As we await Alan Milburn’s final review of young people and work, much of the debate has understandably focused on the scale of youth inactivity, the growth in health-related barriers and the cost to individuals and the economy. These are serious concerns. But there is a danger that our attention begins too late, once a young person has already become disconnected from education, employment or training.
An estimated 981,000 16 to 24-year-olds were not in education, employment or training in April to June 2026, representing 13 per cent of the age group (Office for National Statistics, 2026). The figures are troubling, but they describe where young people are, not necessarily how they got there.
A young person who leaves school without the English and mathematics grades needed for their preferred course may enter college with genuine enthusiasm for a vocational subject. They may discover an aptitude for something they had never previously considered. Yet repeated difficulty with the same qualifications, limited progression options or the absence of a suitable next course can gradually undermine that progress.
Another young person may be doing well until ill-health, caring responsibilities or housing instability interrupts their attendance. What begins as a temporary difficulty can become a much longer period outside learning, particularly where returning means starting again. Neither experience is adequately explained by a lack of aspiration.
This matters because the consequences of a difficult transition can accumulate. Confidence weakens, routines disappear, opportunities become less visible and the practical effort required to return increases. Research on transitions has long demonstrated that movement between education and employment is shaped by institutional arrangements and labour-market conditions as well as individual circumstances (Raffe, 2008). Evans’ (2007) account of bounded agency is helpful here: young people make choices, but the range of choices they can realistically exercise is shaped by the circumstances around them.
Milburn’s interim review brought health and disability into sharper focus and distinguished between the different circumstances of young people recorded as NEET (Department for Work and Pensions, 2026). It also reported that young people who had been NEET for more than a year were markedly less likely to return to participation the following year than those whose spell had lasted less than a year. That is an important warning against waiting until disconnection becomes entrenched.
Further education has an important contribution to make, but not simply by offering more places. Colleges are often where young people arrive after an earlier transition has proved difficult. They provide opportunities to rebuild confidence, develop skills, gain qualifications and establish a different relationship with learning. They also encounter the consequences of problems originating elsewhere, including poor health, insecure housing, limited transport, financial hardship and weak local employment opportunities.
The question is whether the routes available to young people are sufficiently connected to make progression possible. A foundation programme has value when it provides a credible next step. An English or mathematics resit should improve future opportunities rather than become an indefinite barrier. Careers guidance is useful when it connects young people with provision and employment that they can realistically access. An apprenticeship depends not only on learner readiness but also on an employer able to recruit, train and supervise.
These distinctions become particularly important when resources are constrained. A college may be delivering good provision yet be unable to sustain a specialist course with a small cohort. An employer may need skills but lack the capacity to offer an apprenticeship. A young person may have a formal entitlement to learning but no affordable means of reaching it. None of these problems can be resolved by one institution acting alone.
The forthcoming review provides an opportunity to examine how responsibility for young people’s progression is shared across education, health, employment services, employers and local government. Collaboration is frequently advocated, but the real test is whether it changes what young people can access and achieve. That requires attention to prevention as well as re-engagement. We need to understand where young people begin to lose their connection with learning, what makes the next step difficult and how continuity can be maintained when circumstances change. We also need to judge success beyond initial enrolment or entry into a programme. Sustained participation, meaningful progression and the ability to return after interruption are equally important.
The Milburn review has the potential to shift the debate beyond the number of young people classified as NEET. Its lasting contribution will depend on whether it helps us understand and address the circumstances through which temporary difficulties become prolonged disconnection. The ambition should not simply be to move young people out of a category. It should be to ensure that the next opportunity remains within reach.
By Dr Vikki Smith, Independent Education & Skills Consultant and Researcher
Department for Work and Pensions (2026) Young people and work: interim report. London: DWP. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/young-people-and-work-interim-report (Accessed: 28 October 2026).
Evans, K. (2007) ‘Concepts of bounded agency in education, work, and the personal lives of young adults’, International Journal of Psychology, 42(2), pp. 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590600991237.
Office for National Statistics (2026) Young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), UK: April to June 2026. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/bulletins/youngpeoplenotineducationemploymentortrainingneet/latest (Accessed: 28 October 2026).
Raffe, D. (2008) ‘The concept of transition system’, Journal of Education and Work, 21(4), pp. 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080802360908.