067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 553

Work, employment and society

Copyright © 2006
BSA Publications Ltd®
Volume 20(3): 553–569
[DOI: 10.1177/0950017006067001]
SAGE Publications
London,Thousand Oaks,
New Delhi

Not a very NEET solution: representing

problematic labour market transitions among
early school-leavers
■ Andy Furlong
University of Glasgow

ABSTRACT
Concern with youth unemployment has been replaced with a focus on those not
in education, in employment, or in training (NEET). With current levels of youth
unemployment low, this emphasis helps remind us that an increase in employment
levels is not necessarily accompanied by a reduction in vulnerability. While NEET
can be used as a concept for representing problematic transitions, it is an ill-
considered concept that places an undue and often misleading emphasis on vol-
untarism. Drawing on the Scottish School Leavers Survey, the article explores the
policy implications of different definitions of NEET, highlights its prevalence, and
examines the characteristics of those who are NEET. It is argued that to represent
vulnerable youth effectively we must either use a set of definitions that are nar-
rower than that represented by NEET, or adopt a much broader definition that
provides a basis for more far-reaching interventions.

KEY WORDS
disadvantage / early school-leavers / labour market transitions / NEET / youth
unemployment

Introduction

I
n the late 1980s youth unemployment ceased to exist in the UK. Or rather,
official recognition of youth unemployment was withdrawn in 1988 as
changes in the UK benefit regime left most under 18 year-olds without access
to unemployment benefits and limited the entitlements of those under the age

553
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 554

554 Work, employment and society Volume 20 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2006

of 25. This redefinition of unemployment meant that young people without

work were not only deprived of the means to independent support, but were
denied recognition as unemployed workers. As a consequence of the official
abolition of youth unemployment, both researchers and Government officials
started to adopt new ways of estimating the prevalence of labour market vul-
nerability among young people. A study of young people in South Glamorgan
marked a watershed. Here Istance and colleagues (1994) used the term Status
A (later changed to Status Zer0) to refer to a group of people who were not cov-
ered by any of the main categories of labour market status (employment, edu-
cation, or training).
Partly for political reasons and partly to clarify a concept whose meaning
was not immediately clear, later researchers began to use the term NEET (Not
in Employment, Education or Training) in place of Status Zer0: a term that
draws attention to the heterogeneous nature of the category and avoids the neg-
ative connotations of one that highlights lack of status. However, leaving aside
the issue of acronyms, the replacement of unemployment, which is a precisely
defined category with an internationally agreed definition, by a heterogeneous
category combining groups with very different experiences, characteristics and
needs, has advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, the use of an all-
encompassing concept like NEET helped maintain the focus of policy makers
and researchers on patterns of vulnerability at a time when youth unemploy-
ment, the traditional measure of vulnerability, was declining. Low rates of
unemployment can reduce the political pressure for action and may lead people
to assume that young people without jobs are either workshy or unemployable.
Although unemployment in the UK is relatively low, the recording of levels of
NEET in official statistics reminds us that many young people still occupy vul-
nerable positions. A key advantage here is that the adoption of the term NEET
brings young mothers and those with disabilities into the frame rather than fur-
ther marginalizing them by use of the traditional label ‘inactive’.
For researchers, one of the main disadvantages of the use of the term NEET
is linked to the lack of an agreed definition, which makes it extremely difficult
to identify trends or to make international comparisons. In effect this makes it
difficult for the research community to hold politicians to account for their poli-
cies on youth. Indeed, the replacement of unemployment with NEET (other
countries use different terms but the focus on those not in education, employ-
ment or training is now widespread) as a focus of policy has resulted in a situ-
ation where aggregation of discrete categories of experience (unemployment,
caring, travelling, sick, resting, learning) into one all embracing category
(NEET) has led to a situation where we have to disaggregate to understand or
to effectively target policies. NEET includes those young people who are long-
term unemployed, fleetingly unemployed, looking after children or relatives in
the home, temporarily sick or long-term disabled, putting their efforts into
developing artistic or musical talents or simply taking a short break from work
or education. It combines those with little control over their situation with
those exercising choice, thereby promoting a state of confusion about the
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 555

Not a very NEET solution Furlong 555

factors associated with an apparent state of disadvantage. The sub-groups con-

tained within the NEET category have very different experiences, characteris-
tics and needs. Groups of vulnerable young people who require distinct forms
of policy intervention in terms of welfare or training provision are grouped with
the privileged who may not require any assistance to move back into education
or employment. In the UK1 the Government has set itself a target for reducing
the numbers of people who are NEET, yet to the outside observer it is not easy
to work out whether any reduction in NEET is a consequence of policies that
are effective in targeting those with severe disadvantages or are a result of poli-
cies that are only effective in reaching the more privileged.
The shift in focus from youth unemployment to NEET, with its inherent
heterogeneity, carries the risk of taking our attention away from the known vul-
nerabilities of the young unemployed. From a research and policy perspective,
youth unemployment has long been a focus of investigation and intervention.
As a consequence, we know quite a lot about it. We can speak authoritatively
about aspects of its prevalence, causes and consequences and about ways of
reducing its incidence. It is important not to abandon this substantial knowl-
edge base or to lose sight of the ways in which youth unemployment, particu-
larly long-term unemployment, can lead to marginalization or exclusion. At the
same time we need to recognize that the dichotomy between employment and
unemployment is perhaps not well suited to a modern age in which large num-
bers of people, especially young people, may occupy precarious positions in the
labour market and be churned between short-term insecure jobs without
experiencing long-term unemployment. The focus on NEET, like the focus on
unemployment, draws attention away from those trapped in inferior forms of
employment.
While any attempt to conceptualize the complex ways in which young
people are exposed to the risk of marginalization in modern society is to be
applauded, in this article I suggest that the current focus on NEET is counter-
productive. First, the heterogeneity of NEET means that both research and pol-
icy must begin by disaggregating so as to be able to identify the distinct
characteristics and needs of the various sub-groups. Second, the lack of an
agreed definition of NEET (both among the UK research community as well as
internationally) prevents any meaningful comparison and allows governments to
meet targets to reduce NEET by concentrating on those sub-groups who are not
particularly disadvantaged. Third, focusing attention on NEET can make us
blind to the vulnerabilities of those who occupy short-term and insecure posi-
tions in the labour market. These issues are illustrated using data from a nation-
ally representative survey of young Scots who were 17 in 2003.

The sample

The Scottish School Leavers Survey (SSLS) has been conducted on a regular
basis (usually every two years) since the late 1970s (for a period of time it was
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 556

556 Work, employment and society Volume 20 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2006

referred to as the Scottish Young People’s Survey). The sample is currently

drawn randomly from the records of the Scottish Qualifications Authority and
checked for accuracy by schools. The surveys are currently being conducted by
the Scottish Centre for Social Research (SCOTCEN). The young people dis-
cussed in this article were all in their fourth year of secondary schooling (for
most the last compulsory year) in 2002 and were surveyed in November 2003
at age 17. Twenty percent of those eligible were selected leading to a target sam-
ple of 12,008 who were sent postal questionnaires. A second questionnaire was
sent to non-respondents, followed by a telephone reminder in which they were
given the option of a telephone interview. In all, 42 percent of the original sam-
ple responded. The data are weighted to compensate for differential response
rates by gender and attainment.
Around 29 percent of respondents left school at the minimum age (31% of
males and 27% of females) with those who had a parent working in higher
managerial and professional occupations being far less likely to leave at this
stage than those with a parent in routine and semi-routine occupations (11%
compared to 49%). At age 17 (October 2003) nearly seven in 10 (63% of males
and 74% of females) were either still at school or had moved to another form
of full-time education (Higher or Further Education) (Anderson et al., 2004).

Defining NEET

In the UK, the focus on NEET can be linked directly to changes in benefit
regimes that were being implemented in the late 1980s. With eligibility to
unemployment benefits removed for under 18 year-olds, a new label was needed
to identify those who had neither remained in full-time education nor found
employment or a training place; Status Zer0 started to be used as an alternative
way of identifying those who were experiencing difficult transitions. However,
the negative connotations of Status Zer0 provoked a hostile reaction from
Government circles where attempts were being made to draw attention away
from the youth benefits agenda and to stress personal responsibility. In Bridging
the Gap (SEU, 1999) the term NEET was firmly established as the only accept-
able form of language to be used in referring to workless youth. Indeed, while
Bridging the Gap referred to findings from the study by Armstrong and col-
leagues (1997), Status 0: A Socio-Economic Study of Young People on the
Margin, the reference provided in the report was truncated with only the sub-
title used so as to avoid any mention of the term Status 0.2
A persistent source of confusion in the use of the term NEET relates to the
ages covered. Status Zer0 was explicitly used to refer to 16 and 17 year-olds
who were ineligible for unemployment benefits but who were eligible for youth
training programmes. NEET includes 18 year-olds even though this effectively
merges groups covered by distinct policies: 16 and 17 year-olds by Skillseekers,
18 year-olds by the New Deal for Young People.
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 557

Not a very NEET solution Furlong 557

Despite the lack of an agreed definition in labour market statistics, NEET

equivalents are being used in a number of other countries. One of the main
reasons for its adoption is linked to the growing complexity of youth transi-
tions, the weakening of full-time routes through education and training and the
growth of part-time and mixed patterns of participation (Banks et al., 1992;
Bynner et al., 1997; Furlong and Cartmel, 1997; Furlong et al., 2003; Roberts,
1995; White and Wyn, 2003; Wyn and White, 1997). These developments
make it hard to identify those experiencing difficulties in the labour market,
especially when young people may move rapidly between different statuses
without spending long periods without work (Furlong and Cartmel, 2004).
Some of the implications of the increased complexity of transitions for the
NEET group were highlighted by the Social Exclusion Unit in Bridging the Gap
which, in England, led to the introduction of the Connexions service as a means
of keeping track of the movements of young people and offering targeted coun-
selling. From a Government perspective, the old system of youth unemployment
benefits, with its associated rules and regulations, provided a source of surveil-
lance and a method of control. In this context Connexions can be regarded as
an attempt by the state to monitor and control a group that may be excluded
both from the discipline of regular workplace involvement and from the juris-
diction of the benefit agencies.
NEET, as a category, is extremely heterogeneous. It includes a proportion
of young people who are available for work and are actively seeking employ-
ment: a group that fits the ILO definition of unemployment. Also included are
those who are not available or not seeking work. Groups such as the long-term
sick or disabled or those with responsibilities for the care of children or rela-
tives may not be available for work. Some of those who are not seeking work
may be pursuing other interests, resting, developing skills in an unpaid capac-
ity through voluntary work or taking time to travel. The usefulness of NEET as
a category is therefore compromised through the ways in which disadvantaged
people who may lack the resources to navigate transitions or exercise choice are
combined with more privileged young people who are able to exercise a signif-
icant degree of choice regarding the ways in which they manage their lives. This
criticism applies equally to the NEET equivalents in other countries.
In several countries the shift in focus from youth unemployment to NEET
resulted in an apparent increase in the number of young people identified as vul-
nerable. At the present time, the number of 16 to 18 years-olds who fit the ILO
definition of unemployment is less than 5 percent. NEET is closer to 10 percent3
and this can lead to the (politically unwelcome) conclusion that despite the
apparent ‘health’ of the labour market, significant numbers of young people are
encountering difficulties. While UK researchers might accept that more than
one in 10 young people currently encounter difficulties in the labour market,
few would accept that the number of those facing severe and persistent diffi-
culties is quite so large. Consequently, researchers have begun to refine the def-
inition of NEET in order to be able to identify those who are particularly
vulnerable to marginalization or exclusion. The problem is that the category is
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 558

558 Work, employment and society Volume 20 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2006

now defined in a range of different ways and it has become almost impossible
to compare analyses. In fact, individual researchers have frequently developed
broad and narrow definitions of NEET and rather than being able to quote the
percentage of young people who are NEET at a particular time or in a specific
place, researchers have started to speak in terms of statistical ranges.
Estimates of the size of NEET are partly dependent on the age group in
question and partly accounted for by the state of the local labour market.
Researchers have used both static measures of NEET (the proportion who are
NEET at a point in time) and cumulative measures (those who are NEET at any
point within a given timespan or for a minimum period over timespan) and
have defined membership in different ways. For Istance and colleagues (1994)
Status Zer0 was a residual category that they measured using both cross-
sectional and dynamic approaches. At any one point in time, they estimated
that between 16 and 23 percent of 16–17 year-olds in South Glamorgan fell
into the Status Zer0 category. Istance and colleagues recognized that it would
be misleading to regard Status Zer0 as a homogenous group given that the pro-
files of members varied significantly and while for some membership was fleet-
ing, others spent long periods of time outside education and the labour market.
Following the work of Istance and colleagues (1994) in South Wales, a
study of Status Zer0 was undertaken in Northern Ireland. Based on secondary
analysis of official statistics, as well as a follow-up survey of a cohort of
school-leavers drawn from Careers Office records, Armstrong and colleagues
(1997) also used a static and dynamic approach to the quantification of Status
Zer0. Analysis of official statistics showed that at any one time between 4 and
6 percent of 16 year-olds could be classed as Status Zer0. Cohort data showed
a small increase in the size of Status Zer0 over a two-year period and high-
lighted large inflows each year in June and July and large outflows in August
and September. The data also showed that it was comparatively rare for young
people to encounter multiple spells of Status Zer0, but that around a third of
those who entered Status Zer0 remained in that status for a period of six
months or more.
In an analysis of NEET in Scotland using earlier SSLS cohorts, Croxford
and Raffe (2000) showed that during the three years following the end of com-
pulsory schooling the numbers of young people who were NEET varied
between 5 and 16 percent. Over the three post-school years studied, 31 percent
were classified as NEET on at least one of the six time points at which infor-
mation was collected.4 In Croxford and Raffe’s analysis, the proportion of
young people who were NEET was relatively low in the year after the end of
post-compulsory schooling (between 3 and 11% for the cohorts studied) but
had increased by the end of the second post-compulsory year. The skew
towards the older end of the age group is a consequence of high levels of post-
compulsory educational retention.
Croxford and Raffe made a distinction between what they referred to as
the ‘broad’ and ‘narrow’ definitions of NEET. The broad definition encom-
passes two sub-groups; those taking a long holiday, doing voluntary work or
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 559

Not a very NEET solution Furlong 559

working part time (the more advantaged group who may be able to exercise
choice) and those who were unemployed, sick or disabled or looking after chil-
dren or family. Using the narrow definition, the proportion who had been
NEET at one point in time ranged from 4 to 12 percent while one in five (20%)
had been NEET at some point in time.
While using the term ‘off-register’ rather than NEET, Bentley and
Gurumurthy (1999) attempted to measure prevalence using the Labour Force
Survey and the England and Wales Youth Cohort Survey. Here the numbers of
16 and 17 year-olds ‘off-register’ was estimated at around one in 10, although
the long-term sick and disabled were excluded. Bentley and Gurumurthy also
drew attention to 18 to 24 year-olds who were off register, of whom around one
in four were described as the ‘hidden unemployed’. Although the majority of
the ‘hidden unemployed’ were actively seeking work and conformed to the ILO
definition of unemployed, many were not signing on because they were ineligi-
ble for benefits.
Bynner and Parsons (2002) took rather a different approach to the mea-
surement of the prevalence. Using the 1970 British Birth Cohort, Bynner and
Parsons regarded NEET as a concept that must ‘reflect the dynamics of young
people’s lives’ (p. 297) and therefore requires longitudinal analysis. Because the
prime interest in NEET relates to a need to identify patterns of disengagement,
Bynner and Parsons used a definition that required those classified as NEET to
have been outside of education, employment and training for at least six
months between the ages of 16 and 18. As such, it is not comparable to the def-
inition used by Croxford and Raffe or Bentley and Gurumurthy but is similar
to one of the NEET typologies highlighted by Armstrong and colleagues in
Northern Ireland. The dynamic approach is more in tune with theoretical per-
spectives on youth transitions that stress complexity and non-linearity (Furlong
et al., 2003) and can help distinguish those in danger of marginalization from
those exercising lifestyle choices or exploring career options.

Prevalence of NEET in the SSLS

While each of the researchers highlights the merits of their own approach, the
end result is confused research and confused policy making. The ways in which
NEET is defined will directly affect the numbers of young people who are
regarded as vulnerable, but the implications of competing definitions are rarely
made explicit. A longitudinal approach such as that used by Bynner and
Parsons (2002) will provide us with information on a relatively small group
with deeply entrenched vulnerabilities whereas a ‘snapshot’ approach may
reveal a much larger group, some of whom are active in the shaping of their
transitions or deliberately taking time out to pursue other interests or priorities.
In this section we use data from the SSLS first of all to highlight the relative size
of the various NEET sub-groups and, second, to explore some of the implica-
tions for prevalence of a range of possible definitions.
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 560

560 Work, employment and society Volume 20 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2006

The number of young people responding to the SSLS who can be catego-
rized as NEET is obviously dependent on the way in which the concept is
defined and the questions that are used to derive the variable. Using a question
on main current activity (What are you doing now?) and defining NEET as
those responding that they were out of work and looking for a job, looking
after children or family members, on unpaid holiday or travelling, sick or dis-
abled, doing voluntary work or engaged in another, unspecified, activity, 10
percent of males and 9 percent of females were defined as NEET (static defini-
tion) (unweighted n = 363). With part-time working frequently being com-
bined with other activities such as education, part-time workers were not
defined as NEET.
Those who were currently NEET were asked about the factors that were
associated with their non-participation in education, employment or training
(Figure 1). The main reasons given related to a perceived lack of suitable oppor-
tunities or to qualification deficits. More than half of the males (56%) and more
than four in 10 females (45%) said that they had not managed to find a suit-
able job or course, while slightly fewer said that they had not decided on the
sort of job or course they wanted to do or that they did not think there were
any decent jobs or courses available where they lived. Nearly four in 10 thought
that they needed to enhance their education or skills in order to get a job, edu-
cation or training place. Young people were also constrained by a variety of per-
sonal and circumstantial issues, from family and housing problems, to health
and lack of transport. Personal and circumstantial issues posed a greater con-
straint on females. Relatively few young people were taking a break from study.
The majority of young people defined as NEET were out of work and look-
ing for a job (conforming to the ILO definition of unemployment where respon-
dents had been actively searching and available during the last four weeks)
(Table 1). Unemployment accounted for the activities of more than eight in 10
males and six in 10 females who were NEET. Almost one in five females, but
virtually no males, who were NEET were caring for children or family and rel-
atively small proportions of both genders were on unpaid holiday or taking a
‘gap’ year. Very few young people were undertaking voluntary work as a main
activity, but 5 percent of females and 2 percent of male NEETs were sick or dis-
abled. A significant number were engaged in other, unspecified, activities.
Estimates of NEET can also be derived from a ‘diary’ question in which
respondents were asked retrospectively for details of main status on a monthly
basis between July 2002 and October 2003.5 Figure 2 maps changes in the pro-
portion of young people who were NEET across the time period covered (out
of work and looking for a job, looking after home or family, on holiday or trav-
elling or doing something else). The increase in NEET during summer vacations
highlights one of the inadequacies of ‘snapshot’ definitions where those who are
temporarily between statuses can be classified as NEET. Using the diary, 26 per-
cent were NEET in July 2002 and 27 percent NEET in July 2003, yet during
the months September to May the proportion who are NEET ranges from 4
percent to 9 percent.
 067001 Furlong

Other
Have not found a suitable job or course
14/8/06

Have not decided what job or course to do

There are no decent jobs or courses available where I live
Would be worse off financially in work or on a course
9:09 am

Would find it difficult to travel to work or college

Have personal problems
Have family problems
Page 561

Have housing problems

Am in poor health or disabled
Am looking after other family members
Am currently looking after home or kids
Need more qualifications or skills for a job
Female
Currently having a break from study Male

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Figure 1 Reasons for currently being NEET

Unweighted n=363
Note: percentages exceed 100 as respondents could provide more than one answer
Not a very NEET solution Furlong
561
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 562

562 Work, employment and society Volume 20 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2006

Table 1 Disaggregation of NEET based on current status

% of all respondents % of NEET

Male Female Male Female

Out of work and looking for a job 8 6 81 63

Caring for children or family 0 2 * 19
Unpaid holiday * * 2 1
Voluntary work * 0 * 1
Sick or disabled * 1 2 5
Other (unspecified) 1 1 14 10

Bases (weighted) 2570 2504 262 228

Bases (unweighted) 2251 2826 195 168

Note: * = < 0.5%

The diary can also be used to quantify the numbers of young people who
were NEET at any time during the 16-month period that was covered. With
information on more time periods than has been collected in recent SSLS
cohorts studies (monthly as compared to every six months) but collected over
a shorter time period (16 months as compared to three years), the figures are
not comparable to those presented by Croxford and Raffe. Using the diary

100%
Training

Job
80%

Education

60%

40%

20%
NEET

0%
Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct.Nov.Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct.

Figure 2 Monthly status changes between July 2002 and October 2002
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 563

Not a very NEET solution Furlong 563

Table 2 Estimates of NEET based on different definitions (%)

Males Females

Current NEET (main activity question) 7 (n = 168) 7 (n = 195)

NEET at least once in 16 months 36 (n = 792) 36 (n = 972)
Maximum NEET in any one month 26 (n = 527) 27 (n = 677)
Minimum NEET in any one month (Sept. 02) 5 (n = 74) 4 (n = 73)
Six months continuous NEET 8 (n = 141) 6 (n = 144)

we find that 36 percent of males and females were NEET in at least one of the
16 months.
An alternative and powerful conceptualization of NEET, which attempts to
capture disengagement, is one that measures long-term experience of NEET.
This is a variant on the model used by Bynner and Parsons (which they based
on a total of six months or more NEET in a period of two years). The defini-
tion we adopt here is based on six or more months continuous experience of
NEET. This period of time (which for 18 year-olds is used as the qualifying
period for the New Deal for Young People) suggests that a young person may
be facing difficulties. Using this model, 8 percent of males and 6 percent of
females qualify as NEET (unweighted n = 285).
The estimates of NEET in the SSLS using the different definitions described
above are summarized in Table 2 above.

Characteristics of NEET

Having investigated the implications for prevalence of some of the different

ways in which NEET can be classified, it is worth exploring the characteristics
of those defined as NEET within the different models. To be of use in policy
terms, it is important that the classification used captures disadvantage rather
than the voluntary movement that may be associated with the lifestyles of more
advantaged young people. To highlight the characteristics of young people clas-
sified as NEET using different definitions, we provide a brief summary of those
who have never been NEET, those NEET at the time of the survey and those
who experienced NEET for a continuous period of six months or more.
Figure 3 shows that those who had never experienced NEET had very dif-
ferent characteristics from those who were NEET at the time of the survey or
who had been NEET continuously for six months or more. Those who had
never experienced NEET had a more positive educational experience: they were
less likely to have been regular truants or to have been suspended or expelled
and were more likely to have obtained five or more Standard Grades at grades
1–2. Those who lacked experience of NEET also had more advantaged family
backgrounds; their parents were more likely to have degrees, to work in pro-
fessional and managerial occupations and less likely to be unemployed. Their
 564
067001 Furlong

5+ SG@ 1–2
14/8/06

Mum degree

Dad degree
9:09 am

Mum prof. man.

Dad prof. man.

Owner occup.
Page 564

Work, employment and society Volume 20

SIP
■

Mum unemp.

Dad unemp.
Number 3 ■

Suspended or expelled 6 months NEET

NEET now
Regular truant
Never NEET

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
September 2006

Figure 3 Characteristics of NEET

Unweighted n 6 months NEET = 265, NEET now = 363, Never NEET = 3324
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 565

Not a very NEET solution Furlong 565

parents were also more likely to own their own home, although were as likely
as those who had experienced NEET continuously for six or more months to
reside in a Social Inclusion Partnership (SIP) area. Differences between those
who had experienced NEET for six or more months continuously and those
who were NEET at the time of the survey were minimal. We suggest that in the
autumn there are higher proportions of long-term NEET within the category
than at many other times of the year (those who were NEET at the time of the
survey will have failed to secure entrance to education during the usual
September intake and may have been passed over in the similarly timed recruit-
ment round for traineeships). As such, static definitions of NEET will encom-
pass different groups of young people depending on the time of year in which
information is collected.

Discussion and conclusions

There are two main arguments that can be used to defend NEET as a concept
and as a focus of policy. The first argument relates to the effectiveness of NEET
in predicting future vulnerability and in drawing attention to a group who
might have different needs but who, at the present time, are highly likely to be
unemployed regularly or persistently or to be outwith the active labour market
at various points in the short- to medium-term future. In Bridging the Gap
(SEU, 1999) it was argued that of those who were NEET at age 16, around 40
percent would be NEET at age 18. NEET among 16–18 year-olds was a major
predictor of unemployment at age 21. Similarly, figures from the British Birth
Cohort Study (BCS70) showed that being NEET continuously for six months
between the ages of 16 and 18 ‘is the single most powerful predictor of unem-
ployment at age 21’ (SEU, 1999). The term NEET therefore draws attention to
the multi-faceted nature of disadvantage.
The second, related argument concerns to the finding that those who
were never NEET at the ages of 16–17 are less disadvantaged than those who
were NEET for six months or more or those NEET when surveyed. In
England, Bentley and Gurumurthy (1999) show that 43 percent of those who
were ‘off-register’ at 16–17 came from workless families and significant num-
bers had a record of truancy, had dropped out of school or government train-
ing programmes and had few educational attainments (also Coles et al., 2002;
SEU, 1999). In other words, while there may be some heterogeneity in the
NEET population and while sub-groups like the unemployed, the long-term
sick and disabled and single mothers may have very different needs, the
Government is right to set targets to reduce the overall level of NEET as long
as it employs a range of different initiatives. In this context, Connexions may
be justified as a vehicle for identifying the diverse needs of the sub-popula-
tions, for tracking their progress and identifying effective routes into educa-
tion, work or training. In other words, while the heterogeneity of NEET
might not facilitate the effective targeting of policies, the individualized focus
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 566

566 Work, employment and society Volume 20 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2006

of Connexions as a delivery interface prevents this from becoming problematic.

Connexions advisors are responsible for identifying factors that are inhibiting
career development, for identifying training needs and for making (limited)
funds available to overcome barriers.
Against this position are two arguments which, in essence, suggest that
NEET misses the target. The first argument (which applies particularly to broad
definitions of NEET) is that as so many early school-leavers will experience a
period of being NEET (a third or more) we are in danger of wasting scarce
resources through ineffective targeting. There is an argument here that would
suggest refocusing on distinct sub-groups such as the unemployed (particularly
the long-term unemployed), young carers, those with disabilities or health prob-
lems and those with a history of alienation or disaffection. Labels such as these
remind us of the specific difficulties being faced (lack of jobs, lack of childcare
provision etc.) rather than covering up the issues by the use of a broad term
with little public currency and by the inclusion of more privileged minority
groups who may be in a position to exercise choice and who, in effect, draw
attention away from the majority of NEETs who do not enjoy this luxury.
The other argument is that rather than being too broad a target, NEET is
actually too narrow and that we need to be aware that most early school-
leavers (and many later leavers) are vulnerable, including a high proportion of
those who move quickly into employment or training, but who subsequently
spend periods out of work or in insecure jobs. Of those who are NEET, as many
as 40 percent will find employment in the personal and protective services such
as catering, security work and domestic employment (Bentley and Gurumurthy,
1999): jobs which often lack long-term security and which tend to be charac-
terized by poor training and low wages. Many young people move into tempo-
rary and insecure sectors of the labour force without experiencing NEET and
they may move rapidly from school to poor quality training programmes. As
Bentley and Gurumurthy (1999) note, one in five young people who are
employed at age 16 will be NEET at 18. A move into work or training or con-
tinued participation in education does not necessarily signify a lack of vulnera-
bility or the absence of a need for quality training to sustain future career
development.
In a recent study of young adults in Scotland (Furlong et al., 2003) it was
argued that almost half of the cohort experienced ‘non-linear’ transitions that
were often correlated with poor quality jobs and recurrent unemployment.
Non-linear transitions sometimes involved being churned between a series of
low quality jobs rather than spending periods out of work. The research pro-
vided evidence that many of those who experienced prolonged or repeated
unemployment as young adults often worked in poor quality jobs prior to 18
but frequently avoided situations of worklessness. Casual work is becoming
increasingly prevalent, especially in the low skill sectors of the economy
(Furlong and Kelly, 2005) and young people can experience a series of short-
term, poor quality jobs without being recognized as vulnerable by those respon-
sible for providing careers advice. When practitioners are instructed to meet
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 567

Not a very NEET solution Furlong 567

targets to reduce NEET, they have little incentive to concern themselves with
those successfully holding down a series of insecure jobs. Indeed, there is pres-
sure to place people in any job (no matter how precarious) or to find them train-
ing places, irrespective of suitability or personal aspirations.
In the context of a political economy of insecurity, a broadly focused set of
policies would encompass all of those in precarious positions or lacking
advanced skills, irrespective of whether they were currently NEET or in
employment or training. The growth of the precarious sector of the labour mar-
ket and the increase in temporary and casual forms of employment perhaps
challenges the traditional focus on unemployment as the measure par excellence
of labour market disadvantage. In its place there is a need to introduce new
ways of capturing vulnerability that go beyond NEET. As it stands, one narrow
and outdated concept (unemployment) has now been replaced with another
inadequate category (NEET) which fails to provide an imaginative basis for
policies towards vulnerable youth. To lay the foundation for a more imagina-
tive approach towards labour policy it is necessary to recognize the patchwork
of experiences of today’s youth. This must involve an acknowledgement that
vulnerability is not simply a consequence of personal deficits and an apprecia-
tion of the extent to which patterns of labour demand in the new economy are
failing to provide the opportunities for long-term security for large numbers of
young people. Only then can we start to address the welfare and training needs
of new members of the modern labour force.

Acknowledgements

The Scottish School Leavers Surveys are funded by the Scottish Executive, I would
like to acknowledge their support as well as that of my colleagues who have con-
tributed to the conduct and analysis of the surveys: at the Scottish Centre for Social
Research, Simon Anderson, Kirsty Deacon, Lisa Given and Kersten Hinds; at
Glasgow University, Fred Cartmel; and at Queens University, Belfast, Andy Biggart.

Notes

1 Separate targets have been set by the Westminster Government for England and
Wales and the Scottish Executive for Scotland.
2 This observation was brought to my attention by Andy Biggart.
3 In England and Wales official statistics based on Labour Force Survey yearly
averages estimate NEET at around 9 percent, in Scotland it is around 14 per-
cent. There are wide regional differences in NEET: recent figures estimate
NEET in East Anglia at 7 percent while in the North East it is 17 percent (Coles
et al., 2002).
4 Those young people who were NEET between time points are not included in
the cumulative total and therefore these figures are also underestimated.
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 568

568 Work, employment and society Volume 20 ■ Number 3 ■ September 2006

5 Information on changes in status across time was collected by asking respon-

dents to complete a grid in which, for each month covered by the survey, they
were asked to indicate their main activity. This method has been used exten-
sively in the SSLS and the England and Wales Youth Cohort Study and is
regarded as reasonably reliable.

References
Anderson, S., Biggart, A., Deacon, K., Furlong, A., Given, L. and Hinds, K. (2004)
17 in 2003 – Scotland’s Young People: Evidence from the Scottish School
Leavers Survey. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Armstrong, D., Loudon, R., McCready, S., Wilson, D., Istance, D. and Rees, G.
(1997) Status 0: A Socio-Economic Study of Young People on the Margin.
Belfast: Training and Employment Agency.
Banks, M., Bates, I., Breakwell, G., Bynner, J., Emler, N., Jamieson, L. and Roberts,
K. (1992) Careers and Identities. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bentley, T. and Gurumurthy, R. (1999) Destination Unknown: Engaging with the
Problems of Marginalised Youth. London: Demos.
Bynner, J., Chisholm, L. and Furlong, A. (eds) (1997) Youth, Citizenship and Social
Change. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bynner, J. and Parsons, S. (2002) ‘Social Exclusion and the Transition from School
to Work: The Case of Young People Not in Education, Employment or
Training’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 60(2): 289–309.
Coles, B., Hutton, S., Bradshaw, J., Craig, G., Godfrey, C. and Johnson, J. (2002)
Literature Review of the Costs of being ‘Not in Education, Employment or
Training’ at Age 16–18. London: Department for Education and Skills,
Research Report 347.
Croxford, L. and Raffe, D. (2000) ‘Young People Not in Education, Employment or
Training: An Analysis of the Scottish School Leavers Survey’. Report to Scottish
Executive, Edinburgh: CES, University of Edinburgh.
Furlong, A. and Cartmel, F. (1997) Young People and Social Change. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Furlong, A. and Cartmel, F. (2004) Vulnerable Young Men in Fragile Labour
Markets: Employment, Unemployment and the Search for Long-Term Security.
York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Furlong, A., Biggart, A., Cartmel, C., Sweeting, H. and West, P. (2003) Youth
Transitions: Patterns of Vulnerability and Processes of Social Inclusion.
Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Furlong, A. and Kelly, P. (2005) ‘The Brazilianisation of Youth Transitions in
Australia and the UK’, Australian Journal of Social Issues 40(2): 207–55.
Istance, D., Rees, G. and Williamson, H. (1994) Young People Not in Education,
Training or Employment in South Glamorgan. Cardiff: South Glamorgan
Training and Enterprise Council.
Roberts, K. (1995) Youth Employment in Modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (1999) Bridging the Gap: New Opportunities for
16–18 Year-Olds Not in Education, Employment or Training. London: Social
Exclusion Unit, CM4405.
067001 Furlong 14/8/06 9:09 am Page 569

Not a very NEET solution Furlong 569

White, R. and Wyn, J. (2003) Youth and Society: Exploring the Social Dynamics of
Youth Experience. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Wyn, J. and White, R. (1997) Rethinking Youth. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Andy Furlong

Andy Furlong is Professor of Sociology in the School of Business and Management,

University of Glasgow. His research interests centre on young people’s experiences in
the labour market and he is editor of the Journal of Youth Studies. A revised edition of
his book Young People and Social Change (with Fred Cartmel) has just been published
by Open University Press.
Address: School of Business and Management, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12
8QQ, UK.
E-mail: a.furlong@mgt.gla.ac.uk

Date submitted January 2005

Date accepted October 2005