Written evidence submitted by Dr Stefan Sönke Speckesser, University of Brighton (YEET0029)

1. Introduction and reason for submitting the evidence

Dr Stefan Speckesser, working as the Associate Dean for Research at the School of Business and Law, University of Brighton; I am an applied econometrician with over thirty years of research experience in education, labour market economics and policy evaluation. Since 2010, I have been directing major research programmes on youth transitions and vocational education, both at my current institution and in previous leadership roles at NIESR, the Centre for Vocational Education Research (CVER), and IES.

I pioneered the use of Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) data for independent research, transforming it into a vital resource for evaluating the effectiveness of traineeships, apprenticeships and basic skills investment. I utilised LEO to understand the situation of UK’s most disadvantaged young people, and how targeted programmes can improve their prospects. In the following, I provide evidence in response to this Call, which is based on my own independent and impartial research.

2. Summary of the evidence

Key findings

• Low educational attainment is the strongest predictor of the NEET status.
• Any time spent NEET creates a lasting employment disadvantage, regardless of education level.
• Compounding factors: NEET risk rises sharply when vulnerabilities overlap, particularly for young people with Special Educational Needs (SEN), care-experience, and those from low-income families.
• Institutional fragmentation, rather than a lack of funding, is the main reason for the UK’s high youth unemployment.
• Apprenticeships are increasingly involving higher education, often upskilling established staff, instead of providing entry-level opportunities for young people.
• Regional Variation: NEET rates range locally from under 10% in affluent rural areas to over 20% in northern cities, with disadvantaged youth in the North facing markedly higher risks than those in the South.

Recommendations

• Early intervention: A NEET status of longer duration must be avoided – labour-market scarring becomes visible even after 6 months of NEET.
• Combining training in workplaces and personal growth: Effective NEET prevention demands intensive, one-to-one case management for vulnerable populations and blending soft-skills development with employer-led pathways such as traineeships and apprenticeships.
• Tailored job coaching: DWP and Jobcentre Plus should provide high-quality careers advice and mentoring aligned with young people’s labour-market goals, guiding them toward viable career paths instead of mismatched or low-value courses.
• Local Flexibility and Accountability: Youth unemployment interventions must move beyond uniform programmes toward locally tailored delivery, supported by standardised monitoring to identify, evaluate, and scale successful practices.
• Enhance opportunities in businesses: Apprenticeships funded by the Levy must be re-directed to labour-market entrants instead of upskilling existing employees.
• Artificial Intelligence (AI): Vocational and university education need to create domain knowledge, physical-technical dexterity and – importantly – high-stakes human and social intelligence, to prepare for jobs, which are augmented and not replaced by AI.

Responses to individual questions

Young people who are NEET

a)     What factors lead to a young person not being in education, employment or training (NEET)? Are there some young people who are more likely to be NEET than others?

Working with the Youth Futures Foundation, I recently researched the UK Government’s Longitudinal Education Outcome data (LEO), looking into individual education and labour market trajectories for over five million young people (aged 17–24)[1]. I found that the NEET population was characterised by specific vulnerabilities, see Table 1, and that the risk of becoming or remaining NEET increases significantly when multiple factors intersect:

• Educational Attainment is the strongest predictor of NEET status. Those with Level 1 qualifications or below make up just 21% of the 17-24-year-old population but represent 46% of all NEETs and 55% of the long-term NEETs (12+ months).
• Young People with Special Educational Needs (SEN) are twice as often NEET (18%) as the general population of this age (9%).
• Family Disadvantage: Individuals eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) constitute 12% of the cohort but account for 20% of the long-term NEET population.
• Ethnicity: While White British youth make up the majority of the cohort (70%), the “All other ethnicities” group sees its representation rise from 25% in the general population to 30% among the long-term NEETs.
• Gender: Males are slightly more likely to be NEET, comprising 57% of the group compared to 52% of the general population.

Table 1: Patterns in the population of 17-24-year-olds and in NEET populations

* Some categories not available for all cohorts and not adding up to the total
Source: LEO, KS4 Leaver Cohorts 2005/06-2012/13

b)     What are the long-term consequences for young people who are NEET for an extended period?

Again, using LEO, my research “tracked” individual labour market trajectories over a six-year period. By categorising cohorts based on their status at a census date in February 2014 (ranging from “Not NEET” to “Long-term NEET, 12+ months”) and their recorded educational attainment at the time, I can show long-term outcomes of being NEET (until available data ends in 2020). This analysis reveals that extended NEET periods dictate employment outcomes for several years afterwards, see Figure 1.

Figure 1: Long-term employment ratios by education attainment and duration of NEET

Source: LEO, KS4 Leaver Cohorts 2005/06-2012/13

This analysis underscores the intersection of NEET status and educational attainment as the primary drivers of long-term labour market outcomes.:

• Higher qualifications provide a “floor” for employment stability. By Year 6, young people observed “not NEET” and with a Level 4 qualification at census date achieved an 82% employment rate, outperforming those with a Level 1 qualification (62%) by 20 percentage points. Higher education serves as a robust buffer against labour market volatility.
• Any period spent NEET results in a severe and persistent employment penalty – regardless of education level.: For example, among Level 3 attainers, those who were not observed NEET reached 77% employment, while those NEET for 12+ months plateaued at just 42%. Thus, the “NEET status” itself acts as a significant barrier that education cannot offset.
• The duration of NEET provides a clear rationale for early intervention: the longer a young person is NEET, the harder it is to re-enter the workforce. For example, within the Level 2 group, short-term NEETs (0-6 months) achieved a 55% employment rate six years later. Long-term NEETs (12+ months) saw it stall at 40%.
• The disadvantage for low-attainment, long-term NEET individuals is not static; it grows over time. For group with Level 1 qualifications, the employment gap between “Not observed NEET at census date” and “Long-term NEET” widened from 24 percentage points in Year 1 to 40 percentage points by Year 6. This indicates that without specific intervention, this group falls progressively further behind their peers.

c)      Would it be useful for the Government to set specific goals or target relating to the number or proportion of young people who are NEET? What might such a target be?

Based on the research presented here, there are three recommendations for targets:

• Early intervention: Long durations on NEET should be avoided, especially lasting longer than 12 months.  Labour market scarring becomes more substantial with continued NEET durations.
• Target Vulnerable Transitions: Policy interventions should be directed toward cohorts with NEET-heavy trajectories, specifically those with care experience, low qualifications, and Free School Meal (FSM) status. These groups yield the highest social and economic returns on investment.
• Arrest the Widening Attainment Gap: Because the employment gap compounds over time, early intervention at key transition points is the only viable mechanism to prevent structural inequality from hardening into long-term unemployment.

Preventing young people from becoming NEET

d)     How can the Government, and the DWP, help to prevent young people becoming NEET in the first place?

A systematic literature review, which I conducted in 2015,[2] confirms that education policy remains the primary lever for reducing youth unemployment. The evidence identifies mid-childhood – specifically the period prior to secondary school – as a critical juncture where Key Stage 2 achievement shapes education outcomes and long-term labour market trajectories. Effective prevention requires fostering positive aspirations and educational attitudes early; these personal and behavioural drivers are the most powerful safeguards against school dropout and subsequent NEET status.

By the end of secondary school and in post-16 settings, red flags – like skipping class, low motivation, work in “dead-end” jobs – predict future employment struggles. Schools and FE Colleges should move beyond reactive measures and build diagnostic systems that spot these signs early.

e)      Are there any examples of Government-funded interventions designed to prevent young people becoming NEET that have been particularly effective?

Systematic reviews from the Learning and Work Institute[3] and the Youth Futures Foundation[4] confirm that effective interventions to reduce youth unemployment are well-researched and understood. The evidence suggests the programmes should move toward high-impact, employer-led pathways, specifically traineeships, supported internships, and apprenticeships, integrated with individualised mentoring and basic skills support.

Evidence from my longitudinal evaluations of major UK initiatives – Traineeships, the “Youth Contract”, and “Entry-to-employment” – aligns with this broader evidence base:

• Traineeships effectively bridge the gap for low-attainment youth, significantly increasing the probability of transitioning into apprenticeships or sustained work. [5]
• Youth Contract: Personalised mentoring and provider incentives successfully reduced long-term NEET status among the most disengaged 16- and 17-year-olds. [6]
• “Entry-to-employment”: Improving “soft skills” like self-regulation and agency is a primary driver of economic mobility, yielding higher qualifications and increased adult earnings. [7]

These studies prove that when interventions are structured, personalised, and focused on both vocational/labour market skills and personal growth and development, they deliver measurable social and economic returns. In summary:

• Effective policy must integrate structured work-based pathways with a focus on behavioural competencies and personalised mentoring.
• To achieve sustainable outcomes, provision must move away from fragmented, single-strand programmes toward integrated models that combine practical work experience with the long-term, wrap-around support necessary to bridge the gap between disengagement and formal employment.

Support for young people who are NEET

f)       How well supported are young people as they move from school to college and into education? What impact might the transfer of apprenticeships and Skills to DWP for people aged 20+ have on these transitions?

Based on mixed-methods research with young people in Brighton and Hove a couple of years ago[8], I have seen some shifts in the nature of transitions between school and college, and onwards, to employment destinations. While students historically dropped out of post-16 education for positive opportunities like apprenticeships, recent data suggests a trend of “avoidable exits” driven by poor course alignment and unmet expectations.

Current institutional frameworks prioritise academic transitions, often overlooking the specific requirements of high-aptitude learners suited for technical roles. To address this, it is important that the DWP and Jobcentres modernise Careers Information, Advice, and Guidance (CIAG) by embedding high-quality, early-stage vocational mentoring. This strategic shift will ensure that labour market entrants are aligned with practical career pathways that match both their capabilities and labour market demand.

g)     What is the most effective way of delivering support to young people who are NEET? Are there any initiatives that can be learned from, domestically or internationally?

Comparable international data reveals that the drivers of youth employment are very similar across developed economies, and that the UK is a notable underperformer when it comes to youth opportunity. This disparity in outcomes suggests that the UK lacks the institutional agility seen in neighbouring economies to effectively address the problem.

The UK’s youth unemployment is at a ten-year high of 15.9%[9], now exceeding the EU average of 14.7%[10]. This divergence is stark: while the UK’s performance deteriorates, our European neighbours have made great improvements and reduced youth unemployment. Success isn’t limited to the ‘German model’; countries as diverse as Poland (3.2%) and the Netherlands (4.0%) are also outperforming us. The differentiator is not just funding, but the presence of institutions with a clear remit and their coordination to deliver results.

My recommendations for an improved delivery model stem from the “EU STYLE” project[11], a 25-country study conducted at the University of Brighton, which involved me as a contributor. This analysis combined large-scale data with deep institutional research across 25 partner organisations, delivering one of the most comprehensive benchmarks on the effectiveness of NEET interventions in Europe, and identified some key drivers of successful models:

• Preventative Intervention: Focusing on key transition points and proactive outreach, policy should identify and re-engage young people using digital tools and local partnerships before disengagement becomes permanent.
• Intensive Case Management: Fragmented support needs to be replaced by specialised, one-on-one mentoring in Job Centres. This requires diagnostic tools to assess individual needs and sufficient staff capacity for long-term, holistic support.
• Flexible, Integrated Pathways: Combining “soft skills,” financial support, and modular learning should replace fragmented programme interventions. Policy should focus on employer-led transitions, including traineeships and pre-vocational training.
• Coordination: To drive systemic change, institutions require mandated collaboration and pooled funding across local authorities, schools, and the DWP to establish a unified, localized apprenticeship and employment offer.

h)     How can and should DWP support young people who are not in contact with the benefit system?

Based on the evidence above, my recommendations are:

• Reforming Jobcentre Plus: Position Jobcentre Plus as the central anchor for youth labour market engagement. By enhancing specialised functions and expanding advisory capacity, transition toward an intensive, individualised casework model necessary to support high-priority groups.
• Prioritise Preventative Action: Shift focus to early intervention at critical transition points. Stop the cycle of disengagement before it becomes permanent.
• Proactive Outreach: Expand “e-outreach” and formalise partnerships with NGOs and youth organisations.

i)       What barriers or disincentives prevent young people from taking up, or completing, apprenticeships?

While apprenticeships remain stable with about 340,000 started per year[12] (albeit much lower than fifteen years ago), the apprenticeship system has shifted from a vehicle for youth social mobility to a mechanism for upskilling established professionals. Key problems with apprenticeships are:

• Contraction: Data reveals a significant contraction in Level 2 apprenticeship provisions, with starts declining by half since the 2019/20 academic year. This reduction disproportionately impacts young entrants who rely on these foundational positions to transition into the workforce.
• Levy Funding: The Apprenticeship Levy is increasingly utilised for upskilling existing staff through higher-tier qualifications, rather than expanding vocational access for labour market entrants. This creates a resource gap for those requiring introductory professional training.
• Participation is skewed toward older workers: In 2024/25, starts for those aged 25+ (181,000) were more than double those for under-19s (75,000); most of the older apprentices had worked for their firms for a long time.
• Structural Exclusion: The growth of higher and degree-level apprenticeships over accessible vocational and technical pathways has created a structural disadvantage for labour market entrants aiming for mid-skills roles.

In addition, the allocation of Apprenticeship Levy funding towards existing staff creates inefficiencies: Research, which I published in Oxford Economic Papers[13], confirms that the measurable wage effects of apprenticeships are exclusive to new entrants. For apprenticeships undertaken by existing staff, the analysis shows no statistically significant improvements.

To restore the system’s integrity and fiscal value, apprenticeships should return to their core purpose: a dedicated bridge into the workforce that integrates work experience with intermediate and advanced professional learning for those at the start of their careers.

j)       What barriers are there to employers offering and targeting apprenticeships at young people? How effectively will the Government’s current approach address these?

(See above – regulate Apprenticeship Levy to benefit labour market entrants, specifically aiming for vocational education and mid-skills careers).

k)     How can apprenticeships and other forms of training offered by DWP, e.g. Skills Bootcamps or the sector-based work academy programme, be best utilised to support young people?

(I have not worked on these further programmes, and I cannot provide evidence here)

l)       How does support for young people who are NEET differ between the UK’s four nations? How might the transfer of Skills to DWP impact the delivery of support for young people across the UK?

(I have not worked on NEETs in other nations of the UK, and I cannot provide evidence here)

Employment and the labour market

m)   What are the main barriers to employers supporting young people into employment and how can the Government better work with employers to address these?

(See above – regulate Apprenticeship Levy to benefit labour market entrants, specifically aiming for vocational education and mid-skills careers).

n)     How well is support for young people tailored to local labour market conditions and how can this be improved?

Some of my previous research[14] reveals significant regional variation in NEET rates across England, showing very unequal labour market outcomes for young people: While cities like Middlesbrough, Manchester, and Nottingham face NEET rates exceeding 20%, rural areas generally maintain lower levels (near 10%), with the lowest rates found in affluent areas like York and West Berkshire.

Figure 2: NEET rates in local areas

Source: NPD, ILR, HESA and LEO for the 2007/08- 2011/12 school leavers (by age 20-24)

In a series of further maps in the publication (not shown here), I explore the influence of education and socio-economic disadvantage on NEET rates. This analysis highlights two distinct regional profiles:

• Urban Areas: Characterized by higher overall NEET rates but lower inequality, as the gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged[15] youth is narrower.
• Rural & Commuter Belts: Typically see lower NEET rates overall, but regional differences persist. Disadvantaged youth in the North face significantly higher risks of becoming NEET than those in the South and West.

As sources of inequality and labour market conditions differ across localities, the response with supporting interventions should aim to better meet the local needs:

1. Improving attainment: Reducing the number of “low attainers” (those below Level 2) remains the single most effective way to lower NEET rates across localities.
2. Supporting young people from low-income families should be a priority in the North, compared to the South.
3. Identifying “Best Practice”: Some Local Authorities outperform others in re-engaging youth with very low skills; such models need to be understood to drive improvements.

o)     What impact may developments in technologies, such as AI, have on the employment of young people? How should Government respond?

Early research evidence suggests that AI-driven automation is primarily disrupting entry-level professional and cognitive roles, meaning higher education is no longer a safeguard against youth unemployment. With cognitive tasks commoditised by AI, return to human capital investment is migrating toward the intersection of technical expertise and non-routine interpersonal skills, capabilities that remain computationally prohibitive to replicate.[16]

Youth initiatives must orientate towards this “Human Premium” and related job roles, which will resist displacement by AI. In fact, AI might rather augment the human contribution in such jobs and deliver new employment opportunities. Sectors include:

• Personalised services: Education, health/care/personal development, retail, experiential (performance/tourism/leisure), etc.
• High-quality producing industries: Specialised manufacturing and other producing industries, human-made goods and crafts.
• Oversight and governance: High-level leadership and domain knowledge, accountability, ethical oversight, and policy.

To maximise the benefits of the AI transition, educational institutions must pivot toward strengthening pathways into sectors where enduring human contribution and physical presence remain the primary drivers of economic value and job creation.

p)     How can employers be encouraged to invest in Skills training?

(See above – regulate Apprenticeship Levy to benefit labour market entrants, specifically aiming for vocational education and mid-skills careers).

February 2026