Once in a while, research hits a sweet spot of relevance and timeliness, in tune with the direction of governmental policy. A recent example is SSAC’s occasional paper No. 27 ‘The influence of the social security system on educational and vocational decision-making at age 16’.
This research tested the Government’s declaration that all post-16 educational and vocational pathways are of equal value against how social security works in practice for households with a young person aged 16-18. In particular, the research examined the impact of a young person taking on an apprenticeship versus staying on in education on overall household income and its distribution.
We gathered evidence from young people whose parents were on Universal Credit (UC) or were care-experienced and held roundtable discussions with key stakeholders including those in schools and with researchers, local authorities, think tanks, academics and advice and other voluntary organisations. We also consulted with senior policy officials in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Department for Education and HM Revenue and Customs, as well as visiting a Youth Hub. We met with organisations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to draw comparisons with initiatives within the devolved administrations.
Building on this we modelled seven scenarios, drawing on the expertise of Citizens Advice and DWP. The scenarios examined the financial impact and distribution of household income as a result of staying in education or taking up an apprenticeship. The families modelled included those on median income and those relying on UC, two-parent and lone-parent households, those with a disabled child at home and those without a disability, all in private rented accommodation, and in addition a young person who had left home due to estrangement from family and was living in supported housing. The findings were stark where an apprenticeship was chosen. Unlike staying on in education, where the 16 -18-year-old remained part of the family benefit unit, apprenticeship income is retained by the young person and counter-balanced by a loss in social security income for the rest of the household. The loss varied from £17.25 to £332.92 a week depending on circumstances. The latter far outstripped the apprenticeship earnings and occurred when a disabled young person who was the only child of a lone parent took on an apprenticeship, resulting in the lone parent losing child benefit and UC elements, including child element and a work allowance. Even in more common scenarios, taking on an apprenticeship meant the reality of parents having to seek a substantial contribution from apprenticeship earnings to maintain financial equilibrium for the household.
Our research also raised wider issues of the distribution of household income and questions of being dependent or independent at ages 16-18 depending on choices made. The findings bore out what we heard in practice, with parents often not realising the ramifications for household income of the choice made to take on an apprenticeship. There was little evidence of good quality information being available to enable informed choices based on the social security impact of decisions made. Moreover, surviving the first month of an apprenticeship, with costs for travel, work clothes, equipment and other expenses having to be met until the first pay day, was prohibitively challenging. Care-leavers, estranged young people, young carers and those with disabilities faced particular barriers when making decisions at age 16, with limited support to manage the transition. All these groups are especially prone to becoming ‘Not in Education, Employment or Training’.
Elsewhere, the tracking of those who drop out of education varied across the UK. In Scotland there were legislative requirements to proactively follow those dropping out in real time, while Wales adopted an end of each term audit and England and Northern Ireland monitored on an annual basis. Estranged young people and young adult carers were not routinely identified and frequently missed when dropping out of education.
Among the report’s key conclusions was that the social security system was inadvertently penalising families when their children pursued apprenticeships. This struck a discordant note against the government objective to promote apprenticeships alongside other vocational pathways. In its formal response, the Department accepted the finding on apprenticeships and acted with alacrity, with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announcing a new bursary worth up to £4,500 to support young people from families in certain situations into apprenticeships as part of wider measures. The announcement referenced the SSAC research as a catalyst for the initiative. We, like many others, are now awaiting the forthcoming Milburn and Timms reports to see where the wider questions of the treatment of young people in the social security system will head next.
We are now working on two further occasional papers. First is an examination of the process for uprating benefits, thresholds and caps outside those with statutory requirements to do so. Second is an exploration of how social security effectively supports income realities and employment opportunities for those aged between 60 and state pension age.
Whether these capture the zeitgeist to the same extent as our work on the choices to be made on education and apprenticeships at age 16-18 remains to be seen.
Read the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions’ full response to our report here: Government response to SSAC Occasional Paper 27: The influence of the social security system on educational and vocational decision-making at age 16 - GOV.UK
Leave a comment