Community Board 2 members, parents and Council member press for reinstatement or redesign of NYC Summer Youth Employment Program

Community Board 2’s Schools & Education Committee discussed the city’s recent decision to cut the Summer Youth Employment Program and urged elected officials and the Department of Youth and Community Development to restore or redesign the program so young people can receive paid summer work or training.

Janine (committee organizer) told the meeting that New York City had cut a $124,000,000 program earlier in the month. The program historically ran six weeks and employed roughly 75,000 young people ages 14 to 24. Committee members, nonprofit providers and parents said the cut disproportionately affects underrepresented youth, including New York City Housing Authority residents, youth involved with criminal justice programs and young people in foster care.

Amy Brenna, who said she was working with partner organizations, said the immediate reason given for the cancellation was not only budgetary but public‑health related: program operators had raised concerns that traditional SYEP placements could not meet social‑distancing requirements. “It is how do you create a program,” she said, noting providers were exploring virtual and retooled options.

Participants proposed alternatives: convert some placements into virtual certification or paid internship programs that provide job‑readiness skills; create remote roles (constituent outreach, administrative support for nonprofit partners, remote tutoring); and identify COVID‑related roles such as contact‑tracing support or contactless food distribution for youth who are able and whose households are not high risk.

Council Member Ben Kallos joined the call and described a choice for the city: “We can either take these 75,000 kids and pay them and keep them out of trouble for the summer,” he said, or risk greater costs and harms later. Kallos and other local elected officials were named by participants as potential allies in efforts to reinstate the program or fund alternatives.

Parents and providers also raised logistical and equity concerns: some SYEP participants are immunocompromised or live with vulnerable family members, so in‑person assignments would not be appropriate for all youth; nonprofit providers that had already incurred expenses worry about reimbursement; and young people who are older than typical program ages (SYEP reaches to age 24) may be especially in need of paid opportunities.

Committee members discussed next steps: the committee will seek to sign a citywide letter urging reinstatement or reimagining of SYEP, coordinate with other community boards and CEC partners, and request that the City Council and mayor’s office produce a plan that includes both safe on‑site placements (where feasible) and remote, skills‑based alternatives that can be offered to youth who cannot participate in person.

No formal board vote was taken in the meeting; participants asked the committee chair to circulate a draft letter and noted that Community Board 9 had already passed a related resolution (text and date not specified). The committee asked for a follow‑up that would identify specific provider needs, reimbursement questions and protections for participants with health vulnerabilities.

Ending

Speakers emphasized that SYEP serves both youth and nonprofit providers: it provides paid opportunities, helps prevent summer disengagement, and supports organizations that deliver youth services. The committee agreed to circulate and co‑sign a letter advocating for reinstatement or a redesigned model that includes remote training, certifications and safe in‑person options where feasible.