Really interesting report on NEETs. What do you think happens next?

[SomedayIllBeSaturdayNight]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/may/23/uk-young-people-workplace-anxiety-alan-milburn

Such an interesting report by Alan Millburn in why the UK has so many young NEETs.

' “[Young people] are different, not worse, not lazier, not less intelligent. They have grown up in a digital world that has rewired how they communicate, form relationships and manage stress. They have fewer experiences of workplaces and they present with higher levels of anxiety and depression.”

Does this ring true to you? And what are the next few years going to look like?

I personally can't see any reason for the government not to ban social media for under 16s in this context.

@frozendaisy Absolutely agree with you that we need to think about how to get the current NEETs into work. A UCL study found that those who were NEET for the entire 8 year period 16-24 years old had 64.5% chance of being unemployed or economically inactive at 51 years old. Those who were NEET for 2-3 years before 24 years old, were three times more likely to be unemployed at 51 years old. Unemployment can directly cause or worsen mental health issues. Therefore, it is not kind to give welfare benefits to this age group too easily. I think the saying,"Give a man a fish and you feed him for day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" is applicable here. We need to try and get NEETS into employment, education or training for the satisfaction that having a purpose every day-even if that means that they get paid less, have less employee rights etc. because employers are taking a risk on young inexperienced people. I agree with you that reducing NI contributions for young people and offering cash incentives for a certain number of training days is good.
Giving benefits to young people is offering short-term comfort for long-term ruin. Work, education and training allows young people to develop themselves. Reducing benefits for them if they don't engage in this is an example of being strict to be kind.

But what does accomplished look like?

SEN provision used to cater to children with Down’s syndrome, learning difficulties and physical disabilities. Now it’s all highly anxious autistic kids with regular IQs and no physical disabilities. This profile is quite new and I’m not surprised they don’t have a well oiled machine in dealing with it.

Sadly it isn’t the case that there’s a path for everyone that will lead to employment and independent living. I think parents are convinced if only X or Y would be provided their child would be fine and reach their potential, but I’m far from convinced this is the case.

Many treatments for things like anxiety are either avoidance and procrastination or little better than having a vent. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of anybody with severe anxiety who has been treated and then has average mental health afterwards. It all costs a fierce amount of money and is far from guaranteed to have results.

There’s a program on iPlayer at the moment (with Kelly Bright) who meets an anxious autistic teen girl who is school refusing. The parents want an EOTAS package for her complete with one on one tuition and animal therapy. It’s plainly obvious the cost will be staggering and she’s so unable to function it seems unlikely she will even engage with it if I’m honest.

Fixing the environment would be quicker and more cost effective than trying to overhaul SEND support with the blinkers everyone has on around that.
Break away from schools policies being directed by career politicians whose experience of school is far removed from the reality for most people.

There’s also the issue that current government policies have made it more and more unattractive to hire people, particularly young inexperienced people.

I do feel there’s an irony in the growing NEETS problem in that much of it is a case of successive governments reaping what they’ve sown.

DC don’t get EOTAS/EOTIS/C just because their parents want it. It is only legally possible if it is inappropriate (in the legal sense) for provision to be made in a school or college.

Parents of DC with SEN are well aware the law doesn’t entitle them to the best possible provision to educate to maximum potential.

The right EOTAS/EOTIS/C package can be life changing for some.

If DC can’t engage, then it isn’t the right package because the package is bespoke it should be built around enabling DC to get to a place where they can engage. No, they won’t jump in with 30+hrs a week from the off.

A proper EOTAS/EOTIS package is so much more than tuition and a bit of AAT.

Apologies if it's been mentioned but lord Wolfson has said labours policies are not helping at all.

I’m always confused by this. Generally when people talk about a change in environment they mean a kind of return to the 80s/90s where nobody cared if you truanted, you could leave at 16 and exams weren’t as essential. But we live in a very different world now, we are post industrialisation as a country and tech is here to stay. Plus I’m also told apparently tech is used to regulate or something, so it’s all very confusing by as to what is actually desired.

But again for some there is no such thing as ‘the right’ package, sadly nothing is really going to work in the way the parent hopes. I worked for a time in the education dept of local govt, and parents often did this. The council would pay up a year of school fees for a private setting the parent said was perfect for their DC, only for the DC to attend for a few weeks then never again because ‘it’s not the right setting’

Of course there is such a thing as the right package. I have 2 DSs with right EOTAS/EOTIS packages for them. Their packages differ, but they are right for them. I know many others with right packages for their own DC.

You are utterly wrong to say EOTAS/EOTIS is never going to work as the parent wants it to. Although, as I said, EOTAS/EOTIS/C isn’t about what the parents want.

Placements breakdown for a variety of reasons. It doesn’t mean nothing can work.

Ok but (and this is a tough q) will those packages lead to permanent employment and independence?

@FernFaery Actually many treatments for anxiety are facing up to the fear. Have a look at systematic desensitisation etc. Avoidance makes anxiety worse in the long-term. Tonnes of psychological research shows this. Many parents want to protect their child by enabling them to avoid stressful situations. This is entirely natural for parents to do this but unfortunately this has long-term negative effects. Therefore, supporting young people in avoiding work, education or training is not the answer. Parents who allow their children to avoid school, training or applying for jobs are accidentally validating their children's fears.
This is why employment agencies etc need to combat this by making it clear to young people and parents the long-term benefits of non-avoidance. Working, training, education etc improves mental health. Happiness is linked to have purpose and challenge. Positive psychology shows that people often experience flow (a type of happiness) at work.
When a young person has a severe clinical episode e.g. acute psychosis then they may need some time off but they should be supported back into work, training or education. Research shows that extended periods away from work, training or education can make a mental health condition worse.

In which case why so many hall passes, EOTAS requests, ‘sensory break rooms’ and adjustments that involve not being present in whatever you find distressing?

My DSs will never be independent or employed. However, there is far, far more to be considered than that. If you removed or reduced their packages, the cost of their education would reduce, but costs to other parts of the state such as the NHS/ICB and social care would greatly increase.

For some, yes, it can be the support that enables them to go on to be independent &/or employed. For example, there is an MN’ers DS who had EOTAS/EOTIS. He went on to reintegrate into mainstream for sixth form and is now attending university. I know others IRL whose DC reintegrated in MS or SS &/or went on to university &/or employment.

Although, as I said, there is far more to be considered. More widely, for example, it can be the difference between:
Needing 1:1 or 2:1 (or even 3:1 or 4:1) as an adult.
Needing a residential placement or a placement within the community.
Needing an ordinary residential placement or a secure placement.
Needing 24/7 care or only care for some of the time.
Having contact with the justice system and not.
Going on to be eligible for CHC funding or not when they are an adult.
Needing prolonged hospital stays in the future or not.
There are many other examples I could give.

EOTAS/EOTIS is not about avoidance. You do not get EOTAS/EOTIS just because you want to avoid school. That completely misunderstands the law.

I understand this but the cost of EOTAS is £££ - eventually it’ll run into the millions of pounds. In the long run spending millions of pounds on children who are unlikely to ever be independent, and cheapskating on kids with huge potential in the job market, isn’t a strategy which can sustain itself. That’s not to say I don’t appreciate that caring for disabled children will always cost more than a typical child, I know this - but the packages are in many cases extortionate and this is now happening on a wide scale. You don’t have to reply but I am making an assumption your DSs are both autistic?

You assume wrong, and such assumptions are a huge part of the problem. One has ASD (and other related and unrelated disabilities). The other does not have autism. DS1 has other complex physical, medical, psychotic al and developmental disabilities, but he is not autistic.

EOTAS/EOTIS is not happening on a wide scale. The most recent statistics show 7.8% of DC with EHCPs are classed as educated elsewhere. That 7.8% includes EHE, parents making other arrangements, DC attending Welsh schools, those who are NEET, those who attend schools types that aren’t included in the other statistics as well as those attending online providers (although some with online provision will be included in the next statistic instead), and other arrangements made by the LA. The other arrangements made by the LA subgroup only makes up 23.16% of thar 7.8%. So, overall, we are only looking at a small percentage, less than 2%, of those with EHCPs.

For many DC with EOTAS/EOTIS, not spending money on those EOTAS/EOTIS packages will increase costs in the long run even if they aren’t going to be independent. For some, it will increase other costs in the here and now too. For example, if you reduced spending on my DSs’ EOTAS/EOTIS packages, both would have more hospital admissions, they would both use more other NHS resources, DS1’s continuing care package would increase so increasing the ICB’s costs, DS3’s social care package would increase... Which would all cost just as much, if not more. Besides, even if you removed EOTAS/EOTIS via EHCPs as per section 61 of the Children and Families Act 1996, you would still have costs providing provision under section 19 of the Education Act 1996.

My son had severe anxiety. It was treated and he now had a good mental health outcome.

But nobody ever wants to hear how success happened as it challenges thier preconceived views.

I’d argue that the 80s/90s were easier because they were far more flexible times. School was still difficult but more manageable for more people.

Leaving at 16 for some was exactly what they needed.

I don’t think tech is particularly a problem, and most children are more proficient with it than many adults, and are self motivated to learn how to use it.

The problem is people being forced into an increasingly rigid and turgid system. Where functional maths and English is only available once you’ve failed, where behaviour policies do not reflect on child development or behaviour expectations in any other way beyond school age, and where they are used inconsistently and unfairly.

It’s a system largely formed by privately educated career politicians who know nothing about children let alone education.

Reversing decisions to take us back to an imperfect time when children were less traumatised by their school years doesn’t seem like a bad idea.

Doing anything to improve the environment for the many there who cannot cope doesn’t seem like a bad idea either, but they won’t go there at all, they are deliberately ignoring this issue.

Decisions have been made that actively discourage employers from hiring young people. The increase in AI and self service meaning there are fewer jobs available. We live in a world which is much harder to navigate, and much more stressful. More and more people are having children who need extra support in school. And everyone’s wringing their hands wondering what to do without addressing the elephant in the room and looking anywhere beyond blaming those who are suffering.

Which preconceived views?

Because that type of treatment to improve anxiety only works when the person is engaged with it, motivated for it to work, and not actively in fight or flight mode.

Being in school for many children now puts them in such a state that there’s no way resilience has a look in, and no amount of being told “you need to be resilient” (which was my son’s schools approach) is going to help.

Sensory breaks are often the only way a child can get through a school day, this is literally the way to teach resilience - allow breaks in order to manage the thing.

Once out of school you never have to be in an environment like that ever again. I’ve managed to work most of my life without ever stepping foot into anything like a school. As adults we have options (unless we’ve been so shat on by the system that we either have to recover or we’ve lost all hope). As children unless your parents can home educate you there are no options. Different styles of schools with different and more flexible approaches have all but gone. Most secondary schools have shifted their policies in line with academies. It’s a shitshow. We need to blame the government for creating this.

Generally I explain it involve cahms working closely with us, medication, a transfer to a special school, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and equine therapy and giving my son total control over attendance (he now attends 98%) and patience and it didnt cost millions or 100k a year or even half that.

But the assumption is i shoukd have just parented him out of it all by unknown methods and the mention of horses really upsets people.

@FernFaery my DS’s had a very normal childhood whilst it was possible - lots of books, jigsaws, making things, outdoor play etc - they are still autistic/ADHD. One has extreme social anxiety and has barely left the house since his specialist placement broke down 10 years ago. The other is at uni with support.

I judged my in-laws for smacking my nephew and allowing him on screens all the time but he is now apparently fine.

So if I were being reductive I may conclude that early positive social interactions had no positive benefit whilst excessive screen time plus physical violence had no negative impact.

But maybe that’s due to what used to be called class?

Actually you’re wrong as regarded autism and anxiety. It’s very much proven that overloading and masking can lead to severe mental illness. Did with all of my children and the cost to the NHS had been huge. We did it your way with dire consequences and I saw so many similar stories in services and during hospital stays. The opposite is the approach we’ve been advised to do and it’s working. Not masking, not overloading, not pushing yourself constantly into overwhelm and tolerating endless situations that cause deep discomfort, having time out of education to get well, learning to avoid situations that lead to overwhelm…..

NEETs need something now though.

If things can’t be put in place to encourage and incentivise businesses and NEETs who are able to enter the workplace as it is then anything more bespoke is going to be impossible.

If more businesses had increased confidence that training up a youngster was an investment for their company then some of the current NEETs might not end up as part of the quite frankly depressing statistics.

I know a lot of people think investing in able body and mind young adults is unfair and that all the investment should be in SEND and just SEND but as you enter the working world investment with no potential gain is almost nonexistent. And I don’t mean gain just monetarily, if you need a job doing and the person employed to do it can’t do it reliably that’s a loss.

What we personally need is a nuclear energy research lab for one of our teens. No one’s going to build one just because he wants one he is going to have to find a way into one somehow, if possible. He needs to work like a dog for years just to be considered. Which he is prepared to do. As explained to him staying in his room and not being able to talk to people on the phone, or being unreliable with the job he has, or just being an entitled flake is going to get him precisely nowhere.

We all want impossible things for our children, but in reality we all have to work with reality. And I am not talking schools it’s a legal requirement for every child to get access to “an” education (because schools are far from perfect for non-SEN pupils as well).

I wouldn’t expect our young adults (when they become them) to have many options if they become a lazy, layabout, that job is beneath them, lump of attitude. And have explained this to them already. No one’s thinks they are special in this world except us out there they need to prove it, over and over and over again, no matter how hard, boring or seemingly pointless it might feel.

It would be nice though if there was a bit more optimism that they might be offered some opportunities that could exploit their abilities and teenage hopes and dreams (some of which are the stuff of futuristic sci-fi but we are letting life experience to allow them to let those ones go - or turn into fiction books at some point).

So I hope this NEET report looks at all young adults and tries to build connections between them and the working world. Young adults should be exploited for their energy and ideas not thwarted and dampened. Although I have a feelings ours will need to move out of the UK.

@DropKick I was referring to anxiety as a specific disorder on its own.
Autism is different and I agree that masking can lead to anxiety. There are also huge differences between those with classic autism and more borderline cases. An important question is whether those with borderline autistic traits are enabled or hindered by the label. If it means that they now feel better understood and it increases their likelihood of staying in work, training or education then that is useful. If the label lowers the expectations for themselves and their parents to go to school or hold down a job, then it is negative. Labelling is negative if it leads to people feeling less capable.
The number of NEETS has increased significantly recently with an increasing percentage diagnosed with autism or mental health issues. This suggests that increasing the number of people with a label is having a negative effect on them. It is making them feel less capable.

There’s no such thing as classic autism or borderline autism.

Only 12% of young people are NEET, only 20-30% of NEETs report a mental health condition . Only 10% of NEETs have autism.

Your hypotheses don’t add up.