In 2023 the Resolution Foundation published Ending Stagnation: A New Economic Strategy for Britain, a thoughtful report into the UK productivity puzzle. Its thesis was that the UK should grow its strength in high productivity, tradeable sectors - and be willing to accept decline in other areas. It included a striking graph (below) which showed smaller sectors like financial services materially more productive than larger sectors like retail and hospitality.

Resolution Foundation, 2023

The accompanying text argues that “The UK would benefit from a bigger role for higher paying, and smaller role for lower paying, sectors”.

This sentence articulates a view which has dominated policy making in recent years across the political spectrum, that we should grow productivity - which can and should come at the expense of relatively lower paid sectors. The implicit assumption is that jobs created in the high productivity sectors will replace those in those high productivity ones at the level of the individual – that there will be a transfer of human capital, and indeed that the existence of lower productivity work may lead to hoarding where capable people are imperfectly allocated away from higher productivity sectors.

This heuristic accurately maps against many of the policies which have led to job losses in hospitality in recent parliaments. A policy model that seeks to shrink open access employment as a necessary condition of growth elsewhere has only achieved the former.

Here is a chart from UKHospitality which shows why it might be a mistake. In 2025 UKHospitality released the Social Productivity Index, which seeks to understand how the 21 sectors the ONS measure perform on accessibility of employment. This chart shows how hospitality ranks on issues like employment of young people and school leavers (1 is best). Similar charts for the high productivity sectors show performance in the bottom quartile of the economy. A productivity-at-all-costs approach costs young people their jobs.

UKHospitality, 2025

Of course, not all job losses of the past years are caused by successive governments’ policies. There is a useful natural experiment available between retail and hospitality. If you index the two sectors’ employment to 2008 you see a clear pattern of secular decline in retail as automation stripped out work, set against strong growth in hospitality employment up to around 2022. From that point the fortunes of the two sectors as employers largely tracked one another downwards (chart below). We may infer that this recoupling was caused by the shock of cost increases including minimum wage growth, NICs and business rates. A growth sector was pushed back into the pack by active policy choices.

ONS data, UKHospitality analysis

As the first Milburn Review report notes, “The increase in employer National Insurance contributions and the threshold changes announced in the October 2024 Budget added to the cost of employment for workers of all ages. More than 30% of employers said they expected to operate with fewer staff as a result.” A key additional insight is that this mechanism was regressive in shape (chart below) with lower earners most affected. 45% of all jobs lost in the economy since have come within hospitality.

UKHospitality analysis

So, while there are clear secular trends in some sectors towards automation and employment contraction, public policy can and should aim to reverse the second order effects of the productivity-at-all-costs analysis on sectors which were previously growing employment.

The conditions for hospitality returning to its pre-2022 trajectory can be split into three broad areas.

1. The commercial viability of businesses themselves

2. The financial viability of hiring a new person

3. Market failures in connecting new hires with employers.

Commercial viability within hospitality has been damaged by inflation driving up input costs and shrinking customer spend. But it has also been worsened by a property and people led tax system which means the average hospitality business pays an effective tax rate of around twice the level of a bank. The first condition of job growth is that we fix this unfairness and protect the viability of employers of NEETs.

The financial viability of hiring a new person is similarly impacted by policy on minimum wages and NICs, and less tangibly by employment rights law changes which Government analysis suggests will cost well into the billions of pounds. Today, the cost of a 21-year-old working a 30 hour week is 78% higher than in 2019, and for an 18-year-old working 15 hours the increase is 76%. Inevitably that means some roles will be unsustainable, with the marginal cost of a new hire higher than expected additional revenues. The second condition of job growth is maintaining employment costs below this hurdle rate.

But let’s look at market failures in connecting new hires with employers. In the specific context of hospitality there is an interesting and entirely solveable barrier related to entry training. Because of the inherent health and safety needs of the sector – where food is prepared and guests have to be cared for – training matters a great deal. It costs approximately £1500 to deliver entry level training to a young person starting their hospitality career – but the chances of retaining that new starter in their first role to six months can be as low as 50%. Employers may simply not take the risk on a young person.

DWP currently funds an industry-accredited ‘Hospitality Skills Passport’, where job centres refer people to their local college for exactly this introductory training, therefore overcoming market failure. But taking it to the scale needed to solve the ecosystem-level challenge is only possible through employers delivering training directly. Here, the solution is to amend the Growth and Skills Levy so that accredited short course and entry training of this sort can be funded by employers’ levies. In one stroke, employers would be incentivised to train, and therefore hire, young people into their first jobs. The market failure for hiring untrained candidates would be substantially solved.

In recent years, the dominant paradigm in economic policy has been to see decline in hospitality as a necessary condition of growth elsewhere. Bitter experience shows that the result has been to accelerate youth unemployment. We can and should chart another path.

Subscribe now

Sadly, though, that proposition has not underpinned the education system in the past (nor wider policy positions in welfare, health and employment), leaving a legacy which is not working and was never really designed to work for large numbers of young people. That’s why the review and the hard work that has gone into understanding why we are where we are is so important.

I will focus here on the education system and the role of colleges as anchor institutions. With the right policies, investment and partnerships, there is so much more they could do to unleash that potential in young people.

I completely agree with Alan’s belief in the potential of every young person, however there is a stark contrast with reality. Today, education policy is failing very large numbers of students. There’s lots of evidence of this, including the raw performance numbers at every stage and age. For example, around 65% of 16-year-olds achieve a good set of GCSEs at the end of secondary school each year, leaving 35% who do not. This has been the case for a very long time, with no sign that doing more of the same, or even doing it better, will shift that figure significantly or quickly.

There are lots of other statistics like that which show how poorly the system is supporting a sizeable group of young people. But the evidence is even more compelling when you listen to the views of young people, their families, and their schoolteachers. I was on the advisory panel for the Inquiry into White Working Class educational outcomes which reported earlier this year. Part of its work was extensive polling which drew out lots of worrying but instructive views about the education system as it is now. The views expressed were echoed in the stories heard from 400 young people in ‘Inside the mind of a young NEET’ by Shuab Gamote and Peter Hyman.

Both reports highlighted that the curriculum feels “outdated” and irrelevant to the skills young people feel they will need in the future. Many young people feel that what they are learning is not relevant to them and therefore they feel unmotivated and uninspired by it. Gamote and Hyman report that young people say it “does not prepare you for life or work’ and the White Working Class inquiry polling showed only 43% of parents believing that their child’s school was “teaching skills my child will use in real life”. In my view this lack of real-world relevance is a big driver of the disengagement we see and the persistent poot attendance that understandably follows.

Both studies also support the view that the transition at the age of 16 for many young people is ill-thought-through. With a curriculum in school almost wholly focussed on achieving a good clutch of GCSEs, there is little chance for children to experience any ‘real’ technical or vocational learning. No chance to test different vocations or sectors to find the one that really excites them and can inspire them to do the work they need to progress at the age of 16.

Young people report time and again how unsupported they felt at the age of 16, with a weak set of GCSEs, not knowing what they wanted to do and lacking the advice and guidance they needed. If they are lucky, they will turn up to their local college and find that support. They may then find the pathway or vocation that does engage them, but even that is full of risk given how limited their experience is likely to be of different jobs, sectors and subjects. Even the best advice cannot always make up for the lack of experience most 16-year-olds have. How much better would it be if every 16-year-old has had the chance to experience what high-quality skills looks and feels like in their local college? With up-to-date equipment, support from employers, and lecturers who know the labour market and the skills that are being demanded from it?

That vision of experiencing technical and vocational education in key stage 4 is achievable. It needs to be a high-quality offer, ideally in the local college, supported by employers, and available on a day release basis. Schools would make this a core part of the offer for all of their pupils, with taster days in Year 10 to help decision-making, and an application process to ensure it is viewed as a positive and prestigious option, alongside a smaller suite of GCSEs (including English and maths of course).

Two decades ago, this was funded as part of the Increased Flexibility Programme, and it worked. The national evaluation found improvements in GCSE attainment, better progression and more 16-year-olds moving onto positive destinations. It can be rolled out, with the right investment and with partnership between schools and colleges to overcome the obvious, but manageable, timetabling and transport barriers.

With every school working in partnership with their local college, taster days in key stage 3 and a high-quality day release offer open to all pupils, we would see a fundamental shift in the relevance of school to far more pupils and their families. The stigma associated with not being on the A Level to university pathway would start to soften. Perhaps ultimately it would disappear, as outcomes for those who took the day release and who went onto technical degrees, higher technical qualifications and apprenticeships became more transparent to all.

To make sure that shift in perceptions happens, we need a strong line of sight from the key stage 4 technical and vocational day release learning all the way through T Levels, V Levels and apprenticeships onto higher learning which supports great careers with solid, secure and highly paid jobs. That ‘promise’ of a good job used to be a key component of why parents wanted their children to go to university, but it has been increasingly doubted as graduate job outcomes have waned, and student debt has risen.

Up until now, there has been no true sense of a pathway to success that could compete with the university route. That must change to both motivate and engage children from at least the age of 14, and to meet the labour market needs of our economy. We cannot afford for the majority of young people to experience higher learning in the current dominant model of three-year undergraduate degrees. We need more work-based and part-time pathways as well, and we need employers to invest that way as well.

So, the vision for drastically reducing the NEET numbers has to be a vision for all young people and has to be open-ended. It needs to be about every person understanding that they can achieve in learning, that learning well can give them a better life, and that learning continues throughout life, as the world and jobs change.

Colleges are central to this vision, working in partnership with schools and universities as well as with employers. They are strategic partners of locally elected mayors and can help shape the system to ensure it provides support for the talents and potential of every young person.

Subscribe now

One pillar of success will have been the big step-up in young people staying on in quality education, typically with a workplace element, and apprenticeships. Another key underpinning would have been the (belated) shift to a far more preventative system of public services during the youth phase, underpinning a clear transition from college to employment, with greatly reduced numbers falling out of education into inactivity and a rapid system for catching those who do. And a third pillar will have been a mobilisation among government, employers and civil society to re-shape labour market opportunities so that they become within reach of more young people, especially those with health impairments or a disability: greater access to work-experience and work-trials and placements, more entry level part-time roles with support for workplace adjustments and the purposeful use of wage-subsidies to support those further from work. Possibly overlooked, but still important, will have been a reformed social security system that smoothed the path to participation for young people. Switch back to 2026: this is all a long way from what we have today.

An employment support and welfare system that contributes to a new trajectory for young people - the focus of this piece - will need to meet young people where they are starting from, and work with the grain of their aspiration. Again, the status quo does neither. Amid all the detail of the Interim Report it is easy to overlook two central points: young people who are not in education or employment overwhelmingly want to participate in earning or learning (84% overall, 54% favouring work and 30% learning); and the current system is simply not designed to help most of them achieve these goals.

A starting point should therefore be a greater focus on the type of work and training that young people who are NEET feel is achievable – especially given that half of all those who are NEET now report a health condition. Closely related to this, is the need to consider the in-work support that would better enable this transition (recognising, of course, that some of today’s NEETs won’t be in a position to work and it is essential they receive decent out of work support).

Increasing attention has been given to the damage done by binary policy assumptions that shape the current stance on young people and work – for instance, fit or unfit for work. We also hear echoes of this binary thinking in the regular assertion that we need to get ‘young people off benefits and into work’. This will indeed be the case for many who move into full-time work and progress in their careers. But for a significant number of young people, particularly those inactive with health conditions, there will be a clear need for on-going in-work financial support, access to wrap-around mental health support and, crucially, reassurance about what will happen if a job doesn’t work out. ‘Welfare’ needs to underpin the transition into working life, not hinder it.

Among young people claiming health or disability benefits (mostly PIP or the health element of Universal Credit) – typically characterised as a hard to reach NEET group - 19% are already working, 13% say they could work now if the right job or support was available and a further 36% would work in the future if their health improves. Again, the aspiration for work exists – the question is how to support it.

When it comes to preferences over the type of work, the data for young people is more limited. This is a gap that needs to be filled. If we look at the overall NEET group survey evidence suggests 38% want full-time work and 16% part-time. But we don’t have good data on the work aspirations of those specifically with health-impairments. What we can say is that, looking across all age groups claiming health or disability benefits who are interested in working in the future, there is a strong preference for part-time roles: almost half are interested in working 16 to 30 hours a week and 4 in 10 in less than 16 hours a week. The reasons given are often that part-time work would be less demanding than full-time work and will put less strain on their health. Indeed, the prospect of being pressured into full-time work can cause alarm in young people who may be anxious about the move into work, themes reflected in the qualitative work with young people undertaken by Peter Hyman and Shuab Gamote for the Milburn Review.

What policy directions would help support the aspiration to participate?

First, there is financial support and incentives. Young people who are not eligible for the health journey in Universal Credit do not receive a ‘work allowance’ which means they start losing benefit from the first pound they earn, weakening incentives and leaving them with less income to live on. This is contrary to the original design and selling point of Universal Credit, which included a work allowance for all claimants. A single person working 10 hours per week and receiving the standard element of UC will end up with around £580 per month – this equates to roughly £5.70 per hour of additional income compared to their position if they didn’t work at all. Moreover, if the same person didn’t work and qualified for the (recently reduced) health element of Universal Credit they would receive a broadly similar amount of monthly income.^[1]

Various reforms could improve this position. Eligibility for work allowances could be expanded to encompass some young people who are not eligible for the health journey, but who still face health barriers – at least for a transitional period. Alternatively, there could be a system of in-work bonus payments to reward sustained employment. A different but linked issue relates to the very high levels of concern among young people on health and disability benefits that moving into employment might leave them in a far worse position if the job doesn’t work out. Despite recent government efforts, this remains a major issue: approaching half of this group are worried about it. A reformed system also needs to act decisively to remove this work-inhibiting fear and build trust.

A second issue concerns ‘conditionality’ within the welfare system. The current system makes a very sharp distinction between those deemed fit for work who typically face the ‘intensive work search’ regime, risking harsh benefit sanctions if they don’t fully comply; and those who qualify for the health journey with Universal Credit, who have limited access to regular, personalised engagement. This stark divide is thought to have contributed to the rise in claims for the health journey of Universal Credit. Overall, this is not a system designed to meet the very diverse and changing needs of today’s young people. A far more calibrated system of support and expectation is needed that builds on the desire to participate, recognises fluctuating circumstances, offers financial support for returning to learning and provides support to build job-confidence and work-readiness.

A third issue concerns the lack of support offered to many of those with the greatest needs – for instance, those who are inactive on health and disability benefits simply don’t have access to the new Jobs Guarantee, and the wider Youth Guarantee isn’t tailored to meet their needs. A future system needs to do much more to broaden personalised offers of support to harder to reach groups.

Finally, supportive changes to social security for young people need to be complemented with support for employers. Both traditional high-employment, low-margin sectors, as well as a range of faster growing higher productivity sectors, will need to be asked to contribute to a new national effort. To make this viable, employers need far better access to occupational health, training for mangers, greater recognition for workplace adjustments, and stronger wage-subsidies for target groups. Fail to bring employers on board and this whole agenda runs into the sand.

There are, of course, trade-offs and risks to be navigated. One risk is that poorly designed reforms to financial incentives could inadvertently encourage shorter hour working among younger people who are fine working full time. Even with well-crafted policy, there will still be a cost to new measures that support part-time work (though there will be some offsetting savings). Operating a far more personalised system of support for young people requires a workforce with the time and capability to forge these relationships, co-ordinate diverse services and build understanding and trust. Again, this has resource implications – but that cost needs to be set alongside the escalating cost of sticking with today’s crude and binary system.

As the Interim Review has gone on, and the issue of the poor fit between the needs of so many young people and the current system – spanning education, welfare, health, employment – has become a recurring theme, it is natural to ask: how did we get here?

Any explanation will, of course, involve the aftershocks of recent societal shocks like the pandemic. But to rest too heavily on that would be a cop-out.

Looking back over recent decades at least part of the answer is technocratic. What we measure, and how we structure governing choices, matters. There has been a long-term failure to invest in the data and tracking infrastructure needed to contact never mind properly support many young people after they leave school or college. Just as there has been a failure to think in the round about the totality of state spending on this group, never mind ask hard questions about what it has, and hasn’t, achieved. Add to this the manifest failure to put in place policy processes that make visible the future costs to society that will arise from our current trajectory on NEETs and permit them to be properly weighed in today’s decisions. We’ve not just failing today’s young people, but tomorrow’s tax-payers, too. These governing shortcomings are deeply problematic – but they are all solvable by a competent and socially ambitious government.

Another part of the explanation is institutional. Professionals (and the processes they rely on) tend to get subsumed inside the logic of their prevailing system – whether educational, social security or health – and find it hard to step outside of this, less still look across other sectors to see how, in combination, they can inadvertently let down a swathe of the population. That is why a coherent system architecture, with strong local leadership and co-ordination, matters so much.

At root, though, this is a story of power and class. A social group that has little electoral clout, few connections and limited voice have, over an extended period, been systematically overlooked in favour of others who do – hit harder during austerity and benefiting less during easier times. Only determined political leadership will rebalance priorities.

The true test of the Young People and Work Review is the lasting difference it makes to young peoples’ lives over the two, ten and twenty years – that’s the only metric that counts. But the role it has already played in helping shake deep-rooted societal complacency on this critical issue means, in my view, it has already achieved something of value.

^[1] If they were in receipt of the full (protected) health element, their income would be significantly higher than if they worked 10 hours per week on the standard element of UC.

Subscribe now

The young people on the excellent Liverpool FC Foundation work experience programme had moved on from the game, and onto matters in front of them.

They had a message, they told me, for the new Prime Minister Andy Burnham. It was simple. Don’t forget where you’re from. Don’t forget about us.

So how can this country show young people it hasn’t forgotten about them? I put that question to the children that day. Their responses were in line with the rest of the country’s young people. Clean streets. Things to do. And – crucially – jobs.

As the independent Children’s Commissioner for England, I’ve spoken to many thousands of young people across the country. They are ambitious and desperately want to work. But they feel shifts in the labour market acutely.

“My job is a young person’s job”, a girl told me, “But it’s full of people much older than me. I only got it through my auntie. It shouldn’t be like this.”

She’s right.

So far, the signs from this government are good.

On the steps of Downing Street, in his first address to the nation as Prime Minister, Andy Burnham put young people at the heart of the government’s mission.

In his second week, the PM pledged to cut the number of those not in education, employment or training by reforming education and building a line of sight to regional jobs markets.

Work experience needs radical improvement. Children should understand and feel linked to their local labour markets. I am determined to work with the PM to get educational reforms right, so we have high-quality vocational routes and opportunities alongside making sure every child, no matter their background, can choose quality academic paths.

But the answer to this solution is not dissimilar to a career journey: it starts out with the basics. If the PM is going turn around the crisis facing our young people, we need to address the issue of attendance.

Educational attendance and NEET risk are closely linked – one in three children who were persistently absent were NEET at some point by 19, nearly half were NEET by the age of 24.

Children can’t build the skills employers need if they aren’t learning.

When I took up the role 5 years ago, just after COVID, I made it my mission to get kids back into school.

I was very interested in regional approaches, and I was the independent co-chair of the GMCA Attendance Alliance with Andy Burnham, when he was Manchester Mayor. We showed if we understand the causes and join up services we can make a difference.

We need a similar approach to the ‘hidden NEETs’.

These are the young people who are enrolled in post 16 education but are severely absent. They are the children are most in need of targeted support in education and different pathways into work.

Currently, we don’t even have a national picture of attendance once children hit 16.

Any solution must start with understanding the problem. I’ve used my statutory powers to request attendance data from all post 16 education providers to build the first picture of attendance and understand the scale of the hidden NEETs challenge. I’ll be publishing the findings in Autumn.

But what can we do? I know from experience that we have to address children’s barriers to participation such as transport. Free transport for college students nationwide would make a huge difference.

The PM recognises that mental health is a factor. My recent research found that for the first time there were a million referrals to children mental health services. The government should prioritise rolling out of MHSTs in post-16 settings.

I’d also like to see targeted support for children who are being forgotten in NEET conversations – including care leavers and young mothers.

These are just a couple of possible approaches, and I will be setting out recommendations in the coming weeks. By tackling attendance, we can make sure as many young people as possible are in education to get the support they need.

Speaking to the young people in Liverpool, it’s clear how important this is. The thought of finding a job is a huge source of stress.

I’ve launched the biggest ever survey of children, which has already had 600,000 responses, and I’m travelling across the country promoting it – visiting around 30 towns and cities from Hadrian’s Wall to Land’s End.

Already, I have heard very clearly that when children think about what a good future looks like for them, they are thinking about how they will get a job.

“More job opportunities for SEND including training, more free activities I can take part in” – boy, 16, not in any education or employment

“I can’t get an interview without level 4 GCSE maths and English, but I have amazing construction skills. No one will give me a chance. I feel worthless as a result and am giving up hope.” – boy, 16, not in any education or employment

These comments echo the findings of Alan’s review and put a voice to the impossible to imagine headline figure of a million young people who are NEET. Alan has been clear on the need for everyone to play their part in tackling the crisis. I agree.

One thing my work in Greater Manchester showed me was the vital role that regional governments can play in tackling problems that need a range of organisations – often lots of public services – to work together.

Very simply, if I am an employer and I want to engage with local schools, I often don’t have a single point of contact. Likewise, when running schools there was never a clear single point for engaging with industry, though there are brilliant examples of both schools and businesses working fantastically together.

I see Metro Mayors and Combined Authorities as being uniquely well placed to play a role in bringing employers closer to schools and colleges and encouraging more and better work experience – backed by funding from central government.

In my role as independent Children’s Commissioner for England, I look forward to working with Alan and the government to ensure we deliver an excellent education system and routes into work for every child, in every postcode.

I grew up in Scunthorpe, my father, like most men of that generation, was a steelworker. We took pride in that work, knowing that ordinary hands were forging something that would outlast them, something woven into the fabric of the nation itself.

That pride isn’t exclusive to manufacturing, nor to some vision of a bygone British economy. It is inherent to work itself. Today, it is just as alive in caterers and carers as it is on a factory floor. It is precisely that pride I want the young people of my hometown – and indeed all of England - to rediscover.

Subscribe now

That is why we have brought together the Milburn Review Youth Panel, a group of young people with a wide range of lived experiences who are helping to shape the Review through a dedicated subgroup of the Youth Guarantee Advisory Panel. The panel was recruited by our partners at the Youth Futures Foundation, who have worked alongside colleagues in the Department for Education to support and facilitate the sessions.

At our most recent meeting, we asked a simple question: what should good support actually look like? The conversation that followed was honest, thoughtful and, at times, challenging. Young people spoke openly about the support that helped them, the support that was missing, and what they believe needs to change.

In the pieces below, Yusra, Ishrat and Ben share their own experiences and reflections. Their stories are a reminder that behind every statistic is a young person with their own ambitions, challenges and potential, and that any lasting solution must start by listening to those it is designed to support.

Yusra

Public policy often asks why young people disengage from education or work, as though we simply turned away. My experience showed that young people can keep trying long after the systems around them have stopped noticing.

I’m Yusra, a Sociology undergraduate and a member of the Milburn Review Youth Panel. This week, we explored support for young people entering and remaining in work.

For me, that question begins at sixteen. I had good GCSE grades and conditional sixth-form places. During summer 2021, I travelled abroad to care for my grandmother. COVID-19 travel restrictions delayed my return until October, when enrolment had closed and my places had gone.

I had met the academic conditions. What I lacked was someone who could tell me what came next.

I did not know which alternative post-16 routes existed, whether the council could help, or whether I should keep calling colleges. Each conversation led elsewhere. Nobody checked whether I had found education, training or employment. Once outside school, I fell outside the guidance built around it.

In Year 12, I studied independently while working as a hospital cleaner and tutoring children. In Year 13, my family became homeless. Housing instability affected my education, digital access and ability to keep working. Without a permanent postcode, parts of the university application process became inaccessible. I failed my A-levels.

Eventually, I found a charity offering mentoring and careers advice. When support came, a trusted adult helped me rebuild my confidence and find a route into university.

My circumstances were specific, but the wider lesson is familiar. Support is often designed around an imagined “typical” young person who is securely housed, enrolled in education and confident enough to navigate complex systems alone.

Young people need support that begins with curiosity rather than assumption. They need a named, trusted adult who stays involved, a clear pathway plan and guidance beyond school gates.

The biggest difference would be a system that sees the person before the process. No young person should have to understand a system before that system agrees to support them.

Ishrat

I’m Ishrat, a 23-year-old graduate from London. This year, I joined the Milburn Review Youth Panel with the aim of guiding the Review by sharing my lived experience as a young person. In our most recent session, everyone brought their own individual experiences, but one thing came up again and again: young people need better support to help them make these transitions.

My own experience accessing work opportunities has been difficult. Before starting my course, I was a hopeful teenager who believed with full certainty that a degree would help me secure full-time employment. A year later, the reality looks quite different from what I’d envisioned. The graduate job market is intensely competitive.

That gap is even wider for neurodivergent young people. As an autistic graduate, I’ve found that recruitment processes simply aren’t designed to be autism-friendly. I’ve often felt thrown into the deep end and left to navigate the world of work with no support. High-pressure interviews with unwritten social expectations and a lack of understanding from employers, combined with feeling too anxious to ask for adjustments, all of this makes it extremely hard to demonstrate our abilities, even when we have the skills and qualifications for the role.

Neurodivergent young people shouldn’t be an afterthought.

Moving forward, I hope that universities, careers services and employers are able to provide better tailored support for neurodivergent young people to help them overcome barriers that make it difficult for them to access opportunities. We want alternative interview formats, transparent recruitment processes and inclusive environments where we feel welcomed.

Ben

My name is Ben and I’m a member of the Milburn Review Youth Panel.

I’ve spent the last several years working in the employment support sector area, helping people overcome barriers to work through a person-centred approach. As someone who has seen both sides of the system, it has led me to one conclusion. The biggest challenge isn’t always the lack of support, it’s that the support is often difficult to find, confusing to navigate and is rarely designed around how young people want to access it.

When communities talk about helping young people into work, the conversation usually focuses on CVs, interviews or job applications. Those things matter, of course, but they can come much later than people realise. Before someone can even think about applying for work, they might be dealing with a multitude of barriers such as poor mental health, low self-esteem, unstable housing, financial instability or simply not knowing where to turn.

Employment support can’t really be separated from everything else that is happening in a young person’s life.

Getting us “a seat at the table” isn’t enough. Too often we’re invited into meetings, asked our opinions, then the actual decision-making happens elsewhere. Young people don’t want to be consulted; they want to know their views have influence and impact. And if an idea isn’t taken forward, explain why. This kind of feedback builds relationships between generations and communities and ensures continued involvement.

Another issue is that the system expects young people to navigate professional services instead of making those services more accessible. In my local area there are some fantastic services doing crucial work, but many young people don’t know they exist. Rather than creating more individual specialised projects, the system needs to work in harmony through connected hubs where communities can come for advice, wellbeing support, training and employment guidance without being directed from one organisation to another.

The best support is built on relationships. We need that mentor figure who stays with young people beyond getting a job offer. Success shouldn’t just be measured by outcomes but by personal interactions, whether that person you supported is still doing well months down the road. Long-term mentoring, follow-on support and helping employers create inclusive spaces are just as valuable as that first interview.

The Milburn Review has reminded me that strong ideas already exist within communities. The challenge now is making sure we create systems that listen, respond and are built around young people’s lives, rather than expecting young people to fit around the system.

If we can do that, we’ll create employment support that doesn’t just help people into work, but helps them build fulfilling, sustainable futures.

Subscribe now

Solving the youth unemployment crisis is not simply a matter of creating vacancies or stimulating economic growth. Creating more jobs matters, but jobs alone won’t solve youth unemployment since we also need to ensure that young people have the skills needed to access them. That is why it is important to ensure every young person has the support they need to find opportunities, build confidence, and thrive in the workplace.

While all young people who are out of education, employment or training need support to engage, some face far more complex barriers than others. Young people who have grown up in poverty, experienced homelessness, lived in care, or struggled with mental health or addiction face additional challenges to getting into employment or training.

At Barnardo’s, we’ve stood alongside children and young people for 160 years. We know that unless we tackle the challenges faced in every part of their lives, many will struggle to take that first step towards work. The true test of a strategy to reduce youth unemployment is not just whether it succeeds for the easiest to reach, but for those facing the greatest obstacles.

This is a challenge no organisation can solve alone.

Employers create opportunities. Charities and non-for-profit organisations provide specialist support and trusted relationships. Young people themselves are the experts in their own experiences, aspirations and challenges. The most effective programmes bring all three together in genuine partnerships.

Over the last four years, Barnardo’s has done exactly this with our JOBS programme. Standing for Journey of Becoming Successful – a name chosen by young people themselves – the programme combines employability training with confidence-building, resilience and teamwork. Participants complete a ten-week work-readiness course to prepare them for long-term success in employment.

At the heart of the programme is something simple but powerful: trusted relationships. Every young person is matched with a dedicated project worker who gets to know them, understands their circumstances and encourages them every step of the way. For young people whose lives have been marked by instability, having one adult who believes in them can change everything.

The programme combines employability preparation with tailored guidance that helps young people understand and navigate the journey into employment, equipping them to make informed decisions about their future careers – and this is where partnership work with trusted businesses comes in.

Throughout the programme, Barnardo’s works closely with corporate partners such as Amazon and IKEA who provide activities such as workplace visits, giving young people insight into different career opportunities, building confidence in professional environments, and creating opportunities to interview for paid positions or work placements.

The programme also doesn’t just end when a young person secures a position – but continues as young people make those first steps into the workplace. Young people receive assistance with practical pre-employment requirements including right-to-work checks and health and safety training.

Through Barnardo’s Springboard Fund, they can also access financial support to overcome the hidden costs of starting work, whether that’s purchasing appropriate clothing or covering travel expenses before receiving their first pay packet. Once in employment, young people are supported by workplace mentors and ongoing check-ins, helping them to settle into work and progress over the longer term.

This wraparound support improves job retention while reducing pressure on employers, many of whom want to invest in young talent but lack the specialist skills needed to support young people facing multiple barriers to employment.

These partnerships are delivering results: 328 young people were supported by the JOBS programme in 2025, each taking an important step towards the future they want with 83% moving into a positive destination. Young people themselves also report that the programme has had a positive impact on their lives, their confidence and the way they think of work, as Hwinda – who has found work following the programme explains “I learnt to believe in what I could do and that I am good enough again. The importance of reflection and setting goals was one of the biggest things for me”

If we are serious about tackling youth unemployment, we need to invest in more partnerships and co-create inclusive routes into work that recognise the realities young people face. To do this it is important to recognise that the voluntary sector is not simply a delivery partner but a vital part of the solution.

Subscribe now

Long before I became Mayor, I saw first-hand how the right opportunity at the right time can change the course of someone’s life.

In another life, I worked for the Learning and Skills Council, helping people find the training and support they needed to take their first steps into a career.

But my commitment to apprenticeships doesn’t just come from my professional experience – it comes from my own story.

I left school at 16 and, like many young people growing up in Britain in the 1980s, the choices ahead of me felt limited. University was not a realistic route for many working-class young people, even those with the ability to succeed. Opportunities for training, work experience and careers support were much harder to access than they are today.

The careers advisor offered me two choices: join the army or learn a trade. I wanted to start earning, build a future and learn a skill, so I became an apprentice bricklayer.

I loved my time as a brickie. It gave me the chance to learn a trade, travel the country – and even the world. I would see action in the Falklands but in the form of helping to rebuild it after the war.

It gave me the skills, confidence and experience to go on to start my own construction company in my twenties.

But the value of that apprenticeship went far beyond learning how to lay bricks. Those formative years gave me the belief that I could build something for myself and create opportunities I never thought possible. And it taught me skills that have served me well in every job since.

A lot has changed since I was standing where many young people are standing today, some questions remain exactly the same - what am I going to do with my life? What opportunities are out there? How do I build a future I can be proud of?

The difference today is that we have something we didn’t have back then - the ability to shape opportunities closer to home.

Devolution means places like the Liverpool City Region are no longer simply waiting for decisions to be made elsewhere. We have the power to bring together education, skills, employment support and employers to create opportunities that reflect the needs of our communities.

Because young people don’t experience life in silos. They don’t see education, health, careers and employment support as separate systems – they see one journey.

Our job is to make sure the support around them works in the same way.

That is why I welcome Alan Milburn’s Review and its focus on tackling the barriers that prevent too many young people from reaching their potential. It rightly recognises that too many young people are still falling through the gaps between education, employment, skills and support services.

Too often, young people are expected to navigate a complicated system on their own – working out where to go, who to speak to and what opportunities are available.

That is why, here in the Liverpool City Region, we have spent years building a more joined-up approach – bringing together local authorities, schools, colleges, employers, employment support providers and community organisations around one shared ambition: giving every young person the opportunity to succeed.

My Young Person’s Guarantee is built on the simple principle that every young person should have access to the support, opportunities and connections they need to take their next step – whether that is into an apprenticeship, further training, employment or another route that helps them build a fulfilling future.

We were proud to be chosen by government as one of the country’s Youth Guarantee Trailblazer areas because it gives us the opportunity not only to test new ideas, but to demonstrate what can happen when decisions are made closer to the communities they affect.

And the results show why this approach matters.

Data released earlier this year shows that, in Sefton, just 3.8% of 16- to 17-year-olds are not in education, employment or training (NEET) – a figure that has halved since the scheme began in 2019.

Before 2019, Sefton Council only offered careers support to those over 16. Seven years ago, they decided to try something different by reaching younger people most at risk of becoming NEET and providing one-to-one support.

The hope was that by building a trusted relationship between a young person and a careers adviser, they would stay engaged with learning and plan their next steps.

That is what good support looks like. It is not about asking young people to fit into a system. It is about building a system that works around them.

Through apprenticeships, work experience and supported employment, businesses are helping young people gain the skills, confidence and experience they need to succeed.

At the same time, colleges, employment providers and community organisations are helping people prepare for work, overcome barriers and stay on the path towards a rewarding career.

That is the promise of devolution: understanding our communities, responding to their challenges and creating opportunities that work for the people who live here.

Across the Liverpool City Region, we are bringing together schools, colleges, employers, councils and communities around one shared ambition – to make sure every young person has the chance to realise their full potential.

Because I have always believed that talent is everywhere – and opportunity should be too.

That is what we are building here in the Liverpool City Region, a place where a young person’s background does not determine their future, and where the right support at the right time can change the course of a life.

If we can show what is possible when we put young people at the heart of our decisions, then we can help shape a better future not just for our region, but for the country as a whole.

Subscribe now

Individually, and collectively, multiple public services – including education, health, employment support, careers, and the benefit system – have proved poor at both NEET prevention and NEET response.

The tragedy is that many of the services and systems the government will now need to reinvent used to exist. Memories are short, but Labour faced a similar set of youth disadvantage problems when it last came into government, in 1997, and developed extremely effective policies to address them.

I was involved in inventing some of them, as Head of the last Labour government’s Social Exclusion Unit (SEU). But the focus on tackling disadvantage went much wider than the SEU, and was powerfully led across government – in Education, in Health, in the Department of Work and Pensions, and many other mainstream departments. This effort was propelled by a powerful drive from both Prime Minister and Chancellor to make government work better and deliver for the whole country.

It’s surprising how similar today’s problems are to the position that greeted Labour in 1997. That government too inherited a high rate of 16- to 18-year-old NEETs, and high rates of the key risk factors for being NEET, such as school absence, school exclusion, child poverty, and teenage pregnancy.

The SEU was asked to look into many of these issues and frequently found the same picture – inter-linked problems, fragmented responses, missed opportunities for prevention, and no-one in government taking ownership of the issue as a whole.

A great deal needed to change. And it did. Through the rest of that decade, national and local services worked together on a range of inter-linked programmes to help children and young people succeed, and to prevent them becoming disengaged and trapped in poverty:

· schools improved and school absence and exclusion were reduced, so fewer pupils became disengaged and more young people got good qualifications

· a new advice and support service was created – ‘Connexions’ – to support 13-to 19-year-olds through the transition from school into further learning and careers, and to make sure the most vulnerable got the help they needed

· a new Education Maintenance Allowance made it affordable for young people from low-income backgrounds to continue in education after 16, with payments conditional on participation

· investment in schools, colleges and apprenticeships ensured there were courses for young people to access

· and the teenage pregnancy strategy meant more young women were free to stay in education, and gave young parents tailored support to access learning and work.

These were not incremental changes or isolated pilots but elements of a connected infrastructure for children and young people which also included Sure Start and action on child poverty. The strategy was backed by the Treasury, built on shared outcomes, and coordinated across government with the Department for Children, Schools and Families leading many of the preventive programmes. The slogan said it all: ‘Every Child Matters’.

These coordinated policies contributed to significant improvements in outcomes for young people.

· Absence in secondary schools began a long-term downward trend after 2000-01, and persistent absence fell by 45% between 2006-07 and 2013-14.

· The rate of permanent exclusions in secondary schools halved between 2003–04 and 2012–13.

· Teenage pregnancy halved between 1998 and 2014 and continued to fall until 2020.

· The disparity in female NEET rates was eliminated as fewer under-24s were at home looking after family.

· And as the graph below shows, the NEET rate for 16- and 17-year-olds decreased from a peak of 9.2% in 2004 to under 5% from mid-2012.

But this graph also shows how progress stalled in the mid-2010s. Since 2012, the 16- to 17-year-old NEET rate has simply fluctuated in a band between around 3 and 5%. The law may say, as it has done since 2013, that young people in England should remain in learning until their 18th birthday. But the reality has not turned out that way.

Surprising? Not really. It’s what you would expect of a decade in which so much support for young people simply vanished. For starters, Connexions was abolished and careers guidance was made the responsibility of schools, with little preparation and no resource. The criticism of Connexions was that it focused excessively on those at risk of being NEET and hadn’t been good enough at universal careers guidance. The successor arrangements turned out, all too often, to be poor at both.

Other parts of the youth infrastructure met the same fate. The Education Maintenance Allowance in England was abolished. The requirement for schools to provide work experience at key stage 4 was scrapped. Per pupil funding for sixth forms and further education suffered real terms cuts. The apprenticeship levy shifted incentives to the detriment of young people trying to get onto the first rung of the ladder.

Coordination of youth policy ceased to function. And in the background, schools became less inclusive, persistent absence began to rise for low-income pupils and those with special needs, the special needs system fell apart, and every year more pupils retreated into home education.

All of these policies increased the risk factors for young people being NEET in the future. But in an unmanaged system, no-one looked at the issue in the round and the costs they were building up for the future.

When other countries look at how we do things, they are struck by the lack of coordination. At a recent select committee session a group of international experts laid out with depressing clarity the multiple ways in which our system fails. We don’t direct our young people to what the labour market actually needs. We have shifted the apprenticeship system away from new labour market entrants. We act much too late, when young people are already in the benefit system, rather than spotting risks and intervening when they are still at school. And, underpinning all this, there is no overall structure or system where everybody works towards a common goal.

Our current systems for preventing and responding to young people who are NEET are plainly a long way from best practice. But the results that other countries achieve, and the progress made in reducing youth disadvantage in our own past, should give us hope. This problem is not intractable. It simply needs to be tackled in a logical, coordinated way, across government, national and local.

Today’s NEET problem has important differences from the situation 25 years ago. Mental health is a stronger driver now than it was then. New technology is dramatically affecting both the jobs that are available, and the experience of applying for them. Degrees and higher-level qualifications are less of a protection against being NEET than they were in the 2000s.

But many of the drivers of current NEET levels are the same issues that were successfully tackled in the 2000s. Persistent school absence. Lack of guidance and support with post-16 transitions. Availability of high-quality post-16 provision. Lack of joined-up support for the most vulnerable.

So, my advice to the government is to look hard at what has worked in the past. Invest in prevention. Tackle persistent absence. Build effective partnership with local government. Fill the support gaps for vulnerable groups. Work with local areas to rebuild a Connexions infrastructure, recreating its strengths and addressing its weaknesses. And get central government to step forward with clear, energetic, sustained system leadership, so that we never take our eye off this subject ever again.

Our history shows that governments can improve social outcomes. Young people, and the economy as a whole, badly need this government to try – and to succeed. Like so many other contributors to this Substack, I think many of the answers are staring us in the face. I hope this review provides the impetus to start doing what works again.

Subscribe now

These were the first words from The Rt Hon. The Lord Gove at Monday’s debate with The Rt Hon. Alan Milburn on what rewiring education has to do with tackling the NEETs crisis. Indeed, perhaps the most striking observation on Monday morning was the level of agreement between these two important figures of Conservative and Labour politics.

The NEETs crisis, as searingly diagnosed in the interim Milburn Review, is a multilayered issue that cuts horizontally across many areas of government. There are cumulative crises in the youth labour market, and education, health, and welfare systems. But Monday’s event focused on education.

The conclusion was clear: English education exists in a paradox. It is true that standards have increased tremendously; it is also true that parts of the education system need rewiring – a ‘workout’, as Lord Gove put it.

Standards have unquestionably improved. England has climbed impressively in PISA, PIRLS, and TIMSS international rankings, with the proportion of schools rated highly in inspection rising, and the proportion passing GCSE English and Maths at 16 up from a little over half to nearly three quarters. These are great successes.

As Milburn stressed on Monday ‘A lot of the things Michael did were entirely right … raising expectations in schools, liberating teachers, respecting the craft of teaching, focusing on phonetics at an early age. These were the right things to do, and they had a good and lasting impact.’

And yet the education system is intolerably ineffective at bridging young people into meaningful destinations. Too many fail to achieve basic qualifications, and too few who achieve such qualifications transition effectively into work.

In the UK, 13.5 per cent of 16-year-olds are not in education, employment or training. This compares to 3.9 per cent of Dutch 15-to-24-year-olds, or 8.2 per cent in Germany. Concerningly, these are also reflected in the numbers in vocational education.

There are two separate issues here. Even after good progress, it remains the case that too many are not achieving basic qualifications. Separately, among those who are achieving basic qualifications their value as a ticket into work is faltering – and a fundamental element is underappreciating technical education.

Too many fall through the cracks

‘Bridget Phillipson has been right. I think that an emphasis on school readiness is correct. I think that one of the things that the Coalition Government got wrong was its neglect of the Sure Start system. Many of those who go onto become NEET are those who arrive at school unready.’

Monday also saw Lord Gove affirming one of the sharpest insights in the interim Milburn review: how early those who fail to achieve in education fall behind. Children who are not school-ready at ages 4 to 5 are nearly three times as likely to be NEET at ages 16 to 17 years. For those behind at 11 this is more than three times.

Those who fall behind early fall further behind at each subsequent step. We see the sharp end of this in aggregate data. The incidence of home-schooling trebles from Years 6 to 10. Severe absence increases by six times. Permanent exclusions, seven times. Suspensions, eight times.

We need to catch more before they fall behind, and we need to be far more effective at catching up those who have fallen behind.

We are distorted away from technical

‘We need to rewire the education and skills system so that Britain can become a technical education superpower and not just a higher education superpower. Frankly, we’re a very long way from that today.’

As Milburn alluded to, the United Kingdom has, per capita, the world’s greatest university system. We have five universities in the global top 30. The entirety of the EU has one. This is extraordinary. But it does not mean everyone should go to university.

It does not mean that just seven per cent of those finishing 16-18 education entering apprenticeships – while 38 per cent enter higher education – is fine. We have fewer under 19 apprentices than Switzerland despite having over seven times the population.

Our education system is distorted away from technical. Both in inputs and outcomes: salaries for FE college teachers are over £10,000 lower on average than their secondary school equivalents, while FE college leavers are two-and-a-half times as likely as school leavers to attain no destination at 18.

The distortions this causes are huge. Nearly half of vacancies in skilled trades and construction are from skills shortages, whilst graduates from universities outside the top 20 are twice as likely to be in low-skilled work as those from the top 20.

We are not producing the balance of competencies in those who are ‘doing everything right’ in education to match the jobs needed, and it is undermining life chances. If they do take higher apprentices, CSJ analysis revealed earlier this year that young people can expect some £5,000 more in annual salaries on average five years after qualifying than their mates who went to uni.

Learning from the best

At the Centre for Social Justice, in our Rewiring Education research, we are confident the best ideas come from those already solving the problems we face. It’s why we get much of our insight from small charities, and why we have looked abroad to understand how we can rewire education.

We will soon be publishing our second Rewiring Education report, exploring how education can contribute to solving the NEETs crisis. We centre on the lessons of four countries: the Netherlands, Germany, Japan and Singapore. These countries are very different – and we must not try to copy and paste – but they lay out a combined blueprint that is aspirational and achievable.

First, expectations and standards are fundamental in ensuring children do not fall from the cracks. Japan are the standard bearers here, because they understand that this is based at home and culture as well as the classroom. PISA and other OECD data show us how Japan has one of the lowest levels of classroom disruption, excellent attendance, much more respect for teachers and far higher parental expectations than we do. They also have children consistently raised by married couples that tend to remain stable over children’s lives. We must acknowledge that expectations, discipline, and an acknowledgement of the importance of family structure are all crucial to children starting on the right track.

Second, career’s education is unignorable in keeping engaged and catching up those who are wobbling in their schooling. Singapore – who top PISA – prioritise it. In the words of their Ministry of Education, Singapore’s ‘Education and Career Guidance’ programme, studied in both primary and secondary education, ‘helps our children develop a growth mindset, adaptability and a resilient attitude to embrace future opportunities and appreciate the value of all occupations’. We should have one that does the same.

Third, technical education achieves parity of esteem when well-resourced and emphasised younger. The Dutch early-stratification system may not be something we should exactly replicate, but we can learn much from it. By splitting at 12, the Dutch commit wholeheartedly to the value of technical routes as rigorous and sufficient to prepare for a flourishing adult life. Fortified by initiatives such as door-knocking for absent children.

Finally, technical education must be delivered locally. It is no coincidence that – like the Dutch – Germany’s technical system is delivered at a regional (Länder) level. Over 60 per cent of decisions in lower secondary education are made at the level of the 16 Länder, compared to 11 per cent on average across the OECD. They understand that technical education functioning necessitates employer engagement, at that employers exist somewhere, not everywhere.

We can and must rewire our education system, and this moment of crisis must be understood as something else as well: a moment of opportunity.

References found in: Imminent Rewiring Education: Part 2 report

Share

And to be blunt, we’ve made it much more difficult for young people to get on the first rung of the ladder, often in the name of protecting them, and we need to really think about how we replace what we’ve taken away.

At Brighton & Hove Albion we employ thousands of people directly and indirectly. Every week we receive multiple requests from young people who want experience in football. Not just as players, but in media, commercial, finance, operations, coaching, sports science and community work.

As chair of Football Beyond Borders, I also spend time in schools in some of the most deprived communities in the country. I meet young people with huge potential, but very limited experience of the world of work. Some don’t have role models in stable careers. Some don’t know anyone who enjoys their job, let alone believes they have a future in one.

It is not a lack of ambition. It is a lack of access, confidence and trusted guidance.

At the same time, employers are nervous. Safeguarding, health and safety, HMRC rules around work experience all matter, and they exist for good reasons. But the cumulative effect is an environment where hosting a 15-year-old for a week’s work experience feels bureaucratic, risky and, frankly, scary.

In many organisations today, to offer work experience means assigning a member of staff to supervise constantly. That isn’t realistic for anyone. It is an experience that is alien and artificial.

Then, once the young person eventually enters a workplace full time, the adjustment is brutal and we complain they aren’t work ready.

Most employers I speak to want to help young people. They remember their own first opportunities. I certainly do. My generation had the run of it. Weeks, months, summer holidays embedded in real businesses, learning the basics, making mistakes and growing up fast.

But today employers are held back by fear. We have created a culture where it feels safer to say no.

That is not sustainable. Economically or socially. If we don’t provide these opportunities, we are closing off potentially huge talent pools.

There is also a narrative that young people do not want to work hard, expect instant rewards and will not do the menial jobs. Some of that exists, as it always has, but it is absolutely not the full story.

What I see, particularly through Football Beyond Borders, are young people who are desperate for someone to believe in them, to challenge them and to be honest with them. Many have never been taught that disappointment and setbacks are not failures. They are part of life.

In football we talk about this all the time. We do young people no favours pretending otherwise.

It comes with good intentions, but much of this stems from the new millennium, everyone-gets-a-medal mentality, something which only stifles ambition. High performance, in sport or business, requires resilience, accountability and commitment. Those willing to show that and step out of their comfort zone are the ones who succeed. Determination is still the biggest differentiator. It’s essential we don’t lower standards. We need to help more young people reach them.

Football reaches places government and business often do not. It is culturally relevant, emotionally powerful and trusted. When a football club speaks, young people listen. Through academies, foundations and charities, football clubs up and down the country are doing extraordinary work far beyond the national curriculum. Mentoring, education, employability skills, health support and pathways into work.

The Premier League and EFL invest millions of pounds into our communities every year. In my experience, football takes its social responsibility more seriously than many other industries.

At Brighton, we have tried to be creative. We have introduced an apprenticeship model, rotating young people across departments so they understand how a complex organisation actually works.

Organisations like Football Beyond Borders are vital here. The concept of a trusted adult, a mentor and a consistent presence, can be transformational.

So, what needs to change?

First, we need joined up thinking. Business, government and education all pulling in the same direction.

Second, we need to find a way to overcome the fear culture for employers. Safeguarding and opportunity are not mutually exclusive. We can protect young

people while giving them real exposure to the world of work, but it requires proportionate regulation and trust.

Third, we need to be honest with young people. Education alone is not enough. A first-class degree is impressive, but commitment to your chosen industry matters more. Volunteering is one way. Helping at a non-league club is another. Or gaining a coaching badge or refereeing qualification. Showing up consistently. That is what sets people apart.

And finally, we need to recognise something uncomfortable. My generation have had the benefit, but we have unwittingly pulled up the drawbridge behind us.

We did not earn those opportunities, we were afforded them. It must be our aim to start doing it again.

If we do not, we should not be surprised when talented young people fall into bad habits and cycles, they cannot see a way out of.

Football can help. Business should help. Government must help.

But above all, we have to do it together.

Subscribe now

Alan’s interim report is a tragic reflection of the current state of the youth inactivity challenge. Every young person should have the opportunity to succeed and enjoy the benefits of work, and there is no escaping the fact that the labour market outlook is bleak. Over one million young people are out of education, employment or training (NEET), and the youth unemployment rate is the highest it’s been in over a decade.

Trends across the wider labour market are also concerning. Headline unemployment has crept up, while vacancies keep falling to new post-pandemic lows. And there is no sign of improvement on the horizon. In fact, the problem is set to get worse; by the end of the year, we predict that the headline unemployment rate will climb to 5.5%, subdued hiring in the private sector will persist, and inflation will rise towards 4%.[1]

The conclusion is indisputable: inaction is not a viable response. Steps to address the wider range of barriers to work highlighted in the Milburn Review’s interim report – particularly mental health – are needed, but the most important change will be to get employers hiring again.

Poor growth is preventing firms from being able to deliver the opportunities and support needed to bring more young people into the workplace

Over the past few months, we have spoken to a wide range of businesses across the country about youth inactivity. These conversations have exposed an important truth: there is no deficit of talent or ambition in young people, or shortage of employers who want to do more to support young people into work.

It is wrong to frame the youth inactivity challenge as being driven by a business reluctance to hire young people - the problem is that firms are avoiding hiring altogether. And the inability to hire is rooted in challenging macroeconomic conditions – particularly rising business costs – making it harder for employers to operate sustainably and grow.

Some cost pressure is not automatically bad; it can encourage businesses to think more strategically about how they spend their budgets, and it is right to consider what a fair business tax regime looks like.

But there is clear and growing evidence to suggest that employers across the economy have reached a tipping point, and the cost of doing business is simply not sustainable. Businesses’ share of the tax burden has reached its highest level this century, generating almost £350bn per year.[2] On top of this, firms are battling high energy costs,[3] tariff rises and the cost of hiring rising significantly. Last April alone, the labour costs for employing a part-time adult minimum wage earner increased by 14.2%.[4]

In response to higher costs, discretionary budgets – such as recruitment and training – are naturally among the first and hardest hit. Employers have repeatedly told us that they want to offer more entry-level jobs and training opportunities, but wider cost pressures are simply making this unaffordable. And recent policy decisions – such as Growth and Skills Levy defunding – have further constrained firms’ ability to create routes into work.

As such, the cost of doing business cannot be treated as a peripheral problem to the youth inactivity challenge. The only way that firms will be able to create the jobs and training opportunities needed to bring youth inactivity figures down is if the cost pressures holding back jobs, investment and growth are tackled. Reducing cost will also be key to unlocking business investment in areas such as health and well-being, which we know will be incredibly important to supporting more young people into the labour market.

It is critical that the youth inactivity response recognises that growth must come first. Expecting businesses to recruit and train their way to growth ignores the reality that growth is what funds opportunities, and only when firms grow will demand for jobs and training follow.

A reduction in youth inactivity requires business cost pressures being addressed

The Milburn Review’s final report has huge potential to change the policy landscape for the better and unlock business investment in young people and their future.

But to be effective, the report must address the problem of rising business costs. It was positive to see it recognised in the interim report, and now is the time to have a conversation with businesses across the economy about the possibilities for reform – and what can be achieved by confronting this barrier to opportunity.

[1] CBI Economic Forecast, June 2026. See here.

[2] CBI, Business tax contribution 2025/26, June 2026. See here.

[3] CBI and Energy UK, Cutting business energy costs: The case for action, February 2026. See here.

[4] Resolution Foundation, Minimum Wage, Maximum Pressure: The impact of 2025’s minimum wage and employer NICs increases, March 2025. See here.

That is the question at the heart of this week’s Learning Disability Week. Nowhere is this question more pressing than in the workplace.

Britain is finally paying attention to the rising tide of young people not in education, employment or training. The Milburn Review has pushed questions about mental health, benefits, education, neurodivergence and economic exclusion of the young firmly into the political mainstream.

But there is one group still largely missing from the conversation - young people with a learning disability. For them, exclusion from employment is not new.

It is a longstanding crisis visible in the statistics, visible in calls to Mencap’s Learning Disability helpline asking for advice and information on employment and training options, and visible in the number of talented people still being shut out of work before they can start to build a career. Visible yet all too invisible.

There are around a million working-age adults with a learning disability in the UK. The general employment rate in the UK is 75%. The employment rate for disabled people drops to 52.8%. For people with a learning disability, it is half of even that. That is not an employment gap. It is a chasm.

Yet one Mencap study found that 86% of people with a learning disability want a paid job.

The issue here is not lack of will, it is a lack of opportunity and support.

The issue is rooted in misunderstanding. Learning disability is frequently bundled into broader discussions around mental health conditions, learning difficulties (such as dyslexia) or neurodivergence (such as ADHD and autism), despite being none of these things.

A learning disability is a reduced intellectual ability present from birth or early childhood. It is lifelong and unchanging. It means people may take longer to learn, to understand complex information or to develop new skills. But it does not mean they cannot.

New polling for Mencap shows 80% of employers believe people with a learning disability can be productive at work, yet nearly half didn’t employ someone with a learning disability. The root of this seems to be uncertainty rather than a lack of willing with employers worrying about health and safety, saying or doing the wrong thing, and making reasonable adjustments. In reality, these adjustments are often small but life changing.

Emily is 18, she has a learning disability and is autistic, but small adjustments from her bosses at Booths supermarket in the Lake District – extra support when starting out on the tills and cutting her shifts by 15 minutes - have seen her thrive as she juggles part-time work and studying IT at college.

“I have definitely become more confident since starting work and my communication skills have improved. I feel more mature now,’ she says.

Emily’s mum, Denise, agrees the difference in her daughter has been enormous. “Her confidence has grown so much. We’re so proud of seeing her walk in wearing her uniform, knowing that she’s going into work independently.” Denise would once lie awake at night worried that Emily would never get the chance to establish herself in work. Everything changed when Emily found an employer willing to invest a little extra time and support.”

Yet entry-level jobs – the kind often well suited to people with a learning disability - are disappearing. Application forms are often confusing and inaccessible, and online recruitment can screen candidates out long before they have had a chance to speak to a human.

Sadly, barriers begin long before a first interview and discrimination can be rife.

Aaron, 25, has a learning disability and cerebral palsy. He’s now happy working full-time as a kitchen porter for Baxter Storey and works weekends at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium but this wasn’t always the case. In other jobs he has been belittled by managers, given the most inconvenient shifts and faced criticised for being too slow. Through Mencap’s Inclusive Pathways programme, Aaron found employers who valued and supported him. The difference was not Aaron - It was the support of his employers. Today he’s thriving: “I love working, and right now I’m doing lots of shifts because I’m building my savings. A job gives you that feeling of accomplishment. You feel like you have a bit of purpose when you wake up in the morning.”

Stories like Emily’s and Aaron’s should not be remarkable, they should be standard. While the right workplace and support play a vital role, we must confront the wider debate around disability benefits. Increasingly, some believe disability benefits are discouraging young disabled people from work. That misunderstands both the reality of disability and the purpose of support like Personal Independence Payment, which helps cover the extra costs of disability regardless of whether you are in work. These are costs that do not disappear when someone enters employment. Making people with a learning disability more financially insecure will not incentivise work when they already overwhelmingly want to work. It will only make life harder. Put simply, there is little point in a stick when the carrot is out of reach.

The good news is that we already know what works.

Supported internships, tailored employment programmes like Connect to Work, inclusive employers and a benefit system that maintains financial security while disabled people move closer to work all successfully support people with a learning disability into paid employment.

Schools have a greater role to play too. When success is measured by exam results, young people with a learning disability can fall through the gaps. Preparing young people for work should be just as much a part of education as any qualification.

Janis, 30, is proof that the right support can lead to long-term success. She has a learning disability and visual impairment and has now worked at Tesco for 11 years. At school, expectations were low. But through work experience and skills programmes, she got her foot in the door at 19. More than a decade later, she’s still there. “The best feeling is being able to help a customer or make them smile,” she says. “Don’t underestimate our skills and capabilities and the values we can bring to a workplace, just because we have a learning disability.”

At Mencap, many of our colleagues have a learning disability. They are talented professionals and valued teammates. What holds too many employers back is not cost or capability – it is the fear of getting it wrong.

This Learning Disability Week, Mencap is asking: “Do you see me?”. If we build systems that support more and include more, people with a learning disability will be visible throughout our society, working in our shops, offices, restaurants and businesses. Working alongside you, valued and adding value.

Not overlooked, not underestimated and no longer invisible.

As policymakers search for answers, people with a learning disability must not remain the missing in the million.

Subscribe now

At the same time, the nature of work is changing rapidly. Artificial intelligence is already automating many routine and clerical tasks that traditionally provided entry points into the labour market. Administrative roles, junior professional services jobs and basic digital tasks are increasingly being absorbed by AI-powered tools. For young people without experience, this risks pulling up the career ladder before they can step on it.

AI will drive productivity, and ultimately unlock the growth needed to create new opportunities. But as adoption scales, businesses need to plan for their future talent pipeline to give young people the opportunities they desperately need.

The challenge facing young people – and employers

The rising number of young people who are NEET reflects a complex mix of factors: lower qualification levels, mental health challenges, caring responsibilities and local barriers such as transport or housing. Many want to work but lack the confidence, support or stability to take the first step.

At the same time, the cost of employment has outpaced inflation in recent years, and the Employment Rights Act is immobilising businesses who might have previously taken a risk on an unproven new recruit. Our latest Quarterly Economic Survey shows 73% of firms are struggling with labour costs, rising to 85% of hospitality and leisure firms, where many young people get their first start. Employers can’t invest for the years ahead when they are fighting to keep their business afloat for the next six months.

But businesses want to take young people on; they tell us time and again that they see the potential and want to invest in the next generation. But as they look to improve productivity and manage rising costs, the AI conundrum looms large. Many are increasingly turning to AI-powered tools to streamline tasks, reduce the administrative burden and operate more efficiently. AI is now widely used to support everyday functions, from drafting content and analysing data to automating routine processes.

For most businesses, it is currently augmenting existing roles rather than replacing them outright. But as adoption becomes deeper and more embedded, the impact on job design will become more pronounced. Tasks that were once part of entry-level roles will be increasingly absorbed by AI.

Meanwhile, employers are prioritising higher-level skills and ‘softer’ essential employment skills: problem-solving, adaptability, digital confidence and communication. Young people who leave education without these capabilities are doubly disadvantaged – competing for fewer entry-level roles while lacking the skills employers need now.

Many are recognising this and are already responding to these shifts. Research by the King’s Trust shows that NEET young people are already considering their job opportunities based on the potential future impact of AI. A fifth of young people who are NEET say they have changed their mind about the career they want due to the potential impact of AI. Likewise, 24% of NEET young people have avoided applying for a job or training course because they think AI might replace it.

AI-powered growth can be part of the solution

If we want more young people to access good jobs, we must do more to create the conditions in which more firms can offer them. That means a pro‑growth environment: one in which businesses are confident to invest, able to expand recruitment, and supported to bring in staff who may need more training time or wrap‑around support.

AI can drive that growth. Overall, the evidence indicates that AI is currently boosting productivity more than it is displacing workers. Research by the BCC and the University of Essex shows that firms currently deploying AI report a net productivity expectation of +71 percentage points, yet 95% of firms using the most common AI tools report no impact on their organisation’s headcount over the past 12 months.

But AI could exacerbate youth unemployment trends in the long term, particularly where automation begins to replace routine tasks typically performed by early-career workers. More organisations are now beginning to adopt ‘bespoke’ AI rather than generic tools such as ChatGPT. These firms are much more likely to report organisational restructuring as a result: 20% of firms using bespoke tools reported a decrease in headcount in the last 12 months, compared to just 3% of generic users.

So, technology on its own is not enough. Growth will only translate into opportunity if businesses are also able to invest in people. That means creating an environment where firms have the confidence and headroom to recruit, train and support young people, particularly those who are further from the labour market. A pro-growth AI strategy must go hand in hand with a pro-growth skills system that supports the transition from education into work. Without both, we risk creating an economy that leaves too many people behind.

Where the opportunity lies: LSIPs and local partnerships

One of the most encouraging developments of recent years are employer‑led Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPs). Led, in many cases, by Chambers of Commerce across England, LSIPs bring businesses and training providers together to align local skills provision with real labour‑market needs. In their first two years, LSIPs engaged over 65,500 SMEs, many for the first time.

LSIPs offer a powerful model: they are practical, place‑based, and designed around the real opportunities available to young people locally. The partnerships which have been built for the first time between providers and businesses are having a halo effect across communities.

Take the Berkshire LSIP, led by Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce. The region has a well‑established and rapidly growing TV and film industry, identified by local employers through the LSIP as a priority sector with significant future demand.

Windsor College in Berkshire used capital investment from the Local Skills Improvement Fund to establish a cutting‑edge Virtual Production (VP) Studio, editing suite and podcast facility. More than 400 learners across Creative Media, Performing Arts, Art & Design, Fashion, Hair & Make-Up have already benefited from access to the new facilities. Commercial hire of the VP studio has embedded real‑world experience into the curriculum, with students supporting professional crews on high‑profile Netflix productions. Other sectors, such as law, are also using the immersive environment for courtroom simulations, historical reconstructions and debate settings.

But LSIPs can only deliver their full potential with long‑term stability. That means multi-year funding to allow for ambitious thinking and to embed the strategic partnerships which are just beginning to flourish.

Partnerships in action

The scale of the NEET challenge demands coordinated leadership. Government, employers, educators and community organisations must all play their part. Yet there remains a structural gap in how we assess work readiness in schools. There is currently no Ofsted measure of work readiness or responsiveness to local labour market needs for schools. By contrast, colleges are explicitly assessed on how well they respond to LSIP priorities.

In a labour market increasingly shaped by AI and rapid technological change, this gap is becoming more serious. Young people need earlier exposure to workplaces, clearer understanding of local opportunities, and stronger development of transferable skills that technology cannot easily replace.

The Chamber network stands ready to build the bridge between schools, colleges and employers. The Young Chamber programme, led by the West Cheshire and North Wales Chamber, provides schools and colleges with practical employer engagement opportunities that prepare young people for the world of work. Through industry-specific workshops, a career passport to develop and evidence essential employment skills, and an enterprise challenge, the programme helps students build confidence, understand workplace expectations, and develop skills valued by employers. Across 2023 and 2024:

• The Chamber facilitated 21 events

• Local employers contributed 226 business hours

• 3,128 pupils benefitted from the programme

This kind of joined-up activity could, and should, be replicated at scale across the UK.

The moment to act

Artificial intelligence is reshaping work at all career stages. As entry-level pathways narrow, the risk is that more young people are left without a route in to work.

But this is not inevitable. AI can drive growth and create opportunity if we act now. That means aligning skills, education and business investment with the realities of an AI-driven economy.

This is a defining moment. Get it right, and AI powers growth and opportunity for all. Get it wrong, and it deepens exclusion.

There is no time to waste.

Share

For years, policymakers have treated NEET status as a problem of skills, incentives or, occasionally, attitude. That view is becoming harder to sustain. The latest evidence suggests the real story is not about work-shy youth, but about a cohort whose relationship with work is being reshaped by health—particularly mental health—and by reduced opportunities, in ways the labour market and public services are ill-equipped to accommodate.

Start with the numbers. Between 2015 and 2025, the proportion of NEET young people reporting a work-limiting health condition rose from 26 per cent to 44 per cent—a striking 70 per cent increase. More telling still, NEET young people are now over twice as likely as their peers to experience mental health problems. These figures alone should give pause to anyone inclined to rely on outdated stereotypes.

At one level, this looks like a public health issue spilling into the labour market and welfare system. But it is also something subtler: a feedback loop in which poor mental health both contributes to, and is exacerbated by, economic inactivity. Health Foundation research shows that people who were out of work and in good health in 2011 were significantly more likely to report worse health a decade later than those who remained in employment. Time spent outside work or education is associated with poorer physical and mental health outcomes, diminished long-term prospects, and increased reliance on welfare. In other words, cause and consequence are becoming increasingly difficult to disentangle.

Recent analysis adds an important twist. Mental health conditions and neurodevelopmental differences are now the primary drivers of rising work-limiting illness among young people. This is not simply a story of more young people feeling anxious or depressed, though that is certainly part of it. It reflects a broader shift in the types of barriers young people face when trying to enter, and remain in, the workforce.

Some of this reflects progress. Greater awareness and diagnosis mean that conditions once ignored or mislabelled are now recognised. The proportion of NEET young people with a likely mental health condition has roughly doubled over the past 15 years, which may partly indicate reduced stigma. But recognition without adequate support is a mixed blessing. It clarifies the problem without necessarily solving it.

Meanwhile, the labour market remains stubbornly analogue. Entry-level jobs still tend to reward consistency, sociability and resilience—qualities that can be difficult for those managing mental health challenges or neurodivergent conditions. Employers may talk about inclusion, but the practical adjustments required to make work genuinely accessible remain patchy.

Public services have also been slow to adapt. Too often they respond reactively rather than proactively, and they do not treat future economic inactivity as a risk requiring early intervention and sustained investment. The result is a system that intervenes late, at higher cost, and with more limited impact.

There is also a clear geographical and social dimension. Young people from poorer households, and those living in the north of England, are significantly more likely to become NEET. Mental health acts both as a cause and a correlate of disadvantage, compounding inequalities. Those already facing economic headwinds are more likely to encounter health barriers that further limit participation in work or education.

If all this sounds structural, that is because it is. Yet the instinct in British policy circles is often to reach for targeted interventions—a training scheme here, a wage subsidy there. These have their place, but they do little to address the underlying reality: a growing share of young people are not workless by choice, but by circumstance.

The timing is not coincidental. The rise in mental health difficulties among young people has been well documented, with referrals increasing sharply in recent years. Layer on the aftershocks of the pandemic, the pressures of the cost-of-living crisis, cuts to public services, and a labour market offering fewer clear entry points, and the picture becomes clearer. This is not a single crisis, but a convergence of several.

What, then, is to be done? That is the focus of the next phase of the NEETs review. But some principles are already clear.

First, this demands a cross-government mission with a long-term horizon. Reducing the number of NEET young people cannot be achieved through short-term initiatives or departmental silos. It requires sustained coordination across health, education and employment policy, backed by consistent investment over at least a decade. Cross-party consensus will be essential—though difficult in an era of political polarisation.

There is a precedent. Analysis by Moira Wallace, former head of the Social Exclusion Unit, shows that investment and coordinated policy between 2000 and 2010 led to measurable improvements in educational attainment, early years development, teenage pregnancy rates and crime. Many of these gains were subsequently reversed during the following decade of austerity, with corresponding deterioration across these indicators. The lesson is clear: progress is possible, but it is not guaranteed, and it can be undone. Hear Moira on this podcast here.

Second, there needs to be a cultural shift in how we think about young people outside work or education. Research from the Health Foundation suggests many do not see themselves as disengaged, but as navigating complex personal and structural challenges. What they often lack is not motivation, but support—both practical and emotional.

Access to trusted relationships matters. Young people consistently point to the importance of mentors, social networks and supportive adults who can offer guidance and encouragement. For many, these supports are absent. Addressing this gap may seem costly, but the long-term costs of inaction are far greater.

Third, rethink the interface between health and work. The traditional model—where individuals are expected to be fully “work-ready” before entering employment—is increasingly outdated. A more flexible approach, allowing for gradual engagement with work alongside ongoing support, may be better suited to the realities many young people face.

Finally, mental health services themselves require greater investment, particularly in early intervention. If nearly half of NEET young people report work-limiting health conditions, then the current level of provision is clearly insufficient. Yet NHS mental health services are overstretched, and funding is declining as a share of the overall NHS budget.

It is tempting to see the rise in NEET young people as a discrete problem to be solved. But it may be more accurate—and more useful—to see it as a symptom of broader societal shifts. The boundaries between health and work are blurring, expectations on young people are evolving, and the systems designed to support them are struggling to keep up.

This points to an uncomfortable conclusion. Addressing the challenge will require sustained, coordinated and adaptive policymaking across government. The question is whether we can meet that challenge. We have done it before. The real question is whether we can do so again.

The review will say what is wrong and what needs to change. It is a strong piece of work, and the recommendations are serious. There is a great deal wrong with the system. But there is something I keep coming back to that runs through all of it, and that the formal analysis does not quite get at.

It comes before the waiting lists, the referral pathways and the funding models; before the labour market, the curriculum and the benefits system. The question I keep returning to is a simpler one: who is holding the kids?

I do not just mean who is legally responsible for them, or which service has the case. I mean who really knows them, who is there regularly, who notices when something is wrong, who helps them feel they matter and that they belong. Because however much we reform services, schools or employment support, we cannot get away from the fact that many children are arriving into those systems without having had the nurture they needed much earlier.

I keep coming back to that word: nurture. It is not fashionable language in policy circles, and it does not fit neatly into targets or frameworks, but it sits underneath almost everything. When it is missing, the effects do not stay within family life. They show up later in school, in attendance, in mental health, in confidence, in relationships, and eventually in whether a young person can imagine a place for themselves in education or work.

Not every child is raised by their parents. Some are brought up by grandparents, foster carers, older siblings, or in kinship arrangements that the system still barely seems to understand. Family structure matters less than what happens inside it. Does someone know this child well? Is there an adult who is reliably there? Does the child feel they belong somewhere, and to someone? When that is present, a child can cope with a lot. When it is not, everything that comes later is being built on foundations that were never really laid.

The picture at home is troubling, and in many ways it is getting harder. This is not about blaming parents or carers. Most are doing their best in conditions that have become more pressured and less forgiving over time. Two parents may both be working, often in jobs with no flexibility at all. Single parents are carrying everything. Grandparents are raising grandchildren with little of the support offered to formal foster placements. Families are moved repeatedly by unstable housing, and children lose schools, friends and any sense of continuity. Poverty matters here not only because it puts pressure on adults, but because it shapes childhood directly through stress, insecurity, poor housing and the narrowing of what feels possible.

But it is not only economics. Something has changed in everyday family life, and I do not think we are honest enough about that. Mealtimes once gave children a regular chance to talk and adults a regular chance to listen. It was where you learned to take turns, follow a conversation, read someone’s mood, disagree without everything falling apart. In many homes, that has been worn away. Work has become more fragmented and more consuming, families are stretched, and screens have filled a lot of the space that used to be spent talking or just being together.

A child watching TikTok at the dinner table is not talking to their parent. A parent distracted by emails or their phone is not really present, even if they are sitting there. The small moments from which nurture is built — the walk to school, the chat at bedtime, the scraps of unstructured time in which children used to end up talking to the people around them — are easier now to lose. Screens are not the whole explanation, and I am not pretending there was once some perfect family life against which all current parents fall short. But many children do now have less sustained attention from the adults around them, and for some of them that means whole days can pass without ever really feeling noticed.

Teachers can see it. Children are arriving less able to hold a conversation, less able to listen, and less able to cope when they are not being constantly stimulated. That is not just a question of behaviour or discipline. It points to something having shifted in how some children are developing socially and emotionally, and much of that begins long before school has any chance to intervene.

Then there are the children for whom parenting has not simply been stretched thin, but has been almost entirely absent. Children in care. Children whose parents are struggling with addiction, mental ill health, or both. Children in homes where nobody reads to them, nobody asks how school was, and nobody is available when things fall apart. The television may be on, but the adult in the room is not coping. There is no routine, no predictability and nothing the child can trust will be the same tomorrow as it was today. Those children often learn very early that adults are unreliable, and that expecting very little is safer than hoping for more. They learn not to ask for too much. Sometimes they stop asking altogether.

By adolescence, the effects are often deep and obvious. Confidence has drained away. Trust in adults is fragile or absent. The basic things school, work and relationships depend on have been undermined long before anyone in a formal system begins trying to help. This is not because those young people are inherently difficult, or because they do not care. Many of them are trying very hard simply to keep going. But they are doing so without the foundations that other children are more likely to have been given, and often without much sense that anyone expects very much from them.

One of the things I hear repeatedly is that many of these children were never really helped to work out what they were good at. Nobody took the time to ask what they enjoyed, what interested them, what gave them a sense of competence, or what sort of future they could picture for themselves. Nobody helped them see more of what might be out there for them and then think seriously about where they might fit. Instead, many moved through a system that largely sorted them by grades, and if they did not fit that model especially well they were often left to make sense of themselves alone. Too many reached sixteen with little idea of what they could do, not because they lacked ability, but because nobody had ever properly helped them imagine that they might have something real to offer.

The children who end up furthest from participation are often visible long before they get there. They may not be talking at two, struggling to manage their emotions at five, withdrawn at seven, or persistently absent by twelve. The signs are often there early. We are not incapable of spotting them. What we fail to do, again and again, is respond early enough and with enough force. A concern is noted, perhaps passed to another service, perhaps placed on a waiting list, and then very little happens for a very long time. By the time support arrives, the gap has widened and the child has often already taken in the message that nobody is really coming. That is a hard thing for any child to learn, and some learn it far too young.

That is one reason early years support matters so much. Health visitors, speech and language support, family help, early intervention services and schools that can respond quickly all make a difference. Yet these are often the parts of the system that have become thinnest. We talk endlessly about acting early while accepting arrangements that make early action extraordinarily hard.

Where a child is falling behind socially or emotionally, the response ought to carry the same seriousness as any other developmental concern. A child who cannot form relationships, who cannot manage their feelings, or who has learned not to trust the adults around them is carrying something that will shape everything else. We would not leave a child with an untreated hearing problem sitting unsupported in a classroom and then act surprised when they struggled. Yet we do the equivalent all the time with children whose emotional development has been disrupted, and later talk as if their disengagement came out of nowhere.

Every child needs to feel that they belong somewhere: at home if possible, at school, and within their wider community. Children are not held only by parents. For some, the adult who makes the difference is a grandparent, a teacher, a foster carer, a youth worker, a sports coach, or a neighbour who keeps showing up. That is one reason the loss of so many community institutions matters too. Youth clubs, children’s centres, local groups and informal neighbourhood networks once gave children more places in which they could feel known.

Belonging is not a soft extra. It is one of the things that keeps a child connected to the world around them. A child who feels part of something is more likely to keep turning up; a child who feels invisible will often stop trying. We see the consequences later in attendance, in exclusions and in NEET figures, but by the time those patterns show up in the data, this has usually been building for years.

The adults around children need enough space to nurture them properly. That means parents, carers, grandparents, foster families, teachers and youth workers having the time and support to build real relationships with the children in front of them. It means class sizes and caseloads that allow adults to know children as people rather than simply manage them. It means recognising what is being carried by kinship carers and grandparents, often with very little support. It also means being honest about what has happened to teaching, a profession many entered because they wanted to know and support children, and which is now too often crowded out by administration, data demands, inspections and targets.

None of this means nurture is a substitute for functioning services, good schools, better mental health support or real routes into work. It is not an alternative to structural reform. But it is the foundation that makes those things more likely to work.

The review I have been working on will set out what the system needs to do, and I believe that work matters. But what has stayed with me most is not only the scale of system failure. It is how many children in this country have never been properly known, never been asked what they enjoy, never been shown what they might become, and never had an adult stay long enough for that relationship to mean something.

For those children, the most important intervention will often begin not with a policy, but with a person: someone with the time, steadiness and support to be there. Someone who notices. Someone who stays. Until we face that more honestly, I think much of what we build in policy will continue to arrive too late, and deal with only part of the problem.

Share

Over the past few months, that story has fallen apart in front of us.

For the Milburn Review into young people and work, we were asked to listen deeply to young people across the UK. We had already worked together on Inside the Mind of a 16-Year-Old, which explored how young people in schools and colleges thought about politics, identity, opportunity and the future. This new project was different. This time, we wanted to understand what happens when young people fall out of education, employment or training, or when they are close to doing so.

We travelled across all four nations of the UK: Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast and Wrexham, as well as places across England including Bradford, Bristol, Newcastle, St Neots, Bury, Camden, Clacton and Rhyl. Along the way, we spoke to more than 400 young people.

They were not one group. Some were currently NEET. Others were still in school but already identified as at risk of disengaging. We spoke to those who had been out of education and work for years. And to those who were young carers, care leavers, young people with disabilities, young people looking for work, young people who had drifted and young people trying, again, to get back on track.

We worked with brilliant charities, youth workers, colleges, employability programmes and frontline organisations who helped bring young people together in spaces where they could speak honestly. The format was deliberately open. We were not trying to push them through a narrow questionnaire or force their lives into policy categories. We wanted to hear how they described school, work, family, confidence, rejection, boredom, hope and the future.

Each young person completed a short survey about their background, experiences, and views. We also recorded the workshops, with permission, so that the report could be built around what young people actually said, not what adults assumed they meant.

What we heard was painful, but it was not a story of laziness. Again and again, young people told us they wanted work. They wanted money, independence, routine, purpose and a reason to get up.

We believed that a traffic light system was a useful way of explaining how far young people were from work.

Red was for those who needed a lot of support. The barrier might be trauma, mental ill-health, unstable housing, caring responsibilities or years of feeling unsafe. They were not ready to be pushed straight into a standard job and left to sink or swim. They needed safety, routine, confidence, health, housing and trust.

Amber described those for whom the barrier was specific and solvable. It might be a missed GCSE grade or a course that ended with no next step or even a lack of travel money. In many cases the support of an adult was crucial..

Green described a group who were ready to work. But the barrier sat almost entirely with employers and systems. They were ready to work. Some had qualifications, experience or clear ambition. But they were stuck in a rejection economy: application after application, no reply, no feedback and no way to improve.

That is why the word NEET can be so misleading. It tells us someone is outside education, employment or training. It tells us almost nothing about why. A young care leaver with severe anxiety, a graduate with a first-class degree, a young carer who cannot commit to fixed hours and a school leaver who missed maths by one grade may all sit under the same label. But they do not need the same help.

The most striking thing, though, was not only the hardship, It was the hidden potential.

We met young people learning Russian on Duolingo, fixing cars, caring for horses, making music, doing archery, building garden planters, crocheting, baking, drawing, streaming, designing press-on nails and dreaming about businesses of their own. Too often, no one had asked them about these things or had helped them turn an interest into a path.

Too much of the system starts with what young people lack.. But a strengths-based approach would ask different questions: What are you good at? What do you care about? Who has noticed? What would it take to build from there?

The young people we met were not asking for pity. Many were funny, blunt, self-aware and frustrated. Some were angry, many were tired. Most had been let down at moments when the right support could have changed the direction of their lives.

Read the full report, Inside the Mind of a Young NEET.

Co-written by Peter Hyman, mid-fifties white ex-headteacher and political strategist, and Shuab Gamote, a mid-twenties Black researcher and policy advisor from Manchester.

They have spent months travelling across the UK listening to more than 400 young people who are NEET (not in education, employment or training). This included care leavers, young carers, graduates, those with mental health or neurological diverse conditions.

To feed into Alan Milburn’s independent review, they did something simple – really listen. Not to statistics. Not to officials. To the young people themselves.

What they heard from the young people was stark. A resilient, talented generation has been failed by a system designed for a world that no longer exists.

School left them unprepared for the real world. From Year 7 to GCSE, young people said school offered no practical life skills. Rigid structures crushed those who didn’t fit the mould.

Then Covid robbed them of socialisation and work experience. Years of lockdown at the most crucial years became habits of withdrawal that many never fully shook off.

And then finally when trying to get a job, the door was locked. Entry level jobs demanding years of experience. Hundreds of applications disappearing into silence.

Every transition felt like a cliff edge, not a springboard. And at almost every crucial moment, there was no trusted adult to catch them.

This isn’t just a welfare issue or an employment statistic. It is, as the report sets out, a story of national neglect. The words of these 400 young people should be a spur to action.

Download the full report below

Inside The Mind Of A Young Neet Report

2.6MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Share

Sadly, but not all that surprisingly, too many people feel there isn’t – that their kids will be worse off than they are. Parents talk to me about children who have done everything that has been asked of them, but who still can’t see a way in to a good career. Employers are frustrated that they have vacancies to fill but no clear pipeline of local talent. And the other day, one crestfallen young man asked me a simple, searching question – what is the point of all of this effort if there still isn’t a place for me at the end of it?

These are the conversations that really stay with you, because they remind you that behind every statistic about young people not in education, employment or training, is someone who wants desperately to contribute and make something of their lives, but who is navigating a system that is confusing, fragmented and, too often, that nobody is responsible for overseeing and improving. A system where no-one is holding their hand through life’s transitions.

From where I sit as the Mayor of West Yorkshire, that lack of accountability is the single biggest structural problem we face in tackling youth unemployment. In England, no one really “owns” the full journey a young person takes from education into work. Responsibilities are split across multiple government departments, local authorities, colleges, Jobcentre Plus, health services and national programmes that rarely speak the same language. At key transition points – like leaving school at 16, or finishing college at 18 – too many young people simply fall through the gaps.

And once that happens, our response is often too little, too late. We wait until someone has already disengaged from education before trying to get them back on track. Our tracking of young people and where they end up is inconsistent. Data isn’t shared properly between agencies. Some young people become completely unknown to the system, while others who are known to services early on just don’t get the support they need later in life.

As a Mayor, that creates a very particular kind of frustration. Locally, we can often see where things are starting to go wrong. We know which neighbourhoods face the highest risks of young people falling out of education and work. We know where demand for training – especially in key sectors like construction, healthcare or digital – far outstrips the number of funded places available. And we know when young people are ready for work but simply can’t get onto the first rung of the ladder, because the entry‑level jobs or apprenticeships they need just aren’t there.

But knowing is not the same as being empowered to act.

Mayors are rightly expected to take responsibility for economic growth, skills and employment. Yet the levers we have are partial, funding has been short-term and siloed, and national programmes land on our patches without any alignment to what’s already in place and working on the ground. Instead of clarity, young people are too often faced with a confused picture.

It doesn’t have to be like this. I recently returned from a trade mission to Switzerland and Germany, where high-quality vocational training and close cooperation between employers and the education system is the norm, not the exception. Other countries have systems where it is obvious who’s in charge, where technical routes are valued alongside academic ones, and where young people can expect a smooth transition from school to work. Here, we have built something that is overly complex and academic, with rigid pathways that work well for some, but that quietly deprive many others from a fair shot at flourishing.

Every time I visit a college or training provider in West Yorkshire, I’m reminded that the problem is not a lack of talent or aspiration. I meet young people returning to learning after a difficult experience at school, rebuilding their confidence step by step. I see creativity, resilience and Yorkshire grit in abundance. What they need is a system that meets them where they are, values the abilities they have as well as those they have not, and connects their learning to real opportunities in the real world. A system that “sees” them.

That is why place matters so much. Local leaders understand the reality of young people’s lives – the education settings they can physically get to, the employers that are actually recruiting, and the barriers that sit outside of education altogether, from transport and housing to mental health and crime. When we take a joined‑up, place‑based approach in West Yorkshire, we begin to see better results – clearer pathways, stronger relationships between colleges, training providers and employers, and support that wraps around and guides people forward, rather than leaves them to navigate the maze alone.

Devolution is not a silver bullet. But it is, in my view, the green shoot of hope in the fight against youth unemployment. It allows us to join the dots locally, respond more quickly to labour market demand, and build support that gives local people the skills they need for local jobs. What it doesn’t yet give us is full accountability, sufficient funding, or seamless access to the data we need to track young people and intervene early and effectively with the right support that works for them.

And that’s the contradiction at the heart of being a Mayor today. We are close enough to our communities to see what works. We are trusted enough to lead change. But we are still operating within a national framework that is weirdly complex, slow to adapt, and unclear about who ultimately is responsible for the success of the millions of young people we’re proud to represent.

As we reflect on what these local elections say about our economy, I hope we can all agree on the need to finally offer young people in England the focus and the funding they deserve. If we are serious about growth, fairness, and ensuring that every young person is either earning or learning, then we need a system that is simpler, easier and truly designed around their lives. That means clearer accountability set nationally – and real trust in places to deliver locally.

Young people are ready to graft, and places like West Yorkshire stand ready to deliver. Now is the time to empower us to build the stronger, fairer economy our young people need and deserve.

Share

I have spent the last 8 years developing the Sizewell C project in East Suffolk which, at peak, will employ around 10,000 people in the region. On the one hand, in this area high quality job opportunities are scarce. On the other hand, the cost of Sizewell C (which is paid for by consumers) is lower if local people are employed over moving people into the area - by around £100 per person per day.

The burden on taxpayers is lower if people on benefits can get jobs, the level of public dissatisfaction with the disruption is lower if there are more and better local jobs and more joined up thinking. Connecting these issues is in everyone’s interests - and never more so than during a cost-of-living crisis.

To put some numbers on this, of the Government’s Infrastructure Pipeline worth £718bn over the next ten years, around £220bn is planned for the east of England.

In that region, 131,235 people are actively seeking employment (31,600 in Norfolk and Suffolk alone). In a local town, 10% of young people leaving school at 16 are out of education, training or employment 2 terms into the next academic year. 27% of children in East Suffolk live in low-income families. In the town nearest to Sizewell C, 40% of families qualify for free school meals.

The estimated cost of Sizewell C is £38bn and there are several other nationally significant energy projects in construction or in planning in the same area.

The clean energy transition is essential - for our energy security, for climate and as global politics become ever more volatile, to buffer against the kind of energy shocks that hit British households hard.

But the transition itself is also seen to be putting up energy bills and political consensus on the right way ahead is fraying.

The more that clean energy infrastructure can be useful not only in terms of the electricity produced, but also in the way it is delivered - through maximising local employment, raising educational attainment, offering opportunities to people on benefits or those who need a second chance as they are released on licence - the more its wider value in society will be appreciated.

What gets in the way?

The case inside Government for infrastructure projects has not placed a high value on the tax paid on UK content, or on the reduced burden of moving people off benefits and into work - so there has not always been much of a government ‘ask’.

In parts of East Suffolk, education has not created an ideal platform for maximising local employment: in at least one school, 60% of young people fail to achieve level 4 in Maths GCSE, which is a minimum requirement for eligibility for apprenticeships.

Discussion and funding around infrastructure skills tends to focus at FE level - which is essential - but for long term projects the work needs to start earlier, in schools.

ONS data tells us that the ‘fill rate’ for Universal Credit claimants seeking work in construction stands at 2% despite all the training and funded projects.

And poor public transport in rural areas is a significant barrier both to further education and to work, and the planning system tends to create disaggregated ‘mitigation’ funds rather than encouraging joined up, systemic improvements for common benefit.

Attitudes to new infrastructure

When I started talking to people in Leiston about the plan to build Sizewell C on the edge of their town, I was very struck by the level of cynicism about whether the power station would really bring good jobs for local people.

I heard a lot about how the building of Sizewell A in the 1960s and Sizewell B in the 1990s were remembered as offering mainly low-level jobs locally, with better paid roles going to people driving in from outside, and construction turning Leiston into ‘the Wild West’ (in the east). This disconnect between the presence of major infrastructure and local belief that the good jobs will be available to them needs to be addressed head on.

This resonates with James Saoulli, CEO of Rullion - the UK’s largest workforce solutions provider in critical infrastructure - who highlights two underappreciated barriers, family influence and legacy:

“A missing link in the skills conversation, especially when it comes to early careers, is the family element. Through our own involvement in Sizewell C, especially on the early careers side, we are seeing that parents and guardians often shape career choices long before a young person meets an employer, college or careers adviser. Even in higher education, careers teams are stretched, often with close to 1,000 students to one adviser, so it is unrealistic to think the answer sits only within the education system.

“Another factor is legacy. Many local families will naturally judge Sizewell C through memories of Sizewell A and Sizewell B - disruption felt locally, with a perception that too few of the best long-term opportunities went to local people. If families do not genuinely believe this project will be different, they are less likely to encourage that path. That is why nuclear new build projects like Sizewell C need to make early, credible commitments about local jobs, training and progression, and then visibly deliver them. When families can see real outcomes, confidence shifts quickly.”

So why is this important?

Let’s start with project costs - it saves in the region of £100 per person per day if workers already live locally, because accommodation and transport costs fall.

For taxpayers every person moved off benefits saves around £55,000 per year.

For mental health, construction workers suffer high rates of ill health and suicide, and a life spent living away from home for weeks at a time adds real pressure.

And for the social contract between national need and local impact, the people who live near these projects bear the burden of the disruption.

Several clean energy projects are currently in planning or being built on the Suffolk Coast, from which around one third of the UK’ s electricity will come. If we expect communities to accept multiple big infrastructure projects in their midst, we need to ensure that benefit is genuinely felt. As a country it is a win win (win) if we lower the cost of infrastructure, raise the tax take and lower benefit bills as more people move into employment.

Dan Mayhew, formerly Headteacher of Alde Valley Academy in Leiston and now Director of Community and Partnerships for Kingfisher Schools Trust says:

“What we see on the East Suffolk coast is a structural disconnect between opportunity and access. Major infrastructure, like Sizewell C, brings investment and jobs, but without deliberate, place based, coordination those opportunities do not automatically translate into better outcomes for local children and young people.

“Too many face long, complex journeys into Further Education, low attainment at GCSE maths, and limited exposure to the skills and pathways that these industries require.

“That is why the support from Sizewell C has been so important. Their financial backing has enabled us to bring together 13 schools across 6 Multi Academy Trusts in the Leiston Education Partnership focused on raising aspiration, strengthening skills development and building the personal capabilities young people need to succeed.

“This isn’t about a single intervention at one stage of education. It is about a coherent journey, starting in the Early Years, supporting the transition from primary to secondary and then from secondary into Further Education.

“By working collaboratively across trusts and with industry we can align what schools deliver with the realities of the local economy while ensuring that young people, regardless of background, can see a future for themselves in it. If we are serious about tackling regional inequality and building a sustainable workforce, this kind of long term joined up investment has to become the norm, not the exception”.

Stephen Skeet, Director of Business Development and Partnerships for Volunteering Matters, which has been supporting the Government’s National Youth Strategy said:

“In supporting young people to build the new 10-year National Youth Strategy, their views became clear - that challenges are intersectional, set in communities and require community infrastructure investment to move forwards.

“Young people are telling us: the curriculum is not fit for the modern age, too much emphasis is placed on university, that they dislike having to leave their town to succeed, transport is a barrier, and their biggest challenge is their parents do not have enough disposable income. When we address these fundamental challenges collectively in a place-based way, we will see shifts in systemic inequalities, and our core infrastructure programmes have potentially a unique role in enabling that.

“With such a strong mandate from young people themselves, it seems that our great infrastructure investments should have a key role in building a youth led community infrastructure of support in the places they operate.”

I’m not suggesting that we treat infrastructure renewal as the modern-day equivalent of the West Wycombe Caves, commissioned by Sir Francis Dashwood in 1748 to create employment during harvest failures.

But while the primary purpose of building publicly funded infrastructure must always be the service it offers, on time and within the projects’ cost and risk envelope - a second purpose, of delivering in a way which offers the most benefit to the local area and nation, would help the teams in infrastructure projects order priorities.

What can change?

Lots of people in infrastructure teams and the public sector are already working hard to improve things - making progress on training, on local employment requirements in planning consents and on investment in schools.

For Sizewell C specifically, there are now promising conversations about whether the railway being built to bring materials to the site could also serve a town currently without a passenger rail service - a town where poor public transport is actively holding young people back.

But achieving bigger systemic change needs a few things to shift.

Government needs to set clear expectations that publicly funded infrastructure projects create systemic benefit in the way they are delivered - and to recognise that taking people off benefits and into work is a credit, not a cost, on the project scorecard.

Departments need to join up - a decision to spend billions on infrastructure in a region should trigger coordinated thinking about transport, education and local environment from the start, not be treated in isolation.

A dedicated (and sufficiently senior) government coordinator for the opportunities arising from mega projects would help enormously.

And developers working in the same region should be actively expected to work together to pool their planning ‘mitigation’ spend to create genuine, joined up improvements for the communities hosting their projects.

If we get this right the win is threefold: lower infrastructure costs, stronger local communities and a better deal for the nation.

Please note: as always, views and statistics are Julia’s own.

Our education system works like a ladder: children move steadily upward, year by year, as they grow older. But for a significant number, that ladder is harder to climb.

Factors such as learning difficulties or disability, and experiences such as being bullied, family breakdown, addiction, mental health issues, violence in the home or a family economic shock can all easily knock a child or young person off course or add extra stress.

I was reflecting on this recently with an experienced Chief Executive of a council where there are high levels of deprivation. The availability in the area of the synthetic drug monkey dust which can be purchased relatively cheaply is a further factor why so many young people struggle there.

He described the education journey that many children and young people need is much more akin to a climbing frame. As they move up it, there may be a time when they should be able to hang on for a while at a particular level or move sideways rather than simply moving up from the bottom to the top.

For the young people in Nacro’s education centres for 16-19 year olds, the climbing frame analogy is very apt. Many have not progressed in school and need time to hang on to the frame for a while, move across it or take smaller steps up before they can take bigger steps. Doing this is often an achievement in itself as it prevents them simply falling off and landing at the bottom.

For us, this means the starting point for re-engagement might look different – it might be a smaller qualification or fewer hours of learning which builds up over time.

It will always mean building trusted relationships so staff can respond to needs and adapt as young people grow in confidence and circumstances change.

And it always means starting with the individual, recognising that every young person has potential, and helping them achieve the qualifications they need to succeed

Too many young people have already fallen off the frame entirely. Of the almost one million young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET), the proportion of 16 and 17 years olds is now higher than when the participation age was raised in 2014, requiring young people in England to stay in education or training until 18.

Neil (not his real name) was doing his best in the corner of the maths class when I met him recently at one of our education centres in the north of England. He had not been in school for nearly two years as his parents had been ‘home schooling’ him because he had been bullied and dealing with various behavioural problems.

In reality, he had not had much formal education. When asked what job he was hoping to find, he shrugged and said he sometimes helps his dad who earns a living collecting scrap metal.

This doesn’t mean that Neil is destined to be NEET or lacks the ability to get a job and move his life forwards. Instead, it was a reflection of the lack of opportunity he felt.

Current economic challenges mean it’s certainly tough for young people to find the career opportunities that will take them into a job in which they can prosper into the future. Let’s not forget that there are plenty of graduates from Russell Group universities who return home and take months or years to find a job that will provide a meaningful career pathway.

Yet we know from what we do in our education centres what works for Neil and the many others like him. It’s skilled staff and teachers who focus on building trusting relationships, provide one to one support and practical learning. It’s the accessibility of our centres, the smaller class sizes, and the flexibility of programme and qualification type and size, all designed to engage those furthest from engagement. And it’s the core belief that with the right support every young person can thrive. In this environment confidence, hope and possibility quickly returns. Young people start to see a future in which they are able to fulfil their potential and dreams.

It is no surprise that in the discussion about young people who are NEET the focus is often on the characteristics of young people themselves whether that be special education needs, school absence or growing up in deprived communities. But in asking why we are facing a ticking timebomb as the numbers grow it’s just as important to consider if the characteristics and make up of the current education system make a significant difference too.

And that takes me back to giving young people more of a climbing frame option to move up, across, and along rather than a linear upward pathway to gain skills and qualifications. Independent training providers like Nacro are an essential part of that. As is designing into the Government’s qualification reforms the ability to progress in smaller steps and to change course without falling off. This can make all the difference in getting young people back on an upwards trajectory.

The climbing frame isn’t just for children in playgrounds. It matters just as much to older young people in education by ensuring they have options to hang on at a particular stage to get stable, to move along and across, as well as being able to progress upwards.

Subscribe now