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.

Definitely. How many times have you read an article about, say, Twiddly Syndrome, and you think… “I’ve got that symptom, and this one…” and you can almost convince yourself you are a full-blown Twiddly sufferer.

Kids/young adults on social media are getting this a million times worse - about everything. I was reading about Looksmaxxing - omg. No wonder their heads are wrecked.

Yes, I don’t blame them, even I can feel my health anxiety ramping up with the use of the internet. I wonder if blissful ignorance was better sometimes.

I agree with you about the politics side of it, for sure, but among the remaining jobs those without resilience will not be able to compete.

That would be an issue if the levels of jobs vs workforce were anywhere near close. 705 k jobs , compared to 900k NEETS. That’s without counting those over 25 who are also looking for work. Even the resilient, the great A levels , graduates etc. are NEETS now. I can’t remember exactly , but Around 13% of NEETS are graduates.

Agreed.

We need to tip the balance from spending on benefits for 16-21 year olds to spending on training and apprenticeships.

Are you aware of the numbers you're talking about?

142,359 16-21 year olds on Universal Credit with no conditionality (ie. Disabled) in the UK.

4.6 Million 16-21 year olds in the UK.

You're talking about 3% of the 16-21 age group. The other Universal Credit recipients in this age group are either working, searching for work, or preparing for work.

@Lougle
16-18 year olds are legally required to be in education or training. The roughly 18,000-22,000 of these that have limited capability to work and live with parents should not be given benefits. Young people in education do not receive benefits so why are these young people receiving benefits. IMO, it is the parents responsibility to support their own children up to 18. The money saved on this could be used to support these young peple to get back into education or training.
Between 18-21, the government should provide less benefits. Young people who live with parents should not receive state help with rent unless they are a carer, homeless, a parent, or a victim of domestic abuse. Most young people 18-21 in education are supported by their parents and the state should not be expected to support young people who are not in education until they have worked. The government should reform the work capability assesment and make it harder to receive benefits. This is being strict to be kind. Being out of work, employment or training can cause mental health issues or make them worse. It is about helping young people long-term. The money saved on benefits can be used to provide subsidies for companies employing young people in entry-level jobs.
Between 21-24 years old, those who remain unemployed after a set period (e.g., 3 or 6 months) would be legally required to undertake full-time, unpaid community service or public sector work to continue qualifying for their Universal Credit. This would mean that there is more incentive for them to be in paid work.
There should also be reform to the work capability assessment and those with mild or moderate mental health issues should be encouraged to work. Again, this is about being strict to be kind. It much better for those with mental health issues to be in work long-term. The money saved on benefits here could be used to provide subsidies for companies to employ or train young people.

Nearly half of NEETS are not on benefits. Out of the ones that are , approx 300k are on claiming and seeking work benefits and approx 200k are on disability benefits.

16-18 year olds are legally required to be in education or training.

Not in all countries in the UK. Plus the RPA in England is only until the young person’s 18th birthday, rather than applying to all 18y/o’s in England.

The roughly 18,000-22,000 of these that have limited capability to work and live with parents

Where have you got these statistics from? The screenshot from the government’s statistics that @Lougle posted doesn’t say there are 18-22k with LCW. Those with LCW are in the preparing for work conditionality group. There are less than 2,000 16-18 year olds in the preparing for work group, and not all of them are there because of LCW and not all will be living with parents.

Young people in education do not receive benefits so why are these young people receiving benefits.

Some young people in education can receive UC. One of those groups who can be eligible is some disabled young people, but there are a few other groups, too.

There are also many QYP who are on their parents’ claims and while these YP don’t receive the money directly, the state still pays benefits for them.

The money saved on this could be used to support these young peple to get back into education or training.

How do you know they aren’t in education or training? Some are. Some could be if the LA didn’t act unlawfully.

Young people who live with parents should not receive state help with rent unless they are a carer, homeless, a parent, or a victim of domestic abuse.

Young people living at home with parents don’t receive the housing element for help with rent. Unless the tenancy is in their name. Why do you think those who are a carer, parent of victim of domestic abuse are more worthy of housing support than those who are disabled?

Under your plans, what happens to those who are unable to work/volunteer? Being disabled can be incredibly expensive? People with mild mental health conditions are not eligible for LCW or LCWRA. Many with moderate mental health conditions aren’t either.

Hmmm - this is an interesting point and may be a contributing factor. It’s a choice borne of large class sizes - my kids went to an international school until recently and there was a lot of debate, have a go, laughter in lessons. Lots of giving presentations, even in primary. The kids were, as a result, very articulate and confident.

Our teens go to state secondary and have all this interaction.

The sit down and listen is because a lot of stories don’t do that, and it only takes one a class sometimes, but if you do a bit of listening then there is time and space for debate and development.

A lot of parents expect schools to do everything for their children whilst sending them in without the attitude to listen and behave.

You need an element of strictness in schools to get these things done. As long as it’s fair across the board I don’t understand the complaints about this at all.

"You need an element of strictness in schools to get these things done. As long as it’s fair across the board I don’t understand the complaints about this at all."

What is 'fair'? Is it fair that a child is punished because they have an brain impairment? At our local Secondary School, if a child participates in 'low-level disruption' , their name is written on the board. If they question why their name is on the board, they get a red card and have to go to the hub for an entire day. A child with ADHD (a brain impairment caused by inadequate dopamine receptor activity) may have been distracted, or done something impulsively, but they are unlikely to know what they've done because it wasn't a conscious decision. It could be that they dropped their pen, or they absent-mindedly rocked their chair, or tapped the table, or clicked their pen. If they see their name on the board and don't understand why, they ask, and get hubbed.

I would wager that nobody has done an equalities impact analysis of these discipline systems, and that if they did, the impact would, in order, go:

Boys with SEN
Girls with SEN
Boys without SEN
Girls without SEN

Before you say that it prepares them for the world of work, it doesn't. Most work places don't have systems where you're penalised for moving in your chair or clicking a pen.

Agree my own dd never broke a rule but the ridiculous and frankly petty rules ramped up her anxiety to the point she was no longer functioning. Dd had empathy for her friends and classmates that were being sanctioned repeatedly with no allowances being made. Missing pen (because it had run out, got lost or stolen), untucked shirt (easily done when carrying a backpack) a sliver of colour seen above heel of shoe when teacher demands trouser legs are lifted to check sock colour even though only black can be seen when trousers in place. It's completely ridiculous and bizarre that schools think that these demands for deference brings respect from students or parents.
Dd dropped out, of course school did everything they could to force dd to attend but we were well supported by CAMHS and dd had consultant sign off. Didn't stop them trying to force dd and I to attend reintergration meetings though. I went to SENDIST and dd was placed in out of County independent specialist school and LA paid fees and transport. When she left at 19 d started and EOTAS programme. By the time that has finished LA will have paid half a million to educate my academically able with no behavioural issues daughter largely because a mainstream secondary placed deference above student wellbeing.

A teacher has to get through an amount of the curriculum each lesson.

Dropping pens and moving chairs is not what an amount of strictness means. Just basic classroom conditions to learn.

Our teen’s schools are not that strict, but if you become defiant or rude and won’t be taught then you are removed. The majority of the class want to learn. They want the fun part of the lesson. One lesson turned into a courtroom of great fun and interaction by putting Goldilocks on trial.

Our NT teens would’ve been broken with an ok tea strict school, they were almost broken with a very slack school with favouritism with punishments (meaning the pupils with parents who came in kicking and screaming well it worked their kids could push others downstairs and no consequences were handed out).

So yes an amount of, let’s say expectation of behaviour allows additional education to flourish. And regardless of that a fair discipline structure for all no matter how insistent the parents are makes it feel fair to the other pupils.

Well it works for our teens and seemingly works for almost all their peers at school, there are ND children in the classes who are thriving there as well. One of their (ND) friends is allowed to wear PE kit instead of uniform, one was a bit academically challenged but now has ambition and even revises. They take inclusion in their stride. It’s a good school.

It is true that behavioural systems end up punishing some kids with SEN (and/or difficult home lives) because they're more likely to display behaviours that impede learning for the group.

I teach one girl who rarely has a pen. No issue, I've got a box and she's willing enough otherwise. If all 32 of them had no pens, however...

I've found the tipping point is about 8/32 who can't focus for whatever reason. Even 4/32 is enough to lose a lot of lesson time. As a side issue, but a relevant one, the classroom was designed to seat 28.

The irony of course being that kids with SEN/difficult home lives need quiet to ficus more than average!

I think parents would often be surprised to see how their children actually behave in a group situation!

The worst schools are the ones that are very strict on the little things, inconsistent and even worse they’re slack or give similar punishments for the big things. It can be a complete mindfuck for kids and absolutely exhausting trying to figure out what or where the line is.

Has anyone read this article?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/may/29/netherlands-britain-youth-jobs-crisis

I'm from the Netherlands originally. And I have said many times on these boards and elsewhere that the fundamental problem is with the UK's mindset and its effects on the education system. We don't value vocational education. We haven't let go of a class system that should have been abandoned a century ago.

Root and branch change is needed if we're going to bring young people back into work and give them a sense of having a stake in society. And it's not going to be cheap - it's going to cost money.

Is anyone in our short term single parliament thinking political establishment going to do anything?

That's really interesting and thought provoking.

I’ve been talking about this for days, but I just got told that Dutch teens are healthier (mentally and physically) , so that’s the reason , nothing to do with their policies. 🙄

Which if you read the article is clearly nonsense, but to a lot of people on the right, the only approach to take is a punitive one. Not because it will do any good, but because they enjoy it. Meanwhile the evidence from countries that invest in their young people is stark. It's very sad that the UK can't - or mostly won't - do better.

Germany and Slovenia also have similar policies and lower numbers of NEETS. There is definitely something there to explore and learn from.

@scoopofmintchocchipicecream Given that we spend 25 times more on benefits for young people than helping them find work-do you think this should continue?
It is contradictory to pay benefits to 16-18 year olds who are not in education or training when the ones who are in education and training do not receive benefits (apart from the sixth form bursary). I do think that physically disabled 16-18 year olds should get extra money as wheelchairs, transport etc costs. I am not sure why young people with autism, ADHD or mental health issues require extra money. I think in this age bracket, parents should be paying to support their children.
Young people 18-24 with autism, ADHD or mental health issues should be asked to do voluntary work for their money after 3-6 months. Physically disabled people should also be encouraged, if they have the capability. What is wrong with that? It is beneficial for mental health to be in education, training or employment. Happiness is linked to having purpose and challenge. The exception to this is a person having a severe clinical episode or someone with severe autism or other complex needs. We need to have stricter fitness to work assessments.
Our country has a huge budget deficit so we cannot just spend more and more money. The interest on our budget deficit is roughly equal to the entire education budget. Taxing businesses more is leading to more unemployment, which is not helping the NEET situation. Therefore, we can't tax more and we can't spend more. IMO, this means that what we need to think carefully about how we spend the money we have. I think it is better spent on training, employment and education not benefits.

Here’s a wild idea, why don’t we look at tried and tested methods used in other countries, that show they work , instead?

I understand the idea that having a purpose is helpful. But voluntary work has challenges to it. The most obvious being is would it reduce the number of real jobs. Why employ one road sweeper on a real salary when you can get him and his friend for free.

I used to work for an organisation that used volunteers. They are very hard to manage and they are the ones that really want to be there. They dont necessarily have the right skills. I know with benefits you coukd threaten withdrawing benefits if they did a shit job but then its a real job isnt it, just one with below minimum wage and no employment rights.