There’s a growing contradiction at the heart of the UK skills agenda: apprenticeships are being treated less as a planned progression route into skilled work, and more as a recovery mechanism for young people who have already fallen out of the system.
While the pressure to use apprenticeships as a solution is understandable, it risks asking employers, educators and young people to do too much, too late.
Lifetime Training’s recent data is telling. Around 79 per cent of applications into apprenticeship recruitment are from young people who are not in employment, education or training (NEET), alongside indicators of wider disadvantage. Are apprenticeships being used to patch earlier system failures, rather than build a sustainable talent pipeline?
The scale of the challenge
According to the Office for National Statistics, around 957,000 young people aged 16–24 were NEET in October-December 2025, approaching the highest level seen in more than a decade.
Behind these headline numbers, around 580,000 are economically inactive, meaning they are not currently seeking work or education.
This matters because the solutions required are very different. For some young people the barrier is access to opportunity. For others it may be confidence, health challenges, caring responsibilities, or previous negative experiences of education.
There is no single NEET group, but a diverse population with a wide range of needs, circumstances and aspirations.
All too often however, support for these groups of young people comes too late and is not adequately tailored to their needs.
Just this month, the London mayor announced that unspent adult skills funding would be diverted to tackle youth unemployment. Not only was there little explanation of how this would be deployed to support people in differing circumstances, but the stripping back of funding for adult apprenticeships risks removing development routes for young people as they progress in their career.
It points to a deeper structural issue in the skills system. The reliance on short‑term or repurposed funding streams suggests a system that is better designed to respond to NEET status than to prevent it, stepping in once barriers are entrenched rather than supporting smoother transitions in the first place.
What does this mean for productivity?
From a system perspective, intervening once young people are already NEET is problematic because it results in support being more intensive, longer-term and costly. Barriers are more entrenched; learners may experience deep lack of confidence, mental health or housing issues that can be more difficult to resolve as time goes on.
When apprenticeships become a late-stage recovery route, the system carries higher risk: readiness gaps widen, completion becomes harder, and employers shoulder more onboarding cost, diluting the very productivity gains apprenticeships are meant to deliver.
With the government explicitly pushing youth-focused reform and new routes (including foundation apprenticeships in hospitality and retail) alongside a major youth employment drive, it’s vital that apprenticeships are protected as a planned early-career pathway.
In practice, this means urgently rebuilding the stepping-stone provision before level 2 so young people don’t reach apprenticeships when they have already experienced a fractured system.
The importance of building the foundations
Many young NEETs face multiple barriers to learning or work and may not yet be ready to begin an apprenticeship or vocational qualification.
For these individuals, foundation programmes and pre-apprenticeship pathways can play a crucial role by building confidence, work readiness, and core employability skills.
The question policymakers and providers must ask is: Are we investing enough in these pathways that sit before level 2?
From our discussions with employer partners, too many don’t have a concrete understanding of what a foundation apprenticeship is designed to do.
Are they primarily a route for young people who are not yet ready for level 2? Are they a way for employers to widen access and derisk recruitment? A structured bridge into full apprenticeships? In reality, they can do all of these things, but without that clarity, it’s hardly surprising that uptake remains patchy. With clearer understanding and confidence in pathways, employers would have more incentive to engage with schools or colleges, supporting young people’s awareness of their options.
Looking ahead
To ensure young people and employers can fully understand and engage with the options available, the system now needs
targeted, ringfenced investment in pre-level 2 provision. Foundation programmes and pre-apprenticeship pathways should not be funded through repurposed or leftover budgets but treated as a core part of the skills system with dedicated, multi-year funding. Without this, the system will continue to intervene too late, when support is more costly and outcomes are less certain.
Alongside this, government must set out a clear, end-to-end progression framework. Employers and providers need to see, in practical terms, how a young person moves from a foundation programme into level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships, including expected timelines, support requirements and outcomes. This should function as a coherent pathway, not a set of disconnected options.
Employer incentives also need to better reflect reality. While payments of up to £2,000 are helpful, they often fall short of the true cost of onboarding young people who require intensive early support. A more effective approach would include:
- Higher incentives for foundation and entry-level pathways
- Staged payments linked to progression and completion
- Additional support for employers working with higher-need learners
- Contribution towards salaries until an individual is work ready
At the same time, schools and colleges must be required to provide clearer, earlier careers guidance on these pathways. This includes:
- Embedding foundation and apprenticeship routes into mainstream careers education
- Improving communication with parents
- Work preparation content and initiatives built into the school curriculum
- Ensuring young people understand not just what options exist, but who they are for and where they lead
Finally, accountability needs to shift from reaction to prevention. Success should not be measured solely by how many young people are moved out of NEET status, but by how many never reach that point in the first place. That means setting explicit targets for participation in pre-apprenticeship pathways and tracking progression into sustained employment or further training.
The question is not whether we can afford to act. The real question is whether we can afford to keep intervening too late.