Beyond the Numbers: The Hidden Toll of Mental Health Budget Cuts on Ethnic Minority Lives
- Banday & Mackenzie
- Oct 8
- 3 min read
A recent analysis by The Herald reveals that the Scottish Government has reduced real-terms funding for mental health by nearly £80 million due to stagnation in the budget, leaving it effectively frozen at £290.245 million for the 2023-24 period.
Effects for the General Population
The cuts mean that planned increases in funding to keep pace with inflation were not met; instead, services are operating on a static cash budget, which in real terms represents a loss of purchasing power.
Observers warn that vital preventative and early-intervention work—such as suicide prevention, community wellbeing programs, and support before crisis points—will suffer.
For many in the general population, the mental health services burden (waiting times, crisis response) was already severe; the cuts exacerbate this by limiting capacity when demand is rising, especially since the rate of mental health conditions has reportedly more than doubled over the past decade for Scotland as a whole.
Impact on Ethnic Minorities & Lower Socio-Economic Groups
People from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups are already more likely to experience poor mental health outcomes due to multiple factors: discrimination, linguistic and cultural barriers, reduced access to culturally appropriate support, and stigma. These groups also were disproportionately affected by COVID-19, which has amplified existing inequalities.
Cuts threaten to worsen those disparities. When funding is constrained, services often focus on core or more visible services rather than tailored support for marginalised populations (for example, culturally specific counselling, translation services, community outreach). Those supports tend to be among the first to be scaled back. There are evidence government documents anticipate that people from BAME communities are among those more likely to experience poor mental health and less likely to access effective supports.
Individuals at lower socio-economic levels (poverty, insecure housing, precarious work) are also more exposed to the social determinants that drive mental ill health. The cuts reduce the resources for early intervention and community-based prevention that can buffer these effects.
Role of the Ethnicity Expert Panel & Other Initiatives
In Greater Glasgow & Clyde, an Ethnicity Expert Panel was established at the end of 2020 to specifically review how BME communities use and experience mental health services, with the aim of improving outcomes. Though recent information about its current activity is less clear. If you are reading this piece, and if you are aware of any recent activity of the above-mentioned expert panel, I will be keen to know. Furthermore, it will be interested to know, if there are any other group(s) involved in advocating ethnicity and mental health at a strategic level.
Such bodies are important because they can provide evidence, raise issues of access, cultural competence, and help ensure that policy responses consider the specific needs of ethnic minorities. Budget cuts without such oversight risk further entrenching inequities.
A related blog on bandayandmackenzie.com (which focuses on ethnic minority mental health) argues that budget constraints often translate, not just into fewer clinicians, but into less community, peer, and culturally tailored support, which are vital for many people from minority backgrounds. Though, the piece was written a good few years ago, the information is still relevant today, and it is worth a read https://www.bandayandmackenzie.com/post/turning-a-blind-eye-the-invisibility-of-race-and-ethnicity-in-scottish-mental-health
Conclusion
While cuts to mental health funding affect everyone, the impact is far from uniform. Ethnic minorities and socio-economically disadvantaged groups face a double burden: greater underlying risk and fewer tailored supports, meaning budget reductions are likely to widen existing gaps in mental health outcomes. Without renewed investment, especially in preventative, community-based, culturally aware services and strong oversight the consequences risk being both severe and unfair.
References:
v)
Comments