Delivering NEET policy packages? A decade of NEET policy in England

Abstract

This article explores the way in which government policy shapes the lives of young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET). In particular it examines how the concept of NEETs is set within a specific infrastructure and discourse for managing and supporting young people. The article provides a brief history of the NEET concept and NEET initiatives, before moving on to scrutinise the policies of the Coalition Government. A key distinction is made between those policies and practices that seek to prevent young people becoming NEET from those that seek to re-engage those who are NEET. It is argued that the Coalition has drawn on a similar active labour market toolkit to the previous Labour administration, but that this has been implemented with fewer resources and less co-ordination. It concludes that there is little reason to believe that Coalition policy will be any more successful than that of the previous government, and some reason to be concerned that it will lead to young people becoming more entrenched within NEET.

Disadvantaged neighbourhoods and young people not in education, employment or training at the ages of 18 to 19 in England

“…Intervention programmes should enable and enhance access to the information and resources which are required for young people to reorient their priorities and to take advantage of the opportunities available to realize their potential (Hutchinson, Beck, and Hooley 2016).…”

Opportunity structures and educational marginality: the post-16 transitions of young people outside education and employment

“…Either way, for the participants in this research, provision aimed at NEET prevention did not prevent them becoming NEET. More generally, the ability of current policy initiatives to meet the needs of low-and middle-attaining young people is highly questionable (Raffe 2015;Maguire 2015b;Hutchinson et al 2016).…”

“…However, whilst it may be true that some school leavers are ill-equipped to compete in the labour market, opportunity structures influence both the availability of work and the potential benefits of participation in education or training: engagement in post-16 learning does not necessarily preclude negative consequences in later life. Since the early 1980s, successive UK governments have struggled to make effective provision for those young people most affected by the decline of traditional youth labour markets, and programmes such as Youth Opportunities, Youth Training, andmore recently -Foundation Learning and Activity Agreements have come and gone with little credit (Coffield, Borrill & Marshall 1986;Gleeson 1989;Hutchinson, Beck & Hooley 2016).…”

Learning providers’ work with NEET young people

“…Coffey and Farrugia themselves start out with a very broad definition of agency in which they refer to active subjectivity, intentional action, decision-making and self-expression (2014,462). This chimes with the UK Coalition Government's policy (Hutchinson et al 2015) which expects young people to develop 'good characters' that are independent and autonomous (Brooks 2013) in particular in developing their employability (Lahusen et al 2013). Positioning young people as developing and dutiful citizens (Brooks 2013) is a continuation of the workfarist approach to youth unemployment adopted by successive UK governments.…”

“…The range of departments and institutions responsible for NEET young people is likely to result in diverse individual experiences (Hutchinson et al 2015) and involve engagement with different organisations and support systems (PHE 2014). These include school-based advisors, colleges, employers, national schemes as well as issue-based support including social workers or the youth offending team.…”