As you read this, almost one million young people aged 16 to 24 in Britain are out of work or education. On paper, that doesn’t look too out of the ordinary: we’ve lived through youth unemployment in the deindustrialising ‘80s, the recession ‘90s, and the post-crash ‘10s. This time, though, something more worrying is happening. Unlike back then, when youth unemployment was primarily because of job shortages, now, a growing number of young people are citing a new reason for their inactivity: poor mental health.
This is a significant change and stands out from the cycles of unemployment of the past. It used to be the case that poor mental health played a minimal role in the numbers of young NEETs (those not in employment, education or training) – very few were out of work or education because of it in 2005. In the last decade-and-a-half, though, we’ve seen roughly a fivefold increase in this number, to one in five young NEETs citing mental health as a reason.
This is new, and scary. As a country, we’ve always seen unemployment as an issue tied to the job market and skills and subscribed to the idea that fixes in these areas neatly lead to fixes on worklessness. The introduction of psychological reasons driving young people away from the workplace and education, however, kills these assumptions, and makes solving youth employment for many immeasurably more difficult.
In the past, we followed the rule that if we simply increase the number of jobs, we get young people into work. Poor mental health doesn’t fit into this framework, though. To someone out of the workplace because of psychological and mental barriers, the promise of an economic upturn and job growth makes little difference. If they feel that the workplace isn’t for them because of their mental health, they won’t work.
The thing that makes this particularly dangerous is the ‘wage scar’ that derives from periods out of work in someone’s youth. It is well-known that there is a direct correlation between someone being out of work in youth and that same person living in poverty in later stages of life. The reality is that having and sustaining employment, in whatever field, after school, college or university, is a crucial period for career development, and provides the building block for moving on in life when people hit their thirties. If that opportunity hasn’t been there in your early-to-mid-twenties, that progress will be significantly more difficult to achieve.
This ‘wage scarring’ has generally referred to people who were out of work because of job or skills shortages and have entered or returned to the workplace when downturns subside. For people out of work because of poor mental health, though, wage scarring has the potential to be even deeper and even more profound. Even two years out of the workplace can affect later earnings. For inactive workers – i.e. those not actively seeking work because of their mental health – the prospect of returning to the workplace (or education) becomes much more distant and unachievable, particularly if they believe that working or learning is not compatible with their mental health challenges.
Herein lies the problem, though. Large amounts of those held back from employment because of poor mental health are so because of anxiety or depression, or both. This is striking. Many mental health professionals will attest to the core view that one of the most effective treatments for anxiety and depression is activity. Of course, there will always be people for whom employment is not realistic, and that’s what our welfare state is there for. Yet for others, working, and the social, emotional, and physical activity that comes with it fits the bill for a core solution to poor mental health.
This begs the question: how have we got to a position where inactivity is as a result of, but not a solution to, mental health issues like anxiety and depression? We’ve come on leaps and bounds in the name of progress on understanding mental health, how it can affect us, and how to deal with it. This progress has effectively rejected the idea that poor mental health involves “sucking it up” as a solution, and rightfully so. But, in making this progress, and rejecting a concept that isn’t useful, we appear to have forgotten an element of that concept that was useful – the power of doing.
Doing is part of the solution to poor mental health. It is, of course, part of a range of solutions, but the core act of doing, working, or learning, is an effective tool in solving the mental health crisis amongst young people. The issue is, we’ve got to a place where poor mental health is removing people from the workplace, preventing people from entering it, and being seen, subsequently, as a reason for remaining out of the workplace. This doesn’t downplay the severity of some of the challenges, but notes that some of our responses may unintentionally reinforce withdrawal. Alongside the very real and pertinent risks of unemployment in youth, we face a pressing challenge for today’s society.
This is fixable, though, but only if we apply new rules to the game. The old rule that fixing the economy fixes unemployment amongst all young people is gone, as that game makes no difference for those with mental health challenges. What this game requires is a wide-ranging and novel solution that encompasses policy, employment and society. The government has recognised this issue and has introduced a Youth Guarantee: mandatory paid placements for 18-to-25-year-olds after 18 months on Universal Credit and tied that to new job opportunities and tailored support. An important first step on enabling young people, including those with poor mental health, to work towards ending inactivity.
Solutions lie with employers too. While insecure and unsuitable work commonly drives those with anxiety and depression out of work and keeps them there, mental health-aware workplaces, such as those fostered by BT and Deloitte have had success. Efforts to improve mental health awareness and support in these workplaces have brought higher productivity without compromising profits, evidence that making the workplace accessible to mental health issues can bring clear benefits.
The systems that we rely on have clearly played a part in this shift toward withdrawal. Long waits and limited follow-ups have characterised treatment, leaving too many in the dark for too long. On welfare policy, the focus of assessments on inability rather than potential has disincentivised work and has led to many opting for welfare as a simple safety-first measure in a world of financial pressure. Socially, we have perhaps edged too far into protection from stress or difficulty in the name of support in certain areas of the workplace and education, and the understanding of “protecting my mental health” as involving withdrawal hasn’t been entirely useful.
The key thing we also need, then, in government policy and employment access, is a reframing of the issue. The record levels of inactivity as a result of poor mental health among young people right now are frightening. In order to solve this issue and address it properly, we need to start seeing the end goal of solving the mental health crisis as re-entry into work on good and suitable terms for those suited to it, not protection from work. This is by no means an easy task, but it needs to happen.
The roots of the crisis clearly lie in our increasingly pressured and stress-filled modern world, with coinciding responsibilities and challenges for young people combining to create very real problems. Schools and our education system will need to play a major role in preventing such problems arising on this scale. If we cannot begin bringing young people with mental health issues into education or the workplace now, we face a problem much more profound in the future and a new cohort of young people much more vulnerable to the high levels of poor mental health we see today.
Put simply, we will not be able to solve the youth unemployment crisis unless we move away from the rules of the old game and start playing a new one. The goal must be not simply protection from activity but supported re-entry into suitable activity on good terms. Until we make progress, the deeper and more dangerous the problem will become.
.svg)
James is a third year Politics and International Relations student at the University of Leicester. Interested in British politics and political parties.
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
