Policy Interventions Targeting NEETs in Different Institutional Settings

Maguire, Sue; Levels, Mark; Brzinsky-Fay, Christian; Jongbloed, Janine; Taki, Hirofumi Book Part — Published Version Policy Interventions Targeting NEETs in Different Institutional Settings Provided in Cooperation with: WZB Berlin Social Science Center Suggested Citation: Maguire, Sue; Levels, Mark; Brzinsky-Fay, Christian; Jongbloed, Janine; Taki, Hirofumi (2022) : Policy Interventions Targeting NEETs in Different Institutional Settings, In: Levels, Mark Brzinsky-Fay, Christian Holmes, Craig Jongbloed, Janine Taki, Hirofumi (Ed.): The Dynamics of Marginalized Youth, ISBN 978-1-003-09665-8, Routledge, London, pp. 180-204, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003096658-7 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/251723 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 DOI: 10.4324/9781003096658-7 7Policy Interventions Targeting NEETs in Different Institutional Settings Sue Maguire, Mark Levels, Christian Brzinsky-Fay, Janine Jongbloed, and Hirofumi Taki 7.1 Introduction: Policies to reintegrate NEETs This chapter will consider the types of policy initiatives which have been introduced to address concerns over the ongoing ‘problem’ of not in education, employment, or training (NEETs) young people. In doing so, it is important to understand that the definitions and measures of youth unemployment and NEET differ significantly across nations, with the result that the term NEET is now commonly used to capture disengagement and social exclusion, as well as levels of unemployment among young people. A distinction is often made among those young people who are already NEET, and those who are considered to be ‘at risk’ of becoming NEET. In addition, the labels of ‘early school leaving’ (ESL) or of being ‘disengaged’ are commonly used. ‘Early school leavers’ are defined in different ways by national governments and international organizations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Eurostat (European Parliament, 2011). Throughout Europe, this primarily refers to those leaving education at the age of 16,1 with qualifications below Level 2 of the International Standard Classification of Education (below upper secondary qualification, such as General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSEs) qualifications) and who were not in education or training in the 4 weeks prior to being interviewed for the Labour Force Survey. In the United States, although there is no agreed definition of ESL, it tends to be used in the literature to describe those who leave full-time education before graduation and therefore do not gain their high school diploma (Neild and Balfanz, 2006). ‘Disengaged’ is a broader term that is interpreted in a number of ways, often subsuming the NEET group and early school leavers. It includes disengagement through low or under achievement, and poor attendance at school (Callanan et al., 2009). The literature also defines disengaged in terms of young people’s motivations, attitudes, and behaviour (Morris and Pullen, 2007), as well as incorporating wider definitions, including youth offending and harm (Hull, 2005). Approaches to identifying those who are disengaged from school focus on whether pupils are engaged during their compulsory school age, both in terms of being in school and also being engaged in learning Policy Interventions Targeting NEETs 181 whilst at school (Ross, 2009). Here, there is a concentration on reducing the likelihood of their becoming ‘disengaged’ by intervening earlier. When considering policies focusing on NEETs, it is important to understand the distinction between ‘preventive’ and ‘reintegration’ approaches. ‘Preventive’ strategies are early interventions designed to reduce the likelihood of dropout at a later stage. ‘At risk’ young people are identified predominantly on the basis of school-based data, such as their neighbourhood, school, and family background. Reintegration, on the other hand, focuses on those who are already NEET and seeks to introduce measures to re-engage those individuals. This is likely to require the input of a range of agencies and takes place once an individual has fallen out of the system (Dale, 2010). 7.1.1 Early intervention policies Early intervention policies have been introduced in many countries in an attempt to provide early identification of young people who may be at risk of becoming NEET or dropping out of education. For example, studies in the United States have highlighted the use of ‘early warning systems’ to obviate the likelihood of students dropping out of school (Heppen and Therriault, 2008; Pinkus, 2008). Here, it is important to emphasize that ‘early school leavers’ can include some young people who leave school in order to take up employment or training. They are therefore not identified as being NEET. Approaches for identifying those at risk of becoming NEET are therefore focused on whether young people will remain in education, employment, or training (EET) following the completion of compulsory education. In order to identify those individuals who may be deemed vulnerable or ‘at risk’, Lehr et al. (2004) made a distinction between ‘status variables’ or characteristics, such as ‘socio-economic standing’, family structure and disability, and ‘alterable variables’ or indicators, such as attendance, attainment, and behaviour. Maguire (2013) noted that the following elements were prevalent in the types of preventive interventions which have been shown to be successful: 1 Investment in good quality Early Childhood Education and Care to reduce the propensity of ESL/NEET status (Reynolds et al., 2004). 2 The use of assessment tools and one-to-one intensive mentoring support to identify, target, and support ‘at risk’ student. 3 Offering financial support to those from lower income households and other vulnerable groups in order to encourage and sustain their participation in learning (Maguire and Rennison, 2005). 4 Within schools: a the introduction of alternative curricula; b the provision of more vocational and technical education; and c working in partnership with other organizations. 182 S. Maguire, M. Levels, C. Brzinsky-Fay et al. 5 Identifying the triggers of disengagement from school. 6 Raising the participation age at which young people can leave education or training. 7.1.2 Policies to reintegrate NEETs Reintegration strategy at the level of the individual should involve having systems which identify young people who become NEET and support them to achieve positive outcomes in terms of re-engagement. In order to do this, there needs to be an agency or agencies, which has the capacity and capability to identify and support the breadth of the target population. Moreover, it should be remembered that the NEET population is not homogeneous. As far as specific measures are concerned, outreach services have been shown to be successful but are resource intensive. At the same time, young people who are NEET have been found to need financial support mechanisms, intensive support (from trained advisers) and tailored education, and employment and training solutions to achieve long-term, sustainable outcomes. An example of a programme which combined all three types of intervention was Activity Agreements, which was piloted in England between 2006 and 2010 (DfE, 2011). It should be emphasized that this required substantial financial investment. Types of reintegration programmes which have been introduced to support young people’s transitions into the labour market include those which • stimulate the demand for young people in the labour market, through offering wage and training subsidies or tax and national insurance breaks/ credits to employers; • offer a bridge between education and work, through: • providing training and work experience; broadening apprenticeship programmes; • providing training in entrepreneurship and interpersonal skills; and • work preparation courses for young people who lack the immediate skills to enter the workplace; • identify young people who become NEET or are part of other disadvantaged groups and support them to achieve positive outcomes in terms of re-engagement (including employment). Policies and programmes which are designed to prevent and reduce unemployment, including for young people who are NEET, are regularly termed active labour market policies (ALMPs). These can broadly be categorized into five types: 1 Job-search assistance: Measures aimed at helping job search have been found to be as effective as more expensive programmes such as job creation and job subsidies (OECD, 1993). More recently, research has suggested that Policy Interventions Targeting NEETs 183 job-search assistance and monitoring programmes have positive effects on employment take-up, are cost-effective and work in different settings (Caliendo and Schmidl, 2016). They can also act as an early intervention strategy to reduce such risk. A downside of job-assistance programmes is that they may result in some young people accepting any form of work, including precarious employment, for fear of being sanctioned or by discouraging young people from unemployment registration and withdrawal from the labour market. A reduction in the subsequent earnings of participants was also found to occur in some countries, such as Canada (O’Higgins, 2001). 2 Training programmes: Internationally, there has been widespread implementation of training programmes to support young people’s transitions into the labour market. However, evaluations of training programmes targeted at disadvantaged young people, using predominantly hard outcomes, such as numbers becoming employed, point to poor programme performance (Martin and Grubb, 2001). The absence of a consideration of ‘soft’ outcomes, such as ‘distance travelled’, is a shortcoming of such evidence. 3 Subsidized employment: Subsidized employment may include wage subsidies or wage cost subsidies, both of which are found to have a positive impact on employment outcomes, especially if they are well-targeted towards disadvantaged groups, including young people (Duell, 2012). In times of recession, employment subsidies can play an important role in helping maintain the attachment of young people to the labour market and offer employers training subsidies, as well as incentives to sustain their recruitment. 4 Direct job creation and public employment programmes: Combining job creation programmes with vocational training is a more expensive model, although it does not necessarily eradicate negative perceptions about programme value. Speckesser et al. (2019), using a macroeconomic database with repeated observations for all EU-Member States for a time series (1998–2012), conclude that older groups in the youth cohort, namely 20–24-year olds, appear to be more likely to benefit from job creation programmes than younger groups. This is attributed to older groups having a greater propensity to have experienced prolonged detachment from the labour market, and from education and training intervention (Speckesser et al., 2019). 5 Start-up subsidies, self-employment assistance, and support (Eichhorst et al., 2016): Programmes which are designed to encourage young people to become self-employed have been developed in many countries and are popular among policymakers. However, take-up rates tend to be poor. According to O’Higgins (2001: p. 125), self-employment programmes may typically comprise one or several of the following elements: • promoting and introducing the self-employment option; • training in skills development; 184 S. Maguire, M. Levels, C. Brzinsky-Fay et al. • mentorship; • financial support; • access to workspace; • business expansion support; and • networking. In addition to introducing individual ALMPs, policymakers have devised multi-element programmes to form an integrated offer. This may include job search and counselling, education and training, wage incentives, and job creation. The most recent and powerful evidence, which has assessed the extent to which labour market interventions have successfully improved young people’s employment outcomes, concluded that programmes which integrate a number of interventions and services are more likely to be successful, in particular in lowand middle-income countries (Kluve et al., 2019). Crucially, being underpinned by effective and efficient profiling and follow-up systems was found to be pivotal to their success. Shortcomings of ALMPs, which have been voiced in relation to their impact on young people, include the propensity, particularly for training and subsidized employment programmes, to demonstrate large deadweight, substitution, and displacement effects; their tendency to focus on ‘work ready’ young people, at the expense of ‘harder to help’ and ‘harder to reach’ groups; and a lack of evidence about ‘what works and at what cost’, notably a ‘shortsighted’ emphasis on measuring job outcomes, rather than on the ‘distance travelled’ by individuals and the impact which training and/or work experience may have on their attachment to the labour market (Caliendo and Schmidl, 2016). Also, the costs of programmes are often vague, inconsistent, and incomplete. Overall, ALMPs are unlikely to work for the most disadvantaged groups unless accompanied by re-engagement strategies. Characteristics of programmes which have been found to be effective include: • being closely targeted rather than generic; • outreach services to extend and encourage engagement and participation; • providing intensive support for young people furthest away from the labour market; • having pre-vocational programmes for low-skilled young people; • multi-element programmes forming an integrated offer; • effective and efficient profiling and follow-up systems. 7.1.3 Profiling and tracking Whether policies are identified as ‘preventive’ or ‘reintegration’, there is a weight of evidence about the importance of the role of profiling, early intervention, and following up with those young people who are most vulnerable at early stages of their unemployment/inactivity (Martin and Grubb, 2001, Policy Interventions Targeting NEETs 185 Quintini et al., 2007). Together they are able to monitor the status of target groups of young people at regular intervals and ensure that appropriate provision is being offered. It has been suggested that with proper targeting and in periods of economic recession, the effects of ALMP participation might be more positive, due to the fact that the volume and range of participants is different to that observed during non-recession periods (Card et al., 2015; Kluve et al., 2016). Mapping and tracking groups of young people that have been identified as being ‘at risk’ of given outcomes are common approaches, which are typically employed by organizations in monitoring the status of target groups of young people at regular intervals and ensuring that appropriate provision is being offered. Green et al. (2001: p. 44) stated that establishing a robust tracking system ‘needs to be regarded as a tool by which support and help may be provided more effectively to individuals, and especially to vulnerable young people’. Where tracking systems have been used to identify those deemed to be at risk and to direct resources efficiently, emphasis has been placed on the importance of joint agency working, coupled with a need to ensure a shared understanding of why particular tracking and monitoring practices are in place. Targeted programmes that are better tailored to meet the needs and abilities of specific groups have been more successful (O’Higgins, 2001). Furthermore, this success is dependent on having in place tracking systems which can produce robust, reliable, and efficient data on young people’s intended and actual destinations alongside accurate labour market information (LMI), which is sensitive to the needs of regional and local labour markets. 7.2 Institutions and policy effectiveness While the term ‘NEET’ has become embedded internationally as a category to define young people’s detachment from formal education, employment, and training systems, its applicability is fraught with difficulty. In particular, the broadening of the age range of young people defined within the NEET group has coincided with attempts to impose segmentation, in recognition that different groups of young people occupy NEET status for a number of reasons and for differing periods of time. Specific policy interventions to address the needs of this cross-section of subgroups are less in evidence. Moreover, significant variations in how countries apply the term ‘NEET’ make comparisons of population sizes and interventions fraught with difficulties. Many countries, like France and the UK, have focused on employment remedies to ‘fix’ the NEET agenda, with a succession of short-term initiatives targeted at improving young people’s employability and access to the labour market, and a strong focus on tackling youth unemployment. However, such policy direction risks ignoring, or at best leaving behind certain groups within the NEET population, namely the NEET Economically Inactive (EI) 186 S. Maguire, M. Levels, C. Brzinsky-Fay et al. group and young women with children. That is, the term ‘NEET’ masks their existence and fails to recognize their needs. This points to the need to take down the boundaries between unemployment and economic inactivity, within NEET status, and highlights the existence of a population which is largely isolated and forgotten and to question their disengagement, vulnerability from the labour market and education. 7.2.1 Funding and delivery models In seeking to establish what programmes will be most effective in addressing, it is axiomatic that it will be highly dependent on the characteristics of the target group and their circumstances. Thereafter, they need to be underpinned by costs, implementation, and performance issues. Although, in general, government funding is responsible for financing programmes, it is often supplemented by contributions from employers through paying a proportion wages or the costs of off-the-job training. The most widely used method of financing programmes is through government funding, which, depending on the type of programme, can be supplemented with contributions from employers. For example, employers may be asked to pay towards trainees’ allowances or the costs of off-the-job training. Since the 1980s, there has been an increased focus in the UK on the use of outcomes-based commissioning and contracts within public services. This follows a trend in most OECD countries, where at least some employment and training programmes are outsourced, although significant differences exist, in terms of where responsibility for purchasing is devolved, how contracts are managed and the degree to which outsourcing is commonplace. As far as cost-effectiveness is concerned, there is a dearth of information, as evaluations of employment programmes do not address the issue. Meta-analyses of youth employment programmes have commented on the lack of standardized information on programme costs, with the result that it is difficult to draw conclusions about how resources could be allocated more efficiently in order to improve outcomes. For example, Kluve et al. (2019: p. 252) conclude ‘The sporadic presentation of standardized program costs alongside impact evaluation results may be one of the largest remaining gaps in our knowledge of what works and how to improve labour outcomes for youth.’ 7.3 Policies in practice: Examples of successful and unsuccessful policies 7.3.1 The Netherlands Policies to address the NEET agenda in the Netherlands need to be contextualized in relation to: the small overall size of the NEET population in the country (Eurofound, 2016); the significant regional variation in the prevalence of young people in the NEET group, and finally, the heterogeneous Policy Interventions Targeting NEETs 187 nature of the NEET population. Consequently, the small and diverse nature of the NEET group has resulted in a modest government policy response. Specific programmes that affect NEET rates generally target youth unemployment, or specific vulnerable groups. Figure 7.1 demonstrates NEET trends between 2005 and 2015 across each Dutch province. NEET rates fell in every province until 2008 and rose from that point due to the impact of the financial crisis. Consequently, between 2013 and 2015, NEET rates fell due to enhanced labour market performance, except in the provinces of Limburg and Groningen where they continued to rise above the national average. Limburg has the highest NEET rate due to the structural inequalities that persist from the demise of the mining industry in the 1970s. This has resulted in regional targeted interventions to tackle local disadvantage. There are also a large number of young people in the NEET group who are defined as EI, due to health and/or social issues. This often leads to long-term welfare dependency and labour market detachment. In contrast, many young people (over 50 per cent) in the NEET group across the Netherlands are exposed to NEET status for relatively short periods due to unemployment. With targeted intervention to support their transitions into the labour market, the period of time they spend in the NEET group can be minimized (Dicks and Levels, 2018; Levels et al., 2020). Policies have tended to focus on the young unemployed in the NEET group, who are generally easier to reach and help, with the hardest to help/reach, i.e. young people who are economically active being less of a policy focus (see, for example, Oostveen et al., 2017; Dekker and Bertling, 2019). Figure 7.1 Number of NEETs as part of the 15–27-year-old population in Dutch provinces. 194 S. Maguire, M. Levels, C. Brzinsky-Fay et al. guidance for up to a year from a guidance counsellor or until they found stable employment. Approximately one-and-a-half million young people benefited from this programme, and a third of them found stable employment (Aeberhardt et al., 2011; Gautié, 2018). Further education: There are a number of programmes that have been put in place in the area of education, but most notable is the Ecoles de la deuxième chance (E2C), which has been delivered in over 124 sites in France since 1997. This programme supports 16–25-year olds who are at risk of economic marginalization due to their lack of qualifications and work experience. It offers vocational training of variable length, which is underpinned by financial assistance of 300 euros per month. The goal is for young people to access employment directly following the completion of their training period. It is targeted at young people from low-income backgrounds as well as offering training to obtain recognized qualifications, it provides basic academic education and job search assistance. E2C institutions attempt to take into consideration young people’s social situation and potential feelings of exclusion and are built upon a foundation of active pedagogy. They welcome 15,000 young people each year who did not succeed in their first educational pathway and re-engage them with the educational system. Further education is also available to young people through the French military. From 2005 onwards, the Établissement public d’insertion de la défense (EPIDE) has offered training to young people without qualifications or a job in 20 centres across France. Also, since 2011, the Plateforme de suivi et d’appui aux décrocheurs (Platform for early school-leavers, PSAD) has tried to guarantee a continued education for young school-leavers through coordination between various programmes. This platform is a coordination effort between Missions Locales, E2C, Pôle Emploi, and other actors concerned with education and employment in France at all levels (regional, national, etc.). Work experience and training: Other policies have aimed at easing the school-to-work transition through workplace experience or training programmes. For example, until 2018, the Emplois d’Avenir provided subsidized jobs with a training component to help 16–25-year olds in precarious life situations gain work experience. It provided employers with financial assistance in return for recruiting a young person (mainly in the not-forprofit sector). More than a quarter of jobs for young people under the age of 26 were financed by subsidized contracts (Aeberhardt et al., 2011) in 2015 (this comprised 510,000 beneficiaries, including 400,000 apprenticeship contracts). In 2017, the Garantie jeunes (Youth Guarantee) was rolled out throughout France. In order to reach the same population, the 440 Missions locales jeunes agree and sign contracts with young people to develop a personalized work and training plan, as well as to offer them financial assistance (Loison-Leruste et al., 2016). This programme is part of a larger initiative (parcours contractualisé d’accompagnement vers l’emploi et l’autonomie, PACEA) Policy Interventions Targeting NEETs 195 that provides support for young people in finding training opportunities and work experience. It benefits from the coordination of the PSAD platform for early school-leavers. Additionally, it offers personalized social and professional guidance to young people. Young people are able to continue to find government-subsidized employment through their Mission Locale by signing a Contrat unique d’insertion (CUI). Digital support is offered through the ‘Emploi Store’, where youth can find help in choosing and finding a job, preparing an application and job interview, or creating a company. The ‘Agence France Entrepreneur’ attempts to promote entrepreneurship amongst young people (European Commission, 2016). The government also subsidizes driving classes for young people living in remote areas, to help overcome transport and rural barriers to finding work and training opportunities. Social assistance programmes for marginalized youth: The revenu de solidarité active (RSA) provides financial support to 18–24-year olds who are estranged from their parents, although have some work history or are young single parents. The allocations are approximately 500 euros a month. However, most young people are not eligible for these benefits because of the eligibility criteria. Economic Insertion Structures (Structures d’Insertion par l’Activité Economique) allow a select group of youth to access housing along with employment. The target group of young people who are the focus of these policy initiatives are often those living in the Zones Urbaines Sensibles. They experience multiple disadvantages, both socio-economic and geographical, as well as comprising an over-representation of young people who come from migrant backgrounds. These programmes offer young people a top-up income, which is more or less equivalent to the out-of-work benefits (revenu minimum d’insertion). However, access to the programmes remains selective. More recently, an association fighting discrimination in hiring practices, called ‘Nos quartiers ont du talent’, has partnered with the state to allow young people coming from disadvantaged suburbs to benefit from a ‘mentors network’ in finding a job and learning how to effectively communicate with potential employers. The future of these policy initiatives, particularly in the policy areas of further education and training, is unclear. Liberalizing reforms, such as the Avenir professionnel law in 2019, have shaken the previously coordinated state-led approach. Private companies can now create training centres (centres de formation d’apprentis, CFA) and thus be eligible for financing based on the number of young people enrolled. Furthermore, during the obligatory apprenticeship period of the training, companies employing a young apprentice are paid a financial incentive directly by the government that covers the costs of the young person’s wages, which displaced responsibility for training costs. Overall, despite reaching a large number of youths – over 80 per cent according to the European Commission – public financial aid to support the needs of disaffected and disengaged groups of young people through social 196 S. Maguire, M. Levels, C. Brzinsky-Fay et al. assistance remains relatively small scale (European Commission, 2016; Bussi and Graziano, 2019). Insufficient investment and constantly changing programmes and strategies may exacerbate the negative effects of NEET status in France. 7.3.4 Japan In post-war Japan, education and employer links were first established at the junior high school level under the cooperation of the Ministry of labour and the Japan Transportation Corporation in the 1950s (Kariya et al. 2000). This linkage has been extended to high school level, but without such a direct coordination by the government. After the high school enrollment rate exceeded 90% in the 1970s, the labour administration shifted its role on managing supply and demand between these institutions. Japanese youth employment policy does not have to tackle unemployment issues seriously prior to the economic downturn in 1990s, because unemployment rate stood around 2 per cent. This low unemployment rate was also made possible by the strong male breadwinner model which imposes women to be the buffers of the labour market. Young people who were not employed and not actively seeking jobs were remained a low government priority. However, the prolonged recession in the 1990s seriously damaged the youth labour market. This economic downturn not only worsened Japanese youth employment chances but also damaged the employment practice based on long-term relationship between high schools and workplaces as explained in Chapter 6. The strong internal labour markets (ILMs) of Japanese management practice made it difficult for young people to re-enter the labour market even after the economic recovery, because. The periodic recruiting of new graduates is one of the important components of such practice. A marked increase in the number of times that the term ‘NEET (Niito)’ and ‘Fleeter’ is used at the end of 1990s signified recognition of a growing problem. The term ‘NEET’ was first introduced in Japanese policy circles by a 2003 report, which was published by the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training (JILPT), an independent administrative agency related to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. It received widespread attention following the publication of the book called “Niito” in 2004 (Genda and Maganuma 2004). Partly due to these influences, the Japanese government developed the term ‘Niito’ as follows 15–34-year olds who are unmarried, not seeking work, express no desire to work, not engaged in any kind of education or training, and not mainly engaged in housework (see Chapter 6). The most crucial difference between NEET and Niito was that the latter excluded unemployed young people who were actively seeking work, as well as married females. As a result, Niito limits its scope to the most inactive groups, apart from significant numbers of young women who are defined as EI due to their marital status. Policy Interventions Targeting NEETs 197 In 2003, the ‘Youth Independence/Challenge Support Strategy Conference’ was established by government to address the problem. Various initiatives were subsequently developed based on the ‘Action Plan for Youth Independence and Challenges’ (December 2004), which became a policy framework to tackle youth unemployment. In 2004, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare also established the ‘Young Employment Counterplan Office’. The main objectives of the 2004 action plan are as follows: (a) to promote career education, (b) to increase youth motivation to find employment, (c) to promote in-work progression, (d) to run work cafes as a resource to support young people, and (e) to raise public interest in and awareness of youth unemployment issues. The focus of these policy developments was to improve young people’s employability rather than tackle the underlying structural problems relating to the causes of youth unemployment and increased levels on job insecurity (Kanazaki, 2017). The first sign of change came with the publication of the interim report ‘Re-challenge Promotion Conference’ in 2006 which focused on labour supply problems, specifically, non-regular employment and the promotion of career development pathways. This was followed by the 2015 ‘Law on Promotion of Youth Employment’ which established a legal basis for youth policies. However, despite recent decrease of the youth unemployment rates due to the declining population, government policies do not seem to be fully effective. Large companies still retains periodic recruiting of new graduates connected with internal promotion which constitutes strong ILM. Young people who fail to make smooth transitions between school and work are in a serious condition on an ongoing basis under such institutional configuration. Japanese NEETs countermeasures have traditionally been carried out within the wider framework of unemployment countermeasures. Prior to 1990, young people were out of the scope to be covered with policy, as most of them got a stable job. However, since the 1990s, employment problems of young people became obvious, and measures for youth out of stable employment (i.e. NEETs and Fleeters) have been implemented. Trial employment to increase employment opportunities: Training programmes are generally not successful in Japan. Japanese companies recruit young people right after school graduation, and develop employees’ skills through on-the-job training under the practice of long-term employment. Because of this strong ILM, applicants with externally acquired skills generally end up in non-regular employment with low wages, instability, and insufficient training opportunities. The Japanese government has trying to launch a system to promote recruitment in order to overcome this situation through trial employment. However, this programme has not been effective enough in reducing the number of NEETs because of skill formation systems relying on firm-specific skills prevalent in Japanese society. 198 S. Maguire, M. Levels, C. Brzinsky-Fay et al. Reintegration programmes for NEETs with health problems: Although employment policies targeting young people are concentrated on who are labour market ready (including the unemployed and those in precarious employment), other interventions for NEETs do exist. This includes initiatives targeted at the NEET inactive group (including social withdrawal youth called “Hikikomori” for instance). The ‘Youth independence cram school’ (2005–2010), and ‘Regional youth support station’ (2006–to date) backed up by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare aim to encourage young people through undertaking volunteer activities, taking business seminars, and experiencing workplace apprenticeship through cooperative relationships with companies and so on. Some young people are housed in communal living environments that provide housing and meals to take social support via music therapy and psychological counselling interacted with local community. These programmes aim to build social connections, thereby leading to subsequent occupational and social independence. They strongly rely on providing close personal support, although sometimes they lack the infrastructure to ensure the quantity of provision needed. This is attributable to the governance structure, i.e. the programme is not executed by government administrators but by NPOs (non-profit organizations), who are too few in number to supply support for the number of young people who need it. In general, from the above, it can be said that Japan’s countermeasures against NEETs have the following four problems. • A lack of skills or qualification scheme which can effectively use under the context of strong ILM and predominant employment practice of Japanese large companies • A social security system which has limited funding to support NEET initiatives. • A lack of sustainable intervention to support young people in key policy areas, such as employment, welfare, and housing. • A need for improved targeted, individualized, and ongoing support mechanisms. 7.3.5 The United Kingdom The past 40 years have seen a plethora of policy initiatives introduced across the UK in response to fluctuating, yet stubbornly persistent NEET rates. Within the UK, responsibility for the NEET agenda is complex, as there is no UK-wide NEET policy or strategy. While the UK government retains responsibility for welfare-related policies (except in Northern Ireland) and NEET policy in England, the devolved administrations, i.e. the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Government, and the Welsh Government are able to develop and implement their own NEET policy initiatives. Youth obligation support programme: Before the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, the sole policy intervention targeted specifically at economically Policy Interventions Targeting NEETs 199 active young people within the NEET group was the Youth Obligation Support Programme (YOSP), which was introduced in England, Scotland, and Wales in 2017, but not in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, rather than applying to the whole 18–24 age group, it was restricted to 18–21-year olds who are new claimants to Universal Credit (UC). Participants are provided with intensive support for up to 6 months, after which they are expected to move into some form of EET. This initiative is considerably smaller than earlier comparable programmes, such as the Work Programme and the Youth Contract, which, with bigger budgets and wider coverage, had a degree of success in terms of EET outcomes (Newton et al., 2014; National Audit Office, 2014). Key criticisms of the implementation of the YOSP are: • The concentration on areas operating the new welfare system of UC, rather than targeting areas of high youth unemployment. • Focusing on new claimants, rather than encompassing young people who are long-term unemployed 18–21-year olds who are actively seeking work. • It has been reported that large numbers of young people are leaving the programme with unrecorded destinations (Independent 16 June 2018). Second, while there is commonality across the UK about who is defined as NEET and the age group that it embraces, that is 16–24-year olds, there are significant differences between the four nations with regard to the range and scope of interventions to support young people defined as NEET. Thus, where a young person happens to live within the UK shapes the scale and type of support that they will receive. Furthermore, the impact of austerity has led to key differences between the four nations in terms of how interventions to support the NEET group are being sustained (if at all), the funding sources employed, and the role and type of different delivery agents in programme implementation. Overall, there is a scattergun approach to policymaking (Maguire and Keep, forthcoming). Another overarching issue to consider in relation to NEET policy in the UK is that, since 2010, a combination of austerity measures, budget cuts, and, more recently, the policy focused on Brexit, has pushed the NEET agenda further down the list of priority areas. The overall impact of these factors has seen a reduction in the interventions available to support young people who are NEET, and significant disparities in this support, depending on where they live (Maguire, 2015). Victims of the cuts have included the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), which gave young people from lower income families a financial incentive to continue in post-16 learning,2 and Activity Agreement pilots, which provided financial support, intensive support, and tailored learning packages to young people in the under 18s NEET group. Perhaps the greatest loss was the demise of the New Deal for Young People (NDYP) programme, which was introduced in 1998. 200 S. Maguire, M. Levels, C. Brzinsky-Fay et al. New Deal for Young People: The multi-element NDYP was operational for a considerable period of time (1998–2010) before being abandoned, as part of austerity measures. This large-scale programme was funded through the UK Government having levied a £5.2 billion Windfall Tax on the privatized utilities in 1997 to pay for its welfare to work programme. The first key element of NDYP was a 4-month period of intensive and supported job search – the gateway period. This was followed by entrance into one of four options, if the young person remained unemployed after the gateway period: • employment option offering subsidized support; • full-time education and training; voluntary sector option, or • the environment task force option. Extensive evaluation of NDYP provided robust evidence about its overall impact. For example, Van Reenen (2003) and De Georgi (2005) found that the NDYP raised the number of people going into work by 5 per centage points (a 20 per cent increase) and that the costs (net of benefit payments) were more than justified by the savings. Reintegration of NEETs through the youth contract: The only national NEET intervention introduced by the coalition government was the Youth Contract, which was launched in 2012. It spanned two government departments, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) covering the UK and the Department for Education (DfE), which operated the programme for 16and 17-year olds in England. The aim of the YC was to assist young people aged between 16 and 24 who were NEET. The statistical results from the delivery of the YC for 18–24-year olds show that only a nominal 2070 YC wage incentive payments were made to employers for young people who completed the full 26 weeks employment between June 2012 and May 2013 Jordan et al., 2013). The evaluation of the scheme highlighted that take-up had been slower than anticipated largely due to providers being unable to identify the eligible population. From the providers’ perspective, the programme was underfunded, and that its funding mechanism focused too heavily on the delivery of hard outcomes, i.e. progression to EET provision in relatively short time periods (Newton et al., 2014). The YC was the first youth training programme in the UK that operated through an outsourced and payment by results (PbR) delivery model. It was never piloted before being fully rolled out and its performance was questionable. For example, a £126 million budget (Work and Pensions Select Committee, 2012) for the YC for 16and 17-year olds was spent to engage fewer than 20,000 young people and to achieve sustained outcomes for approximately 2,500 of them (March 2014 figures). Perhaps in response to budget cuts and austerity measures, the DWP in the UK has, in recent years, sought alternative funding models to support policy implementation targeted at NEET prevention and re-engagement of Policy Interventions Targeting NEETs 201 young people who had become NEET. Most notable has been the use of Social Impact Bonds (SIBs) in England. SIBs comprise capital generated from social investors to fund delivery services which act on behalf of government to achieve social outcomes, using a payment-by-results funding model. For example, in the UK, a social investment bank has been created, which is called Big Society Capital (BSC). BSC is an independent financial institution funded through an investment of £50 million from each of the four large banks – Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, and Royal Bank of Scotland, as well as funding from the Dormant Accounts Scheme. It aims to utilize finance from capital markets for social purposes (McHugh et al., 2013). The Innovation Fund Pilot (2012–2015), with a budget of £30 million, and the Youth Engagement Fund (2014–2017), totalling £16 million, were both funded using SIBs. Issues and problems with NEET programmes in the UK: While there is consistency across the UK in terms of who is defined as NEET (16–24-year olds), including the distinction between young people in the NEET group in terms of EI or EA status, there is no policy framework or intervention funded by the UK government which addresses their very different needs. Emphasis has been placed on reducing the number of young people who are classified as ‘unemployed’ and nearest to the labour market through a variety of UK-wide programmes. Increasingly, each of the four UK nations offers a different set of policies, which is leading to a growing diversification in policymaking and practice emerging across the UK. Another significant feature is the strategic importance of EU funding and programmes to support the needs of young people in the NEET group across the UK. This has increased since 2010, due to UK government-led austerity measures and budget cuts that have impacted the availability of other funding sources. Significantly, the UK did not implement the Youth Guarantee programme, on the grounds that similar provision already existed, most notably through the UK-wide Youth Contract programme, which was targeted at 16–24-year olds. Subsequently, this programme, which offered a range of provision to young people in the NEET group, was wound up in 2015 (Maguire, 2015). At the same time, the UK has benefited substantially from the huge investment in the YEI and the European Social Fund (ESF), which are the key EU financial resources to support the implementation of the Youth Guarantee for the 2014–2020 programming period. For example, the YEI attracted overall funding of €8.8 billion in 2017 (European Commission, 2018). YEI is targeted at regions with rates of youth unemployment which exceed 25 per cent and associated economic inactivity, and funds initiatives such as increasing apprenticeships, traineeships, job placements, and qualification attainment. Concerns have been expressed about what will happen post-Brexit to NEET projects, programmes, and initiatives which are currently supported by YEI and ESF funding (Maguire and Keep, forthcoming). 202 S. Maguire, M. Levels, C. Brzinsky-Fay et al. Apart from in Northern Ireland,3 the DWP has primary responsibility for managing welfare support for all groups (including 16–24-year olds who are NEET). In the UK, young people who claim inactivity benefits (the majority of whom are women) tend to be welfare dependent for much longer periods than their counterparts who are registered as unemployed and are actively seeking work. Research by Cooke (2013) found that over half of young people (under 25 years) claiming welfare support due to economic inactivity (as opposed to unemployment) had been in receipt of benefit for over a year. Another issue identified in research is the position of young women who have NEET EI status and are often ‘written off’ because of the types of welfare support they may claim, resulting in them receiving limited support or intervention (Maguire, 2017). Moreover, no distinction is made between whether they are young mothers, carers or have physical and/or mental health issues (ibid). However, the advent of welfare reforms in the UK over recent years, most notably the introduction and gradual roll-out of the new welfare programme in the UK from 2013, namely UC, has fundamentally changed how welfare assessments are calculated. As far as young women who are EI due to childcare responsibilities are concerned, the length of time that they are able to claim UC before being expected to (re)enter the labour market has been reduced. In England, for example, government has rowed back from ownership of the delivery of interventions to young people in the NEET group, leaving the role of charities and philanthropy to be amplified in recent years, in terms of determining what is available and where. While this has enabled some organizations to take an active role in supporting their local communities, it raises very important questions about coverage, quality, and availability of provision, as well as whether funding for interventions should be so heavily reliant on charity and philanthropy. At the same time, it was apparent from the evidence from recent research (Maguire and Keep, forthcoming) that charities across the UK play a very important role in delivering EU/government led initiatives, particularly in identifying and supporting hard-to-help/hard-to-reach groups and by acting as a powerful lobby on government. This centres around the outreach work undertaken by local community-based charities, which enables programmes to engage with young people who fail to register or engage with statutory support or welfare services. Three key issues facing the NEET in the UK are: 1 While the UK as a whole has embraced a wider definition of the NEET group, this has failed to be accompanied by mechanisms to map and track the wider population coherently. The focus has remained on tracking the destinations of the 16–18-year-old group, despite evidence which suggests that the post-18-group struggle with adult employment services. Policy Interventions Targeting NEETs 203 2 Although there is an array of policy interventions, there remains a paucity of evidence about what works, and when and where to support young people who are defined as ‘NEET’. Too many young people churn between different programmes and initiatives without coherence or planning. The implementations of all-age employability services with a much greater emphasis on voluntary participation in Wales and Scotland are examples of innovative practice which should be carefully monitored for wider implementation. 3 Most existing programmes and initiatives have issues relating to their sustainability, due to their funding being time-limited and to a lack of strategic overview. This also raises questions around value for money, when programmes and their expected outcomes are subject to constant change and review. 7.4 Conclusions The vexing issue of how to minimize the NEET population, which includes the young unemployed and young people who are EI, continues to challenge policymakers. This chapter has demonstrated that interventions fall into two broad groupings. First, there are early intervention measures, which are designed to prevent young people from becoming NEET in the first place. ESL measures, such as those adopted in the Netherlands, are a good example of this type of intervention. Second, a whole range of ALMPs have been adopted in a number of different countries to reduce the size of the NEET population and to act as reintegration programmes. Multidimensional programmes which combine a selection of re-engagement programmes and outreach measures, in order to reach the breadth of the population have been shown to be most effective. Research evidence tells us that introducing ‘knee-jerk’ policies without understanding the needs of young people and the labour market can be both costly and damaging. Programme evaluation has highlighted the importance of targeting. Achieving this objective is dependent upon having in place tracking systems which can produce robust, reliable, and efficient data on young people’s intended and actual destinations alongside accurate LMI, which is sensitive to the needs of regional and local labour markets. It is also crucially important that programmes and interventions are designed to identify and engage with all groups of young people, not only the ‘labour market ready’. This involves recognizing and meeting the needs of all groups of young people, including the hardest to help/ reach and young people who are defined as EI, due to their caring responsibilities or ill health (including the growing number of young people with mental health problems). Establishing or maintaining services which facilitate early identification and early intervention are critical components to improve the effectiveness of ALMPs. This process is enhanced by References 271 Contini, D., Filandri, M., and Pacelli, L. (2019). Persistency in the NEET state: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Youth Studies, 22(7), 1–22. Cooke, G. (2013). No more NEETs: a plan for all young people to be learning or earning. London: IPPR. Cornwell B. (2015). Social Sequence Analysis. Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Couppié, T., Gasquet, C., and Lopez, A. (2004). Evolutions de l’emploi tertiaire de base et positionnements des CAP-BEP tertiaires sur le marché du travail. Céreq RELIEF 6. Dijon: University of Burgundy. CPB. (2011). Ex post analyse effect kinderopvangtoeslag op arbeidsparticipatie. Den Haag; Centraal Cultureel Planbureau. Culpepper, P.D. (1999). The future of the high-skill equilibrium in Germany. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 15(1): 43–59. Culpepper, P.D., and Finegold, D. (1999). The German skills machine: sustaining comparative advantage in a global economy (Vol. 3). New York, NY and Oxford: Berghahn Books. Cusworth, L., Bradshaw, J., Coles, B., Keung, A., and Chzhen, Y. (2009). Understanding the risks of social exclusion across the life course: youth and young adulthood: a research report. London: Social Exclusion Task Force, Cabinet Office. Dale, R. (2010). Early school leaving lessons from research to policy makers. Brussels: NESSE. Danner, M., Guégnard, C., and Joseph, O. (2018). Le profil des NEET a-t-il évolué en 20 ans? pp. 63–69. In: Couppié, T., Dupray, A., Epiphane, D., and Mora, V. [Eds.], 20 ans d’insertion professionnelle des jeunes: entre permanences et évolutions. Dijon: Céreq/ Essentiels. Danner, M., Guégnard, C., and Joseph, O. (2020). Les jeunes NEET: résistances et évolutions sur vingt ans. Formation emploi, 149: 61–85. De Giorgi, G. (2005). Long-term effects of a mandatory multistage program: the new deal for young people in the UK. Paper 0508. London: Institute of Fiscal Studies. De Graaf, P.M., and Ultee, W.C. (1998). Education and early occupation in the Netherlands around 1990: categorical and continuous scales and the details of a relationship. pp. 337–367. In: Shavit, Y., and Müller, W. [Eds.], From school to work: a comparative study of educational qualifications and occupational destinations. Oxford: Clarendon Press. De Grip, A., and Wolbers, M.H.J. (2006). Cross-national differences in job quality among low-skilled young workers in Europe. International Journal of Manpower, 27(5): 420–433. Dekker, F., and Bertling, L. (2019). Verschil maken. Een evaluatieonderzoek naar de effectieve aanpakken van jeugdwerkloosheid. Amsterdam: Regioplan. Del Boca, D., Pasqua, S., and Pronzato, C. (2008). Motherhood and market work decisions in institutional context: a European perspective. Oxford Economic Papers, 61: 147–171. Department for Education. (2011). What works re-engaging young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET)? Summary of evidence from the activity agreement pilots and the entry to learning pilots. Research report DFE-RR065. London: Department for Education. Department for Education. (2020). What different qualification levels mean. Web resource, available from https://www.gov.uk/what-different-qualification-levels-mean/list-ofqualification-levels. Department for Work and Pensions. (2019). Youth obligation support programme statistics. Ad hoc official statistics. July. London: DWP. De Witte, K., and Cabus, S. (2013). Dropout prevention measures in the Netherlands, an evaluation. Educational Review, 65(2): 155–176. 272 References De Witte, K., Cabus, S., Groot, W., and Maassen van den Brink, H. (2014). Voortijdig schoolverlaten. Maastricht: Rapportage van TIER/Platform31. De Witte, K., and Csillag, M. (2014). Does anybody notice? On the impact of improved truancy reporting on school dropout. Education Economics, 22(6): 549–568. Dex, S. (1995). The reliability of recall data: a literature review. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 49(1): 58–98. Dicks, A., and Levels, M. (2018). NEET in limburg. trends, spreiding, duiding. ROA Factsheet 2018/2. Dietrich, H. (2013). Youth unemployment in the period 2001-2010 and the European crisis – looking at the empirical evidence. European Review of Labour and Research, 19(3): 305–324. Dingeldey, I. (2007). Between workfare and enablement – the different paths to transformation of the welfare state: a comparative analysis of activating labour market policies. European Journal of Political Research, 46(6): 823–851. Di Paola, V., Jellab, A., Moullet, S., Olympio, N., and Verdier, E. (2016). L’évolution de l’enseignement professionnel: des segmentations éducatives et sociales renouvelées. CNESCO Report. Paris: CNESCO. DiPrete, T.A., Ciocca Eller, C., Bol, T., and van der Werfhorst, H.G. (2017). School-towork linkages in the United States, Germany, and France. American Journal of Sociology, 122(6): 1869–1938. Dlouhy, K., and Biemann, T. (2015). Optimal matching analysis in career research: a review and some best-practice recommendations. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 90: 163–173. Doeringer, P., and Piore, M. (1971). Internal labour markets and manpower analysis. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Dörfler, L., and Van der Werfhorst, H.G. (2009). Employers’ demand for qualifications and skills: increased merit selection in Austria, 1985-2005. European Societies, 11(5): 697–721. Duell, N. (2012). Can active labour market programmes reduce long-term unemployment. Brussels: EC/ICF GHK Consulting Ltd and CERGE – EI. Dupray, A. (2001). The signaling power of education by size of firm and the long-term effects on workers’ careers. International Journal of Manpower, 22(1/2): 13–25. Dupray, A., and Gasquet, C. (2004). L’empreinte du contexte régional sur l’insertion professionnelle des jeunes. Formation emploi, 87(1): 29–44. Duru-Bellat, M.D. (2006). L’inflation scolaire: les désillusions de la méritocratie. Paris: Le Seuil. Edwards, R.C., Reich, M., and Gordon, D.M. [Eds.] (1975). Labour market segmentation. Lexington, MA/Toronto/London, DC: Heath and Company. Egan, M., Daly, M., Delaney, L. (2015) ‘Childhood psychological distress and youth unemployment: Evidence from two British cohort studies’, Social Science & Medicine, 124, pp. 11–17. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.023. Eichhorst, W. (2015). The unexpected appearance of a new German Model. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 53(1): 49–69. Eichhorst, W., Hinte, H., and Rinne, U. (2016). Promoting youth employment in Europe: evidence-based policy lessons. IZA policy paper no. 119. Bonn: Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit. Elbaum, M., and Marchand, O. (1994). Emploi et chomage des jeunes dans les pays industrialisés: La spécificité francaise. Travail et emploi, 58: 111–121. Elder, S. (2015). What does NEETs mean and why is the concept so easily misinterpreted? ILO. Technical Brief, 1: 1–16. References 273 Esping-Andersen, G. (1990a). The three political economies of the welfare state. International Journal of Sociology, 20(3): 92–123. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990b). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of post-industrial economies. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Esping-Andersen, G. (2000). Who is harmed by labour market regulations? Quantitative evidence. pp. 66–98. In: Esping-Andersen, G., and Regini, M. [Eds.], Why deregulate labour markets? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Estévez-Abe, M. (2005). Gender bias in skills and social policies: the varieties of capitalism perspective on sex segregation. Social Politics, 12(2): 180–215. Estévez-Abe, M. (2006). Gendering the varieties of capitalism: a study of occupational segregation by sex in advanced industrial societies. World Politics, 59(1): 142–175. Estévez-Abe, M. (2012). Gendered consequences of vocational training. The political economy of collective skill formation. pp. 259–283. In: Busemeyer, M.R., and Trampusch, C. [Eds.], The political economy of collective skill formation. Oxford/New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Estévez-Abe, M., and Hethey-Maier, T. (2013). Women’s work, family earnings, and public policy. pp. 1–20. In: Gornick, J.C. and Jantti, M. [Eds.], Income inequality: economic disparities and the middle class in affluent countries. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Estevez-Abe, M., Iversen, T., and Soskice, D. (2001). Social protection and the formation of skills: a reinterpretation of the welfare state. pp. 145–183. In: Soskice, D., EstevezAbe, M., and Iversen, T. [Eds.], Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eurofound. (2012). NEETS. Young people not in employment, education or training: characteristics, costs and policy responses in Europe. Luxembourg: European Union. Eurofound. (2013). Caring for children and dependants: effect on careers of young workers. Background paper. Luxembourg: European Union. Eurofound. (2015). Social inclusion of young people. Luxembourg: European Union. Eurofound. (2016). Exploring the diversity of NEETs. Luxembourg: European Union. European Commission. (2010a). Proposal for a council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States – Part II of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission. (2010b). Youth on the move: an initiative to unleash the potential of young people to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission. (2011). Youth opportunities initiative. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission. (2016). Report on PES implementation of the youth guarantee. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission. (2018). Youth guarantee country by country – United Kingdom. Brussels: Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. European Parliament. (2011). Reducing early school leaving in the EU. Brussels: European Parliament’s Committee on Education and Culture. Everitt, B.S., Landau, S., Leese, M., and Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Eyraud, F., Marsden, D., and Silvestre, J.J. (1990). Occupational and internal labour markets in Britain and France. International Labour Review, 129(4): 501–518. Fagnani, J. (2007). Family policies in France and Germany: sisters or distant cousins? Community, Work and Family, 10(1): 39–56. 274 References Fagnani, J. (2012). Recent reforms in childcare and family policies in France and Germany: what was at stake? Children and Youth Services Review, 34(3): 509–516. Ferrera, M. (2010). The South European countries. pp. 616–629. In: Castles, F.G., Leibfried, S., Lewis, J., Obinger, H., and Pierson, C. [Eds.], The Oxford handbook of the welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Finn, D. (2010). Outsourcing employment programmes: contract design and differential prices. European Journal of Social Security, 12(4): 289–302. Furlong, A. (2006). Not a very NEET solution. Representing problematic labour market transitions among early school-leavers. Work, Employment and Society, 20(3): 553–569. Furlong, A. (2007). The zone of precarity and discourses of vulnerability: NEET in the UK. The Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 42(March): 101–121. Furlong, A., Cartmel, F., Biggart, A., Sweeting, H., and West, P. (2003). Youth transitions: patterns of vulnerability and processes of social inclusion. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research. Gabadinho, A., Ritschard, G., Studer, M., and Müller, N.S. (2011). Mining sequence data in R with the TraMineR package: a user’s guide. Geneva: University of Geneva. Galland, O. (2000). Entrer Dans La Vie Adulte : Des Étapes Toujours plus Tardives, Mais Resserrées. Economie et Statistique, 337–338 (7/8): 13–36. Gambaro, L., Stewart, K., and Waldfogel, J. (2015). A question of quality: do children from disadvantaged backgrounds receive lower quality early years education and care in England? British Educational Research Journal, 41(4): 553–574. Gamel, C. (2000). Le diplôme, un signal en voie de dépréciation? Revue d’Economie Politique, 110(1): 53–84. Gangl, M. (2001). European patterns of labour market entry. A dichotomy of occupationalized vs. non-occupationalized systems? European Societies, 3(4): 471–494. Gangl, M. (2003). The structure of labour market entry in Europe: a typological analysis. pp. 107–112. In: Müller, W., and Gangl, M. [Eds.], Transitions from education to work in Europe: the integration of youth into EU labour markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gangl, M., Müller, W., and Raffe, D. (2003). Conclusions: explaining cross-national differences in school-to-work transitions. pp. 277–305. In: Müller, W., and Gangl, M. [Eds.], Transitions from education to work in Europe: the integration of youth into EU labour markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ganzeboom, H.B.G., De Graaf, P.M., and Treiman, D.J. (1992). A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21(1): 1–56. Gaubert, E., Henrard, V., Robert, A., and Rouaud, P. (2017). Pas d’amélioration de l’insertion professionnelle pour les non-diplômés, Céreq Bref n° 356. Dijon: University of Burgundy. Gautié, J. (2018). Rapport final d’évaluation de la Garantie Jeunes. Paris: DARES. Gebel, M., and Giesecke, J. (2011). Labour market flexibility and inequality: the changing skill-based temporary employment and unemployment risks in Europe. Social Forces, 90(1): 17–39. Gebel, M., and Giesecke, J. (2016). Does deregulation help? The impact of employment protection reforms on youths’ unemployment and temporary employment risks in Europe. European Sociological Review, 32(4): 486–500. Gelman (2008), Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations Statist. Med. 2008; 27:2865–2873. Genda, Y. (2007). Jobless youths and the NEET problem in Japan. Social Science Japan Journal, 10(1): 23–40. Genda, Y., and Maganuma, M. (2004). NEET: not in education, employment or training. Tokyo: Gentosha (in Japanese). References 275 Gesthuizen, M., Solga, H., and Künster, R. (2011). Context matters: economic marginalization of low-educated workers in cross-national perspective. European Sociological Review, 27(2): 264–280. Gesthuizen, M., and Wolbers, M.H.J. (2010). Employment transitions in the Netherlands, 1980-2004: are low educated men subject to structural or cyclical crowding out? Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 28(4): 437–451. Giret, J.F., Guégnard, C., and Joseph, O. (2020). School-to-work transition in France: the role of education in escaping long-term NEET trajectories. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 39(2): 1–17. Gornick, J.C., and Meyers, M.K. (2003). Families that work: policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Green, A., Maguire, M. and Canny, A. (2001). Keeping Track: Mapping and tracking vulnerable young people. Bristol: The Policy Press. Grelet, Y. (2006). Des territoires qui façonnent les parcours scolaires des jeunes. Céreq Bref, n° 228: 1–4. Gutiérrez-García, R.A., Benjet, C., Borges, G., Méndez Ríos, E., and Medina-Mora, M.E. (2018). Emerging adults not in education, employment or training (NEET): socio-demographic characteristics, mental health and reasons for being NEET. BMC Public Health, 18(1): 1–12. Hadjivassiliou, K.P., Eichhorst, W., Tassinari, A., and Wozny, F. (2016). Assessing the performance of school-to-work transition regimes in the EU, IZA DP no. 10301. Bonn: IZA. Hall, P.A., and Soskice, D. [Eds.] (2001). Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hamilton, S.F. (1990). Apprenticeship for adulthood: preparing youth for the future apprenticeship. New York: Free Press. Hannan, D.F., Raffe, D., and Smyth, E. (1996). Cross-national research on school to work transitions: an analytical framework. 1996 Workshop of the network on transitions in youth. La Ciotat: Cereq. Hanushek, E.A., Schwerdt, G., Woessmann, L., and Zhang, L. (2017). General education, vocational education, and labor-market outcomes over the lifecycle. Journal of Human Resources, 52(1): 48–87. Hartog, J., and Salverda, W. (2018). The labour market in the Netherlands, 2001-2016. Bonn: IZA World of Labor, (418). HECFE. (2018). Vocational degrees and employment outcomes. London: HEFCE. Available from https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk. Henehan, K. (2019). Trading up or trading off? Understanding recent changes to England’s apprenticeships system. London: Resolution Foundation. Hennig, C., Meila, M., Murtagh, F., and Rocci, R. (2016). Handbook of cluster analysis. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press. Heppen, J., and Therriault, S.B. (2008). Developing early warning systems to identify high school dropouts. National High School Center Issue Brief July. betterhighschools.org. Heyer, G., Koch, S., Stephan, G., and Wolff, J. (2012). Evaluation der aktiven Arbeitsmarktpolitik: ein Sachstandsbericht für die Instrumentenreform 2011. Journal for Labour Market Research, 45(1): 41–62. Hodkinson, P. (1996). Careership: the individual, choices and markets in the transition to work. pp. 121–139. In: Avis, J., Bloomer, M., Esland, G., Gleeson, D., and Hodkinson, P. [Eds.], Knowledge and nationhood: education, politics and work (Vol. 121-139). London: Continuum. Hodkinson, P., and Sparkes, A.C. (1997). Careership: a sociological theory of career decision making. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(1): 29–44. 276 References Holmes, C, Murphy, E and Mayhew, K (2021). What accounts for changes in the chance of being NEET in the UK?, Journal of Education and Work, 34(4). Holte, B.H. (2018). Counting and meeting NEET young people. methodology, perspective and meaning in research on marginalized youth. Young, 26(1): 1–16. Holte, B.H., Swart, I., and Hiilamo, H. (2019). The NEET concept in comparative youth research: the Nordic countries and South Africa. Journal of Youth Studies, 22(2): 256–272. Honda, Y., Naito, A., and Goto, K. (2006). Don’t say “NEET”. Tokyo: Kobunsha (in Japanese). Hüfner, A., and Hüfner, K. (2010). Germany. pp. 582–589. In: Peterson, P., Baker, E., and McGraw, B. [Eds.], International encyclopedia of education. Oxford: Elsevier. Hull, D. (2005). Identifying students at risk of disengaging from education and training. Victoria: Department of Education and Training. Human Fertility Database. (2018). Mean age at birth in the Netherlands. Accessed September 2018 on https://www.humanfertility.org/cgi-bin/country.php?country= NLDandtab=si. Iannelli, C., and Raffe, D. (2007). Vocational upper-secondary education and the transition from school. European Sociological Review, 23(1): 49–63. Ilardi, V., and Sulzer, E. (2015). CAP-BEP: des difficultés d’insertion encore aggravées par la crise. Cereq Bref 335. Dijon: University of Burgundy. Imai, J. (2010). The transformation of Japanese employment relations: reform without labor. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Inspectie SZW. (2015). Jongeren buiten beeld. Den Haag: Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. Inspectorate of Education. (2017). De Staat van het Onderwijs 2015/2016. De Meern: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen. Inspectorate of Education. (2020). De Staat van het Onderwijs 2020. De Meern: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen. Inui, A. (2005). Why Freeter and NEET are misunderstood: recognizing the new precarious conditions of Japanese youth. Social Work and Society, 3(2): 244–251. Ishida, H. (1998). Educational credentials and labor-market entry outcomes in Japan. pp. 287–309. In: Shavit, Y., and Müller, W. [Eds.], From school to work: a comparative study of educational qualifications and occupational destinations. Oxford: Clarendon Press. IZI Solutions. (2016a). Do’s en don’ts voor het bereiken en activeren van jongeren. Amsterdam: IZI Solutions. IZI Solutions. (2016b). Zichtbaar maar niet in beeld. Amsterdam: IZI Solutions. Jacob, M., and Tieben, N. (2009). Social selectivity of track mobility in secondary schools: A comparison of intra-secondary transitions in Germany and the Netherlands. European Societies, 11(5), 747–773. JILPT [The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training]. (2019). Current situation of youth labor, career and human resource development vol. 3: the results from employment status survey 2017. JILPT series no. 217 (in Japanese). Jongbloed, J., and Giret, J.-F. (2021). Quality of life of NEET youth in comparative perspective : subjective well-being during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Youth Studies, Online First, 1–23 Jordan, L., McGinigal, S., Thomas, A., & Coleman, N. (2013). Early evaluation of the Youth Contract wage incentive scheme. Published by the Department for Work and Pensions. URL: https://www.gov uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/194228/rrep, 828. References 277 Joseph, O., Lopez, A., and Ryk, F. (2008). Génération 2004, des jeunes pénalisés par la conjoncture. Céreq Bref. Marseille: Céreq. Kagawa, M., Kodama, H., and Aizawa, S. (2014). Japan’s postwar history of “high school education for all”. Tokyo: Shinyosha (in Japanese). Kalleberg, A.L., and Sorensen, A.B. (1979). The sociology of labour markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 5(1): 351–379. Kanazaki, S. (2017). Development of youth employment policy after the war. pp. 12–42. In: JILPT [Ed.], Individualized career of the youth. Tokyo: The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training (in Japanese). Kariya, T. (1995). The rise of mass education society. Tokyo: Chuokoron-Shinsha (in Japanese). Kariya, T. (2013). Education reform and social class in Japan: The emerging incentive divide. New York, NY: Routledge/University of Tokyo. Kariya, T., Sugayama, S., and Ishida, H. [Eds.] (2000). Schools, public employment offices, and the labour market in postwar Japan. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press (in Japanese). Karsten, S. (2016). De hoofdstroom in de Nederlandse Onderwijsdelta: Een nuchtere balans van het mbo. Apeldoorn: Garant. Kelly, E., and McGuinness, S. (2015). Impact of the Great Recession on unemployed and NEET individuals’ labour market transitions in Ireland. Economic Systems, 39(1): 59–71. Kergoat, P. (2010). A reflection on inequalities at the crossroad of education and work. Revue Suisse de sociologie, 36(1): 53–72. Kluve, J., Puerto, S., Robalino, D., Romero, J.M., Rother, F., Stöterau, J., Weidenkaff, F., and Witte, M. (2019). Do youth employment programs improve labour market outcomes? A systematic review. World Development, 114, 237–253. Knijn, T. C., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2006). More kin than kind: instrumental support in families., 89-105 in Dykstra, P.A, Kalmijn, M, Knijn, G.C.M, Komter, A.E, Liefbroer, A.C, & Mulder, C.H. (2006). Family solidarity in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press. Knotz, C.M. (2012). Measuring the ‘new balance of rights and responsibilities’ in labour market policy: a quantitative overview of activation strategies in 20 OECD countries. ZeS-working paper (no. 06/2012). Kogan, I., Gebel, M., and Nolke, C. [Eds.] (2008). Europe Enlarged. A handbook of education, labour and welfare regimes in Central and Eastern Europe. Abingdon: The Policy Press. Kogan, I., and Müller, W. (2003). School-to-work transitions in Europe: analyses of the EU LFS 2000 ad hoc module. Mannheim: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung. Kohlrausch, B. (2012). Das Übergangssystem – Übergänge mit System. pp. 595–609. In: Bauer, U., Bittlingmayer, U.H., and Scherr, A. [Eds.], Handbuch Bildungsund Erziehungssoziologie. Bildung und Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Korpi, W. (2000). Faces of inequality: gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states. Social Politics, 7(2): 127–191. Korthals, R., and Dronkers, J. (2016). Tracking and selection on performance. Applied Economics, 48(30): 2836–2851. Kuyper, H., Lubbers, M.J., and Van der Werf, M.P.C. (2003). VOCL’99-1: technisch rapport. Groningen: University of Groningen. Leave Network. (2018). Country reports. Web resource, available from https://www. leavenetwork.org/annual-review-reports/country-reports/. Lehr, C., et al. (2004). Essential tools: increasing rates of school completion: moving from policy and research to practice. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. 278 References Leitner, S. (2003), Varieties of familialism: The Caring Function of the Family in Compara-tive Perspective, European Societies 5(4), 353–375. LeTendre, G.K., Hofer, B.K., and Shimizu, H. (2003). What is tracking? Cultural expectations in the United States, Germany, and Japan. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1): 43–89. Levels, M., Dicks, A., and de Grip, A. (2020). Neet aan ‘t werk, neet op sjoël, neet op training: NEET in Limburg in 2020 Beschrijving, bepaling en beleidsadvies. ROA Factsheet 2020/4. Maastricht: ROA. Levels, M., Need, A., Nieuwenhuis, R., Sluiter, R., and Ultee, W. (2012). Unintended pregnancy and induced abortion in the Netherlands 1954-2002. European Sociological Review, 28(3): 301–318. Levels, M., and Verhagen, A. (2013). Kwetsbare jongeren op de arbeidsmarkt: lessen van het MBO. pp. 47–70. In: Schoolverlaters tussen Onderwijs en Arbeidsmarkt 2012. Maastricht: ROA. Levels, M., Van der Velden, R., and di Stasio, V. (2014). From school to fitting work: how education-to-job matching of European school leavers is related to educational system characteristics. Acta Sociologica, 57(4): 341–361. Lim, S.-J., and Raymo, J.M. (2011). A new look at married women’s labour force transitions in Japan. Social Science Research, 40(2): 460–472. Lindbeck, A., and Snower, D.J. (1989). The insider-outsider theory of employment and unemployment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lindbeck, A., and Snower, D.J. (2001). Insiders versus outsiders. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(1): 165–188. Logan, J.A. (1996). Opportunity and choice in socially structured labour markets. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1): 114–160. Loison-Leruste, M., Couronné, J., and Sarfati, F. (2016). La Garantie jeunes en action. Usages du dispositif et parcours de jeunes. Rapport de Recherche du CEET, 101. Noisy-leGrand Cedex: Centre d’études de l’emploi et du travail. Lopez, A., and Sulzer, E. (2016). Insertion des apprentis: un avantage à interroger: un avantage à interroger, Céreq Bref, 346. Dijon: University of Burgundy. Luijkx, R., and Wolbers, M.H.J. (2009). The effects of non-employment in early worklife on subsequent employment chances of individuals in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 25(6): 647–660. Lutz, B., and Sengenberger, W. (1974). Arbeitsmarktstrukturen und öffentliche Arbeitsmarktpolitik. Göttingen: Schwartz. Maguire, S. (2013). What measures can be taken to address the specific problem of young people who are NEET? Intereconomics, 48(4): 196–201. Maguire, S. (2015). Young people not in education, employment or training (NEET): recent policy initiatives in England and their effects. Research in Comparative and International Education, 10(4): 525–536. Maguire, S. (2017). A spotlight in young women who are defined as NEET and economically inactive. Cuadernos de Investigación en Juventud, 11(3): 3–11. Maguire, S., and Keep, E. (under review). Singing from the same hymn sheet? UK policy responses to the NEET agenda. Journal of Education and Work. Maguire, S., and Rennison, J. (2005). Two years on: the destinations of young people who were NEET at 16. Journal of Youth Studies, 8(3): 187–202. Manzoni, A., Vermunt, J.K., Luijkx, R., et al. (2010). Memory bias in retrospectively collected employment careers: a model-based approach to correct for measurement error. Sociological Methodology, 16(4): 39–73. References 279 Marsden, D. (1999). A theory of employment systems: micro-foundations of societal diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martin, J.P., and Grubb, D. (2001). What works and for whom: a review of OECD countries’ experiences with active labour market policies. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 8(2): 9–56. Massing, N., and Gauly, B. (2017). Training participation and gender: analyzing individual barriers across different welfare state regimes. Adult Education Quarterly, 67(4): 266–285. Maurice, M., Sellier, F., and Silvestre, J.J. (1986). The social foundations of industrial power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mayer, K.U. (2009). New directions in life course research. Annual Review of Sociology, 35: 413–433. MBO Raad. (2017). MBO Raad en NRTO lanceren perspectiefjaar [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.mboraad.nl/nieuws/mbo-raad-en-nrto-lanceren-perspectiefjaar. McHugh, N., Sinclair, S., Roy, M., Huckfield, L., and Donaldson, C. (2013). Social impact bonds: a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 21(3): 247–257. Meadows, P. (2001). Young men on the margins of work: an overview report. York: York Publishing Services. Mertens, D. (1976). Beziehungen zwischen Qualifikation und Arbeitsmarkt. Jugendarbeitslosigkeit. Unlösbare Aufgabe für das Bildungsund Beschäftigungssystem? W. Schlaffke. Köln, Deutscher Instituts-Verlag: 68–117. Merton, R.K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5): 672–682. Mills, M., Präg, P., Tsang, F., Begall, K., Derbyshire, J., Kohle, L., Miani, C., and Hoorens, S. (2014). Use of childcare in the EU Member States and progress towards the Barcelona targets: short statistical report no. 1. 10.7249/RR185. Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science. (2018). Wet van 15 juni 2018 tot wijziging van onder meer de Wet educatie en beroepsonderwijs inzake regionale samenwerking voortijdig schoolverlaten en jongeren in een kwetsbare positie. Den Haag: Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden 05-07-2018. Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. (2001). Wet Arbeid en Zorg van 16 november 2010. Staatsblad der Nederlanden. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0013008/ 2020-07-01. Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. (2015a). Buitenspel. De uitvoering voor jongeren in de WW of bijstand. Nota van bevindingen. Den Haag: Ministerie SZW. Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. (2015b). Jongeren buiten beeld. Nota van bevindingen. Den Haag: Ministerie SZW. Miyamoto, M. (2015). Social policies for transition to adulthood and possibility of sociology: changing perceptions from Freeter and NEET to social exclusion. Japanese Sociological Review, 66(2): 204–223 (in Japanese). Moncel, N. (2008). Recrutement en entreprise: les débutants sont-ils victimes d’un tri trop sélectif. Céreq Bref, 250. Dijon: University of Burgundy. Moreau, G. (2015). L’apprentissage, un bien public? L’orientation scolaire et professionnelle, 44(2): 1–18. Morgenstern, R.D., and Barrett, N.S. (1974). The retrospective bias in unemployment reporting by sex, race and age. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(346): 355–357. Moriyama, T. (2012). The effect of the shape of the career on poverty risk: focusing on gender differences. The Japanese Journal of Labour Studies, 619: 77–89 (in Japanese). 280 References Morris, M., and Pullen, C. (2007). Disengagement and re-engagement of young people in learning at key stage 3. Totnes: Research in Practice. Muffels, R. (2013). Flexibilisering en de toegang tot de arbeidsmarkt. TPDigitaal, 7(4): 79–98. Mugiyama, R. (2017). Inequality caused by career interruptions: examining Persistent Effects upon Getting Regular Employment. Japanese Sociological Review, 68(2): 248–264 (in Japanese). Muja, A., Blommaert, L., Gesthuizen, M., and Wolbers, M.H.J. (2019). The role of different types of skills and signals in youth labour market integration. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 11(1): 6. Müller, W. (1994). The process and consequences of education differentiation: summary report. Berlin: CEDEFOP. Müller, W. (2005). Education and youth integration into European labour markets. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 46(5–6): 461–485. Müller, W., and Gangl, M. [Eds.] (2003). Transitions from education to work in Europe. The integration of youth into EU labour markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Müller, W., and Shavit, Y. (1998). The institutional embeddedness of the stratification process: a comparative study of qualifications and occupations in thirteen countries. pp. 1–48. In: Shavit, Y., and Müller, W. [Eds.], From school to work: a comparative study of educational qualifications and occupational destinations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. National Audit Office. (2014). Department for work and pensions. The work programme. HC 266 session 2014-15, July. London: National Audit Office. Neild, R.C., and Balfanz, R. (2006). Unfilled promise: the dimensions and characteristics of Philadelphia’s Dropout Crisis, 2000-2005. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Youth Network, The Johns Hopkins University and University of Pennsylvania. Newton, B., Speckesser, S., Nafilyen, V., et al. (2014). Youth contract for 16–17 year olds not in education, employment or training evaluation. DFE-RR318A, September. London: Department for Education (DfE). Nieuwenhuis, R., Need, A., and Van der Kolk, H. (2012). Institutional and demographic explanations of women’s employment in 18 OECD countries, 1975–1999. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(3): 614–630. Nieuwenhuis, R., Need, A., and Van der Kolk, H. (2017). Is there such a thing as too long childcare leave? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 37(1/2): 2–15. OECD. (1993). Active labour market policies: assessing macroeconomic and microeconomic effects, employment outlook. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2000). From initial education to working life: making transitions work: preliminary edition. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2009). Education at a glance 2009: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2010). Off to a good start? Jobs for youth. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2011). Doing better for families. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2012). Literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments framework for the OECD survey of adult skills. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2013a). Technical report of the OECD survey of adult skills (PIAAC). Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2013b). OECD indicators of employment protection. Retrieved 23 April 2018, from https://www.oecd.org. OECD. (2013c). OECD skills outlook 2013: first results from the survey of adult skills. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2016). Society at a glance 2016: OECD social indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2019a). OECD employment outlook. Paris: OECD Publishing.