According to the Resolution Foundation, although young people were disproportionately likely to lose their jobs at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, their employment prospects began to improve from spring 2021.

In reality, the youth unemployment crisis feared by many at the start of the pandemic did not transpire and by early autumn 2021, the 18-24-year-old unemployment rate was lower than it had been just before the pandemic. This success was in part due to the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (furlough), which protected jobs throughout the pandemic, and to young people’s swift re-entry to work after social-distancing restrictions eased.

Moreover, many young people were able to ‘ride out’ the economic impacts of the pandemic by entering education: the proportion of young people aged 18-24 in full-time education increased by 3% from the pre-pandemic period, to 35% (an increase of 119,000).

Overall, the Resolution Foundation found that one-in-three 18-24-year-old respondents (and nearly one-in-four surveyed 18-34-year-olds overall) who had been in work on the eve of Covid-19 experienced extended periods of worklessness during the pandemic, which can scar their employment and pay prospects in the longer term. Secondly, one-third of younger respondents who had fallen out of work during the winter 2021 lockdown have since returned to work on insecure contracts. Thirdly, despite the fact that unemployment hasn’t risen among young people over recent quarters, the share of 18-24-year-olds who are economically inactive and not in full-time study has grown slightly since spring last year, especially among men. And finally, all of these changes are associated with higher-than-average mental health risks.

Although there is much to celebrate in relation to the labour market for younger people, policy makers and employers face challenges on two fronts: –

1) Ensuring that employment support services help younger people who’ve experienced worklessness to avoid longer-term employment and mental health scarring;

2) Making sure that all younger people – be they entering work for the first time or in need of a new job – have access to good quality work that will help them develop and progress over their working lives.

Some groups of young people have been more likely than others to experience significant amounts of worklessness throughout the course of the pandemic young people aged 18-24 were the age group most likely to have experienced extended worklessness (having been unemployed, fully furloughed or self-employed without work for three months or more) over the course of the Covid-19 pandemic. Previous Resolution Foundation research found that 33% of 18-24-year-olds who were in work in February 2020 experienced extended worklessness, compared to 21% of all working-age adults, and the impact on younger people has been unequal.

Additionally, their were  differences by education level, with 30% of surveyed non-graduates aged 18-34 who were in work before the pandemic having experienced extended worklessness, compared to 19% of their graduate counterparts., while 28% of younger people from a Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds who were in work before the pandemic experienced extended worklessness, compared to 22% of their White counterparts.

To read the full Resolution Foundation research please click here.

Higher education is often seen as a crucial vehicle for improving intergenerational mobility. Previous research in the UK has generally looked in isolation at access to, or outcomes from, university for students coming from low-income backgrounds. In a recent report, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) puts these components together to investigate the extent to which individual universities, subjects and courses (the term used for specific subjects at specific universities, e.g. mathematics at the University of Warwick) promote intergenerational mobility.

The IFS report makes use of the Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) dataset to document mobility rates for each university, subject and course in England. Mobility rates are calculated via the following simple relationship:

Mobility rate =  Access  rate * Success rate.

Here the access rate is defined as the share of students for each university, subject or course who are from low-income backgrounds using the proxy of free school meal (FSM) eligibility, while the success rate is the share of those FSM students who make it to the top 20% of the earnings distribution at age 30.  As this latter measure requires people to have already turned 30, the focus of the main analysis is on people who attended university in the mid 2,000’s.

The main findings of the research show that: –

• Gaps in access are hugely variable depending on university selectivity. While low-income students are as likely to attend the least selective institutions as their wealthier peers, they are far less likely to attend the top universities.
• There is also a lot of variation in access to different subjects. Pharmacology and social care have only very small gaps in access by socio-economic background, but there are large gaps in subjects such as medicine.
• The very best-performing institutions in terms of their labour market success admitted few FSM students. Similarly, the universities with the highest FSM access rates have below average success rates.
• The average mobility rate across all universities is 1.3%. This means that at age 30, only 1.3 in every 100 university graduates are in the top 20% of the earnings distribution and from a low-income background, compared to a benchmark of 4.4.
• There is considerable variation around this average mobility rate. The highest-mobility institutions are often less selective and based in big cities, with London institutions especially dominant.
• The high share of FSM pupils in London, many of whom perform well at school and are from ethnic minority backgrounds.
• Many Russell Group universities have high success rates but admit very few FSM students, leading to below-average mobility rates.
• Adjusting earnings for cost of living differences across the country improves the mobility rates of Northern universities and lowers those in London and the South East.
• Law, computing and (especially) pharmacology are the best-performing subject areas, with mobility rates of 2.2%, 2.9% and 4.2%, respectively.
• While some courses have no students from low-income backgrounds, others have mobility rates that exceed 10%. Computing, law and economics at London-based institutions dominate the top 20 courses when ranked on mobility rates. Arts and humanities courses generally do poorly.
• There has been a slow but steady increase in the access rates of FSM students in the decade since older cohorts entered university in the mid 2,000’s. This period encompasses large higher education reforms that occurred in 2012.

Based on access rates, the IFS predict an increase in average mobility rates from 1.3% for cohorts at university during the mid 2,000’s to around 1.6% for cohorts entering university in 2018 and 2019. This demonstrates that much progress is still to be made, especially by the most selective universities, where access rates remain extremely low.

The full IFS report can also be accessed here.

 

Demos have published some research which looks at the experiences of people working at home since the arrival of Covid-19.

The shift to homeworking has been one of the most dramatic changes caused by the pandemic. Just a quarter of workers reported ever working from home in 2019, but as of September 2021, just over half of all workers across Britain were doing at least some work from home.

Much of the media coverage of the rise of homeworking has focused on the economic impacts of homeworking on public transport, shops and cafes which rely on commuters, as well as considering the implications for the government’s levelling up agenda.  In contrast, the experiences of low-paid workers, who have less financial resources to adapt to new working patterns, seem to have been overlooked as it is often assumed that working from home is only something for the ‘middle classes’, yet there also are many low-paid workers also doing this.

The Demos research looks at the experiences of these low-paid workers. A summary of the findings is shown below:

• Homeworkers are particularly positive about the impact homeworking has had on their productivity, work-life balance, flexibility at work, relationships with their families, caring responsibilities and their health and wellbeing.
• Low earners (those earning less than £20,000 per year) are generally just as positive as high earners about working from home.
• 74% of all homeworkers and 75% of low-paid homeworkers say that homeworking is good for their productivity.
• 73% of all homeworkers and 69% of low-paid homeworkers say that working from home is good for their work-life balance.
• 72% of all homeworkers and 68% of low-paid homeworkers say that working from home is good for their relationships with their family.
• Nearly all homeworkers (94%) would prefer to work from home at least some of the time in the future, with the same proportion (94%) of low-paid homeworkers agreeing.

While the shift towards homeworking is generally perceived as positive, there are challenges to be addressed too. The financial implications of homeworking for low paid workers vary significantly as while some report saving money, others have spent more as a result of working from home.

• People who always work from home report saving money, regardless of income. Low-paid workers who always work from home report saving about £22 per month due to homeworking.
• However, nearly half (46%) of low-paid hybrid workers report their costs increasing as a result of working from home. On average they report spending £39 more per month due to working from home.
• Among homeworkers, higher spending on gas and electricity (60%), food (35%), broadband (19%) and equipment (18%) are the most common costs associated with homeworking.

While homeworking is equally popular across income groups, low-paid workers are less likely to work from home. While only 37% of low paid workers report working from home at least some of the time, 73% of high-paid workers (defined as earning a personal income of £50,000 per year or more) also reported working from home some of the time.

The report goes on to recommend that the government should make employee contracts flexible by default, with the burden of proof lying on employers to demonstrate why a specified location is required in their particular circumstances. It also recommends that further research should be conducted to explore the sectors and occupations in which low-paid workers are employed, which of these currently offer homeworking, and which could offer homeworking in the future.

The full Demos report can also be accessed here.

According to research by the Prince’s Trust, fears about their jobs, their skillsets and future opportunities are weighing heavily on young minds, with more than half of young people agreeing they have “lost confidence in themselves” as a result of the pandemic.

The report based on a survey of over 2,000 young people also found that those from lower income backgrounds and those who have spent time out of work during the pandemic, are more likely to report negative experiences, including a loss of self-confidence and poor mental health.

The findings also show that the pandemic has caused young people to lose faith in their skills for work and in their future prospects.

A summary of the research findings is shown below:

• More than half of young people (52%) agree they’ve lost confidence in themselves as a result of the pandemic.
• 44 % of young people agree they don’t know how they’ll get their life back on track.
• Less than a quarter of young people (22%) say they feel confident in their future career. For NEET young people, this dropped to just 9%.
• A quarter of young people (24%) worry they do not have the skills for the jobs that are available to them, and 44% agree that over the course of the pandemic, they have even lost confidence in their ability to do the job they are trained to do
• However, 45% agree that the time to retrain and gain new skills has made them feel optimistic about their future.

There was a clear correlation between young people’s personal circumstances and how they feel in themselves and about their future careers.

• 60% of young people from lower income backgrounds and 55% of those who experienced unstable employment report having lost confidence in themselves as a result of the pandemic (compared to 52% of all young people surveyed).
• The pandemic may also have impacted young people’s overall self-esteem, with 53% agreeing they have lost confidence in the way they can handle social situations and 54% finding it harder to build new relationships.

The confidence young people feel in their future career and skills for work has substantially eroded since the pandemic began. During this time, many young people have experienced significant disruption to their employment and education and missed out on many other interactions at a critical development stage in their lives.

To see the full report click here.