In the US in some areas they have work support packages - I think these are being trialled. Essentially they spend the same on the support as people earn, so it's effectively cost neutral, but the idea is that it's better for people and the economy in the long term to be able to work and hold down a job. I think that's the missing link here - it's all about saving money, but in actual fact it's not saving money, it's pushing up overall expenditure and/or pushing it onto other people/services in the medium term whilst aggravating human misery. That is utterly pointless.
A more realistic approach would be to provide a sensitive service to education leavers of all ages built around their individual prospects, panning out from there, with interview outfits, accommodation deposits and additional training courses all factored into the mix as necessary. (Detail needs working on). But essentially I think there is a consensus that interview costs, commuting costs and a roof over the head are basic needs for people starting out in work, or indeed retraining after a break, and it is counter productive to deny them such things.
And let's get away from this obsession with the age of 25 - it's completely arbitrary and you could immediately reduce the impression of fecklessness by lowering it to 18, for example or increase it by raising the notional age to 30 - it's just playing with figures for the sake of being controversial.
In fact if you looked at people between 60-90, to arbitrarily pick one age group and gender, you would find extraordinary numbers of older women with practically no work history at all, being given subsidised housing, pensions and other benefits in return for nothing at all in terms of contributions over a lifetime. This is where the vast majority of welfare spending disappears, in many multiples of what we spend on the under 25s, but obviously we don't penalise little old ladies because that is seen as mean, unfashionable and loses votes, whereas vilifying the young to save a fraction of this is considered acceptable for some reason.
But if I was going to be really forthright, I would suggest that the Houses of Commons and Lords could stop accepting the fucking up the arse they are getting from the top 1% of asset owners in the UK, and just come up with a policy mechanism for redistributing the ill gotten post 2006 gains of this group. Currently the general idea promulgated by these Gecko type wealth hoovers is that if you go along with it at your lowly level, you might get some of the crumbs off their table at some point, a ride on their yacht or some useful networking or a door opening to you where it might have been shut previously. To appeal to people's consciences they bang on about how much wealth they have created and how many jobs and livelihoods depend on that wealth. I am sorry, in almost all cases they could disappear overnight and the world would not end, because the rest of us have the intelligence to rebuild what was there (as indeed has been done with the banks and so on). They are not indispensible and frankly we don't need people who hoover up all the money but don't play the society game. People who live places like here:
One Hyde Park
So they can masturbate over their trinkets without being bothered by the riff raft. That is not what Britain fought two wars for, that is not our way of life, and we do not need this sort of revolting consumption bollocks on our doorstep. Let's dissolve these lifestyles before we start robbing our own young.