Today, more than one million young people are not in education, employment or training (NEET). Here, Chief Strategy Officer at Activate Learning, Jon Adams, discusses The Milburn Review’s interim report and the need to design a system around the needs of those at greatest risk of disengagement and unemployment.
Alan Milburn’s Young People and Work Interim Report has put a stark national failure back in the spotlight: more than one million young people are not in education, employment or training (NEET).
The report sets out the scale of the challenge in stark terms. The UK has the second-highest NEET rate in Europe. One in eight young people is currently NEET, and six in ten of those young people have never had a job. Most concerningly, this is not a new problem: the rate has barely fallen below 10% in 25 years.
Milburn’s conclusion is compelling: “Not another programme. Not another pilot. A system. Built around participation. Accountable for outcomes. Permanent in its architecture.”
But what does that system look like in practice? To see why the answer matters, compare the journeys of two very different learners. These are deliberately simplified examples, but the contrast exposes where continuity, responsibility and support begin to fall away.
The first achieves well at school. They have a stable support network and face few additional barriers to learning. School has largely been a positive experience, reinforced by regular success and encouragement. On GCSE results day, they achieve the grades they hoped for and are immediately offered a place in their school’s sixth form, alongside friends and teachers they already know, in an environment where they feel comfortable.
They choose A-level subjects they enjoy and in which they perform well. The transition is smooth. Sixth form feels familiar while offering greater independence. Later, experienced teachers and UCAS help them navigate university choices, while universities compete enthusiastically for their application.
University provides a structured environment in which to continue learning, develop independence and explore career options. Only at 20 or 21 does this young person face a decisive transition into work. Even then, they enter a labour market that still places significant value on graduate routes.
This is, in many respects, a coherent system. Each stage builds logically on the one before. Independence develops gradually; specialisation happens in manageable steps; entry into employment is delayed until many young people feel ready. That does not diminish the hard work required to succeed along this route, not suggest that the system is perfect. Careers guidance, employer engagement and curriculum breadth can all improve.
Yet if this experience were typical of all young people, we would not be talking about a NEET crisis or a broken system.
Now consider a different learner.
They may have additional learning needs, experienced poor mental health, struggled in a traditional academic environment or simply not secured the GCSE results they expected. Results day is very different. If they do not achieve the grades needed to remain at school, they may have to leave a familiar institution and start again at a college.
There, they are often asked to choose between vocational and technical subjects they have never studied before. How are they expected to know whether they are better suited to carpentry, hairdressing, social care or hospitality when they have had little opportunity to experience any of them?
Nevertheless, they must choose.
The course they select may be a one-year programme, followed by another progression decision just 12 months later. They may receive excellent advice and support from dedicated college staff but by 18 or 19 they are expected to enter the labour market. Yet college funding and accountability are geared towards recruitment, retention and completion – not placement into sustained employment. If they do not find work, support becomes fragmented: Jobcentre Plus may see only those who claim benefits, while others simply disappear from view.
Individual journeys vary, of course, and teachers, careers advisers and support staff work tirelessly every day to help young people succeed.
But the second pathway is not designed with the same continuity as the first.
Unlike their peer on the academic route, this learner is more likely to change institution at 16, switch modes of learning, make career decisions with limited exposure to alternatives and enter the labour market several years earlier. Most significantly, they can leave education without any single organisation responsible for supporting the critical transition into employment.
The result is a system that is most coherent for those who already possess many of the advantages associated with success – and least coherent for those who need the greatest support.
That may not be the product of deliberate design, but it is the reality from which we must start.
The Milburn Review’s interim report provides a powerful diagnosis. Its final report, due later this year, will propose solutions. No single reform will transform outcomes on its own. But the guiding principle is clear: the system must be designed around the needs of those at greatest risk of disengagement and unemployment.
So where should we begin?
The first priority should be the transition into post-16 education. Many young people who do not secure strong GCSE outcomes go on to study technical or vocational qualifications, yet they are often asked to choose subjects they have never experienced. Provider access legislation – often called the Baker Clause – is a positive step, but it is not enough. The Government’s newly announced technical education pathways from age 14 could be part of the answer. Schools and colleges should be enabled to give every young person meaningful experience of vocational learning before key decisions have to be made.
The second – and arguably most important – transition is from post-16 education into employment.
The central failure is simple: no single organisation currently has both the responsibility and resources to support young people through this transition. That gap must be closed.
As the Milburn Review rightly highlights, young people who become NEET are not a homogeneous group. Their talents, aspirations, circumstances and barriers vary enormously. Support must reflect that reality.
A dedicated personal adviser for those most at risk could provide tailored support with career planning, job search, applications and practical barriers to work. Crucially, that relationship should begin before the learner leaves college and continue until they are securely established in work.
This is not a new idea: employment-support models have long shown the value of consistent, personalised guidance. Yet intensive support is too often unavailable until a young person has already disengaged.
Nor should such support be universal. Many young people make the transition into work independently or with help from family and friends. Public investment should focus on those who need it most.
At Activate Learning, the 10% of learners at greatest risk of becoming NEET equates to around 1,000 young people each year. Our indicative modelling suggests that ten employment advisers, each supporting up to 50 learners at a time, could reach this group at an annual cost of around £1m.
On our assumptions, that is equivalent to roughly a 1.3% uplift in 16-19 funding. The precise model will vary by college, but the principle is nationally transferable: targeted transition support can be built into the system at relatively modest cost.
That is a modest investment if the Government is serious about reducing the number of young people who are NEET. The challenge identified by the Milburn Review is not to create another initiative, but to build a system that works as well for the young person facing the greatest barriers as it does for the young person already on a well-supported path.
That is the real test of whether we are prepared to level the playing field – and one we can no longer afford to fail.