NEETs: The Challenge of Integration

At the end of 2024, the proportion of young people aged 15 to 29 who are neither in employment, education, nor training (NEETs, for “neither in employment nor in education or training”) is 12.8%. The share of NEETs in France is above the European average (11.2% in 2023). Concretely, at the end of 2024, France has 1.4 million NEETs, which is more than one in eight young people, and nearly one in three in priority urban neighborhoods (29% according to ANACT and INSEE). Among these 1.4 million NEETs, we can distinguish between the traditionally unemployed, recent higher education graduates seeking employment (16% of NEETs according to an INJEP study in 2020), young people in transition looking for an ideal job, those temporarily dedicating themselves to other activities, young people who are ill, disabled, or have family responsibilities, and marginalized youth. Social background is significant, with 43% of NEETs having a father who is a manual worker and 12% a father who is an employee (INJEP 2020). Furthermore, a survey conducted by the polling institute IFOP in December 2021 among 1,100 young people aged 15 to 24 who had dropped out of school indicates that 34% of NEETs surveyed dropped out of school or training during their educational journey (48% did so in high school, 19% in middle school, and 29% in higher education). In fact, the situation of dropouts seems the most concerning. As a reminder, each year, nearly 80,000 young people leave the initial education system without obtaining a qualification equivalent to the baccalaureate or a vocational diploma. Among them, 60,000 are minors. Educational attainment appears to be a determining factor in the NEET situation. According to INJEP (2020), those without qualifications and far from employment represent 20% of NEETs. This group includes the most vulnerable NEETs: 70% have no qualifications and 77% have never worked. Overall, 29% of NEETs have no diploma, and 26% have a CAP or BEP (vocational certificates). Thus, lacking a diploma traps young people in unemployment and precariousness.

Education Policy and Social Determinism

France is one of the OECD countries where social background has the greatest impact on academic achievement, according to PISA surveys. Moreover, the French mapping of schools and middle schools according to their social position index, which represents the social situation of students in relation to learning, shows a concentration of children from modest backgrounds within the same institutions, and moreover, within low-income municipalities or neighbourhoods. In addition, private schools are disproportionately attended by the most privileged students. The lack of social diversity in schools does not allow the correction of inequalities related to social background through peer effects. Finally, this strong social determinism is accompanied by low spending per student in primary education, which does not help to mitigate the initial cultural differences linked to family background.

A Considerable Cost and Loss of Potential

The direct cost of NEETs is considerable. In 2011, counting all NEETs, the total cost of the economic and social non-inclusion of these young people was estimated at 22.2 billion euros for the French state, representing 1.11% of French GDP (Eurofound, 2012). At the European level, the total cost amounted to 153 billion euros, or more than 1.2% of European GDP. In addition to this direct cost, there is the loss of potential due to the economic and social non-integration of these young people, as they could otherwise contribute to economic and social development. According to a note from Le Cercle des économistes (2021), the economic integration of NEETs could bring a growth gain of about 0.4 percentage points of GDP, which is far from negligible.

How to Achieve Sustainable Economic and Social Integration of NEETs?

In conclusion, if we want to achieve sustainable economic and social integration of young NEETs, we must first reduce social determinism in schools to facilitate access to qualifications for young people from modest backgrounds. Next, we must continue developing second-chance schools, EPIDEs (establishments for integration into employment), and production schools, especially in areas where the number of NEETs is highest. Partnerships between AFPA (vocational training), local missions, EPIDEs, and second-chance schools should be strengthened to develop the skills of these young people and meet needs in sectors facing labour shortages. Finally, it would be useful to establish cohort monitoring of young people engaged in the Youth Engagement Contract and within the “Promo 16-18” program to improve the effectiveness of these initiatives by offering complementary or more targeted support and by increasing the involvement of beneficiaries.