Research and analysis

Million Hours Fund evaluation: phase two second interim report - short version

Published 19 June 2026

1. Executive summary

1.1 Introduction

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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; and 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]} This document is a short version of the most important findings in the full report.

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.

1.2 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.^{[footnote 5]} 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 in-person ‘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.

Gemini was used to draft the executive summary and condensed findings and lessons learned of this report and the full 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.

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

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 can be 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%),^{[footnote 6]} and hiring venues (61%). 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 7]} 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 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 months 4 to 9, and then improve again from month 10 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 full 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 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, 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 the full 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. The most effective partnerships for this are with schools, police (including Police Community Support Officers), 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 full 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 young 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 being limited to their outputs (for example hours delivered).

2. Key statistics at a glance

Below is a summary of key data points from the second interim evaluation of the MHF. These statistics offer a more detailed look into the MHF delivery, reach, and impact, supplementing the high-level findings presented in the Executive Summary.

2.1 Programme reach and delivery

2.6 million additional hours of youth activities delivered

As of June 2025, the MHF has substantially exceeded its original one-million-hour target, showcasing the scale of delivery.

86% of grantholders used funding to pay for youth worker time

This highlights that the MHF’s primary investment was in people and professional capacity, directly supporting the youth work sector workforce.

79% of grantholders used funding to purchase equipment and resources

This investment enabled organisations to enhance their activities, providing better facilities and materials for YP.

96% of grantholders said the MHF enabled them to provide additional services

This near-unanimous finding confirms that the MHF grant was essential for expanding the breadth and depth of youth provision in targeted areas.

45% of grantholders used the grant for staff and volunteer training

The MHF directly contributed to upskilling the youth sector workforce in areas like safeguarding, first aid, and trauma-informed practice

2.2 Profile of grantholders

95% of grantholders support YP from deprived and low-income areas

This demonstrates the MHF’s success in targeting provision to areas of greatest socio-economic need.

79% of grantholders support YP from minority ethnic backgrounds

This indicates that the MHF grantholders are targeting a diverse cohort of YP.

90% of grantholders report YP participating in their activities are at risk of intimidatory behaviour

This statistic directly connects the participants to the core purpose of the MHF, confirming that the provision of activities by grantholders is targeting YP considered at high risk of ASB involvement.

64% of grantholders report YP participating in their activities are at risk of gang-related activity

This further reinforces that the MHF grantholders are targeting YP facing serious risks within their communities, making the provision a key preventative service.

2.3 Engagement patterns

77% of YP attend activities once or twice a week

This illustrates the typical pattern of engagement, showing that the MHF supports regular, consistent contact with YP rather than sporadic attendance.

73% of YP attend for 1-4 hours per week

Combined with attendance frequency, this shows a typical ‘dose’ of the intervention is a few hours each week, providing valuable context for the impact findings.

68% of YP have been attending for no more than 12 months

This demonstrates that there is potential to increase retention of YP for 12 months or more. Longer retention appears to be important because attendance over longer periods of time is correlated with positive wellbeing and confidence.

62% of activities attended by YP were sports-related

Sports and physical activities were the most popular type of provision, acting as a crucial entry point for engaging YP.

2.4 Outcomes and Impacts

93% of YP report a good or very good relationship with staff

This is arguably the most important outcome statistic, as the evaluation identifies the quality of these trusted relationships as the primary driver of positive change.

90% of YP feel safe or very safe at the MHF activities

This demonstrates the MHF’s success in creating secure environments.

88% of grantholders believe their project improves community integration

This shows a strong perception among grantholders that their work is fostering greater community cohesion and more positive relationships between different groups.

88% of grantholders reported their staff increased their skills and knowledge

This highlights a direct and tangible benefit of the professional development of the youth sector workforce as a result of the MHF grant.

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 (accessed 22 January 2025). ↩

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 Hour Fund interim report July 2025 (last accessed 21 October 2025). ↩

5. 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 programme activities, as opposed to other factors. ↩

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

7. 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. ↩