Few areas of public service have suffered deeper cuts over the past decade than youth provision. Between 2012 and 2023, local authority spending on youth services in England fell by 75%. Thousands of youth workers disappeared from the system. Hundreds of centres closed. And communities were left trying to fill the gaps with patchwork funding and overstretched volunteers.
Against this backdrop, the Prime Minister’s announcement of an £88 million package for youth activities should, in principle, be welcomed. Reconnecting young people with their communities, offering alternatives to screen time, and rebuilding the social infrastructure they need to thrive are all the right ambitions. But the real question is: will this funding make the impact that’s needed, and does it give local authorities the tools to deliver it?
Unfortunately, the answer – for now – appears to be no.
Familiar tactics, limited substance
Of the £88 million headline figure, just £22.5 million is new money. The remaining £65.5 million was previously announced in June’s spending review. That’s not unusual in government communications, but it’s worth noting – particularly given the high expectations being set.
Even more important is the split between capital and revenue funding. Much of the package is earmarked for infrastructure: improving youth club facilities, installing gym equipment, and building climbing walls in high-need areas. Capital investment can be transformative, but without the revenue to recruit, train, and retain staff, it risks becoming little more than a facelift.
Youth work is not about buildings; it’s about relationships. It’s about trust, consistency, and informal education. Without skilled professionals to engage young people, especially those on the margins, physical spaces won’t meet their potential.
This is particularly pressing for local government, which bears the responsibility for both delivering and sustaining many of these services – often with no guarantee of longer-term funding or support.
Schools are not a one-size-fits-all solution
Some of the new funding will support extracurricular activities in schools – which is, again, welcome in principle. But many of the most vulnerable young people aren’t in school at all. Those who have been excluded, are persistently absent, or feel alienated in educational settings are precisely the ones who need support the most – and are least likely to benefit from school-based provision.
Local authorities, working with voluntary sector partners, are best placed to reach these young people. But they need flexibility in how funds are used, and confidence in long-term support, not rigid funding streams that assume school attendance as a given.
What does this mean for NEMCA?
The North East Mayoral Combined Authority (NEMCA), with ambitions to tackle entrenched inequalities, offers a useful case study.
The region has some of the highest levels of child poverty and youth disengagement in England. The appetite to rebuild youth provision is strong, particularly in areas like Sunderland, Gateshead, South Tyneside, and parts of rural County Durham, where years of austerity hollowed out local services.
If NEMCA receives a proportionate share of the £88 million, it might equate to £5 – 6 million over three years. That may fund some facility upgrades or pilot schemes, but it will not be enough to address the systemic disconnection between young people and local services. Nor will it reverse the loss of outreach capacity, trusted relationships, or long-term prevention work that many councils once delivered as standard.
Local authorities in the North East know what works: embedded youth workers, detached outreach, voluntary sector partnerships, and hyper-local provision shaped by community need. They need a revenue settlement, not just capital pots. And they need trust and discretion to deliver it in a way that meets local conditions.
If youth services are to be rebuilt, they must be locally led – not prescribed from Whitehall with tight constraints and one-size-fits-all delivery models.
Waiting for the national youth strategy
Ministers have promised a new national youth strategy in the Autumn. That may yet provide more clarity and scope. But unless it comes with predictable, multi-year revenue funding, devolution of delivery, and a recognition of the central role of local government, it risks following the same pattern: high-profile launches, limited impact.
The government says it wants to reduce youth isolation, tackle antisocial behaviour, and promote community connection. These are laudable aims – but they can’t be achieved through capital spend alone. The past decade has shown what happens when local youth infrastructure is allowed to degrade. Rebuilding it takes more than announcements; it takes vision, partnership, and sustained investment.
A real opportunity – if seized
There’s a genuine opportunity here. If the Labour government is serious about social connection, prevention, and rebuilding trust in public services, then youth provision should be at the heart of it. But that means working with local authorities, not around them. It means resourcing the people who deliver – not just the spaces they deliver in. And it means recognising that young people, particularly in areas like the North East, need services that are flexible, trusted, and embedded in the communities they live in.
As it stands, the Prime Minister’s announcement doesn’t go far enough. For places like the NEMCA area, the challenges are too deep, and the needs too complex, for a capital-heavy, centrally directed approach to succeed.
If the Autumn youth strategy shifts gears – toward long-term, locally-led youth investment – then real change could be within reach. Until then, local government will continue to do what it always has: making limited funding stretch as far as possible, while advocating for the tools to deliver what communities actually need.
