Very interesting article in The Times the other day. It's about a new class of 1.1m people: Neets. Stands for "not in education, employment or training" - a sort of uber-chav.
(This isn't meant to provoke a debate or anything - I just thought I'd bring it to your attention and see what you think. And this forum seemed like the best place for it!)
March 27, 2005
Focus: Meet the 'Neets': a new underclass
A group of 1.1m people who are not in education, employment or training (Neets), are being blamed for many of society’s ills. Robert Winnett on the battle to tame Britain’s feckless youth
Though they do not realise it, Robert and Amanda Reed from Barking in Essex are of unusual interest to Tony Blair and his government.
They are, believe ministers, part of a new and distinct social tribe gnawing away at Britain’s values and resources. In government offices, universities and think tanks throughout the country, dozens of academics and policy wonks are quietly measuring, monitoring and agonising over them.
Why? Because they are Neets.
It’s not a hair infestation and it’s not another word for cool. It’s the name being given to a particular group of young people who find themselves living on the margins of society.
Take Amanda, now 24. She played truant from school and dropped out at 16 with no qualifications. At 17 she had her first child, Jordan, and at 19 her second, Chloe.
“I wanted to become an actress and got a part in Grange Hill when I was 17,” Amanda said last week. “But I had to turn it down when I got pregnant.” She has no qualifications and apart from some casual modelling, she has never worked.
Family life was not easy and after falling pregnant with Chloe, she split from the children’s father. Later she married a childhood friend, Robert, and last year the couple had a baby of their own, Taylor.
Robert has followed a similar ground-skimming trajectory. He left school at 16 after failing all five of his GCSEs and started a plumbing course. He lasted two months before dropping out.
“After I left plumbing college I did a few days rough work here and there but then I just dossed as I wanted to do my own thing,” he said. “Before I realised it I had a family to support.”
Since quitting the plumbing course he has survived on state benefits. The couple live in a three-bedroomed council house on a rough estate and get by on £700 a month in welfare payments. They aspire to a new council flat in nearby Dagenham.
“We have to take every day as it comes,” said Amanda, who has never been abroad.
In Blair’s Britain there are millions of people on benefits of one sort or another, but the Reeds are in the special category known in Whitehall as Neet: not in education, employment or training.
A class of über-chavs, they encompass a wide range of people, from the law-abiding who have fallen on hard times, such as the Reeds, to the truly antisocial neighbours from hell. What they all have in common is that they are not doing anything productive and are costing taxpayers a fortune.
Last week Blair made a rare speech about faith and morality in which he asserted that single mothers were “piling up problems for the future”. The comment was striking from the leader of a party that has traditionally defended single mothers and vehemently condemned those who have sought to stigmatise them.
But Blair’s words only hinted at the scale of the government’s true concerns. Sixteen years after the American sociologist Charles Murray warned that a big new underclass was looming, official studies and ministerial papers — which ministers have chosen not to highlight — reveal that it has finally arrived in the form of the Neets.
Aged between 16 and 24, they number 1.1m and are responsible for a social and economic drag on society that is vastly disproportionate to their numbers.
A study by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) conservatively estimates that each new Neet dropping out of education at 16 will cost taxpayers an average of £97,000 during their lifetime, with the worst costing more than £300,000 apiece.
Their impact on crime, public health and antisocial behaviour was so marked that the study found that a single 157,000-strong cohort of 16 to 18-year-old Neets would cost the country a total of £15 billion by the time they died prematurely in about 2060.
They are, says the study, 22 times more likely to be teenage mothers; 50% more likely to suffer from poor health; 60% more likely to be involved with drugs and more than 20 times more likely to become criminals.
So daunting is the scale of the challenge that all ministers have been briefed on Neets and — while for reasons of political correctness they have not been publicly identified as a distinct group — many government policies are now directed at dealing with the problems they raise. Indeed Labour now has an official “Neet target” under which the total Neet population is to be reduced by about 20% by 2010.
Geoff Mulgan, Blair’s former head of policy who left Downing Street last autumn and is credited with identifying Neets as a class, admitted that solving the problem was one of the government’s top priorities. “If you crack this issue, lots of other things will fall into place,” he said.
But Murray, who was vilified by many on the left when he warned of the underclass timebomb, believes it may all be too little, too late. Last week he was as uncompromising as ever and urged ministers to drop their political correctness and get the problem out in the open.
“When I was looking at Britain in the 1980s, the offspring of the first big generation of single mothers were small children,” said Murray, speaking from his home in America. “Now they are teenagers and young adults and the problems are exactly those that I was warning they would be — high crime rates and low participation in the labour force.
“These people have never been socialised and they simply don’t know how to behave, from sitting still in classrooms to knowing you don’t hit people if you have a problem. It is very difficult, almost impossible, to take these people now and provide basic conditioning.
“There has always been a small underclass but now you have got a major problem, who are being called the Neets.”
There is one consolation: at least all sides now agree that the phenomenon is real and that something should be done about it. Somehow the Neets must be helped to drop a consonant and become — in the jargon of Whitehall — Eets: educated, employed and trained.
IT was in 1989 that The Sunday Times first brought Murray, a controversial academic, to Britain. Murray had chronicled the emergence of an entrenched underclass in America and was curious to see whether the pattern was being repeated on this side of the Atlantic.
His original underclass theory rested on three pillars — the number of unmarried mothers, the number of unemployed young men and the crime rate. When all three rose above a certain level, Murray believed, the underclass had arrived. He later simplified the theory, deciding the key indicator was simply the number of unmarried mothers.
In Britain Murray found that since records began during the time of Henry VIII, the number of children born to unmarried mothers remained stable for centuries at between 4% and 5%. After the second world war, the numbers began to rise slowly to about 9% in 1976 before rocketing in the 1980s. When Murray arrived in 1989, he was shocked to find the figure stood at 23% and it has now risen to more than 35%.
At the time, evidence of Murray’s British underclass was only just emerging and he was warning of problems in the future. For his efforts he was given a drubbing by the left who said his work lacked “scientific evidence” and was “misleading”, perhaps “wilfully so”. He found few friends in the Labour party who were keen not to upset their core voters — many of whom were under Murray’s microscope.
A decade on, the mood has changed, though the causes of the Neet phenomenon propounded by Murray remain contentious. An unlikely supporter of Murray’s thesis, the former Labour minister Frank Field now describes Britain’s Neets as a “lost generation” and is calling for firm action to be taken.
“I regard this as the first nonviolent loss of a generation,” he said last week. “Just as happened in the first world war, we have wiped out a generation. Surely we can say that the traditional family unit is the best way to nurture children without making it a campaign to beat up single mums.”
The government, wary of being so outspoken, is nevertheless hurling brains and billions at the problem. Leaked minutes of a meeting last May of the cabinet committee on public services and public expenditure, which is headed by Gordon Brown, reveal a sense of desperation.