Better Youth Spaces Fund: Understanding the organisations funded and the young people accessing youth provision
Research by Adrian Miles and Vee Collins
The government’s £30.5m Better Youth Spaces fund has supported organisations across England to improve and expand access to youth provision. Alongside data on how organisations used the funding and what it achieved, the fund has generated a wider dataset on what youth provision looks like across the country and which young people are taking part.
We are committed to sharing as much of this data openly as possible, helping to build the evidence base on what youth provision looks like and who is accessing it.
The Better Youth Spaces fund approved approximately 700 applications across 42 selected Local Authorities. You can see the overall data on applications and approved grants in the dashboard below:
Alongside this, some of the key data findings are summarised below.
Organisations
Key Findings
- 79% of approved funding was for youth provision in the most deprived areas (IMD 1-3).
- The three most common youth activities were youth clubs, sports clubs and creative arts.
- Relative to the eligible population, the North West received the highest share of approved grants, while the East Midlands received the lowest.
The organisation data shows that the fund reached a broad mix of youth providers. All local authorities eligible for Better Youth Spaces received some grant funding, with approved funding concentrated in the most deprived areas.
Young People
Key Findings
- The majority of young people live within walking distance of the youth provision they attend.
- 94% of young people attend provision at least once a week.
- The median organisation provides provision for 74 young people a week.
Our data shows that 54% of young people live within walking distance of their youth provision. Alongside this, the majority of young people attend youth provision at least once a week, with over 60% of young people attending at least twice a week.
Buildings delivering youth activities
Key Findings
- The most common form of building ownership in the youth sector is a lease.
- The median lease length for buildings in this fund was 14 years.
- Where organisations leased their building, over half had a local authority as their landlord.
Around 250 approved grants included funding for a refurbishment project. Discussions in capital funding and asset ownership in the social sector often focus on routes to freehold ownership. However, in the Better Youth Spaces Fund, most refurbishments (62%) were delivered from leased buildings.
Local authorities played a significant role in the leased buildings supported through the fund. Where organisations leased their building, local authorities were the most common landlord, accounting for 56% of leases. These leases also tended to offer greater long-term security than those with other landlords, with a median lease length of 20 years compared with 9 years elsewhere. These longer leases are positive for the sector, providing organisations with more long term stability and make it easier to justify investment in their buildings. However, applications and enquiries to the fund also highlighted challenges for some organisations in renegotiating leases with local authorities, with delays or uncertainty sometimes limiting their ability to access capital funding and invest in growth.
Conclusion
The Better Youth Spaces Fund provides a useful snapshot of the organisations, young people and buildings that make up youth provision in some of the areas of England most in need of investment. The data shows that the fund reached many organisations working in deprived communities, supporting provision that young people use regularly and often access close to home.
It also highlights the importance of physical assets in sustaining youth provision. Many organisations are delivering from leased buildings with local authorities playing a particularly important role as landlords. The challenges some organisations faced in securing or renegotiating leases show that access to capital funding depends not only on the availability of grants, but also on the wider conditions that enable organisations to invest in their spaces.
By sharing this data, we hope to contribute to a stronger evidence base on youth provision, capital investment and community assets. Understanding who is being supported, where provision is taking place and what kinds of buildings organisations rely on can help support the design of future investment that is responsive to the realities of the sector.