Government's NEETs Strategy Undermined by Management Apprenticeship Funding Cuts
In a move that has sparked widespread concern, the government has essentially eliminated all funding for management apprenticeships this week. This decision comes at a critical time when ministers are focusing on addressing the NEETs crisis, with nearly one million young people not in education, employment, or training. Petra Wilton, director of policy and external affairs at the Chartered Management Institute, argues that this is a significant misstep that could sabotage efforts to help NEETs succeed in the workforce.
The Critical Role of Trained Managers in NEETs Integration
Management apprenticeships play a vital role in training the managers who hire, support, and coach young people during their initial months in a job. For NEETs, many of whom face challenges such as low confidence, disrupted education, or mental health issues, the first few weeks of employment are decisive. A trained manager is more likely to ease someone in gradually, set clear expectations, and provide regular check-ins, building confidence over time. In contrast, an untrained manager, often promoted without preparation, may struggle with early conversations, avoid difficult one-to-ones, or misinterpret inexperience as a lack of effort. This difference can determine whether a NEET stays in a job or falls out of the workforce again.
Economic and Productivity Implications of the Funding Cuts
The removal of funding for core leadership and management apprenticeships represents the largest withdrawal of public support for management training in a generation. This is particularly troubling given that approximately 82 percent of managers in the UK have never received formal training, and one in three workers report leaving a job due to a bad boss. Economist John Van Reenen has suggested that up to 45 percent of the UK's productivity gap with the United States may be linked to differences in management capability. By cutting these programs, the government risks weakening a key driver of economic performance at a time when it needs strengthening.
Employer Reactions and Broader Sector Impacts
Employers have reacted with frustration to the funding cuts, with over 5,000 companies, including Asda, Amazon, Capita, Jet2.com, the Co-op, and Lloyds Bank, backing calls to protect management apprenticeship programs. James Reed, chief executive of the Reed Group, warned that cutting management training will short-change the economy. Similarly, Asda's chief people officer, James Goodman, stated that the plans would cut off proven progression routes, while the Co-op's Claire Costello cautioned that they would weaken the UK's leadership pipeline.
The impact extends beyond the private sector. Millions of pounds are invested through these programs in public services, with nearly half of management apprenticeships delivered in organizations like the NHS and departments such as the DWP. These programs train ward managers, team leaders, and operational supervisors who are essential for running services and managing staff. Removing this training does not eliminate the need for better management in public services; it simply makes it harder to achieve, especially when these services are already under pressure to do more with less.
Government Rationale and Counterarguments
The government defends its decision by arguing that too much of the apprenticeship budget has been used for existing workers rather than new entrants, and funding should be refocused towards younger people. While this is a legitimate aim, removing programs that train managers risks weakening the very environments that young people are being asked to enter. A job is not merely a vacancy filled; it is an experience that either builds or erodes confidence. For someone stepping into work for the first time or returning after a period out, the outcome often hinges on whether their manager knows how to properly support them.
If the goal is to help NEETs not only get jobs but also keep them, progress, and build careers, then management capability is not a side issue—it is fundamental to the success or failure of these initiatives. You cannot fix a broken bridge into work by removing the people who help others cross it. This decision is not reform; it is self-sabotage.
