Britain's Youth Crisis: A Call for a Preventive State
The current state of youth unemployment and inactivity in Britain is a stark reminder of the consequences of austerity measures and underinvestment in public services. With a generation of young people feeling disengaged and disillusioned, the country is facing a significant challenge that extends beyond the jobs market.
The Alan Milburn review into youth unemployment highlights a critical issue: Britain is missing out on the talents of a million young people not in education, employment, or training (Neet). This problem is not just about jobs; it's about the erosion of the building blocks of a just and prosperous economy. The austerity years have played a significant role in this crisis, but other factors, such as Labour's economic management, the AI revolution, and the cost of living crisis, are also contributing to the situation.
The impact of austerity on youth services is particularly devastating. Youth service funding in England has been cut by 76%, resulting in the closure of thousands of youth clubs and the loss of social workers. The per-pupil spending for schools has been frozen for 14 years, and investment in school buildings has collapsed by a quarter, leading to the Raac (crumbling concrete) crisis. This underinvestment has led to a situation where Britain is spending vast sums on the consequences of failure rather than on prevention.
The Neet crisis is a stark example of this. For every £1 spent on employment support for young people, the state spends £25 on benefits. With the rise in inactivity for a generation cut adrift, the cost is only set to climb without intervention. The Sure Start program, which was supposed to save money by scrapping family hubs, has led to an increase in spending on looked-after children and safeguarding, demonstrating the shift from prevention to crisis management.
This pattern is repeated across government, with a focus on firefighting rather than prevention. The NHS provides a clear example of the consequences of underinvestment. As much as 40% of the NHS budget goes towards treating preventable conditions, and preventable illness accounts for half of GP appointments and 70% of inpatient hospital bed days. Restoring the UK's population health to 2014 levels could boost GDP by 2% and generate a £72 billion dividend for the public finances, according to recent research.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has also emphasized the importance of investing in prevention to keep the spiraling health budget in check. However, the challenge for ministers is that the costs to the economy and government finances of the Neet crisis are £125 billion a year and rising. Getting more young people into work would revitalize life chances, boost the economy, and drive up labor participation, ultimately benefiting public finances.
The autumn budget provides an opportunity for the government to take action. Building a preventive state, as advocated by Andy Burnham and the thinktank Demos, would involve investing in the foundations of society. However, this approach comes with challenges, as the savings from preventive spending take time to materialize, and spending on acute need and welfare cannot be easily reduced. The Treasury's skepticism towards preventive spending is understandable, as the costs appear immediately, while the savings arrive years later, often benefiting a different government.
Despite the challenges, refusing to make the transition is a bad choice. Britain is already paying the price of a crumbling NHS, rising welfare bill, jobs market inactivity, and weak economic growth. The Milburn review is a critical test of whether Britain will grasp the nettle to rebuild a preventive state from the ashes of the austerity years. The alternative is a country hamstrung by the costs of failure, where young people feel lost and disengaged.
In conclusion, the youth crisis in Britain demands a shift towards a preventive state, where investment in public services and early intervention are prioritized. By addressing the root causes of youth inactivity and unemployment, the country can build a more prosperous and equitable future for its young people.
