In its 2024 Manifesto (PDF), the UK Labour Party promised a Youth Guarantee “to bring down the number of young people who are not learning or earning.” The “guarantee” is one of access to training, apprenticeships, or support to find work for all 18- to- 21-year-olds, to also include two weeks' work experience for every young person. As the new Labour government takes its first steps in power, it is a good time to explore what might be learned from similar youth employment initiatives both within the United Kingdom and the European Union.
The EU Youth Guarantee (PDF)—which was reenforced in 2020—is a political commitment by member states to combat youth unemployment and social exclusion by providing a good-quality offer of employment, training, an apprenticeship, or a traineeship within four months of leaving formal education or becoming unemployed.
This EU initiative was mostly implemented in each member state—including the United Kingdom, before it left the European Union in 2020—via the Youth Employment Initiative. Its guarantee was for those under 25—but in the United Kingdom, the initiative was extended to those under 29 years of age, with a particular focus on 15-to-19-year-olds. A robust impact evaluation of the initiative in England showed that it improved employment outcomes for participants when compared to a control group.
There are lessons from this programme for the current government: Key workers proved critical in facilitating effective wraparound support and coordinating assistance. Effective targeting mechanisms were needed to integrate outreach with referral routes. Collaboration across multiple agencies, including Jobcentre Plus, was essential to reach the programme's goals. The evaluation recommended support to develop individuals' soft and transversal skills, as well as their confidence and motivation, on a journey towards work or (re-)engagement in education or training.
Not only are certain NEET groups difficult to reach, but there are large regional differences in the rates of NEET among the population.
In the United Kingdom, other attempts to tackle youth unemployment included the Youth Contract and the Kickstart Scheme. The Youth Contract provided intensive support for 16-to-17-year-olds using a national and regional component. Nationally, it targeted low-qualified young people, care leavers and young offenders who were not in employment, education, or training (NEET). Regionally, there was more flexibility, and the targeted groups, while still all NEETs, accounted for a broader group (they did not, for example, have to be ex-offenders or care leavers to qualify). An impact evaluation of the programme showed that it lowered rates of NEET amongst participants. However, the main ethnic group of participants was white British (PDF), which is not the group most likely to be NEET.
If the United Kingdom is to implement a Youth Guarantee, it might do so with a similar commissioning arrangement to the Youth Contract, wherein the Department for Work and Pensions delivers reward payments to organisations providing employment services. Only, as the evaluation of the Youth Contract proves, these results payments often take too long, and need to be better balanced with an upfront payment—something like a service fee—for the delivery of some basic service to each user. This will enable and incentivise providers to invest the time and commitment to work with harder-to-reach populations. Making the value of these reward payments higher should also account for differences in NEET rates among young people, depending on their characteristics (such as ethnicity). Higher payments could be used to incentivise service providers to reach the highest risk cases.
Not only are certain NEET groups difficult to reach, but there are large regional differences in the rates of NEET among the population. Public employment services—including Jobcentre Plus in the United Kingdom—struggle to engage with young people (PDF) with multiple disadvantages. Expectations for how many young people could be helped by a Youth Guarantee should be conservative. Targets need to be set at a regional level, and local stakeholders should be involved in decisionmaking about these targets.
Another evaluation of the Youth Contract examined the wage incentives (PDF) component, where employers were paid for recruiting an 18-to-24-year-old from the programme. It found that 35 percent of firms with fewer than ten employees created a job vacancy thanks to wage incentives, compared to only 9 percent of larger companies. This suggests that incentivisation had better results among the smallest employers. However, small employers will typically hire only one eligible recruit, whereas larger employers can take on multiple recruits. This trade-off needs to be carefully considered in future programmes: focusing on smaller employers can add more value, but larger employers will generate higher volumes.
Between 2020 and 2022 the UK government launched the Kickstart Scheme to help young people respond to the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This initiative provided funding for new jobs created for young people between 16 and 24 years old who were on Universal Credit and at risk of long-term unemployment. An evaluation of the scheme showed that 65 percent of participants reported positive employment, education, and training outcomes, and 60 percent were reportedly in work seven months later. However, young people who were not looking for a job or not claiming benefits were not eligible for the Kickstart Scheme. This group of economically inactive young people, especially men, is growing, so future programmes may be advised to extend support to young people who are not claiming benefits.
Lessons from the European Union
The EU Youth Guarantee increased the number of young people receiving employment support. Yet it, too, came with limitations. A study conducted by RAND Europe found limited evidence on the quality of job offers received by participants. Job quality matters, as too many young people find themselves in temporary, low-paid (PDF) jobs and challenging working conditions.
A large cross-European study on the EU Youth Guarantee points to a key lesson that may help the new government design its UK version: the importance of equal weight to both education and apprentice opportunities alongside job opportunities. By offering a diverse range of measures to address the diversity of the NEET group, a programme can better address the root causes for a wide range of youth being NEET.
The EU Youth Guarantee scheme was limited in its ability to fully address the heterogeneity of the NEET population—especially among those furthest away from the labour market. The What Works Centre for youth employment, Youth Futures Foundation, has a particular focus on marginalised young people and is working with RAND to review international NEET policies that could have relevance for the UK context. What Works in Reducing NEET Rates examines evidence-based initiatives from other countries, including the EU Youth Guarantee and individual placement and support for youth at risk of early work disability, offering insights by translating the evidence into the UK context.
Proposals in the Labour manifesto mention joining Jobcentre Plus and the National Careers Service. Evaluations have found a need for more capacity in public employment services, and developing partnerships to implement strong outreach and referral pathways will be key for the success of the Guarantee in the United Kingdom.
Evaluations have found a need for more capacity in public employment services.
Finally, public policies targeting NEETs are more effective when they address multiple complex factors and coordinate efforts to combat poverty and exclusion. This includes support for employers, such as job subsidies, and assistance for families, communities, and local authorities.
The proportion of young people not in education, employment, or training is an economic and social issue which the United Kingdom will need to address if, as the Prime Minister's recent speeches have pledged, it plans on “national renewal.” The new government should be aided in efforts to help this diverse group by extensive evidence from similar schemes of the recent past, both in the United Kingdom and Europe.
A Youth Guarantee is unlikely to be a neat and simple fix. But, bearing in mind the complexity of circumstances and challenges that these young people face, and learning lessons from similar initiatives, policymakers can maximise its chances and those of the United Kingdom's youth.
