Cut benefits to fund work support for young people, says Neet review author Alan Milburn

Neet stands for “not in education, employment or training.” It describes young people who are outside all three routes into work and skills. The term matters because being Neet can limit future opportunities and is linked in the review to poorer mental health.

The article focuses on 18- to 24-year-olds. It includes young people who are unemployed, but also those whose health or circumstances prevent participation. A striking finding is that 60% of the young people classed as Neet have never had a job.

Milburn says this is more than a temporary unemployment spike. He calls it a “youth detachment” problem. The proposed response would combine employment, health and benefits support, helping young people identify what they can do and receive support to enter education, training or work.

The review calculated that a record 1 million people aged 18 to 24 are not in education, employment or training. This scale makes the issue a national concern rather than a small group of young people struggling temporarily to find work.

The review also found that 60% of these Neets have never had a job. That figure supports Alan Milburn’s view that the problem is “youth detachment”, not simply cyclical youth unemployment. Many young people are not just between jobs; they have not entered the labour market at all.

The figures point towards a need for earlier and more coordinated help. Milburn’s likely recommendations include prompt health assessments, personalised health plans and wider participation plans, alongside employment and training opportunities. The aim is to prevent young people becoming detached and help those already Neet move forward.

Alan Milburn is proposing a shift in how public money is used. Ministers would reduce some welfare spending and redirect money towards employment support. The goal is not simply to lower benefits, but to fund the practical help young people need to enter work, education or training.

For example, he argues that support should connect employment, health and benefits services. A young person could receive a prompt needs assessment, a personalised health plan and a wider participation plan. The government has already announced a £100m local apprenticeship service as an initial investment.

Milburn accepts that the change would require money before savings appear. In the short term, ministers might spend more on youth programmes. Over the medium term, better support and more opportunities could help reduce the benefits bill, while improving young people’s chances of work.

The review points to support that deals with the whole person, not just their benefit status or diagnosis. Young people with health needs could receive prompt needs assessments, personalised health plans and wider participation plans. These would help connect wellbeing, skills and employment goals.

A concrete example is the £100m local apprenticeship service announced by the chancellor. Other support could include more employment guidance, better access to education and training, and help for young people with autism, ADHD, anxiety or depression. The mechanism is early, tailored assistance rather than waiting until problems become severe.

The proposed system would also bring employment, health and benefits services closer together. This could prevent young people falling into what Milburn calls the “trap door” of becoming Neet. It would also help those already outside work move towards opportunities that fit their abilities and ambitions.

The review treats the Neet crisis as both an employment and mental-health problem because the two pressures reinforce each other. Milburn says ill health is driving higher Neet rates, while being outside education, work or training can harm young people’s mental health.

The article gives a wider warning from Peter Fonagy’s review. Mental distress has risen across all age groups in England since the 1990s, especially among under-18s. Fonagy says that if current trends continue, one in four young people could have diagnosable mental disorders, rather than one in five.

That connection changes the proposed response. Help should come at the point of need, not only after a diagnosis. Health support would be linked with employment and participation plans, so young people are supported to use their potential instead of being defined only by what they cannot do.

If more young people remain outside education, employment or training, their life chances may worsen. Milburn says the current system can push young people into a life on benefits instead of helping them find work. He also links non-participation with worsening mental health.

The financial effect could run in both directions. More people remaining on benefits could keep the benefits bill high, while delayed support could require greater public spending later. The proposed transformation itself would cost hundreds of millions of pounds in upfront investment, but supporters believe savings could emerge over time.

Mental-health services could face heavier demand as distress rises. Fonagy warns that one in four young people could have diagnosable mental disorders if current trends continue. Earlier support, needs assessments and integrated plans are intended to prevent escalation and improve participation.

A young person’s path into work depends on more than a job vacancy. Benefits affect financial security, health services address conditions that may block participation, and the labour market determines whether suitable opportunities exist. When these systems operate separately, young people can fall through gaps and become Neet.

The review proposes connecting them. A young person with anxiety, ADHD or autism could receive a needs assessment, a personalised health plan and a participation plan, alongside employment or training support. The mechanism is tailored help that starts with what the person can do and wants to do.

Milburn says no one in government currently has responsibility for preventing young people becoming Neet and helping them leave it. Better coordination would require upfront investment, but could increase participation, improve wellbeing and reduce the benefits bill over time.