hidden talents: re-engaging young people

contents
3 4 6 8 8 11 14 16 17 19 24 26 29 35 36 37 Foreword Executive summary Introduction What does NEET really mean? How many people are we talking about? Who are we talking about? What happens when young people outgrow the NEET label? Is there a single gateway into NEET? Differences, common threads Discussion on current policy Who owns the problem and who pays the bill? What is local government doing? Towards new models? Preliminary conclusions What we are going to do next Notes

Acknowledgements We pass on our thanks to colleagues in local authorities and voluntary sector organisations who have shared information to support this publication. All photographs are copyright of the Yard Project, Lowestoft. The Centre for Social Justice is an independent think tank established, by Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP in 2004, to seek effective solutions to the poverty that blights parts of Britain. It highlights the work of diverse and unique small voluntary organisations and charities that provide effective welfare for the most broken parts of British society. Its policy research work combines data, anecdotal evidence and polling, to build an accurate picture of poverty in Britain, its causes and consequences, and the role of the state and other players in its reduction. The CSJ was awarded, Prospect Magazines Think Tank Publication of the Year 2008, for Breakthrough Britain. The Yard Project is a Community Interest Company in the centre of Lowestoft and works with young people aged 16-25 to engage them in developing learning and employment skills through real life training opportunities and working in and with the local community.

foreword
Having been a councillor in Bingley for over twenty years Ive come to know many local people and their families. I have seen children born, start nursery, have their first day of school, go to college, leave home for university, and then get their first job. It is fantastic to see each realise their own potential, whatever that may be, and make their way in the world. Not every child is so lucky. At my ward surgeries I meet too many young people who are not fulfilling their true potential for different reasons. From the twenty year old who left school at sixteen with no GCSEs and hasnt had a job since, to the young mother who wants to work but cannot afford adequate childcare, too many young people are not in education, training, or employment. Its clear from talking to many local residents, and to people I meet across the country, in their thirties, forties and fifties, the impact of being unemployed or poorly educated when young can be devastating and long-lasting. We cannot afford to let the talent of any young person go to waste. The statistics show this is not a new problem, and the recession is only making things worse. National and local government and the voluntary sector have long identified it as a priority and there is much good work to celebrate. In my own area, Bradford council, local schools, colleges, the voluntary sector and training providers have come together to support young people across the district and weve had some success. The same can be said of councils and their partners across the country. But, as this paper clearly sets out, the truth is that this is a persistent and stubborn problem. There are no easy answers, but I do not accept that nothing more can be done. I have set the LGA the challenge of looking at this issue anew. The transfer of funding for 16-19 year olds to local authorities is just one of the changes that is happening over the next year and means the time is right to devise more effective local solutions. Local government will not have all the answers, so we will work with our partners in the public, private and third sectors to develop policy responses. We will examine how to encourage young people to want to stay in education and take-up up training opportunities from an early age, and consider how to help more effectively those who have already fallen through the cracks. Together we can make a difference to the lives of our young people and uncover more of Britains hidden talent.

Cllr Margaret Eaton Chairman of the LGA

executive summary
Britain has got talent but it is hidden. Latest figures show there are 935,000 young people not in education, employment or training (NEET); the equivalent of a city the size of Birmingham populated entirely with the able, talented but under-utilised young people of Britain. This number is increasing rapidly. In the last quarter of 2008, that number increased by 72,000. If nothing else it illustrates that this group is more vulnerable to the effects of the current recession than any other. This is not just todays problem the economic impact on this group and on society is stark. There is a likely potential loss of future earnings, a scar, of up to 15 per cent (equivalent to 3.6bn in todays terms) later in life. The future cost to society of educational underachievement, unemployment, inactivity, crime and health is even worse. The 157,000 young people aged 16-18 years and NEET in 1999 will probably accrue additional lifetime costs of around 7bn in resource terms and 8.1bn in additional public spending the per capita equivalent of 97,000 in total costs. It is in the DNA of local government to respond to the need in society and it is fitting therefore that local government takes a lead on understanding and responding to this problem. In fact, largely unprompted, 115 out of 150 local authorities have already decided that reducing the numbers of young people aged 16-18 years who are NEET is a key target in their Local Area Agreements more than chose any other target. NEET, although a convenient shorthand, is unhelpful. It stamps individuals with a label based on failure, without offering insight or hope. It is a broad brush that misses the fine detail of diverse personal experiences and attitudes for example, family background and educational failure that we identify across current research as the indicators of failure to enter education, employment or training. If we look beyond the NEET label to the individual young people, we find a great variety of circumstances: some young people are NEET because they face straightforward and very challenging barriers to work or training such as disability or the fact that they are caring for a child; but, important as the issues they face are, numerically, these young people are a minority of the total; young people are more likely to be NEET if they have poor educational qualifications or a record of truanting or exclusion; young women are more likely to be NEET than boys, despite higher rates of staying on in formal education, because they do not appear to get the same access to jobs and government training; young people are more likely to be NEET if they are white; young people are more likely to be NEET if their parents are unemployed or have poor educational qualifications. This evidence strongly argues for the central role of the family and of the importance of early positive experiences in education, in young peoples willingness to engage in learning and work after school. A discussion of existing policy however, identifies a response that is disjointed between numerous agencies, is too centralised and therefore insufficiently

focussed on the needs of the individual, and involves the expenditure of large sums of money through a large number of funding streams, some of which show questionable value for money. In our work, therefore we will be seeking to draw a line under a neat (or NEET) but misleading snapshot of despair and develop instead the picture of a young persons pathway into meaningful education, employment and training. For that reason, we eschew meaningless targets and the sleight of hand that has excluded those who are employed, and gaining the habit of work but in low-prospect jobs with low skills and not receiving training. This first issues paper therefore sets out the scale of the problem and draws on statistics, current research and best practice to develop a better understanding of the issues. This understanding is captured in two models that present two sides of the same coin, both putting the individual person at the centre of the discussion. One model places the support of community at its heart acknowledging the vital role of family, peers, mentors and others. The second perspective tackles the pragmatic issue of re-engagement and describes the view of the world from the perspective of an individual who is NEET, and the people around them who seek to support them. They argue strongly for recognising that if we care about the young people today who are NEET, we need equally to care about those who are at risk of being NEET tomorrow. A subsequent paper will build on these twin perspectives to make specific policy recommendations guided by a set of six principles:

While family comes first, supported by peers, mentors and other role models, local authorities and their local partners are best placed of all public agencies to celebrate the achievements of young people, recognise positive local images, and have a special role in doing so; Supporting the role of the family allows other interventions to be focussed where local government and partners have a unique role to play in overcoming barriers to entry into education and work; Local authorities are the best placed part of the public sector to convene local partners in order to identify young people at risk of disengaging from learning and to identify and address the needs of disengaged young people; Local authorities are the best placed part of the public sector to bring together coherent plans and work in partnership with voluntary, private and statutory sectors to ensure the best possible and most appropriate provision is available to meet the needs of disengaged young people up to the age of 25; Interventions should occur at the earliest opportunity to prevent potential disengagement from education, employment or training and provide the most effective use of resources; Artificial age barriers should not hamper the effectiveness of targeted support for vulnerable young people not in education, employment or training up to the age of 25.

introduction
The number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) is increasing. Despite a national policy debate and evidence of vigorous action by the public and third sectors, as well as businesses, to address it, this overall picture is one that gives much cause for concern. We are on course to see as many as a million of our young people aged between 16 and 25 outside employment, education or training this autumn, as many people as the population of Birmingham. We are hiding the talents of a city of young people. The policy landscape continues to shift: current changes to the machinery of government will place new responsibilities on councils to commission learning services for young people aged 16-19; a new Skills Funding Agency is set to take on responsibility for post-19 skills; Employment and Skills Boards are bringing training and employment support together at sub-regional level within Multi-Area Agreements; and the formal learning leaving age is set to rise over the next few years. This reengineering of the public sector to enable local working, involving councils, colleges and other providers and partners is no surprise. Largely unprompted, local authorities have already been responding to this important challenge: 115 authorities in England out of 150 chose reducing the numbers of people who are aged 16-18 years and NEET as a key target in their Local Area Agreements, more than any other target. This instinctive response to need is within the DNA of local government. A new century brings new problems and it is councils who have recognised the long term and substantial effects that being NEET has on a young persons future, including their physical and mental health, as well as the economic well-being of the area, and cohesion within the local community. Therefore the time has come for greater and wider understanding of the issues we are facing up to, and what works best in tackling them. Our analysis in this publication provides an initial overview of the issues facing this group of young people and the long term impact of being NEET. It highlights the need for a greater understanding and clarity in analysing the issues, causes and solutions for young people. Whilst we found innovative practice in many areas, this is not yet supported by a coherent policy framework that meets the needs of all disengaged young people aged between 16 and 25. Hidden talent: re-engaging young people the issues for local government is the first in a series of publications and events to be undertaken by the Local Government Association, working in association with the Centre for Social Justice, to move the debate forward, and develop a detailed understanding of how an effective national response is delivered through local government. Our intention in this issues paper is threefold: 1. To use available statistics and a survey of recent analytical work, to describe why young people end up NEET. This is a significant departure from the narrow definition of the young people we serve and that the public sector has used for the last ten years. It is also a vital step forward in developing more effective policy solutions; 2. To review some current projects and initiatives, and consider areas where national policies have worked, and where they have been less effective; 3. To develop a model that builds on that analysis in order to offer a better understanding of the mechanisms at work and use that to guide interventions and coordinate policy approaches.

Ultimately, our intention is to move beyond the narrow NEET label and see individual young people with hope rebuilt, a clearer vision of their own purpose within society, and a belief that they can influence the shape of their own future. In this paper we want to broaden the focus to understand the full scale of this problem across England and Wales. At the same time we seek to refocus the discussion on the people themselves, by painting with a much finer brush the detail of the

underlying issues that have shaped the situations they find themselves in. We believe that the scale of the issue speaks for itself: something more, and something different, is needed to ensure the hidden talents of many of the young people in our communities can be put to work in a way that reveals their individual potential. This paper surveys the landscape; a second publication in the autumn will put forward policy solutions developed with partners from the worlds of both policy and practice.

KEY FACTS
35,000 young people aged 16-24 9 were NEET at the end of the first quarter of 2009; third of young people aged 16 and A 17 who are NEET, and a quarter of those aged 18-24, have no qualifications; 8 per cent of young people who are 3 NEET live in a household where no one is working; oung women (15 per cent) are more Y likely to be NEET than young men (11 per cent) for the 16-24 age group; nemployment rates for young people U have increased in recent years, particularly among those aged 16 and 17 currently peaking at 29.3 per cent; oung people have experienced the Y largest percentage point increase in unemployment rates compared with other age groups. In the year to March 2009, unemployment rates for 18-24 year olds increased by just under 4 percentage points to 16.1 per cent.

what does NEET really mean?

The term NEET was coined following the publication of the government Social Exclusion Units 1999 report Bridging the Gap: New opportunities for 16-18 year olds not in education, employment and training. It is an acronym formed from the phrase Not in Employment, Education, or Training and in the governments preferred use is restricted to 16-18 year olds. Apart from being an ugly termI, the application and use of such a label creates problems of its own: it becomes a shorthand that is convenient for bureaucrats, politicians and academics but depersonalises the individuals and their predicament; it paints with a very broad brush the single label implying a full understanding of common problems and causes; it is a label framed in the language of failure - by drawing attention away from underlying problems and a path to possible solutions, it presents instead as a snapshot offered by a government statistic.

how many people are we talking about?

We consider there are in fact three groups who are relevant to the discussion of employment, education and training: young people aged between 16 and 18 (the equivalent of school years 12 and 13) who are not in education, employment or training for a job; the government has set itself a PSA target to reduce the number of people in this group; and two-thirds of Local Area Agreements set by councils include targets to help this group; young people aged between 19 and 24 who are not in education, employment and training; although this group is not at the centre of government policy or local area agreements in the same way as the younger group, there are two reasons why we think they should be considered at the same time; first, because it is a bureaucratic artifice to cease to serve people in an identical situation simply because they have reached their nineteenth birthday; and secondly, because the number of people is this group has been rising very rapidly as unemployment has risen. We consider that, without help, young people who are unemployed and without skills at the start of a recession face a serious risk of being left behind by economic recovery; young people who are in employment but are not receiving any training. This category includes many young people who will also be NEET at times. There would be little point congratulating ourselves on our achievement in reducing the number of people who were not learning skills if their future life chances have been affected by being in jobs that did not offer the chance for future development. It is not the case that just any job will do: young people need to have stability, learn useful skills and be set on a habit of work. Young people who are 16-18 and NEET In the first quarter of 2009, there were 220,000 young people NEET aged between 16 and 18 years, representing 11.3 per cent of the age group. Both figures are higher than when the government published its original II report in 1999.

The government aims to reduce the proportion of 16-18 year olds who are NEET by 2 per cent, from its 2004 figure of 9.6 per cent to a 2010 target of 7.6 per cent. This target looks III unlikely to be met.
20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2%
End 1984 End 1985 End 1986 End 1987 End 1988 End 1989 End 1990 End 1991 End 1992 End 1993 End 1994 End 1995

The proportion of this age group who are not in jobs, education or training has been broadly IV consistent since the late 1980s.

NEET 16-18

NEET LFS a. NEET SFR measure

End 1996

End 1997

End 1998

End 1999

End 2000

End 2001

End 2002

End 2003

End 2004

End 2005

End 2006

End 2007

Source: Statistical First Release (SFR) Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16-18 Year Olds in England and analysis of Labour Force Survey Source: NEETS Statistics quarterly brief

Young people who are 18-24 and NEET There are 827,000 young people between 18 and 24 who are NEET, representing 17.6 per cent of their age groupV. To put the risks these young people face into perspective, the comparable rate of unemployment for people of all ages was under 7.2 per cent. This figure is growing at an alarming rate: it has increased by 1.6 per cent or 72,000 young people between the last quarter in 2008

and the first quarter in 2009. If we take the view that better skills are essential to allow people to compete in the global economy, it is extremely worrying that so many young people appear not to be getting a foothold in education or the labour market at this stage in their lives. If we take the view that work and learning are important for self-realisation, it is even more alarming to see the number of young adults not taking part grow so fast.

850,000 800,000 750,000 700,000 650,000 600,000 Q1 2005 Q2 2005 Q3 2005 Q4 2005 Q1 2006 Q2 2006 Q3 2006 Q4 2006 Q1 2007

NEET 18-24

18% 18% 17% 17% 16% 16% 15% 15% 14% Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2008

Q2 2007

Q3 2007

Q4 2007

End 2008

0%

Young people in jobs, but not in training While the proportion of young people aged 16-18 years NEET has stayed very broadly the same over the last twenty years, the proportion of young people in formal education has risen. This means that the proportion of young people who are in jobs but without training low prospect jobs has fallen. However, it may also mean that many young people are moving between economic inactivity and jobs which provide an income, but with limited future prospects. It is important to keep this group in mind. The habit of work is an important one to develop. But there is little long term gain for the community or individuals if we settle for simply increasing the number of young people who have a job, but no real economic future. The number of young people aged 16-18 who are in work but are not receiving any training was a quarter of a million in 2006, according to the governmentVI. This means that slightly more young people are in low prospect jobs about 12 per cent of all people of this age group than are doing nothing. These young people are about to become a key interest for local authorities. When the

learning leaving age rises to 17 from 2013 and 18 from 2015, this does not imply that all 16 and 17 year olds will have to be in school or college. Rather, it means that many more employers will have to consider how to add a training opportunity to a job. Later in this paper, we will discuss some of the issues this raises. Where are the young people who are NEET? The 2008 breakdown of local authority areas is illustrated in the map below. Full-time education rates were generally higher in the South of the country than in the North. For participation in LSC funded work based learning, however, participation is higher in the North than the South. Overall participation in education and work based learning for 17 year olds varies from 74 per cent in the East Midlands and in Yorkshire and the Humber to 86 per cent in London. Urban areas tend to have a higher proportion of 16-18 year old NEETs (7.5 per cent) than rural areas (5.5 per cent).

10

who are we talking about?

The most important thing to understand about young people who are swept up within the governments NEET label is that they are individuals. They are not identified by a uniform and they do not organise their lives to fit neatly within the categories of government statisticians. In fact, while the overlapping set of figures provided by a limited but predictable set of categories yields valuable insight, it also demonstrates that conventional approaches to organising the way we think about young people who are NEET gives only a partial understanding of their lives. Those categories are: Circumstances Qualifications Gender Race Family Background Attitude A small proportion of young people who are NEET 13 per cent, or 28,000 people - face barriers to work and training that may not give rise to the sort of concerns that this paper discusses. They include students taking a gap year, other young people who are doing voluntary work, and young people who are in custodyVII. This a very diverse group; some are genuinely excluded from the labour market and skills, but many are not. Another minority about 17 per cent, or 37,000 people - are teenage mothers, caring for their children, or have a physical or a learning disability. Some of these young people rightly want to focus on their family and home rather than on getting a job or studying. Others need particular kinds of help and encouragement in order to work or train. In either case, the issues they face are relatively easy to identify and the public sector has many strategies in place to deal with them. These groups are important, and have attracted a lot of public sector attention. But this leaves no useful explanation for the vast majority of young people who are NEET. They do not lend themselves to easy categorisation. Nearly two-thirds of the group about 60 per cent, or 115,000 people do not face any specific barrier or common circumstance that prevents work or training of the kind already mentioned. And for a further 28,000, or 10 per cent, public officials do not know anything about their current activity.

The figures used in this section mostly describe NEETs who are between 16 and 18. That is because more analysis has been done of this group, because the public sector has commissioned more, because of the governments PSA target. It does not mean that we consider it is less important to understand young people between 18 and 24 who are without work or training. Circumstances One popular way of thinking about NEETs is to identify the minorities in exceptional but well defined circumstances which we conclude stand between them and jobs and education. The simplest ways of doing this are not a very helpful way to look at the individuals concerned.

11

Qualifications Another way of looking at the group of young people who are NEET is to consider their educational qualifications. The Centre for Social Justice identified educational failure as one of its five pathways to poverty in Breakthrough Britain. Key determining factors in educational success were parental involvement (every parent matters), the quality of leadership within schools and creating a culture of learning. Unsurprisingly, therefore, staying-on in education is related to how well young people have done already the habit of education. Over nine out of ten young people who perform in the top third of results at GCSE are likely to stay at school or college. Threequarters of young people in the middle third of GCSE performers stay on. Less than half of those who come in the bottom third remain in education. This might sound like an obvious or banal conclusion. What is interesting, though, is that among the bottom-third performers, the regional variation in staying-on rates is much bigger than the variation in staying-on among the better performers. This suggests that, for young people with low educational achievements who are making difficult choices about what to do, there may be a variety of social, economic and cultural factors at work which generate these very different outcomes from place to placeVIII. Gender More girls stay on in education than boys, but this does not mean that there is a gender gap amongst those who are NEET. About the same proportion of girls and boys are NEET at 16-17 and more young women than men are NEET

in the larger 16-24 age group. The difference is that more boys get jobs or go onto government training schemesIX. This is likely to tell us something about the preferences and pressures on girls and boys but it is not possible to entirely dismiss the effect of behaviour and attitudes amongst employers and providers of training schemes. Race The evidence is very clear that white young people are less likely to stay in education at ages 16 and 17 years. According to government-sponsored research, nearly 90 per cent of young people from ethnic minorities stayed on in education, compared to under 70 per cent of those in non BME groupsX. Adjusted for previous performance, this differential becomes even more stark: among those achieving in the bottom third at GCSE, 41 per cent of whites stayed on, compared to 73 per cent of young people from ethnic minoritiesXI. Attitudes One of the most helpful ways of studying the NEET group of young people has been to consider their attitude towards getting a job or moving into further education and training. Recent research by the National Foundation for Education Research has set out three ways of grouping young people who are NEET according to their attitudesXII. Open to learning NEETs Sustained NEETs Undecided and NEET.

12

This research made links between those attitudes, previous educational attainment, barriers, and family background, among other things. According to this research, Open to Learning NEETs were the largest group and accounted for 41 per cent of the total. They had the highest educational attainment, were most positive about their experience of school, were most optimistic and least likely to report that they lacked qualifications or opportunities, and were most likely to have both parents in employment. This group was most likely to re-enter education or training. By contrast, Sustained NEETs were most likely to stay NEET in the medium term. They were most likely to have been excluded from school, reported that they had not enjoyed school, had the lowest educational attainment, and were most likely to not know what they wanted to do. They were also more likely to have unemployed parents, to have a disability or be looking after a family. They were the second largest group, at 38 per cent of the total. The smallest group, at 22 per cent of the total, were undecided and NEET. These young people stood a good chance of returning to learning in the medium term. They were very likely to say that courses they had taken had not worked out well for them, and were least likely of the three groups to have a sense of what they wanted to do, and most likely to say that they had not found job or a course to suit them. These findings parallel research from the Princes Trust, which showed that the young people most at risk of under-achievement include those with a record of truancy or

exclusion from school, underachievement at primary school, parental unemployment, poor housing, low parental education levels, and disrupted family structure. Family background and peers The evidence from government surveys is that staying-on in education is powerfully influenced by family and parents. If both parents have a degree, 86 per cent of young people stay in education at 16/17, while only 70 per cent stay on if neither parent has A-levels. This differential continues to be present even where a child is in the bottom third of performers at GCSEXIII. The Centre for Social Justice argued in Breakthrough Britain that parental involvement in a childs upbringing and education play a crucial role in a childs growth and development. The work habit of parents, also has an effect. Of the 16-17 year old NEET group who are most likely to be living with their parents 26 per cent live in a household where no-one is working. And for the group up to age 24, 38 per cent of young people who are NEET live in a household where no one is working; that higher figure suggests many are living with workless friends and partners, in which household members may reinforce each others disengagement from work and learning.

13

what happens when young people outgrow the NEET label?

There is clear evidence that being unemployed as a young person has a longterm impact on future life chances. Research by the Princes TrustXIV in 2007 summarises the key research in the field: youth unemployment reduces an individuals wages by 12-15 per cent by the age of 42XV; the penalty is lower at eight to 10 per cent if individuals avoid repeated incidences of unemploymentXVI; further research indicates that for some groups the difference can be as great as 21 per centXVII; whilst conditional on background characteristics, an extra three months of youth unemployment (before the age of 23) leads to an extra 1.3 months out of work between age of 28 and 33XVIII; the long-term effects of unemployment depend on an individuals skills level with a lasting adverse effect for low-skill individuals but not for mid-to high level skilled individualsXIX; other costs are seen as equally important, for example, lost confidence and impact on well-being and happinessXX and this impacts for a period of one to two years after the end of the period of unemploymentXXI;

14

Further research highlights the links between types and levels of qualifications and wage returns, with higher wage returns for academic qualifications than vocational, and no returns for low level qualifications (below level 2)XXII. Bell and BlanchflowerXXIII state that unemployment whilst young, especially of long durations, creates permanent scars rather than temporary blemishes. Looking at social costs as well as public finance costs

over the current, medium and long-term, and including estimates of the costs of educational underachievement, unemployment, inactivity, crime and health, their major finding was that the 157,000 young people who were NEET aged 16-18 years present in the UK population in 1999 would accrue additional lifetime costs of around 7bn in resource terms and 8.1bn in additional public spending. The per head equivalents are 45,000 in resource costs and 52,000 in public finance costs.

Overall

No quals Apprenticeships O-level OCN/OND A level HNC/HND Degree 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

All ages 18-24

Unemployment level by skills level April to September 2008: taken from Bell D and Blanchflower (2009).

35 million per week is spent on Job Seekers Allowance alone on young people who are NEET we should explore ways to enable councils and their partners to take into account projected future benefit savings in order to finance spending on measures that prevent young people becoming NEET in the first place. Thereafter funding should be directed to programmes which personalise support to the particular needs and circumstances of individual jobseekers. (It is in this context that the small voluntary sector can become an excellent partner for local authorities.)

Our group of young people who are labelled as NEET are vulnerable in the future in both terms of economic prosperity and general well-being; but also represent a significant draw on public funds. The conclusion drawn repeatedly from all the above research is to support young people to develop both the habit of learning and the habit of work.

15

is there a single gateway into NEET?

Clearly it is desirable to prevent young people from falling into the category of becoming NEET in the first instance, ensuring effective action at the very time that they start to disengage from learning: whether at age four or 14. Seen in this light, the case for funding early interventions becomes a strong oneXXIV. Whilst there are examples of effective engagement in flexible curriculum for the 14-16 age group (see the Kent case study in this paper), there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that for some young people this is far too late and early intervention work needs to be targeted more effectively at a much earlier stage at primary school and key stage 3. Work by the Every Child a Chance Trust highlights that each year eight per cent of children leave primary school with literacy and /or numeracy levels below that of an average 7 year oldXXV. The family is key to this debate and recent research has found that there is strong evidence of the intergenerational transfer of disadvantage from parents with poor literacy, language and numeracy skills to their childrenXXVI and that the quality of the early years home learning environment and parents (especially mothers) qualification levels are the most important background factors relating to a childs attainment in reading at Year 5XXVII. In an earlier publication, the Centre for Social Justice argued that whilst early intervention may lack the drama of the banking bail out it is equally necessary and equally revolutionary. Addressing a series of individual symptoms is no longer an adequate response to thousands of our young people leaving school illiterate, pregnant, unqualified, unaspirational and underachieving. It requires a coherent early intervention strategy applied across parties and across generations.XXVIII

16

differences, common threads

The evidence is clear from the research, therefore, that there is no simple, single classification of NEET young people and that individuals experiences and attitudes are allimportant. This should not be surprising as it is a category that is currently identified by a defining circumstance not issues or origins. And it is also clear that simple formulas for putting NEETs into sub-categories will not work. The research summarised in this section appears to illustrate a number of points: Young people are more likely to be NEET if their parents are unemployed or have poor educational qualifications; Young people are more likely to be NEET if they have poor educational qualifications, or a bad experience of education in school; Some young people are NEET because they face straightforward and very challenging barriers to work or training such as disability or the fact that they are caring for a child; numerically, these young people are a small minority; Girls are as likely to be NEET as boys, despite higher rates of staying on in formal education, because they do not appear to get the same access to jobs and government training; Young people are more likely to be NEET if they are white. But this research evidence about the many differences between young people who are NEET also leads to two very broad conclusions which challenge easy policy responses prompted by the descriptions given above: Easy categorisation of the individual by (for example) disability or BME status provides labels for only a small minority of NEETs, it does not address issues of attitude, culture, family influences or social pressures that have been identified as significant, and therefore offers limited insight into the cause; The attitudes of individuals who are NEET, are influenced strongly by factors that date from much earlier in their lives (in particular their parents employment and education status, their sense of purpose and ambition, and their experience of school). The NEET label therefore appears at best a snapshot, but a way must be found to acknowledge these other critical factors. This further suggests that policy should be developed that not only considers the circumstance of NEETs today, but their role as parents in the future, and their children, at risk of being tomorrows NEETs, who are still at an early stage in their school career.

17

case study one: Barnsley

Barnsley is designated as one of the top NEET hotspots and the local authority has recently won an award for their effective work. 11-19 Project Director, Meryl White puts this down to effective partnership working and a range of strategies: no one organisation can do this alone. Barnsley has five priorities for making this happen: ffective tracking and sharing of e information prevention provision of training and learning working with young people already NEET providing a good quality IAG service An online 14-19 prospectus has been set up, as have partnership agreements with schools and Connexions with progression targets. They have also implemented red/amber/ green (RAG) rating for the year 11 cohort, an information sharing timeline, and improvements to careers education IAG. Ambition Barnsley has been established, this is a careers fair based around diplomas for years 9, 10 and 11, helping them get experience of provision available. There is a focus on the September guarantee. A borough-wide Common Application Process has been set up and a referral and tracking group has been established. A clearing house event, Y11 engagement follow-on programmes and summer activities are also offered. The LSC Barnsley have taken a strategic approach and linked improving participation to the 14-19 plan. They have also taken advantage of the new climate for joint working. Funding streams have been used from the European Social Fund, the 14-19 Challenge Fund, local delivery projects to support strategy, Connexions and the Area Based grant. and the providers have regular group meetings. Flexible provision is offered as are regular start dates to college programmes. Job clubs, open days, buddy schemes, and incentives are also available. There is direct engagement with NEETs in localities. Employers are also represented on the on the Work and Skills board. Training Pays is a work-based learning option. A hundred and twenty employers in Barnsley from eight defined employment sectors have been involved and small employers of ten people or fewer are targeted.

18

discussion on current policy

Youth unemployment and related training has been a priority across successive governments. Indeed a key priority in prevention policy is the use of early intervention to stop young people falling into the NEET category and making an effective transition into Education, Employment and Training (EET). However, the policy agenda for the current administration rose to prominence as a result of two initiatives: the Social Exclusion Unit report in 1999, Bridging the GapXXIX, as highlighted earlier, and the introduction of the New Deal programme for Young People (NDYP) in April 1998 for the 18-24 year olds. Since 1997 Local Authorities have gradually taken more prominence in leading in this field. The National NEETs strategy The National Strategy for reducing the numbers of young people NEET was launched in 2008XXX: it pulls together the strands of previous work and transfers the lead role for reducing the 16-18 year old age group to local authorities through Childrens Trusts, 14-19 partnerships and working with employers and the soon to be replaced Learning and Skills Council. The strategy is based on the following key areas: rigorous tracking and destination monitoring; provision of a full range of courses through the reform of the qualifications framework, with increased flexibility in the system; personalised guidance and support to ensure all young people in this age group can overcome barriers to participation in learning; incentives to participate, including financial incentives and extending the September Guarantee of a learning place for all 16 and 17 year oldsXXXI. The 14-19 reforms will bring about a raft of changes that will impact on the NEET group. The policy is enacted through the Education and Skills Act 2008 and the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill which is expected to become law in November 2009. The key areas from both can be summarised as: Education and Skills Act 2008 a duty on all young people in England to participate in education or training until the age of 18 (or until attaining a level 3 qualification if earlier); provisions for supporting young adults with learning difficulties to participate in education or training; the transfer of responsibility for delivering the Connexions service to local authorities; an explicit the duty on the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to secure provision of proper facilities for apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds; requires the LSC to secure provision of reasonable facilities for apprenticeships for those aged 19 and over; requires local education authorities to cooperate with partners who are responsible for 1419 education and training. Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill the transfer of funding for 1619 education and training to local authorities; the creation of the Young Peoples Learning Agency (YPLA) for England to fund local authorities to fulfil their new duties for 16 to 19-year-olds;

19

 the creation of a new Skills Funding Agency (SFA) as a funding body for post-19 skills; the provision for a statutory framework for apprenticeships and creates a right to an apprenticeship for suitably qualified 16 to 18-year-olds by local authorities; the provision for the education of young offenders by local authorities; the dissolution of the Learning and Skills Council.XXXII From NEET to New Deal From April 2009 any young person who has been NEET for more than six months before turning 18 will be placed directly onto an accelerated version of New Deal, meaning that they move straight into the supported job search phase of the programme. Confusing Age Boundaries Whilst the New Deal change mentioned in the last paragraph suggests a new attempt to link pre- and post 18 NEETs, this is not yet followed by institutional coherence at either a national or a local level. Our mapping of the age limits for the start of programmes shown on page 21 and the policy responsibilities chart shown on page 24 illustrate this. There is a particular divide at 18 both with current policies and future proposed changes. This leaves many young people vulnerable to the major precipices at transition points as they move into the next stages of their lives, and these pose additional disadvantages for young people with complex lives who are not engaged in the training or labour markets.

The 2004 report from the Social Exclusion Unit on TransitionsXXXIII highlighted the lack of coherence on age barriers and reported the need to blur boundaries at times of transition for young people with troubled lives. However, as we move towards the machinery of government changes with the 14 -19 strategy there is still a confused picture in relation to age boundaries. A gulf develops in the support for some vulnerable young people from the age of 19. Connexions support continues until the age of 21 for young people leaving care and 25 for those with learning, difficulties and or disabilities and up to 19 for all other young people. There is a need for targeted support for some other groups of vulnerable young people past the age of 19. Equally, in some areas, systems for sharing information between Connexions and JobCentre Plus provision are not effectively developed to meet the needs of young people.

20

Age Bands 0-3 4-11 12 13 14-15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22-25

NEET group for definition for PSA and National Indicator - DCSF NEET group definition for Labour Force Survey DWP 14 19 Planning Partnerships Early intervention projects Narrowing the gap Connexions support Extended Connexions support for Looked After Children Extended Connexions support for LDD Flexible Curriculum Diplomas Apprenticeships New Deal for Young People Entry to Employment EMAs LA commissioning from 2010 Young Peoples Learning Agency replaces LSC from 2020

Legend:
Definitions Partnerships Projects Support Learning and Skills programmes Financial support Future changes Raised participation Age 2015 Raised participation Age 2013

Skills Funding Agency replaces LSC from 2010 Adult Advancement and Careers Service from 2010

Foundation Learning Tier 4 routes for 14-19s by 2010

Raising the Participation Age Much debate has occurred relating to the raising of the participation age to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015, for young people who have not reached a level three qualification, to be engaged in appropriate education, training, apprenticeships or job with training. Hayward et alXXXIV highlight the potential limitations of the new legislation in that it may simply shift the process through which young people enter a NEET category to a later stage in their life but not equip them to deal with issues relating to disengagement any better. Even during compulsory education it is estimated that 5.6 per cent of secondary school children and young people are persistent truants, missing a fifth or more of the school yearXXXV. Evidence from overseas shows the UK is not seriously out of line in terms of minimum learning leaving ages. However, the UK has significantly lower participation in education and training at 17 than many OECD countriesXXXVI. Apprenticeships Apprenticeships provide the kind of practical and on-the-job training that makes people attractive as employees, and it is clearly the preferred kind of training. Apprenticeships are a key plank of the policy framework to engage young people in vocational training. Over recent years the quality, as judged by the Training Standards Council, then the Adult Learning Inspectorate and now Ofsted, has improved significantly: it was starting from a low base. Concerns remain regarding the consistency of provision across the country, the equity of access to the full range of post-16 programmes for some young people, the levels of engagement of looked after children and those leaving case and the discontinuity that occurs at 16 for some young people on the vocational pathways. Lord Leitchs Review of Skills recommended a significant increase in apprenticeships, and the government has adopted this recommendation and aims for 400,000 apprentices in learning by 2020: double todays figures. The strategy for apprenticeships was launched in 2008XXXVIII and this guarantees an entitlement to an apprenticeship place for each suitably qualified young person from 2013 and the introduction of a National Apprenticeship Service. There are approximately 180 different apprenticeship

frameworks across over 80 industry sectors: fewer than the range of higher education options available but highlighting the needs for comprehensive information and advice to enable young people to navigate the field. A recent report by the Skills Commission addresses this issue and makes a number of recommendations including: ensuring local authority Connexions services include sufficient advice on apprenticeships for all 14-19 year olds; initial teacher training and continuing professional development includes sufficient information on apprenticeships; a need for a clearer mapping between diploma and apprenticeship requirements; a ring fencing of funds for young apprenticeship; incentives for learning providers to progress former apprentices onto advanced further education and higher education coursesXXXIX. Concern has been expressed about the ability to meet the demand for this high level of apprenticeships in times of recession, as well as about whether all apprenticeships are providing training that has real future value for the young personXL. The above whistle-stop tour of policy highlights two key points: national policy has recognised the need for effective local planning and multi-agency approaches across the voluntary, statutory and private sectors to meet the needs of disengaged young people, but continues to counterbalance that local planning role with a complex architecture of central government intervention and regulation, and leaves in place a confusing medley of different interventions that impose firm but highly variable age cut-offs; national policy creates a space for thinking earlier about prevention through local governments convening and commissioning role: this is necessary because by the time the young person is labelled NEET they have already disengaged from learning intervention needs to occur at the time of disengagement from learning, when aspirations are formed and attitudes are set; but at the same time, national policy imposes firm assumptions about what is appropriate at what age and on what age group budgets can be spent.

22

case study two: The Yard Project in Lowestoft

The Yard Project is a small Community Interest Company based in Lowestoft in Suffolk. The organisation took over a derelict builders yard in Normanston Ward, a area of high deprivation in 2005. This has been turned into an effective community resource and a refurbished building with the help of a number of young people who had previously been NEET. Three generations of trainees have worked on the building and have gained a tremendous amount of experience. To date 57 young people have been involved in the project. 25 have gone into work directly from the project, 16 have gone onto full-time vocational training, 4 have moved onto other activities and 7 are still with the project. Only 5 young people have left with no plans. Key to the project is the involvement in the local community, and there is a clear sharing of skills and expertise between the generations. The project works closely with Connexions and the Youth Service and takes referrals from both. As one previous trainee explains the most important thing he has gained is confidence and he was treated as adult and respected, a very different experience from school: Its confidence really: youve got to have a lot of confidence to find a job round here and there are hardly any jobs around Lowestoft for people who havent got any qualifications and people who didnt do well at school. I didnt do well at school. He enjoyed the vocational aspect of the programme and is now employed as a driver delivering fruit for a local company.

23

who owns the problem and who pays the bill?

While government policy may be giving councils responsibility for preventing and addressing the disengagement of young people, it remains a multi-faceted and complex public sector task, involving practitioners in multiple agencies, business, voluntary sector organisations, as well as the local authorities themselves. In this highly complex landscape, the effective re-engagement of young people in a locality cannot be addressed by one single agency alone. Indeed all the evidence suggests that the greatest influence comes from families and informal relationships, and that the
Who DCSF Department for Children, Schools and Families Responsibilities in relation to NEETs National NEETs strategy National Indicator 16-18 Early intervention policy Families and Parenting policy Apprenticeship strategy (joint with BIS) Sponsor for Young Peoples Learning Agency Childrens Plan 18-25 Job Centre Plus provision New Deal Programmes Welfare benefits Responsible for post 19 education and training policy Apprenticeships (joint with DCSF) Responsible for Skills Funding Agency Responsible for NEETS strategy

greatest impact of agencies may be through facilitating this. At the same time, the need to join up the complexity of the public sector can easily become a full-time task (indeed, it is for some local government officers). This focus on the machinery itself can be a powerful distraction from focussing on the needs of individuals and supporting their families. The table below highlights the complex mapping of agencies and communities.
Coverage England

DWP Department for Work and Pensions

England and Wales

BIS Business, Innovation and Skills DCELL Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning Learning Skills Council until March 2010 Young Peoples Learning Agency from April 2010

England

Wales

Funding agency for post 16 education outside of HE NEET performance and tracking Will provide funding and guidance to Local Authorities for the 16-19 commissioning role Responsible for the Academies Next steps agency operating within DBIS Will be responsible for channelling funding for adult learning outside of HE in line with policy, need and quality Will manage the National Apprenticeship Service, the Adult Advancement and Careers Service and the National Employer Service Responsible for ensuring quality Responsible for Early Years, schools policy, 14 19 implementation and planning, adult learning Securing places for al 16-19 year olds for school and in FE for 2010 Duty to coordinate Childrens Trusts Holistic approach to outcomes and well-being for children and young people Responsible for NEETs performance and tracking Offering multi-agency support through integrated youth support Monitoring take-up of EMA and Care to Learn

England

England

Skills Funding Agency from April 2010

England

Local authorities

England

24

table continued...

Who Local authorities (continued)

Responsibilities in relation to NEETs Economic well-being duty all ages Duty to track children missing education Connexions services up to age of 19, or 21 for Care Leavers, or 25 for learners with learning difficulties and /or disabilities Maintaining 14 19 prospectus Deliver of programmes for 14 -19 and 19 + Duty to co-operate with the Childrens Trust Notify Connexions of offer of places / drop out Identifying and supporting those at risk Liaising with schools and employers Early intervention initiatives Identify and supporting those at risk of disengaging Working with parents / employers and colleges Deliver of programmes for 14 -19 and 19 + Notify LA Connexions of offer of places / drop out Identifying and supporting those at risk of becoming NEET Liaising with schools and employers Support and advocacy on behalf of young people at national and local level, including the National Youth Agency Delivery of flexible programmes, specialist programmes and mainstream programmes Supporting progression Liaising with other providers, connexions, employers

Coverage England

Further Education Colleges

England Wales with variations

Schools

England and Wales

Learning Providers

England Wales with variations

Voluntary sector providers

England and Wales

The table sets out roles, but providing an actual service also requires money. The table below illustrates the significant sums of public money that are spent on young people and NEETs. Some of these funding streams are either currently routed through local authorities, or are intended to go through local authorities in the near future. There are two principal reasons for asking whether these resources could be used more effectively to reduce the number of NEETs. Firstly, the number of NEET has remained stubbornly high, and secondly because the public spending position will be considerably tighter in the coming years. Even on a conservative estimate the transfer payments made to the young people who are NEET are considerable. Our estimates show that JSA payments alone are 35 million each

week. If we were to include other benefit payments including Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit paid to the parents of learners, this figure would be much greater. Against that background, we will explore in our next paper whether these savings on these payments could be used to finance programmes to prevent people becoming NEET in the first place. This is currently not possible under existing Treasury rules, savings on the benefits bill cannot be used to fund programmes that create those savings. Increasingly that shibboleth is being challenged, and pilots are underway to re-cycle savings on ESA/IB to get people into work. Clearly the same model could be applied to young people who are NEETs providing intervention at an earlier stage to prevent them becoming detached from education, training or work.

25

Programme Transfer payments: Job Seekers Allowance (18-24) JSA Severe Hardship (16-17) ESA/IB Other housing benefit Education Maintenance Allowance Employment Support: Future Jobs Fund Flexible New Deal [New Deal for Young People] Pathways to Work IAG: Connexions (via Area Based Grant) Education and training: LSC grants covering: Sixth Form Apprenticeships entry to employment Further Education

Cost 35m per week1 N/A N/A 529 million2

Assessment Discretionary JSA payments

Means tested and available to age 16 19

1 billion Approx 100 million 400 million

Challenge fund open to local partnership bids DWP commissioning of private sector contractors Support for ESA/IB claimants to get into work

Approx 475 million

Paid to local authorities through ABG

2 billion 1 billion 3.5 billion

1 2

Taking the JSA rate of 50.95 for 18-24 year olds and multiplying by the number of 18-24 unemployed (695,000) from ONS Labour Market Statistics June 2009 PWQ 11 May 2009

These sums are very large. The fact that the total number of NEETs has stayed high despite all this spending for years is therefore a source of real concern. We need to understand better the value for money which this spending delivers. Is it really the case that it has had

no impact? Or is it the case that without this public spending, things would be much worse? This is an issue we intend to look at further over the coming weeks.

what is local government doing?

Most local authorities have embraced their central role in addressing the NEETs issue and are taking serious action through their Childrens Plans and Local Area Agreement. One hundred and fifteen authorities, 76 per cent, have national indicator 117 to reduce the number of young people aged 16-18 who are NEET as a Local Area Agreement priority: it is the most frequently chosen indicator. Responsibility for Connexions services transferred back to local authorities in April 2008 and, whilst in a few areas there have been initial teething problems regarding the transfer, this has generally supported a better-integrated approach. Effective practice is supported by partnerships aimed at meeting the needs of the young people in the most appropriate way. Local authorities have not waited for statutory responsibility to be transferred but have developed many imaginative and innovative approaches across the country. Some of the key themes that have emerged from our conversations with councils are these: Local area agreements LAAs can give high level strategic and political support for NEETs activity: this enables effective linking across policy areas and with local partners. Many localities have a NEETs strategy group, whilst others have a NEETs action team to drive the initiatives;

26

 Multi-agency working is essential. Local Authority Connexions staff are allocated in multi-agency teams in a number of authorities: for example, in Birmingham, staff from the Connexions teams are based with youth services and others have key roles to work with the voluntary sector. In Liverpool, the Route 17 Retention and Progression Project is a collaborative Progression Worker team working across Liverpools 14-19 partnership Learning Collaboratives including Liverpool City Council working with LSC, Liverpool Community College, Work Based Learning Federation, Connexions and Liverpool Secondary Schools. Working Herts Ltd in Hertfordshire lead a project with a delivery partnership including local authorities, LSC, colleges and referral agencies a 1000 properties a year are being insulated under the scheme and more than 3000 properties have been fitted with water saving devices; Working across area boundaries: all the London boroughs, for example, work together on NEETs and case workers can continue to work with a young person even if they move into another borough; Early intervention strategies: there are many and varied ways for early intervention - the key message is that effective partnership working and sharing of intelligence is critical. In some authorities, effective early screening takes place to identify young people at risk of becoming NEET. Practitioners state that it is never too early to start, for example, the Surrey Youth Matters programme is increasing employability skills with small groups of young people aged 10-14 in schools; A flexible and appropriate curriculum: disengaged young people need to learn in different and flexible ways effective models use a range of approaches; for example, in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough programmes include a 3 day intensive residential involving the Outdoor Education team, Youth workers and Connexions workers and Information

and Guidance staff to offer post 16 advice. In Hertfordshire use is made of a budget holding lead professional to purchase individual services on a young persons behalf; An inclusive model for apprenticeships: the detailed case study for Manchester City Council in this paper highlights the use of a competency based model to include many young people who would have previously been excluded if recruitment was based on qualifications alone. Kent County Council adopts a county-wide approach to shaping the curriculum and using public sector procurement to create apprenticeship places. In Gateshead there is a high demand for Construction Apprenticeships amongst the NEET group: the Learning and Skills Council is working with Connexions, Gateshead College, Rathbone and Gateshead EBLS group in order to stimulate demand in micro business and SMEs to access apprenticeship places; Voluntary sector involvement: working in partnership with the voluntary sector can ensure that each individual young person has their own specific needs met and supported through specialist provision, as illustrated in the case study of The Yard Project in this paper. As that instance shows, smaller voluntary sector organisations have an indispensable niche knowledge, expertise and reach which should be fully capitalised on. In Scotland, an innovative Partnership exists between Dundee Council, Barnardos and Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE). Each young person has a Barnados key worker providing personal support help with health, housing, finances, substance misuse etc. After 13 weeks of initial accredited training, the young people received a work placement with SSE for a further 13 weeks.

27

case study three: Manchester

Manchester has significantly reduced its NEET group in just four years through detailed geographical research of the incidence and nature of the NEET group, by recruiting a dedicated NEET co-ordinator and developing a multiagency NEET programme as part of their Childrens Board. By aligning funding from a number of sources and through joint commissioning a range of NEET engagement and aspiration raising activities has been undertaken with young people and specifically the five secondary schools that produce the highest number of NEET pupils. The priority aligns with the Citys wider worklessness and economic agenda the council are keen to tackle inter-generational worklessness and to align the skills of their residents with the job opportunities in Manchesters increasingly knowledge-based economy. As a result Manchester City Council agreed a local Public Service Agreement (PSA) target with the Government to reduce NEET levels in the city from the baseline of 13.6 per cent in 2004 to 9.8 per cent in November 2008. Manchester is clear in the way in which it measures NEET levels. In addition, to using the national non-residency based levels, the local authority also uses its own residency levels to give a true picture of the real proportion of local young people who are NEET and resident in the city area. This allows them to offer, integrate and target other services at a specific location, for example, Connexions Manchester can focus on 20 NEET young people in one ward and offer help with other needs such as housing if required. Using pooled resources, Manchesters Achieve Economic Well Being Group annually commissions the development and delivery of engagement activities for Manchester NEET residents aged 16, 17 or 18 in November of each year and for those identified as at risk of becoming NEET. The activities have been targeted on: specific groups (e.g. young offenders, teenage parents); areas (e.g. young people who are residents of one of the 17 priority wards); and economic priorities (e.g. increasing entrepreneurship levels, training for identified skill shortage areas). Included in the work is a specific approach to apprenticeships in the Manchester area and this includes developing a competency based recruitment and selection process for local apprenticeships. This ensures greater access for some young people who would have been excluded if based on qualification results. There are clear messages relating to success from activity in Manchester: he need for both policy and political t support; lear linkages have been made between c the NEET reduction agenda and the Citys wider worklessness and economic agenda through the City Strategy by Manchester City Councils Economic and Urban Policy Unit and local regeneration teams (for example, the focus on tackling intergenerational unemployment and training young people for current and future job vacancies); btaining a thorough evidence base at the o beginning of the NEET programme has helped to ensure a common analysis and understanding of the nature of the NEET problem and linked together the agendas of different partners,using a flexible approach in relation to the curriculum.

28

towards new models?

We have looked at the valid but limited categorisations we can extract from government data; at the lessons from what is working and the best of existing practice set out in previous sections; and at the complex policy and funding landscape. Is it possible to draw on that to create a model of the different issues that can be examined both from the perspective of public sector interventions (top-down) and from the perspective of the individual young person (bottom-up)? Local authorities and their partners sit at the point of planning delivery and implementation, where the two perspectives meet. From the literature, we have identified four critical stages: forming a positive personal vision or ambition, possibly from a young age; the individuals attitude towards education, work and the future, again formed from an early age; the experience of any barriers to education or work, perhaps as a result of gender, race, disability, poverty, caring for a child etc.; the achievement of qualifications, gaining (and maintaining) employment or gaining new skills and understanding as part of a programme, projects or through informal learning. This process is cyclical. Achievement has been shown to instil confidence and raise aspiration, opening new possibilities. Likewise, bad experiences are quickly communicated to others, particularly children and siblings. The consequences of both educational failure and worklessness are dire and set out in detail within the Centre for Social Justices report Breakthrough Britain, July 2007. Other people who are not publicly-funded agencies - play a key role in this journey, particularly family, and particularly in the early stages. From parental attitudes and circumstance, siblings, peers, teachers and mentors in the workplace, each can have a profound influence. The role of community and the young persons role within their community is therefore crucial. Whether it be advice, discipline, celebrating success or encouragement after disappointment these will all impact on aspiration and attitude in particular. Family has the most profound effect for the simple reason that these are the closest bonds, and, for most young people, are in place over a lifetime. This role can be strengthened in a number of positive ways. The evidence also indicates that strong input from teachers, peers, mentors can have a positive effect. Measures to promote better school leadership are also possible. One consequence of getting the full value from non public-sector support is that it may help to focus state support more effectively on those who face insurmountable barriers. These may be combined in the following diagram of the A4 Model

29

FAMILY AND COMMUNITY Supports each stage. Offers role models, nurture and discipline, relationship, encouragement in failure, celebrates achievements. Family ideal, but compensated by teachers, TSOs and mentors in part.

ASPIRATION ACHIEVEMENT Educational attainment, entry into work, completion of project or task etc. Ambitio Ambition. Personal story of success. Sense of purpose and a future. f

Aspiration
mmuni o

ty

Achievement

Family

Attitude

Access
ATTITUDE ACCESS Opportunities no barr ers to entry into work, education etc. t Willingness to try. Expectation of work and reward. Hope of influence/control over destiny.

30

Figure 1: The A4 Model

We can also look at this from a practical perspective of our young person who is already disengaged from learning, and often from community and /or family. Their needs focus on a series of interlinking actions or cogs: the economic: includes financial support whether through benefits, allowances such as education maintenance or employment, gains in skills, communications skills, budgeting; the personal: includes the young persons interaction with those around them, their peers, the growth in confidence, changes in attitudes, increased tolerance and understanding, health, sense of well-being; an appropriate flexible curriculum to meet all needs of the disengaged group. The flexible curriculum should also enable a young person to have options to try something different, if their first choice doesnt suit;

the social: includes social networks, relationships with family or other carers, significant adults, engaging with activities and others, feeling included; housing and environment: somewhere to live, that promotes and supports self esteem and development; support and mentoring: includes ensuring any barriers such as caring responsibilities are addressed, information, advice and guidance, mentoring from appropriate adults.

31

Ensuring any barriers such as caring responsibilities are addressed, information, advice and guidance, mentoring from appropriate adults

Somewhere to live, that promotes and supports self esteem and development

Financial support employment, gains in skills, communications skills, budgeting

Support + mentoring mentoring Economic

Housing and environment

Re-engaged Young person 16-25

Personal

Social

Appropriate Flexible curriculum

Social networks, relationships with family or other carers, significant adults, engaging with activities and others, feeling included

Interaction with others, growth in confidence, changes in attitudes, tolerance and understanding, health, sense of well-being

Qualifications, projects, apprenticeships, informal learning - enables a young person to try, sometimes not get it right but have the ability to return to something different Figure 2: The young persons perspective: a re-engagement model

32

This is the combination of key ingredients needed to build resilience in young people who are at risk from or have ceased to become engaged in education, employment or training. It highlights the need for a series of inter-connecting actions to help young people re-engage and move into the next stage of their lives. Our models provide a departure from the narrow definition of NEET as it has been applied by national policy to date. This has at least three profound implications for current policy approaches: the models reinforce the view that early intervention will have an impact on later life opportunities, thus moving the debate upstream from conventional educational/ economic arenas they further support research that suggests the role of family in the formation of aspiration and attitude in those early years is most important in determining life outcomes. Pathways to success (Breakthrough Britain, July 2007) is one of many policy proposals that has been made to help create such a culture of learning;

the role of the community in supporting the family in particular is recognised as central, rather than ancillary and peripheral; this challenges the assumption that public sector support can provide a full answer. Using these models it is possible therefore to review current policies, where it has been focused on different parts of this cycle, see where responsibilities have been allocated to date, identify gaps (if any) and consider the overall effectiveness of current approaches.

33

case study four: Kent

Kent County Council has a County NEETs strategy group and an effective NEETs strategy these are all elements of the overall policy view to ensure that there are no more wasted opportunities in Kent. The secondary school curriculum has been transformed to ensure a broadening of the curriculum to allow diversity and choice whilst embracing technology to deliver a radical and personalised learning agenda. Kent County Councils aim is to create a stimulating learning journey for 14-24 year olds - developing the necessary employability skills fit for the 21st century by giving them real choice and diversity of provision appropriate to meet their ambitions, aspirations and ability. Kent has pioneered its own apprenticeship programme (Kent Success) on the basis that work based learning is the appropriate path for a substantial number of young people, providing opportunities to acquire industry relevant skills in the workplace supported by approved training packages. It aims to have 1000 apprentices across the public and private sector in Kent by 2010. Through procurement contractors make a commitment to provide apprenticeship and work-based learning, for example linking apprenticeships to the Building Schools for the Future programme. This is complemented by effective information, advice and guidance for all young people. The County Council has set out its skills targets in its corporate vision. Its 2010 Skills Targets are: aise the expectations and aspirations r of our young people by giving all 13-19 year-olds the very best careers guidance and by providing master classes presented by businessmen, entrepreneurs and professionals; xpand our pioneering vocational 14-16 e programme to more than 4,000 students, offering real choice in a diverse and stimulating curriculum tailored to the needs of students and relevant to the real world; ouble the number of participants on Skill d Force-type Programmes; ntroduce a Kent Apprenticeship scheme, i offering at least 1,000 apprenticeship opportunities across the private and public sectors; ntroduce the Kent Community i Programme, building teams of apprentices to participate in community projects; uild strong business-education b partnerships that benefit both employers and schools.

34

preliminary conclusions
In this discussion paper, we have reviewed the current approaches to the classification of young people as NEETs. We have criticised this one dimensional label. Although it may be a useful short-hand for some public sector thinking about the issue, it is singularly unhelpful as a guide to action: each young person is an individual with different needs. The categorisation helps to drive public sector responses towards oversimplified, rigid and centralised solutions. We have drawn on research and current best practice to propose instead two new models. The first the A4 Model - emphasises the central role of family, supported by role models, peers and personal relationships built by participating in local organisations (which we have summed up as community) and describes a pathway from early formative experiences (setting aspiration and attitudes) to the long term consequences of educational failure and worklessness (access and achievement) as a young person. The second is a re-engagement model that describes ways of working with young people who have already become or are at risk of disengagement from learning and employment. These are two sides of the same coin, both putting the individual person at the centre of the discussion and attempting to understand the complexity of the factors that shape, and can reshape, each persons attitudes to learning and work. They argue strongly for recognising that if we care about todays NEETs, we need equally to care about tomorrows potential NEETs. This analysis and these models strongly suggest that: Central to our success in preventing young people from falling out of touch with learning and employment is the support they are offered through the community around them; the family holds a special place here, but role models including teachers and mentors in the work place are important; Artificial age barriers do not support the needs of young people and hinder effective transitions. We believe the UK is unique in making a major sub-division after the 18th birthday in defining the way the public sector works with young people; There needs to be better joint working and sharing of their work with young people across the institutional barriers created by artificial age divides and divisions between government departments and agencies: it is illogical for a vulnerable young person at the age of 18 or 19 not to have information about their needs supported across Connexions and Job Centre Plus. In addition, we have examined the policy context and the responsibilities of local authorities and their partners and concluded that: Policy interventions need to reflect the importance of the earliest influences on a young person within the family. The awareness of the needs of those at risk of disengaging from learning should be core to all agencies, communities and families. This should not just be seen as a NEETs issue but as a key principle of a family and learning agenda. The financial and opportunity costs to the young people indicate clearly the need for a stronger focus on early intervention activities; Targets may measure success, but are not a strong guide to how to meet the best needs of local young people: the focus should be on a personalised and local flexible learning offer to meet individual needs and sustain effective and long-lasting transitions, not on removing a young person from the NEET figures regardless of what happens to them afterwards; The issues are personal and local, anchored in community influences and attitudes. So local authorities are better placed than other parts of the public sector to ensure the most effective provision for the young people in its community;

35

 A greater policy emphasis should be placed on the supporting role that the community can play from encouraging better parenting, to developing better leadership in schools and providing opportunities for vocational training; There are a number of questions about how effectively funding streams knit together around individual young people, and whether they are all delivering value for money. Further investigation is required into the funding streams for activity for this group of young people. Core Principles From this we have developed a set of six informing principles which we hope to test with others as we move the debate forward: While family comes first, supported by the community, local authorities and their local partners are best placed of all public agencies to celebrate the achievements of young people, recognise positive local images, and have a special role in doing so; Supporting the role of the family allows other interventions to be focused where local government and partners have a

unique role to play in overcoming barriers to entry into education and work; Local authorities are the best placed part of the public sector to bring together coherent plans and work in partnership with voluntary, private and statutory sectors to ensure the best possible and most appropriate provision is available to meet the needs of disengaged young people up to the age of 25; Local authorities are the best placed part of the public sector to convene local partners in order to identify young people at risk of disengaging from learning and to identify and address the needs of disengaged young people; Interventions should occur at the earliest opportunity to prevent potential disengagement from education, employment or training and provide the most effective use of resources; Artificial age barriers should not hamper the effectiveness of targeted support for vulnerable young people not in education, employment or training up to the age of 25.

what we are going to do next

This is the first publication in our campaign to stimulate discussion on the issue of NEETs. Our next steps are to: facilitate a practitioner and policy maker event in July to consider the policy solutions to the issues outlined in this document; drawing on those and other discussions, publish a second document in September on the policy solutions needed to address these issues; publish case studies in September celebrating the achievement of young people who have broken through the barrier of being NEET; hold an autumn summit to influence policy on this area and apprenticeships; establish an LGA web-page to update on policy and best practice. We want to hear the views of councillors, practitioners, commentators and experts, and most importantly of young people themselves. We hope that you will join us in moving this debate forward.

36

notes
I. II. III. IV. Although it is better than the alternative term status zero, which was also tried out at the time. NEETs Statistics quarterly brief (DCSF June 2009) PSA 14 in the 2007 Spending Review (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr_csr07_psa14.pdf) There is not just more than one way of expressing the figures, but more than one source for the data. The chart shows two data sources; yet others lie behind the regional figures and other ways of breaking the figures down in detail. There is no value in discussing data issues here, but it is worth knowing that there are a number of sets of figures because different data sources produce slightly different figures (for example the regional figures show a lower rate of NEETs than the national figures). NEETs Statistics Quarterly Briefing NEET strategy (DCSF, 2008) Figures in this section are from the NEETs Statistics Quarterly Brief (DCSF June-2009) Table 3.3: DfES Research Report RR307, DfES 2001 Table 3.1: DfES Research Report RR307, DfES 2001 Ditto, table 3.4 Ditto, table 3.5 DCSF Research Report DCSF RR072 (DCSF, 2009) Ditto, tables 3.6 and 3.8 Princes Trust and Centre fro Economic Performance (2007) The Cost of Exclusion counting the cost of youth disadvantage in the UK, London: Princes Trust Gregg P. and Tominey E. (2004) The Wage Scar from Youth Unemployment, CMPO Working Paper NO 4, University of Bristol Gregg P. and Tominey E. (2004) as above Gregg P. and Tominey E. (2005) The Wage Scar from Male Youth Unemployment in Labour Economics, vol 12, no 4 pp 487-509. Gregg P. and Tominey E. (2005) as above Burgess et al (2003) The Class of 1981: the effects of early career unemployment on subsequent unemployment experiences in Labour Economics, vol 10 pp 291-309. Oswald A. J. (1997) Happiness and Economic Performance in Economic Journal, 107, pp1815-1831. Layard R. (2005) Happiness, New York: The Penguin Press Dearden et al (2004) Returns to Education for the marginal Learner, Evidence from the BCS70, CEE Discussion Paper No 45 Bell D and Blanchflower (2009) What should be done about rising unemployment in the UK? Discussion Paper 4040 Bonn:IZA For more detail see Offord M. (2009) Bankrupt Britain; a guide to the State of the British Economy, London: Centre for Social Justice XXXII. XXX. XXVI. XXVII. XXV. Gross J. (2008) Why we need to target 4 to 8 year olds in Gross J (ed) Getting in Early: Primary Schools and early intervention, London: Smith Institute and Centre for Social Justice De Coulon et al (2008) Parents basic skills and their childrens test scores, London: NRDC Sammons et al (2007) Summary report: influences on childrens attainment and progress in Key Stage 2: cognitive outcomes in year 5. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

XXVIII. Allen G., M.P. (2008) Introduction 2 in Gross J. (Ed) Getting in Early: Primary Schools and Early Intervention, London: The Smiths Institute and The Centre for Social Justice XXIX. The Social Exclusion Unit (1999) Bridging the Gap: New Opportunities for 16-18 Year Olds not in Education, Employment or Training, Cmmd 4405, London: Crown Department of Children, Schools and Families (2008) Reducing the number of young people not in education, employment or training, London: Crown For further detail and analysis see Tunnard et al (2008) One in Ten- key messages from policy, research and practice about young people who are NEET, Research in Practice For a detailed glossary of the changes see The National Youth Agency 14-19 Reforms Glossary available at http://www.nya.org.uk/files/138942/FileName/ 14TO19REFORMSnew.pdf

V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV.

XXXI.

XXXIII. Social Exclusion Unit (2005) Transitions- a social exclusion unit interim report on young adults, London: Office of Deputy Prime Minister XXXIV. Hayward G. et al (2008) Rathbone/Nuffield Review Engaging Youth Enquiry consultation report, Nuffield 17-19 Review XXXV. Sodha S. (2009) A stitch in time: tackling educational disengagement interim report, London: Demos

XV.

XVI. XVII.

XXXVI. Fletcher M et al (2007) Raising the Leaving age to 18, Symbol or Substance?, Berkshire: CfBt XXXVII. Ofsted (2008) The Annual Report of her Majestys Chief Inspector of Education, Childrens Services and Skills 2007/08, London: Ofsted XXXVIII. DIUS and DCSF (2008) World-class Apprenticeships: Unlocking Talent, Building Skills for All. The Governments strategy for the future of Apprenticeships in England, London, Crown XXXIX. Skills Commission (2009) Progression through apprenticeships The final report of the Skills Commissions Inquiry into apprenticeships, London: Policy Connect XL. XLI. Ibid viii Kent County Council (2008) Skills for the 21st Century: no more wasted opportunities.

XVIII. XIX.

XX.

XXI. XXII.

XXIII.

XXIV.

37

appendix one:
a note on calculating the NEETs statistics
There are currently three different data sets used when calculating NEETs figures. The DCSF Statistical First Release (SFR) Labour Force Survey Connexions Service administrative data DCSF Statistical First Release (SFR) The SFR is the definitive measure for NEET rates, and used to measure progress against the PSA target. Its scope is those of academic age 16 to 18, and is described as relating to the end of each year. The year end point is chosen to avoid the fluctuations that occur around the start and end of academic years. The education and training element of the SFR figures are based on census sources, and so should not be subject to sampling error (though they might still be subject to administrative errors). The employment element comes from LFS, which is a sample survey. The key statistics are published in the NEET statistics quarterly brief. The SFR also provides statistics for NETs those 16-18 year olds not in education or training. NEETs are a subset of this group. Labour Force Survey (LFS) The LFS is a continuous household survey that interviews at around 60,000 households each quarter. It asks household members for a range of information covering employment, training and demographic characteristics inter alia. Because the LFS is a sample survey, it is likely to give a less precise estimate of the number of NEETs than the SFR approach which uses a range of administrative and census data. It does have a number of advantages, however. Because it is a continuous survey estimates are available for each quarter, rather than once a year. A problem common to the SFR and LFS percentage figures concerns the population estimates used as denominators. LGA amongst others has voiced concerns about the accuracy of official estimates. There is a widespread sense that official figures have underestimated recent in-migration, acknowledged insofar as a ministerial programme has been initiated and funded to improve the quality of migration.

38

For further information please contact the Local Government Association at: Local Government House Smith Square, London SW1P 3HZ or telephone LGconnect, for all your LGA queries on 020 7664 3131 Fax: 020 7664 3030 E:mail info@lga.gov.uk For a copy in Braille, in larger print or audio tape contact LGconnect promoting better local government

Code L09-445 ISBN 978-1-84049-697-0 LGA July 2009