To provide the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee with an overview of Herefordshire’s current not in education, employment or training (NEET) figures, including: the Impact of data updates on NEET average figures and an overview of the focussed service action plan with milestones.

[Please note: since its original publication, this report has been amnded to ensure compliance with GDPR legislation]

1. Members examined the position of young people who were not in education, employment or training (NEET), focusing on Herefordshire's comparatively poor performance, the groups most affected, actions to improve outcomes and whether current arrangements represented value for money.

2. Officers explained that Herefordshire's NEET performance was significantly affected by high numbers of young people recorded as "not known", largely due to staffing shortages, a long-term vacancy, maternity leave and limited tracking capacity, which reduced the council's ability to maintain contact and accurate records.

3. Officers advised that, while NEET status did not create a separate safeguarding duty, unknown young people presented additional risks. A Department for Education-approved recovery plan included reviewing unknown cases, increasing staffing capacity, weekly tracking reviews and enhanced governance oversight. Unknown cases had already reduced significantly.

4. Vulnerability factors strongly influenced the likelihood of becoming NEET. SEND, care experience, youth justice involvement, mental health difficulties and deprivation were all significant predictors, with care experience identified as one of the strongest risk factors. Many young people entering the NEET cohort had initially secured post-16 placements but failed to sustain them.

5. Officers reported that NEET and not-known cohorts were disproportionately concentrated in deprived communities. Rural isolation, limited public transport, travel costs and the concentration of post-16 provision in a small number of locations were considered important contributing factors.

6. Members received further information on the Youth Employment Hub, which provides personalised employability support, referrals, CV assistance and interview preparation. More than 400 young people had been supported, targets exceeded and many participants had progressed into employment or education. However, the service relied heavily on short-term grant funding and had outgrown its current accommodation.

7. Officers acknowledged that dependence on external grants and annual bidding rounds created uncertainty and restricted long-term planning. The current funding model was considered unsustainable, and work continued to secure additional funding while maintaining provision through partnerships.

8. Officers highlighted the role of the Herefordshire Skills Board and ongoing work to develop an Employment and Skills Strategy focused on employment pathways, work experience and entry-level opportunities. Young people often wanted to work but faced barriers including anxiety, poor mental health, limited opportunities and lack of employer feedback.

9. Members questioned why Herefordshire continued to perform worse than many statistical neighbours. Officers confirmed further analysis of the known NEET cohort was underway and highlighted engagement with neighbouring authorities, particularly Shropshire, while recognising wider national challenges affecting vulnerable young people and entry-level employment.

10. Officers clarified that young people in employment but not engaged in recognised education or training were recorded as not meeting the duty to participate rather than as NEET. Historically, Herefordshire had experienced relatively high numbers entering employment without training, particularly in lower-skilled sectors. Attempts to encourage apprenticeship pathways had achieved limited success.

11. Officers reported that most young people secured post-16 places successfully, but difficulties often arose when placements broke down after enrolment. A lack of flexible mid-year opportunities meant young people leaving courses could face delays before accessing alternatives, increasing the risk of becoming NEET. Capacity pressures were emerging within construction provision.

11. Members expressed concern at the size of the not-known cohort. Officers explained that the council must track all resident young people, including those studying outside the county. Unknown destinations often resulted from delayed provider information and required labour-intensive tracking through data sharing and direct contact.

12. Officers clarified differences between reporting snapshots and cohort calculations, acknowledged concerns regarding staffing resilience and confirmed that additional funding had been secured for a further full-time tracking officer.

13. Safeguarding referrals were made where concerns arose, and the Youth Employment Hub routinely identified wider vulnerabilities requiring support. Outreach work, door-knocking and stronger school engagement had proven effective where resources were available.

14. Officers explained that plans to relocate the Youth Employment Hub reflected increased demand, expanded funding requirements and the need for additional space for workshops, employers and co-located services. Alternative accommodation options were being explored.

15. In concluding, members recognised the complexity of the issue and progress made in reducing the not-known cohort. Concerns remained regarding funding sustainability, tracking capacity and the need to learn from higher-performing authorities.

The committee unanimously agreed two recommendations:

1. The executive should make contact with higher performing areas to identify good practice that could be applied in Herefordshire.?
2. The executive should ensure sustained funding for this statutory function in order to deliver on our ambition to secure a child friendly Herefordshire.?