A concerned parent fears for young people in Brighton and Hove if a cut to the council’s youth arts programme is passed when councillors sets their annual budget later this month.
Brighton and Hove City Council plans to save £41,000 from the programme, with a vacant post due to be scrapped in the council’s Youth Participation Team.
The Youth Arts Award Programme supports young people aged 11 to 19 – and those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) up to the age of 25
Among those it helps are children in care, care leavers and young people who are emotionally distressed and not participating in education, training and employment.
The cuts would leave one part-time member of staff to deliver the programme, which has bronze, silver and gold awards and is designed to help young people into education and work.
An equality impact assessment published as part of the council’s draft budget report said: “This would result in a loss of opportunity for the most vulnerable children living in the city, including children in care, who are disengaged from education, to achieve a nationally accredited award and reintegrate them back into education, training or employment.”
The scheme has supported 15 children and young people since last April.
Parents have previously campaigned successfully against cuts to the service in 2022 and 2023.
One mother whose child benefited from the programme has called on the council to maintain the current funding.
She said: “I am really saddened to hear the council may be reducing the funding to the arts award scheme as, for our family, it provided light at what was an unsettling time.
“My child did well at their GCSEs then everything stalled. They wanted to attend sixth form but ended up quite poorly, with a number of issues, including bad panic attacks and an illness that went on to require surgery.
“Without college, which they were told they could not do remotely, there was little on offer in the city that they could participate in.
“Doing the arts award gave them a focus, structure to their week and they gained a qualification.
“Their confidence was very low and the arts award got them through this time and meant they were seeing a professional youth worker for two hours a week.
“It is a unique service. The waiting list shows how desperately this is needed. I feel the word ‘arts’ makes it an easy target for budget cuts yet it met so many more needs, including mental health and future employability.
“Making sure young people aren’t isolated is important for the wider family and community. I really hope that the council keeps the present level of funding. They should feel proud to be offering this service and not be reducing it.”
Green councillor Sue Shanks raised the proposed spending cut when she addressed the council’s Labour cabinet about the budget. She said that the Greens would look to propose an amendment.
Conservative councillors Alistair McNair and Anne Meadows said that they recognised the value of the service and shared their frustration that it was once again facing a cut.
In a joint statement, they said: “We know young people are having a tough time. Youth unemployment is surging. Teachers are losing their jobs.
“Why does Labour feel the budget is so bad it has to cut the youth arts budget by £41,000?
“They can afford to spend more than £200,000 on the council’s equality, diversity and inclusion team.”
Labour councillor Emma Daniel, the council’s cabinet member for children, families and youth services, said: “The proposed reduction in the budget is a reflection of the service level as it has been operating this year.
“These art services are mainly and correctly provided through our alternative provision offer and funded through education funding.
“There is and will remain an arts offer for children who cannot attend school along with the additional support we propose to continue providing.
“Government funding coming into the city for ‘young futures’ will also support art activities along with many more interventions to ensure young people have access to fulfilling and creative opportunities in their leisure time.”
Conservative Councillors appear to be making their standard whataboutism arguments, as usual, as if they wouldn’t be considering the same cuts themselves if they were in any position to do so. The real question, and one many people have already commented on recently, is that local councils need a new structure of being funded by the government. Greens bleeding the city dry certainly didn’t help matters, either.
I can’t imagine there is anyone who is looking to cut because they want to, but because they’re having to do more with less, and there’s the legal requirement to balance the budget. The alternative is that a section notice is issued, and the finance officer will take control – then you’d see DEEP cuts.
Greens bleeding the city dry? You do talk a load of old cobblers. It was a joint budget witb Labour over 3 years in a minority administration.
Unfortunately, when you look at the major finance decisions, they can be attributed to Green Party members. Auditors have questioned the financial sustainability of budgets set under the previous Green administration, and multiple reports describe the i360 outcome as a “day of shame” for the party.
How is it sensible to cut something which will cause a knock-on rise in youth anti social behaviour, mental health and even crime budgetary costs? All proposed cuts should factor in the cost of the potential knock on effects and whether they will be of greater cost to the council going forwards than the so-called immediate savings made. Even if the council don’t care about our health and wellbeing, they should be listening to financial experts who can predict the financial knock on effects of their short-sighted blundering.
I think it’s an indication of how little there is in the budget at the moment. I don’t think not caring is the reason here. Budgets have to be pragmatic, perhaps to an extreme these days. That’s not blundering though; that’s recognition that councils are having to do more, with less, and if it doesn’t have a statutory protection, everything is up for consideration.
One could gently argue that being short-sighted is to hold onto everything, knowing it isn’t sustainable in the current financial environment, right?
This council cannot have the obscene situation that it is seen squandering millions in public money on gridlocking road schemes and other non-essentials – even if part govt-funded – which screw the city over and actively reduce city tourism spend while claiming it cannot find money to keep the basics going – such as keeping young people out of trouble. It doesn’t wash. Local or national, public money is public money whatever way you choose to spin it. Prioritising people is not some quaint old fashioned concept. It’s the right thing to do and saves money on other knock on costs long-term. No one of intelligence can dispute the wisdom of prioritising public spending intelligently and for maximum public benefit. Or of investing in our children, since they are the future.
I had a feeling that was the direction you were going to go with this conversation, it’s one of the main challenges I put towards Green voters. Again, I’d reference how this and that are two separate funding pots that would never cross over regardless. You’re not wrong about the need to prioritise spending where it has the greatest long-term benefit; unfortunately, the crux is that you can’t just look at these things in a vacuum. Government funding streams often come with strings attached – spend it or lose it. In both of these, public money isn’t always just public money; ringfencing dictates a big portion of it.
Although there’s definitely a wider point about timing, considering the national Labour Party is talking about reforming SEND and alternative provision, and is alluded to by Cllr Daniel. And having a little think about it, for less than the price of a mid-range family car, it is a scheme that supports some of the most marginalised individuals in Brighton. I want to know what the reduction looks like in practical terms. For example, if government funding covers what’s being reduced, effectively freeing up council funds for other things, then I’d be perfectly okay with that, because in practical terms, it’s not a reduction in service.
Hmm, there’s nuance, like most things, and I agree that a pragmatic utilitarian approach to these things is absolutely the right thing to do!
Very well said