Research and analysis

Youth provision and life outcomes: a study of the local impact of youth clubs (executive summary)

Published 29 February 2024

Summary of key findings

The goal of this research was to expand understanding of how changes in local youth provision have shaped outcomes for young people and their communities.

Data sources used for the analysis (predominantly local and national government, and official statistics data) were imperfect. Data was not available for all areas of interest or were reported inconsistently. We encountered data shortages relating to the numbers of youth clubs, and youth workforce headcount including volunteers, and participants. However, interviewees said that the trends revealed in our analysis nevertheless broadly reflected their experiences.

During the period 2011 to 2021, funding of youth provision has declined in real terms from £1,058.2m in 2011 to £408.5m in 2021, and the number of youth clubs operating in local authorities (according to available data) have nearly halved in number between 2011/12 and 2018/19. There is significant spatial variation in the scale of changes in spending and its effects. Over a third (34%) of local authorities reduced their real-terms expenditure on youth provision by more than three quarters between 2011 and 2021. Subsequently youth provision has changed and, specifically:

• Targeted youth work has been prioritised over universal provision (which is open to anyone)

• There is more Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) involvement both in strategic direction and service delivery, but VCS spend reported in local authority data represents approximately 4% of all spending with local authority spend dominating (at over 85%)

• There are fewer professional youth workers employed by local authorities. Volunteers are used to partly bridge the gap left in provision

• The spaces in which youth work takes place are changing. Anecdotally, fewer local authority facilities are available, and modes of delivery such as detached youth work have increased.

Statistical analysis of the effect of these changes on localities shows that a year after a drop in expenditure, local authorities see increased incidences of bike theft, shoplifting, possession of weapon offences, and a higher proportion of young offenders who re-offend.

We found no statistically significant association between a decrease in local authority youth expenditure and any short-term changes in education outcomes or socio-economic and health outcomes in that local authority area (either positive or negative). Furthermore, we found no statistical evidence that serious crime offences (such as criminal damage and arson, theft from the person, or drug offences) are affected. Data limitations affect the range of analyses undertaken and whilst statistical associations at a local authority scale are not apparent, interviewees stressed that youth work is linked with positive outcomes for many young people they know.

Study background and scope

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) commissioned three projects to research youth provision called the Youth Evidence Base. SQW, the University of Essex, University of Warwick and UK Youth carried out the three projects concurrently, with advice from DCMS and a specially convened Youth Panel.

Our research objective was to answer the question: ‘What impact does the presence of youth clubs have on local areas?’. Specifically, we explored how provision has changed in response to reductions in service levels and the extent to which those changes might affect social outcomes for young people. The six outcome areas of interest were:

• Educational outcomes

• Employment / career pathways

• General health

• Mental health

• Life satisfaction and wellbeing

• Crime and anti-social behaviour.

Study design

To capture changes in provision, we used S251 data (provided by local authorities to the Department for Education (DfE)), and Barnardo’s data for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Knife Crime. Social outcomes data was drawn from the DfE’s Local Authority Interactive Tool (for educational outcomes), Individualised Learner Record (ILR) and Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data (for progression), Active Lives survey (for physical health), Public Health England data (for mental health) and ONS crime data. These data was used to examine short-term impacts of youth provision decline using the local authority as the geographic unit.

We conducted further research in five case study areas Cornwall, Doncaster, Hull, Liverpool and Shropshire. These locations were chosen to provide contrasting local characteristics including region and spending patterns. We interviewed 30 stakeholders working in local councils and for national and local youth organisations about changes in provision in their area over time, and their perceptions of the impact this has had on young people and communities. Data analysis and case studies were conducted concurrently between September 2022 and March 2023.

Reflections

The findings outlined in this research (and summarised, above) about the reduction in youth spending are consistent with other research on this topic.^{[footnote 1]} We report that:

 * 95% of local authorities reduced their real terms spending on youth services by at least a quarter between 2011 and 2021

• The 43% decline in total expenditure on young people’s services between 2014 and 2021 includes a 51% drop in funding for universal (open access) provision, while targeted expenditure (for young people with additional or specific needs), reduced by 35%

• Data showed the average number of youth clubs supported by individual local authorities in England has fallen from 14 in 2011/12 to eight in 2018/19.

These broader headlines hide differences between different areas. Some areas reduced their spending in real terms by more than 75%. Local authorities have a statutory duty to ‘secure as far as is reasonably practicable, sufficient provision for educational and recreational leisure-time activities for young’ but their interpretation of how to meet this duty is within a broad range. Case study interviewees told us that one reason for this may relate to local political will (especially among local councillors) and community pressure.

Overall expenditure on youth services fell between 2011 and 2020, followed by a slight uptick in real terms spending between 2020 and 2021. The precise reasons for this are unclear, although some case study interviewees hypothesised it might have been the influence of covid and a response to the dwindling opportunities available for young people during the pandemic. Research published by the YMCA finds that since the 2022 financial year, some local authorities have included the Department for Education’s Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) fund in their youth services spending figures.^{[footnote 2]}

Stakeholder interviews, document reviews and case study interviewees suggest that there are four ways in which the changes to funding have affected all areas to at least some extent. These relate to the balance of universal and targeted provision, the role of the VCS, the changes in the workforce, and the spaces in which youth work happens. While spending on all types of provision have reduced, it is spending on universal forms of provision that have declined most. Partly this reflects necessity – local authorities have had to make unenviable decisions about where to direct diminishing resources, and understandably prioritised targeted services for the young people in greatest need.

As many local authorities have scaled back their investment in youth services, the VCS has responded. In many areas combined groups of local authority and VCS partners oversee strategic priorities and decision making at the local level. They may also coordinate activities and provide resources to complement public expenditure. Local authorities remain the dominant local voice, although the VCS has an increasingly important role. The qualified youth workforce has diminished, as many practitioners have taken different jobs or retired since budgetary cutbacks came into force. This shift (and increase) in the prominence of VCS provision and reduction in the ‘qualified’ workforce raises questions about the quality and consistency of youth provision. Case study interviewees and our Youth Panel questioned whether volunteers deliver the same quality, depth and scope of service as qualified practitioners.

Finally, youth work takes place in different spaces now compared with ten years ago. As local authority premises have closed, some VCS spaces are used instead, or space is rented temporarily or on a sessional basis. Youth workers may not have a physical base but work in a more ’detached’ way to bring their activities to young people. (‘Detached’ youth work takes place on streets, in parks, and other locations where young people congregate).

The combined effect of these changes on young people in different local authorities was explored by analysing secondary datasets. However, the data is imperfect. There is a lack of data on the scale and composition of local youth provision, attendance, and the professional workforce. Some local areas generate and collate more data on these elements, but there is limited local research with some case study interviewees suggesting that even basic data like a directory of services and key contacts are not available or maintained. The reliability of S251 data outlining local authority expenditure on youth services, the submission of which is coordinated by the DfE, is questioned, and of course it is focussed on reporting public spend rather than assessing the overall level of resources available in an area. Our experience is that S251 data reflected interviewees’ experiences of trends in local spending.

Limited data imposed certain constraints on our analysis and, namely, meant we examined short-term outcomes (within a year of changes in youth expenditure), as opposed to longer-term outcomes. We know many of the beneficial impacts of youth work may take longer to manifest for young people and communities and would therefore be missed in our analysis. Our findings relating to increases in some types of crime resulting from reductions in youth spending are striking and, for advocates of youth work, intuitive. Increased levels of crime and anti-social behaviour may reflect young people having fewer positive influences (such as positive role models or places to spend time) or a greater prevalence of negative influences.

The absence of any discernible impact on education and health outcomes may be more a reflection of our research design than the actual absence of these effects. Indeed, longitudinal analysis conducted for a separate strand of this Youth Evidence Base research has uncovered some compelling evidence about the longer-term impact of youth activities on participants in later life. A lack of association in this study might also reflect the inherently complex landscape in which youth work operates; singling out its impact among other influences is challenging.

1. For example: YMCA (2023) Generation Cut. Available at: https://www.ymca.org.uk/generation-cut ↩

2.  Ibid. ↩