The OECD report, Investing in Youth: Australia released this week argues that the rise of the youth not in employment, education or training (Neets) requires a strong policy response including improving the quality of vocational education and training, better identification of at-risk youth and somewhat controversially, follow up on the recent tightening of eligibility for disability benefits to ensure youth are not on a path out of the labour force.

While here in Australia we don’t talk about the “the Great Recession”, for Australian youth the events of 2008-09 were truly a recession.

In March 2008, a record high 65.1% of those aged 15 to 24 were employed. By July 2016, it was just 58.8%. By contrast the fall in the percentage of those employed aged over 25 was just 0.7% points:

Not surprisingly, given that 10% drop in the level of youth in employment, the OECD report found that there had been a significant increase in the numbers of youth out of employment, but also out of education and training.

This is a crucial point.

Coalition revises superannuation package and dumps lifetime cap – politics live Read more

While there might be economic benefits from these youth working rather than learning, essentially the problem is that they are doing neither.

The OECD found that since 2008 there has been a 100,000 increase in the number of 15-29 year old Neets.

Now, including people up to 29 years old is a bit of a stretch but even when we use the standard youth employment definition of 15-24 year olds we see a similar increase.

In the middle of 2008, 9.9% of youth aged 15-24 were neither working nor in full-time education (the OECD figures include those in any form of education); now it is up to 11%.

But it is worth getting some historical context.

The current level of 11.0% is actually quite low. Prior to the mining boom years it was never below 12%:

It’s why I have in the past been rather quick to counter the narrative pushed by the likes of Joe Hockey that youth need to either be earning or learning.

The reality is that youth, almost as much ever in the past, are doing just that.

And it is important that the OECD notes the difference between those Neets who are looking for work, and those who are “idle Neets” – neither working, nor in education, nor even looking for work.

But a look at the figures again show that the current level of 6.5% of youth who could be classified as “idle Neets” is among the lowest level in the past 30 years:

The big driver of the rise of Neets is the number of youth who are unemployed – having risen from 3.5% of all youth in 2008 to now 4.4%.

A look over the past 30 years shows that the big change has not been an increase in idle youth, but those who once left the education system to work, to those who are working while staying in education.

Thirty years ago, 61% of youth were workers who had left the education system; now only 41% are in that category. By contrast, back then only 10% were working and also attending full-time education compared to 26% of youth doing that now:

But that things are not too bad historically doesn’t mean we can dust our hands and not worry about the situation.

Even among 15-24 year olds, we are still talking about 344,000 people. And as the OECD report notes, there are also big issues when you break down the numbers.

The report notes that Indigenous youth are most at risk of falling into the not-employed, not-in education category. It found that while Indigenous youth represent 3% of the youth population they account for 10% of all Neets.

Similarly young women are much more likely to be “idle Neets” than are men.

While just 5% of male youth are idle Neets, 8% of women aged 15-24 are in that category:

The OECD notes that this is driven “entirely by women with young children.” So this includes women who are by no means idle at all, but who are prevented from working due to a “lack of access to affordable childcare and insufficiently flexible working arrangements”.

In response, the OECD argues the government focus on the availability and affordability of childcare, particularly for single parents and that it also “target childcare benefits more efficiently towards parents” on lower incomes.

It also notes that as those with year 10 or lower education attainment are more likely to become trapped in the Neet category, there should be work done to “improve the identification of youth at risk of dropping out of school through a timelier and more systematic sharing of school attendance data”.

It also argues that “high-quality vocational education and training is essential in preparing young people for the labour market” and that while Australia does have high numbers of such students, the low level of completion rates suggests a need for “further improved guidance for at-risk youth wishing to choose these routes”.

Germany the clear winner in EU fight to find jobs for the young Read more

The report also noted that Newstart is “significantly less generous than those in other OECD countries”, and that it was clear that “the benefit rates on their own are not sufficient to keep a young person above the poverty line”.

One consequence of this is the rates of Australians on disability benefits is the sixth highest among the OECD. On this score, the report agreed with the government’s efforts to tighten the ability for people to gain access to the disability support pension because “a person’s chances of returning to employment are very low” once disability benefits have been granted.

The report was however quite scathing of the government’s work for the dole scheme. It noted that “there is little robust evidence” to show that such programs were effective, “in particular when compared to alternative measures such as training programs”. The report also found that work for the dole programs actually reduced youths’ participation in training.

Nearly 94% of Australian youth are either working, learning or trying to get work. That level is as high as it has ever been, but it does not mean we should not worry about the remaining 6%, because, above all, the biggest problem is that youth who are out of the work force and not in education are much more likely to end up living a life in poverty.