8) over Q9 categories)

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating those who attend sports and physical activities report higher positive feelings about the way they look/their appearance.

Type of activity (Q8)	Average wellbeing (appearance)(Q9b)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	3.65	75
Hanging out	3.58	80
Mentoring and volunteering	3.63	30
Sports and physical activities	3.85	302

Variation calculation: [(3.85-3.58)/4] = 6.82% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between sports and physical activities and hanging out (Q8) over Q9 categories)

Is there evidence that those attending a specific activity develop a trusted relationship with grantholder staff/volunteers?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those who attend mentoring and volunteering activities are more likely to develop trusted relationships with staff across all six domains.^{[footnote 26]}

Type of activity (Q8)	Average relationship with staff (trust)(Q11a)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	4.16	76
Hanging out	4.36	80
Mentoring and volunteering	4.60	30
Sports and physical activities	4.36	306

Variation calculation: [(4.60-4.16)/4] = 11.10% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between mentoring and volunteering, and clubs and workshops (Q8) over Q11 categories)

Type of activity (Q8)	Average relationship with staff (do what they say)(Q11b)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	4.13	76
Hanging out	4.27	80
Mentoring and volunteering	4.43	30
Sports and physical activities	4.30	306

Variation calculation: [(4.43-4.13)/4] = 7.54% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between mentoring and volunteering, and clubs and workshops (Q8) over Q11 categories)

Type of activity (Q8)	Average relationship with staff (feeling listened to)(Q11c)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	4.23	76
Hanging out	4.37	80
Mentoring and volunteering	4.43	30
Sports and physical activities	4.30	306

Variation calculation: [(4.43-4.23)/4] = 5.17% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between mentoring and volunteering, and clubs and workshops (Q8) over Q11 categories)

Type of activity (Q8)	Average relationship with staff (availability)(Q11d)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	4.13	76
Hanging out	4.20	80
Mentoring and volunteering	4.50	30
Sports and physical activities	4.20	306

Variation calculation: [(4.50-4.13)/4] = 9.17% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between mentoring and volunteering, and clubs and workshops (Q8) over Q11 categories)

Type of activity (Q8)	Average relationship with staff (feeling safe)(Q11e)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	4.27	76
Hanging out	4.36	80
Mentoring and volunteering	4.73	30
Sports and physical activities	4.42	306

Variation calculation: [(4.73 -4.27)/4] = 11% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between mentoring and volunteering, and clubs and workshops (Q8) over Q11 categories)

Type of activity (Q8)	Average relationship with staff (reporting problems)(Q11f)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	4.09	76
Hanging out	4.17	80
Mentoring and volunteering	4.63	30
Sports and physical activities	4.27	306

Variation calculation: [(4.63-4.09)/4] = 13.53% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between mentoring and volunteering, and clubs and workshops (Q8) over Q11 categories)

Is there evidence that those attending a specific activity report better life skills?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those participating in ‘hanging out’ activities (with other YP or adults that work in the centre) report lower life skills across all six domains.

Type of activity (Q8)	Average life skills (calm when upset)(Q13a)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	3.20	76
Hanging out	3.03	80
Mentoring and volunteering	3.50	30
Sports and physical activities	3.29	306

Variation calculation: [(3.29-3.03)/4] = 6.64% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between sports and physical activities, and hanging out (Q8) over Q13 categories)

Type of activity (Q8)	Average life skills (stop doing harmful things)(Q13b)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	3.38	76
Hanging out	3.22	80
Mentoring and volunteering	3.73	30
Sports and physical activities	3.60	306

Variation calculation: [(3.60-3.22)/4] = 9.63% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between sports and physical activities, and hanging out (Q8) over Q13 categories)

Type of activity (Q8)	Average life skills (feeling empathy)(Q13c)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	3.88	76
Hanging out	3.49	80
Mentoring and volunteering	4.07	30
Sports and physical activities	3.68	306

Variation calculation: [(3.88-3.49)/4] = 9.86% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between clubs and workshops, and hanging out (Q8) over Q13 categories)

Type of activity (Q8)	Average life skills (thinking before speaking)(Q13d)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	3.34	76
Hanging out	3.09	80
Mentoring and volunteering	3.70	30
Sports and physical activities	3.41	306

Variation calculation: [(3.41-3.09)/4] = 8.00% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between sports and physical activities, and hanging out (Q8) over Q13 categories)

Type of activity (Q8)	Average life skills (seeking help)(Q13e)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	3.32	76
Hanging out	3.10	80
Mentoring and volunteering	3.23	30
Sports and physical activities	3.35	306

Variation calculation: [(3.35-3.10)/4] = 6.16% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between sports and physical activities, and hanging out (Q8) over Q13 categories)

Type of activity (Q8)	Average life skills (respecting others’ views)(Q13f)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	3.66	76
Hanging out	3.46	80
Mentoring and volunteering	4.07	30
Sports and physical activities	3.68	306

Variation calculation: [(3.68-3.46)/4] = 5.57% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between sports and physical activities, and hanging out (Q8) over Q13 categories)

Is there evidence that those attending a specific activity report lower levels of ASB?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those participating in ‘hanging out’ activities (with other YP or adults that work in the centre) report higher levels of three types of ASB: - annoying or swearing at strangers - hanging out with friends outside shops or on the streets at night, and - dropping litter in the street.

Type of activity (Q8)	Average ASB (annoying or swearing at strangers)(Q14a)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	1.66	76
Hanging out	1.92	80
Mentoring and volunteering	1.50	30
Sports and physical activities	1.74	306

Variation calculation: [(1.92-1.66)/4] = 6.66% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between hanging out, and clubs and workshops (Q8) over Q14 categories)

Type of activity (Q8)	Average ASB (hanging out outside shops or on the streets)(Q14d)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	1.64	76
Hanging out	2.32	80
Mentoring and volunteering	1.70	30
Sports and physical activities	1.96	306

Variation calculation: [(2.32-1.64)/4] = 16.91% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between hanging out, and clubs and workshops (Q8) over Q14 categories)

Type of activity (Q8)	Average ASB (dropping litter in the street)(Q14h)	Number of respondents
Clubs and workshops	1.78	76
Hanging out	2.08	80
Mentoring and volunteering	1.93	30
Sports and physical activities	1.87	306

Variation calculation: [(2.08-1.78)/4] = 7.38% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between hanging out, and clubs and workshops (Q8) over Q14 categories)

Impact of geographical location

Does the geographical location of where activities are delivered influence levels of wellbeing?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those attending activities in the North East, South East, and West Midlands, report fewer positive feelings about school or work, and their appearance.

Region (Q2)	Average wellbeing (school or work)(Q9a)	Number of respondents
	East Midlands	3.30	37
	East of England	3.53	49
	London	3.73	114
	North East	3.02	61
	North West	3.38	74
	South East	3.27	59
	South West	2.88	8
	West Midlands	3.06	53
	Yorkshire and the Humber	3.65	49

Variation calculation: [(3.73-3.02)/9] = 7.91% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between London and North East (Q2) over Q9 categories)

Region (Q2)	Average wellbeing (appearance)(Q9b)	Number of respondents
East Midlands	3.97	37
East of England	3.96	49
London	3.96	114
North East	3.41	61
North West	3.68	74
South East	3.54	59
South West	4.00	8
West Midlands	3.47	53
Yorkshire and the Humber	4.04	49

Variation calculation: [(4.04-3.41)/9] = 7.01% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between Yorkshire and the Humber and North East (Q2) over Q9 categories)

Does the geographical location of where activities are delivered influence levels of confidence?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those attending activities in the West Midlands report lower confidence to talk to adults and talk about their problems to older YP.

Region (Q2)	Average confidence (talking to adults)(Q10c)	Number of respondents
South East	4.42	60
London	4.40	115
East Midlands	4.28	37
Yorkshire and the Humber	4.23	49
East of England	4.20	50
North West	4.16	77
North East	4.13	62
South West	4.00	8
West Midlands	3.95	53

Variation calculation: [(4.42-3.95)/9] = 5.19% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between South East and West Midlands (Q2) over Q10 categories)

Region (Q2)	Average confidence (talking about problems)(Q10d)	Number of respondents
London	4.13	37
South East	3.97	49
North East	3.96	114
Yorkshire and the Humber	3.95	61
North West	3.86	74
East Midlands	3.68	59
East of England	3.66	8
West Midlands	3.51	53
South West	3.14	49

Variation calculation: [(4.13-3.51)/9] = 6.85% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between London and West Midlands (Q2) over Q10 categories)

Does the geographical location of where activities are delivered influence the development of a trusted relationship with grantholder staff/volunteers?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided weak evidence indicating that those attending activities in the South East are less likely to develop trusted relationships with staff across all six domains. On the other hand, it also provided weak evidence that those attending activities in North East and West Midlands are more likely to develop trusted relationships with staff across all six domains.

Region (Q2)	Average relationship with staff (trust)(Q11a)	Number of respondents
East Midlands	4.41	37
East of England	4.29	50
London	4.26	115
North East	4.56	62
North West	4.34	77
South East	4.12	60
South West	4.00	8
West Midlands	4.42	53
Yorkshire and the Humber	4.29	49

Variation calculation: [(4.56-4.12)/9] = 4.93% - weak evidence. (Comparison between North East and South East (Q2) over Q11 categories)

Region (Q2)	Average relationship with staff (do what they say)(Q11b)	Number of respondents
	East Midlands	4.27	37
	East of England	4.19	50
	London	4.18	115
	North East	4.27	62
	North West	4.34	77
	South East	4.09	60
	South West	4.00	8
	West Midlands	4.47	53
	Yorkshire and the Humber	4.23	49

Variation calculation: [(4.47-4.09)/9] = 4.25% - weak evidence. (Comparison between West Midlands and South East (Q2) over Q11 categories)

Region (Q2)	Average relationship with staff (feeling listened to)(Q11c)	Number of respondents
East Midlands	4.46	37
East of England	4.24	50
London	4.20	115
North East	4.50	62
North West	4.35	77
South East	4.10	60
South West	3.88	8
West Midlands	4.37	53
Yorkshire and the Humber	4.24	49

Variation calculation: [(4.50-4.10)/9] = 4.41% - weak evidence. (Comparison between North East and South East (Q2) over Q11 categories)

Region (Q2)	Average relationship with staff (availability)(Q11d)	Number of respondents
East Midlands	4.24	37
East of England	4.16	50
London	4.05	115
North East	4.38	62
North West	4.24	77
South East	3.88	60
South West	4.00	8
West Midlands	4.40	53
Yorkshire and the Humber	4.20	49

Variation calculation: [(4.40-3.88)/9] = 5.79% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between West Midlands and South East (Q2) over Q11 categories)

Region (Q2)	Average relationship with staff (feeling safe)(Q11e)	Number of respondents
East Midlands	4.49	37
East of England	4.45	50
London	4.30	115
North East	4.48	62
North West	4.50	77
South East	4.22	60
South West	3.88	8
West Midlands	4.47	53
Yorkshire and the Humber	4.39	49

Variation calculation: [(4.50-4.22)/9] = 3.07% - weak evidence. (Comparison between North West and South East (Q2) over Q11 categories)

Region (Q2)	Average relationship with staff (reporting problems)(Q11f)	Number of respondents
East Midlands	4.27	37
East of England	4.16	50
London	4.16	115
North East	4.42	62
North West	4.35	77
South East	3.90	60
South West	4.00	8
West Midlands	4.44	53
Yorkshire and the Humber	4.24	49

Variation calculation: [(4.44-3.90)/9] = 5.93% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between West Midlands and South East (Q2) over Q11 categories)

Does the geographical location of where activities are delivered influence level of life skills?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence indicating that those attending activities in London are more likely to: - easily calm down when upset; - stop from doing that might be bad for them; - feel bad when someone gets their feelings hurt; - think about others before speaking; and - respect other points of view.

Region (Q2)	Average life skills (calm when upset)(Q13a)	Number of respondents
East Midlands	3.03	37
East of England	2.90	50
London	3.64	115
North East	3.15	62
North West	3.21	77
South East	2.87	60
South West	2.88	8
West Midlands	3.32	53
Yorkshire and the Humber	3.29	49

Variation calculation: [(3.64-2.87/9] = 8.63% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between London and South East (Q2) over Q13 categories)

Region (Q2)	Average life skills (self-control)(Q13b)	Number of respondents
East Midlands	3.05	37
East of England	3.25	50
London	3.90	115
North East	3.37	62
North West	3.64	77
South East	3.03	60
South West	3.25	8
West Midlands	3.51	53
Yorkshire and the Humber	3.51	49

Variation calculation: [(3.90-3.03/9] = 9.66% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between London and South East (Q2) over Q13 categories)

Region (Q2)	Average life skills (empathy)(Q13c)	Number of respondents
East Midlands	3.70	37
East of England	3.39	50
London	3.92	115
North East	3.81	62
North West	3.74	77
South East	3.47	60
South West	2.88	8
West Midlands	3.62	53
Yorkshire and the Humber	3.63	49

Variation calculation: [(3.92-3.39/9] = 5.93% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between London and East of England (Q2) over Q13 categories)

Region (Q2)	Average life skills (thinking before speaking)(Q13d)	Number of respondents
East Midlands	2.97	37
East of England	3.00	50
London	3.77	115
North East	3.10	62
North West	3.34	77
South East	3.23	60
South West	3.13	8
West Midlands	3.51	53
Yorkshire and the Humber	3.33	49

Variation calculation: [3.77-(300+2.97)/2]/9 = 8.65% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between London and average of East of England and East Midlands (Q2) over Q13 categories)

Region (Q2)	Average life skills (respecting others’ views)(Q13f)	Number of respondents
East Midlands	3.49	37
East of England	3.60	50
London	3.96	115
North East	3.60	62
North West	3.61	77
South East	3.30	60
South West	4.00	8
West Midlands	3.60	53
Yorkshire and the Humber	3.59	49

Variation calculation: [(3.96-3.30/9] = 7.29% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between London and South East (Q2) over Q13 categories)

Impact of the quality of relationship with staff/volunteers

Is there evidence that that the quality of relationships with grantholder staff/volunteers affects life skills?

Yes

The dose-response analysis provided moderate evidence indicating that those who trust staff are more likely to feel bad when someone gets their feelings hurt. There is also emerging evidence that those who trust staff are more likely to be able to stop themselves from doing things that might be bad for them.

Ability to trust staff (Q11a)	Average life skills (self-control)(Q13b)	Number of respondents
1 – strongly disagree	3.23	30
2	3.00	4
3	3.00	22
4	3.47	169
5 – strongly agree	3.57	286

Variation calculation: [(3.57-3.23)/5] = 6.67% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between categories one and five (Q11a) over Q13b categories)

Ability to trust staff (Q11a)	Average life skills (empathy)(Q13c)	Number of respondents
1 – strongly disagree	3.30	30
2	2.25	4
3	2.95	22
4	3.59	169
5 – strongly agree	3.88	286

Variation calculation: [(3.88-3.30)/5] = 11.60% - moderate evidence. (Comparison between categories one and five (Q11a) over Q13c categories)

Is there evidence that that the quality of relationships with grantholder staff/volunteers affects levels of ASB?

Partially
The dose-response analysis provided emerging evidence that those who trust staff are less likely to get into fights and receive noise complaints from neighbours. There is also weak evidence that they are less likely to deliberately damage public property, spray paint walls and traffics signs or use drugs.

Ability to trust staff (Q11a)	Average ASB (getting into fights)(Q14b)	Number of respondents
1 – strongly disagree	1.69	30
2	2.50	4
3	1.79	22
4	1.62	169
5 – strongly agree	1.49	286

Variation calculation: [1.49-(2.50+1.69)/2)]/5 = -5.95% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between average of categories one and two, and category five categories (11a) over Q14b categories)

Ability to trust staff (Q11a)	Average ASB (noise complaints from neighbours)(Q14c)	Number of respondents
1 – strongly disagree	1.67	30
2	1.00	4
3	1.47	22
4	1.35	169
5 – strongly agree	1.27	286

Variation calculation: [1.27-(1.67+1.00)/2)]/5 = -6.43% - emerging evidence. (Comparison between average of categories one and two, and category five (Q11a) over Q14c categories)

Ability to trust staff (Q11a)	Average ASB (damage to public property)(Q14e)	Number of respondents
1 – strongly disagree	1.45	30
2	2.00	4
3	1.40	22
4	1.30	169
5 – strongly agree	1.31	286

Variation calculation: [1.30-(1.45+2.00)/2)]/5 = -4.16% - weak evidence. (Comparison between average of categories one and two, and category five (Q11a) over Q14e categories)

Ability to trust staff (Q11a)	Average ASB (spray painting walls or signs)(Q14f)	Number of respondents
1 – strongly disagree	1.28	30
2	2.00	4
3	1.10	22
4	1.15	169
5 – strongly agree	1.13	286

Variation calculation: [1.13-(1.28+2.00)/2)]/5 = -4.62% - weak evidence. (Comparison between average of categories one and two, and category five categories (Q11a) over Q14f categories)

Ability to trust staff (Q11a)	Average ASB (drug use)(Q14g)	Number of respondents
1 – strongly disagree	1.38	30
2	1.50	4
3	1.35	22
4	1.26	169
5 – strongly agree	1.25	286

Variation calculation: [1.25-(1.38+1.50)/2)]/5 = -2.92% - weak evidence. (Comparison between average of categories one and two, and category five (Q11a) over Q14g categories)

1. Open access youth services are activities that YP can attend without the need for referrals or prior registration. These activities are designed to be free from barriers to access. ↩

2. See for instance Home Office (2023): Anti-social behaviour: impacts on individuals and local communities. ↩

3. DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund also commissioned Fortia Insight, together with LU and the Education Policy Institute (EPI), to conduct an impact evaluation of Phase 3 of the MHF. ↩

4. Million Hours Fund evaluation interim report July 2025. ↩

5. Based on grantholder survey data. Grantholders could select multiple responses. This means the percentages do not add up to 100. ↩

6. The term “at risk” in the survey may have been interpreted broadly by grantholders to include both YP at risk of perpetrating ASB and those vulnerable to experiencing or being targeted by it. These are distinct concepts, and the development of future data collection tools will refine this definition to ensure clarity of findings. ↩

7. In addition to resources to build and use partnerships and networks, other DCMS research found that staff turnover, a lack of understanding of youth work, and data sharing issues form barriers to the successful use of referral processes. See DCMS (2025) Youth Worker Interactions with Other Sectors for more information. Last accessed 2 December 2025. ↩

8. This figure is based on monitoring data reviewed by The National Lottery Community Fund team, who make every effort to verify data accuracy. Once monitoring data is received from individual grantholders, The National Lottery Community Fund funding officers validate the data and implement additional checks such as liaising with the grantholders to query their submitted numbers if they do not seem accurate. The Fortia Insight evaluation team replicated the calculation with the data provided by The National Lottery Community Fund and confirmed the same number of hours. The calculation is as follows: For each grantholder calculate the Average number of YP per hour x Total number of hours. Then add all figures together to calculate the total number of additional hours delivered. The exact total is 2,600,039 additional hours delivered. Fortia Insight has no oversight over the collection and validation of monitoring data. ↩

9. The term “at risk” in the survey may have been interpreted broadly by grantholders to include both YP at risk of perpetrating ASB and those vulnerable to experiencing or being targeted by it. These are distinct concepts, and the development of future data collection tools will refine this definition to ensure clarity of findings. ↩

10. The survey indicates that 61% of grantholders used the grant to recruit additional paid staff. Interview evidence does not consistently corroborate this finding. This divergence likely reflects differences in methodology, as interviews were qualitative and not designed to be representative of the full grantholder population. ↩

11. This aligns with the findings of the Youth Participation Pilot Survey commissioned by DCMS, which found that sports clubs and fitness classes were the activities most frequently attended by YP (last accessed 26 November 2025). ↩

12. Understanding Society Youth Questionnaire (accessed 2 October 2025). ↩

13. Young People’s Survey (YPS) Technical Guide (accessed 28 October 2024). ↩

14. Definitions for the different levels of socio-emotional skills can be found in Annex B: Detailed methodology. ↩

15. For example, if the variation between two variables (for example, frequency of attendance and level of wellbeing) is 3%, the answer to the relevant KEQ would be ‘partially’, and the evidence categorised as ‘weak evidence’. For future analyses, it is important to note that the thresholds defined for evidence strength and variation may be updated based on the specific sample size and context of the survey. In cases where a sufficiently large sample size is achieved (for example, n > 30 for each category of responses), the current thresholds should be reassessed and validated to ensure they accurately capture meaningful patterns. Conversely, for smaller sample sizes or specific subgroups with unique characteristics, adjustments to these thresholds may be necessary to account for potential variability or noise in the data. Any such updates will be made to ensure the analysis remains rigorous and contextually appropriate. ↩

16. This finding is based on a very small sample size (lower than 30 responses) and should be interpreted with caution. ↩

17. Definitions for weak, emerging, moderate and strong evidence can be found in Table 7. ↩

18. Definitions for weak, emerging, moderate and strong evidence can be found in Table 7. ↩

19. This finding is based on a small sample size (n = 30) when compared to sample sizes for other activities. While it meets the minimum threshold for reliability, it should be interpreted with caution due to limited representation. ↩

20. Definitions for weak, emerging, moderate and strong evidence can be found in Table 7. ↩

21. Definitions for weak, emerging, moderate and strong evidence can be found in Table 7. ↩

22. Social desirability bias, meaning the respondents might wish to please the delivery staff and try to provide answers to the survey they though were ‘right’ in the eyes of this key reference person/ delivery staff. ↩

23. YP who disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement were also asked whether they felt safe in other areas of their community, and over two-thirds disagreed or strongly disagreed when asked if they felt safe at school, home and while hanging out in the street. ↩

24. The approach to assessing trends and categorisation of evidence is detailed in Section 4.2.2. ↩

25. This finding is based on a very small sample size (lower than 30 responses) and should be interpreted with caution. ↩

26. This finding is based on a small sample size (n = 30) when compared to sample sizes for other activities. While it meets the minimum threshold for reliability, it should be interpreted with caution due to limited representation. ↩