Youth Training - Statistical Profile 1999 to 2008

4. Participation in Youth Training by demographic factors

4.1 Participation from 1999 to 2008 ⁷

Participation in Youth Training has fluctuated against the cycle of change in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth and the associated levels of unemployment, but seems more responsive to the proportions of young people leaving school with no or low qualifications than to the unemployment rate of the young, low qualified population.

There are a number of factors that may influence participation and achievement in Youth Training, chief of which are the performance of the education system, the strength of the economy and demographic factors. 1999 to 2008, the period covered in this report, encompassed a time of record high participation in the labour force in New Zealand, extremely low unemployment, and skills and labour shortages.⁸

The Youth Training fund is distributed by the TEC on the basis of young people leaving school with no or low qualifications. Only one eligibility category in Youth Training (YNYOUTH) relates to the employment status of learners, the rest relate primarily to their age and their qualifications. Placements in the YNYOUTH category are restricted to 15 percent of all placements. However these learners are not required to have low qualifications, but they may not have gained a tertiary level qualification (see table 22).  However, it can be difficult to predict the appropriate number of placements in each year because the target group behaves quite differently to the rest of the working age population, and because of the way that unemployment and labour force participation data is collected (for example via sample surveys).

Figure 1 shows that Youth Training placements fell steadily during the 1999 to 2008 period. The rate of unemployment for 15 to 24 year olds who left school with no or low qualifications also fell steadily during this time. The fall in the rate of placements was slightly greater on average than the fall in the unemployment rate for 15 to 24 year olds with no or low qualifications which fluctuated across 1999 to 2008. While the category 15 to 24 years encompasses the main ages of Youth Training participants, the majority of placements occur at ages 15, 16 and 17 years. It is possible to disaggregate the unemployment rate category further, but this can only be done at the expense of precision of estimates when qualification variables are also included.

Figure 1 – Youth Training placement  growth and unemployment rate

Source: Tertiary Education Commission and Statistics New Zealand.

Overall GDP growth is not a good predictor of Youth Training participation. Comparing Youth Training participation to changes in GDP growth, figure 2 shows that participation change in Youth Training has not matched closely to changes in GDP. GDP is a measure of the change in the level of the country’s economic activity growth and growth in GDP is positively associated with employment growth. If Youth Training was completely sensitive to changes in GDP growth, a graph would show periods of GDP growth alongside corresponding drops in the proportional growth of the number of placements in Youth Training (this pattern can only be seen in 2006).

When GDP growth slows, for example, as it does between 2003 to 2007, the percentage change in Youth Training placements per annum continues to be quite variable between years, but placements drop overall. When GDP grows between years, for example between 2007 and 2008, the Youth Training placements fall, but arguably at a slower rate.

Figure 2 – GDP growth vs. placement growth

Note GDP percentage change is from June quarter of each year.
Source: Tertiary Education Commission Statistics New Zealand.
 

This difference may be accounted for the fact that the Youth Training eligible demographic have a different unemployment profile to the majority of the working population. For example, the Department of Labour estimates that young people tend to work on a part-time basis at a higher rate than any other group in the working population.⁹ Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of 15 to 19 year olds in employment as at December 2008 worked part-time. Similarly, 42 percent of all casual workers were aged 15 to 24 years and youth juggle study with work at a greater rate than any other age group.

Moreover, the industries and occupations in which youth work tend to be among the most vulnerable in times of economic downturn. The Department of Labour believes that 15 to 19 year olds’ comparatively limited work experience and lack of skills heighten their vulnerability to unemployment. Two industries – retail trade, and accommodation, cafés and restaurants – employ the bulk of youth. These industries are characterised by their high proportion of part-time work. By occupation, most youth fit into the service and sales workers group. This may account for the slowing of the decline of Youth Training placements between 2007 and 2008 at a time when overall GDP was growing. The slow in the decline in Youth Training may represent a tightening of opportunities in vulnerable industries young people cluster in and as such young people may have been the first group to feel the effects of the present economic downturn.

Distinct employment patterns also exist between youth aged 15 to 19 years and those aged between 20 to 24 years, with the older youth group tending to be more similar to the total working-age population. As it is common for many 15 to 24 year olds to be involved either in school education or further education, the labour force participation rate for this age group tends to be lower than for other age groups. Over the past decade, there has been a national trend towards lower labour market participation among 15 to 24 year olds as increasing proportions engage in further study.¹⁰ Table 1 shows the labour market and study activity estimates for people aged 15 to 19 years between 2004 and 2008, as measured in the Household Labour Force Survey (HLFS).

The population of 15 to 19 year olds has grown between 2004 and 2008, from an estimated 299,000 to 320,000, or by 7 percent. The main activity of 15 to 19 years olds has shifted slightly during this time, towards staying in school, or taking up informal study over other options such as employment or formal study. The unemployment rate for all 15 to 19 year olds increased from 13 percent in 2005 to 15 percent in 2008.

Around 52 percent of 15 to 19 year olds main activity was school in 2004 and by 2008 this proportion had risen to 56 percent. The main proportional growth occurred in the not employed, student still in school category, in 2008, suggesting a lack of employment options occurring for young people in 2008 compared to previous years. This was preceded in 2007 by a proportionally large swing towards informal study as a main activity shown by the growth in the not employed, engaged in informal study group.

The proportion who were employed and not participating in formal study has remained fairly steady, increasing from 17 percent in 2004 to 18 percent in 2006, and dropping back to 17 percent in 2008. The number who were Not Employed, Engaged in Formal Study dropped by 31 percent while Youth Training participants (who if surveyed would fall into this category) fell by 16 percent.

Table 1 – Labour market / study activity of 15 to 19 year olds 2004 to 2008

Note: Year is at June quarters. Source: Statistics New Zealand.
HLFS main activity group	2004   (000s)	2004   (%)	2005   (000s)	2005   (%)	2006   (000s)	2006   (%)	2007   (000s)	2007   (%)	2008   (000s)	2008   (%)	% ∆    2004– 2008
Employed,  Student still at school	49.7	16.6	54.6	17.9	51.4	16.5	57.8	18.2	59.9	18.7	20.5
Employed,  Engaged in Formal Study	25.4	8.5	28.0	9.2	30.4	9.8	32.2	10.1	30.4	9.5	19.7
Employed,  Engaged in Informal Study	1.6	0.5	3.3	1.1	2.8	0.9	2.7	0.9	2.7	0.8	68.8
Employed, No  Formal Study	50.6	16.9	52.3	17.2	55.8	17.9	57.0	18.0	53.9	16.8	6.5
Not Employed,  Student still at school	106.7	35.7	109.0	35.8	100.8	32.4	105.6	33.3	119.1	37.2	11.6
Not Employed,  Engaged in Formal Study	36.5	12.2	31.5	10.4	40.8	13.1	29.5	9.3	25.3	7.9	-30.7
Not Employed,  Engaged in Informal Study	5.0	1.7	3.5	1.2	3.6	1.2	9.1	2.9	5.9	1.8	18.0
Not Employed,  No Study - Caregiver Home Duties	3.2	1.1	3.9	1.3	4.1	1.3	3.5	1.1	3.5	1.1	9.4
Not Employed, No  Study - No Care giving  (NEET)	20.2	6.8	17.9	5.9	21.4	6.9	20.1	6.3	19.5	6.1	-3.5
Total All Study  Statuses	298.8	100.0	304.2	100.0	311.0	100.0	317.4	100.0	320.2	100.0	7.2

While it possible to gain an insight into the activities of young people through the traditional unemployment rate measure, a newer measure that assesses the number of youth who are not engaged in education, employment, training or care giving (NEET) is increasingly recognised internationally.¹¹ Youth who are not engaged in one of these activities are perceived to be most at risk of poor labour market outcomes.¹² The relationship between NEET incidence and Youth Training participation is however inconclusive.

Many young people leave school and are classified as NEET – that is they are not in education, employment, training or at school.  They are not categorised as ‘unemployed’in the HLFS, but as ‘out of the labour force’ and ‘not employed’, under a subsidiary category  No study – No Care giving (NEET).  While the highest qualification level of NEETs is hard to assess due to small sampling population sizes, it may be that a reasonable proportion of NEETs have left school with no or low qualifications. It is equally feasible that a number of Youth Training participants spend some time as NEETs.

Youth who are categorised as NEET are disengaged from both formal learning and work, and therefore are considered to be missing the opportunity to develop their potential at an age that heavily influences future outcomes.¹³ While the NEET measure does not count young people involved in other activities that could contribute to their well-being, or are ‘in between’ activities for a short period of time (for example, just returned from or about to leave for overseas, or on holiday from work or study), it is still a particularly useful indicator of youth disengagement.¹⁴

Figure 3 shows the number of Youth Training placements between 2004 and 2008 compared to the estimated number of NEETs aged 15 to 19 years. The number of NEETs is generally around eight  to ten thousand higher than the number of learners placed in Youth Training in each year (Youth Training learners would be classified as Not Employed, Engaged in Formal Study).

The general trend across 2004 to 2008 is for a fluctuation in the number of NEETs, a pattern not generally matched by Youth Training placements. A large increase in the number of NEETs in 2006 (as well as an increase in the youth unemployment rate from 2006 – see figure 1) does not seem to incur a change of a similar order of magnitude in Youth Training placements.

Figure 3 – Youth training placements  and NEETs 2004 to 2008

Source: Tertiary Education Commission and Statistics New Zealand.

Figure 4 compares the percentage change in the number of 15 to 19 year NEETs for each year between 2004 and 2008. The large proportional rise in NEETs between 2005 and 2006 was not matched in magnitude by the increase in Youth Training placements. Otherwise, percentage changes in the two populations for the years where data availability enables a comparison to be made, are similar.

Figure 4 – Youth training placements  and NEETs percent change  2004 to 2008

Source: Tertiary Education Commission and Statistics New Zealand.

Fewer young people are leaving school with no or low qualifications than in past years which may have contributed to the decline in Youth Training placements. Where a comparable series of data is available, such as between 2005 and 2007, the proportion of students leaving school with less than NCEA level 1 declined by 9 percentage points from 27.7 percent in 2005 to 18.9 percent in 2007, with the majority of this decline occurring in the little or no formal attainment category. The proportion of students leaving school with NCEA level 2 increased by 3 percentage points between 2005 and 2007, while those leaving with level 3 qualifications increased by about 6 percentage points (not tabled).

Table 2 – Highest qualification (at level 2 or below ) of school leavers by school leaving year

Source: Ministry of Education
Category	NCEA  Level 2		Halfway  to a Level 2 qualification		NCEA  Level 1		Halfway  to a Level 1 qualification		Less  than halfway to a Level 1 qualification		Little  or no formal attainment		All  leavers
Year	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.
2005	8,925	15.8	4,810	8.5	4,052	7.2	4,935	8.7	3,312	5.9	7,409	13.1	56,482
2006	8,864	15.9	4,720	8.5	3,756	6.7	4,641	8.3	3,041	5.5	6,328	11.4	55,705
2007	10,238	18.5	5,046	9.1	3,857	7.0	4,667	8.4	2,973	5.4	2,799	5.1	55,355

 

School leaving age rules and early leaving exemption policy settings may have had an influence, both on school retention and achievement, and on Youth Training participation. In 2007  the early leaving application and approval process was strengthened to reduce the relatively high number of early leavers.

The evidence so far suggests the new process has been successful. After seven years without much change, the rate of demand for early leaving exemptions declined by 78 percent from 70 applications per 1,000 15 year-old students in 2006 to 15 applications per 1,000 15 year-old students in 2008. At the same time the proportion of applications that were declined by the Ministry of Education increased from 6.6 percent in 2006 to 28 percent in 2008.¹⁵

Table 3 – Early leaving exemption application approval and decline rates (2000 to 2008)

Source: Ministry of Education
	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Applications	3,366	3,580	3,864	3,983	4,115	4,518	4,238	3,009	903
Applications declined	148	178	184	155	289	330	281	1080	249
Applications approved	3,218	3,402	3,680	3,828	3,826	4,188	3,957	1,929	654
Percentage of applications declined	4.4	5	4.8	3.9	7	7.3	6.6	35.9	27.6
Declined rate (per 1,000 15 year-old students)	2.9	3.5	3.5	2.8	5.1	5.6	4.6	18.2	4.2
Approved rate (per 1,000 15 year-old students)	63.4	66.4	69.7	68.9	67.3	71.2	65.3	32.4	11

 

In summary, measuring the appropriate numbers of participants in Youth Training is complicated by the methods used to collect data about young people with no or low qualifications, but it seems that Youth Training placements have not kept up with the estimates of the numbers of the most vulnerable young people. This may be in part because the majority of the eligibility criteria do not refer to the employment status of young people, but to their educational attainment.

Measures of the overall strength of the economy do not appear to predict the activities of young people, or the number of placements in Youth Training well.  There may be a disconnect between the level of youth vulnerability and Youth Training participation as evidenced by the phenomena that while youth unemployment has increased, and NEET rates have fluctuated, Youth Training participant numbers have been in steady decline.

The following sections examine participation changes by demographic groups compared with estimates of changes in the structure of the eligible population during the 1999 period, while the final section shows the results of statistical modelling of youth training outcomes.

4.2 Participation by ethnic group

Participation in Youth Training differs between ethnic groups, and the proportions of learners identifying with each ethnic group has remained roughly the same across 1999 to 2008.

Table 4 shows that around 47 percent of learners in Youth Training are Māori, another 40 percent are European / Pākehā, while 11 percent are Pasifika (the TEC has required that 45 percent of participants are Māori). European learner placements in Youth Training have declined by 30 percent between 1999 and 2008, for Māori they have declined by 32 percent and for Pasifika, by 19 percent.

The total number of participants has declined by 29 percent between 1999 and 2008 (final column), with some groups (Māori by 32 percent) falling faster than others (the raw number of Pasifika participants fell by 19 percent in the period)

  Table 4 – Youth Training participation by ethnic group by year 

Note  Total placements means the number distinct individuals with one or more  placements within each year rather than the total number of placements. Source: Tertiary Education Commission.
Ethnic         group	1999   (%) of total	2000   (%) of total	2001   (%) of total	2002   (%) of total	2003   (%) of total	2004   (%) of total	2005   (%) of total	2006   (%) of total	2007   (%) of total	2008   (%) of total	% ∆         1999 – 2008
European	39.0	39.4	40.4	40.3	40.2	38.5	39.2	39.9	39.8	38.8	-29.7
Māori	47.7	48.2	47.6	47.2	46.5	48.3	48.0	46.1	45.1	45.9	-32.0
Pasifika	11.1	9.9	9.8	9.9	10.8	10.6	10.4	11.1	11.9	12.7	-18.7
Asian	0.8	0.8	1.0	1.0	0.9	1.0	1.0	1.1	1.3	1.1	-3.3
Other	1.4	1.7	1.3	1.6	1.6	1.6	1.3	1.7	1.9	1.5	-21.7
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	-29.2

Table 4 shows the changing population of 15 to 24 year olds with no or low qualifications, sourced from the HLFS. This group does not quite match the demographic of Youth Training participants, who are principally school leavers and may be mostly younger than 24 years, but because the data is collected through a sample survey, lower age group disaggregation is not possible.

The European population aged 15 to 24 years with no or low qualifications has grown by 23 percent between 1999 and 2008, while the Māori population has grown 14 percent and Pasifika by 32 percent

Table 5 – HLFS estimate of population 15 to 24 years with low or no qualifications by ethnic group at  30 June 1999 to 2008

Source: Statistics New Zealand.
Ethnic group	1999       (000s)	2000       (000s)	2001       (000s)	2002       (000s)	2003       (000s)	2004       (000s)	2005       (000s)	2006       (000s)	2007       (000s)	2008       (000s)	% ∆    1999 – 2008
European	148.5	148.3	144.6	148.8	153.2	156.6	157.4	151.2	178.6	182.6	23.0
Māori	48.9	47.7	51.3	48.9	55.7	51.8	56.2	54.5	53.5	55.8	14.1
Pasifika	22.9	21.5	20.3	26.2	24.9	26.8	21.7	28.6	27.2	30.3	32.3
Other	25.9	22.1	29.7	34.8	39.7	42	44.3	37.2	44.7	44.6	72.2
Total	246.2	239.6	245.9	258.7	273.5	277.2	279.6	271.5	304	313.3	27.3

Table 6 shows the proportions of the total of the estimated population of 15 to 24 year olds with no or low qualifications. It shows that proportionally, Māori have declined from 20 percent to 18 percent of young people in the category while Pasifika have continuously represented around 10 percent of people in the category across 1999 to 2008. European representation has generally fallen during the period, while ‘others’ have increased from 11 percent in 1999 to 14 percent.

Table 6 – HLFS ethnic group proportion of population 15 to 24  years with low or no qualifications by ethnic group at  30 June 1999 to 2008

Source: Statistics New Zealand.
Ethnic group	1999    (%)	2000    (%)	2001    (%)	2002    (%)	2003    (%)	2004    (%)	2005    (%)	2006    (%)	2007    (%)	2008    (%)	% ∆ 1999 – 2008
European	60.3	61.9	58.8	57.5	56.0	56.5	56.3	55.7	58.8	58.3	23.0
Māori	19.9	19.9	20.9	18.9	20.4	18.7	20.1	20.1	17.6	17.8	14.1
Pasifika	9.3	9.0	8.3	10.1	9.1	9.7	7.8	10.5	8.9	9.7	32.3
Other	10.5	9.2	12.1	13.5	14.5	15.2	15.8	13.7	14.7	14.2	72.2
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	27.3

When compared to the estimate of the total population aged 15 years and over (see table 7 below), it appears that Europeans are under-represented in the low-qualified group while Māori and Pasifika are both over-represented.

The growth in the estimated population numbers also differs by ethnic group over the period. Table 7 shows the total population estimate of Europeans aged 15 to 24 years or over grew by 20.5 percent over 1999 to 2008, while the number of low-qualified European learners grew 23 percent (see final column in table 4 for comparisons). For Māori the comparison is 14 percent growth against 11 percent growth for all Māori 15 to 24 year olds, and for Pasifika, it is 32 percent compared to 33 percent. In other words, the proportion of European and Māori 15 to 24 year olds who have no or low qualifications has grown faster than the population at those ages, while for Pasifika, it has stayed about the same across 1999 to 2008. The ‘other’ group with no or low qualifications grew more slowly than the wider ‘other’ 15 to 24 year old population.

Table 7– HLFS estimate of population 15 to 24  years and over all qualifications by ethnic group at  30 June 1999 to 2008

Source: Statistics New Zealand.
Ethnic group	1999    (%)	2000    (%)	2001    (%)	2002    (%)	2003    (%)	2004    (%)	2005    (%)	2006    (%)	2007    (%)	2008    (%)	% ∆  1999 – 2008
European	67.6	67.8	66.3	64.7	63.6	63.5	61.8	61.9	61.4	63.6	20.5
Māori	15.0	15.4	15.6	14.5	15.1	14.5	14.7	14.5	13.4	12.9	10.7
Pasifika	7.5	7.1	6.8	8.2	7.6	7.8	6.6	7.5	7.3	7.7	32.7
Other	9.9	9.7	11.3	12.6	13.6	14.2	16.9	16.2	17.8	15.8	103.4
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	28.2

Table 8 compares growth for just people with no qualifications across 1999 to 2007 in order to determine if this growth has occurred in one category of people (no qualified 15 to 24 year olds) at the expense of the other HLFS highest education attainment category used to define no or low qualified people (5th form or less or overseas).

Again, European people and ‘others’ with no qualifications are under-represented in Youth Training when compared to the estimated population of 15 to 24 year olds (shown in table 6), while Maori and Pasifika are overrepresented (Maori significantly so). All no qualifications groups apart from ‘others’ grew faster than their wider populations suggesting that the growth over and above the wider population occurred in the numbers attaining no qualifications rather than in the numbers attaining 5th form or below.

Table 8– HLFS estimate of population 15 to 24  years and over with no qualifications by ethnic group at  30 June 1999 to 2008

Source: Statistics New Zealand.
Ethnic group	1999    (%)	2000    (%)	2001    (%)	2002    (%)	2003    (%)	2004    (%)	2005    (%)	2006    (%)	2007    (%)	2008    (%)	% ∆  1999 – 2008
European	57.2	59.6	58.5	54.0	55.5	57.6	56.8	52.9	57.2	57.3	33.8
Māori	23.9	24.4	26.4	24.7	26.6	23.2	25.9	25.6	19.5	21.2	18.7
Pasifika	9.9	8.9	6.7	11.7	8.5	9.5	8.6	12.1	9.3	11.0	47.9
Other	8.9	7.0	8.5	9.5	9.4	9.7	8.8	9.4	14.0	10.5	56.3
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	33.6

Table 9 confirms this: growth in the 5th form qualifications or below group occurred much more slowly than for the wider 15 to 19 population and than for the no qualification group. The exception are the ‘others’ who grew much more quickly than the rest, but still more slowly than their wider population group.

Table 9 – HLFS estimate of population 15 to 24  years and over with 5th form or below by ethnic group at  30 June 1999 to 2008

Source: Statistics New Zealand.
Ethnic group	1999    (%)	2000    (%)	2001    (%)	2002    (%)	2003    (%)	2004    (%)	2005    (%)	2006    (%)	2007    (%)	2008    (%)	% ∆  1999 – 2008
European	64.4	65.0	59.2	61.6	56.6	55.3	55.6	59.1	61.4	59.7	10.0
Māori	14.4	13.8	14.5	12.1	13.6	13.8	13.2	13.3	14.3	12.7	3.9
Pasifika	8.5	9.0	10.1	8.2	9.7	9.8	6.8	8.6	8.3	7.7	7.9
Other	12.6	12.2	16.2	18.1	20.1	21.1	24.3	19.0	15.9	19.9	87.2
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	18.7

What’s interesting is that these findings do not seem to correspond with those shown in Table 2 which suggest an overall  reduction in the numbers leaving school with no qualifications, borne out by both the school leaving statistics, and the 84 percent reduction in early leaving exemptions between 2006 and 2008. The difference could be attributed to the HLFS measurement containing a much wider age group than recent school leavers: 15 to 24 years. If we were able to contain our estimates to just school leavers, we might find a corresponding trend.

In any case, the 20 to 24 year old element of our estimates are extraneous to our analysis of Youth Training because they are mostly too old to take part in the programme. We could infer from this that younger school leavers (15 to 19 years) are now better qualified than they were in the past, at least at the lower end of the qualification spectrum. This would tend to reduce the pool of available people needing to participate in Youth Training, which in turn could explain  some of the reduction in the number of placements across the period.

4.3 Participation by gender

The gender mix of placements has been fairly evenly balanced between 1999 and 2008. Females make up just 44 percent on average of all placements by individuals across the period. However, when examined in the context of the number of young people unemployed with low or no qualifications, females seem to participate at higher rates on average than males (the number of Youth Training placements by women is 31 percent of young unemployed women with low or no qualifications compared to 25 percent for males).

However, females not in the labour force but with no or low qualifications may be slightly underrepresented in Youth Training. This may be due to additional barriers to labour force participation faced by women, such as child care and rearing.¹⁶

Statistics New Zealand Census data shows that women accounted for 50.3 percent of the resident 15 to 64 years population in 1996, rising to 51 percent in 2006. In this context, participation in Youth Training would seem to be slightly lower for women than for men between 1999 and 2008.

Table 10 – Youth Training participation by gender 1999 to 2008

Source: Tertiary Education Commission.
Gender	1999  (%)	2000  (%)	2001  (%)	2002  (%)	2003  (%)	2004  (%)	2005  (%)	2006  (%)	2007  (%)	2008  (%)
Females	43.5	43.6	43.5	43.0	43.4	43.6	45.5	45.3	44.9	45.2
Males	56.5	56.4	56.5	57.0	56.6	56.4	54.5	54.7	55.1	54.8
Total both  sexes	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100

Table 11 shows the unemployment rate for 15 to 24 year olds with no or low qualifications by gender. Between 1999 and 2003 the unemployment rate for males was higher than for females, while between 2006 and 2007 it was higher for females. A large gap appears between the two  sexes in 2008 with male unemployment around 1.5 percentage points higher than for females. Overall, the unemployment rate for this group fell from 9.6 percent to 5.2 percent in 2008.

Table 11 – HLFS unemployment rate 15 to 24  years with low or no qualifications by gender at  30 June 1999 to 2008

Source: Statistics New Zealand.
Gender	1999  (%)	2000  (%)	2001  (%)	2002  (%)	2003  (%)	2004  (%)	2005  (%)	2006  (%)	2007  (%)	2008  (%)
Females	9.2	7.6	6.8	6.5	5.8	6.1	5.2	5.0	5.1	4.4
Males	9.8	9.1	8.1	7.0	6.6	5.3	5.0	4.7	4.5	5.9
Total both  sexes	9.6	8.5	7.5	6.8	6.2	5.7	5.1	4.8	4.8	5.2

Table 12 shows the participation rate of unemployed 15 to 24 year olds with low or no qualifications in Youth Training, calculated by dividing the number in Youth Training by the number of unemployed people in the category. The participation rate has increased from 21.5 percent in 1999 to 27.6 percent in 2008. This indicates that the unemployment rate for this group may have fallen faster than the drop in numbers of Youth Training learners across 1999 to 2008.

Table 12 – Participation rate 15 to 24 years with low or no qualifications by gender at 30 June 1999 to 2008

Source: Tertiary Education Commission.
Gender	1999  (%)	2000  (%)	2001  (%)	2002  (%)	2003  (%)	2004  (%)	2005  (%)	2006  (%)	2007  (%)	2008  (%)
Females	21.5	25.4	27.1	27.2	29.3	27.4	31.7	32.3	27.5	31.3
Males	21.4	23.5	26.1	29.4	30.8	35.6	33.8	35.9	33.2	25.1
Total both  sexes	21.5	24.3	26.5	28.5	30.1	31.6	32.8	34.1	30.3	27.6

Table 13 shows the unemployment rate by sex for 15 to 19 year olds between 1999 and 2008. This low aggregation of age group is only possible through the loss of the educational attainment variable, so it unfortunately allows for less accuracy of estimation. It shows that the female unemployment rate is consistently a few percentage points below that of males across 1999 to 2008.

Table 13 – HLFS unemployment rate 15 to 19 year olds by gender at 30 June 1999 to 2008

Source: Statistics New Zealand.
Gender	1999  (%)	2000  (%)	2001  (%)	2002  (%)	2003  (%)	2004  (%)	2005  (%)	2006  (%)	2007  (%)	2008  (%)
Females	16.7	16.1	15.3	15.8	15.1	13.9	12.9	14.4	14.0	13.4
Males	19.2	18.9	17.5	15.5	15.6	14.4	12.9	13.1	14.5	16.1
Total both  sexes	18.0	17.6	16.4	15.6	15.3	14.1	12.9	13.7	14.3	14.8

 

NEET rates do not seem to differ substantially by gender. Table 14 shows the proportion of the 15 to 19 year population by gender between 2004 and 2008 who are NEET. NEET rates are fairly even between the sexes until 2008 when a wider gap appears to open to the detriment of males.

Table 14 – HLFS NEET rates by gender 2004 to 2008

Source: Statistics New Zealand.
Gender	2004  (%)	2005  (%)	2006  (%)	2007  (%)	2008  (%)
Females	6.92	5.93	6.64	6.46	5.46
Males	6.61	5.84	7.12	6.21	6.69
Total both  sexes	6.76	5.88	6.88	6.33	6.09

Young females may have differing labour force and study activities to males. Using HLFS data again, table 15 shows the difference between sexes between 2004 and 2008.

Females are more likely than males to be employed and attending school, and consistently less likely than males to be just at school (and not at the same time in some form of employment). Males are more likely to be employed and not engaged in formal study. Females seem more likely to be involved in care-giving duties at home that do not involve employment, although the small samples sizes for males in this category meant that data could not be analysed for them.

Table 15 – HLFS Labour Force and study status 15 to 19 years

Note categories with low sample confidence have been suppressed (s). Source: Statistics New Zealand.
Labour force and study activity	Gender	2004  (%)	2005  (%)	2006  (%)	2007  (%)	2008  (%)
Employed,  Student still at school	Females	18.1	20.4	18.5	20.7	19.2
	Males	15.2	15.6	14.6	15.8	18.3
Employed,  Engaged in Formal Study	Females	8.8	9.3	9.6	9.9	10.5
	Males	8.2	9.2	10.0	10.4	8.5
Employed,  Engaged in Informal Study	Females	s	0.8	s	1.1	s
	Males	0.7	1.3	1.2	s	1.3
Employed, No  Formal Study	Females	14.5	13.2	16.1	16.6	15.4
	Males	19.4	21.2	19.7	19.2	18.2
Not Employed,  Student still at school	Females	33.0	36.0	31.8	31.7	36.8
	Males	38.3	35.8	33.0	34.8	37.6
Not Employed,  Engaged in Formal Study	Females	14.5	10.4	13.4	9.1	8.5
	Males	10.0	10.3	12.8	9.4	7.3
Not Employed,  Engaged in Informal Study	Females	1.8	1.6	0.9	2.3	1.7
	Males	1.6	0.8	1.3	3.4	2.0
Not Employed, No  Study - Caregiver Home Duties	Females	2.0	2.5	2.5	2.2	2.1
	Males	s	s	s	s	s
Not Employed, No  Study - No Care giving	Females	6.9	5.9	6.6	6.5	5.5
	Males	6.6	5.8	7.1	6.2	6.7

 

4.4 Participation by age

Youth Training is primarily aimed at people with no or low qualifications aged 18 years or younger. The TEC specifies that participants should be less than 18 years old on initial acceptance in Youth Training, or have left school within six months.
 Table 16 shows Youth Training placements by year by the age of the learner at the time of their placement. There has been a reduction in the number of placements by 15 year olds (down by 42 percent since 2006), and this is probably a consequence of the change to the early leaving exemption criteria in 2006.

Table 16 – Youth Training placements in year by age of learner at placement 1999 to 2008

Source: Tertiary Education Commission.
Age at placement	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
12 years	1
13 years	5	6	1	3	1	1
14 years	400	528	464	449	497	511	472	419	182	44
15 years	3378	3831	3677	3906	3829	3920	4030	3953	3043	2299
16 years	5478	5686	5300	5126	4704	4479	4208	4241	4305	4583
17 years	3965	3840	3374	3165	2943	2665	2395	2398	2535	2779
18 years	549	362	500	462	423	453	359	328	372	426
19 years	160	33	40	69	81	66	72	57	56	67
20 years	72	2	5	15	15	16	9	9	20	16
21 years or older	445	3	7	11	12	12	12	6	14	12

Table 17 shows the placements converted into proportions of the total number of placements in each year. The majority of learners (94 percent on average across years) are between the ages of 15 and 17 years at the time of their placement. Placements occurring in 2008 changed the pattern of enrolment established between 1999 and 2007: enrolments by 16, 17 and 18 year olds were proportionally increased at the expense of enrolments by 15 year olds.

Table 17 – Youth Training placements in year by age of learner at placement 1999 to 2008

Source: Tertiary Education Commission.
Age at placement	1999 (%)	2000 (%)	2001 (%)	2002 (%)	2003 (%)	2004 (%)	2005 (%)	2006 (%)	2007 (%)	2008 (%)
12 years	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
13 years	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
14 years	2.8	3.7	3.5	3.4	4.0	4.2	4.1	3.7	1.7	0.4
15 years	23.4	26.8	27.5	29.6	30.6	32.3	34.9	34.6	28.9	22.5
16 years	37.9	39.8	39.6	38.8	37.6	36.9	36.4	37.2	40.9	44.8
17 years	27.4	26.9	25.2	24.0	23.5	22.0	20.7	21.0	24.1	27.2
18 years	3.8	2.5	3.7	3.5	3.4	3.7	3.1	2.9	3.5	4.2
19 years	1.1	0.2	0.3	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.7
20 years	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2
21 years or older	3.1	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1

 

4.5 Participation by region

Youth Training is offered throughout New Zealand. Table 18 shows the distribution of placements for each year by the TEC administering area office. These offices closely match the coverage of the administering territorial local authority, for which unemployment statistics are regularly formulated, so it is possible to compare the unemployment rates in each region in each year with the number of placements in Youth Training to assess coverage of the programme: the TEC does this when allocated funding between regions.

The placement distribution seems fairly uniform for most regions over the years. There seems to have been a shift of placements from Taranaki-Wanganui to the Wellington region in 2005 that has been sustained since then (which may be accounted for by an administrative reallocation).

Table 18 – Youth Training placements in year by TEC Region 1999 to 2008

Source: Tertiary Education Commission.
Region	1999 (%)	2000 (%)	2001 (%)	2002 (%)	2003 (%)	2004 (%)	2005 (%)	2006 (%)	2007 (%)	2008 (%)
Northland	6.5	6.2	6.1	6.0	5.8	5.9	5.7	5.6	5.8	5.7
Auckland	26.0	27.4	26.0	26.0	26.6	26.6	25.7	28.0	29.7	29.9
Bay of Plenty	9.7	9.5	9.4	10.1	9.4	9.7	9.8	9.4	8.4	8.0
Waikato	9.7	9.9	10.5	10.3	10.2	10.7	11.2	11.2	10.5	10.8
Eastern	8.1	7.0	7.4	7.2	7.4	7.6	7.1	5.9	6.4	6.5
Taranaki-Wanganui	10.3	10.1	10.6	10.4	9.5	10.2	6.4	6.1	5.9	5.9
Wellington	7.8	8.2	8.2	8.6	8.8	8.6	13.1	13.0	12.1	12.6
Nelson-Marlborough-West  Coast	4.4	4.3	4.1	4.1	4.1	3.7	3.6	4.0	3.8	3.9
Canterbury	9.9	10.2	10.0	10.1	10.8	9.9	10.3	10.0	10.5	10.0
Southern	7.6	7.2	7.5	7.2	7.5	7.1	7.0	6.7	7.0	6.7

 

Table 19 shows the distribution of all unemployed people in the labour force by regional council during this period. The distribution of placements by TEC region quite closely follows the distribution of all unemployed people throughout New Zealand. The unemployment statistics are not limited to young people with no or low qualifications, so where differences occur in the distribution it is not possible to determine if it is due to a different unemployment demographic for young people with no or low qualifications or if there is an issue with Youth Training penetration.

Table 19 – Distribution of unemployed by regional council 1999 to 2008

Source: Statistics New Zealand.
Region	1999 (%)	2000 (%)	2001 (%)	2002 (%)	2003 (%)	2004 (%)	2005 (%)	2006 (%)	2007 (%)	2008 (%)
Northland	5.9	5.1	4.8	5.8	5.9	4.6	4.9	5.3	4.1	3.8
Auckland	28.0	28.5	29.7	28.2	26.8	27.8	30.1	29.2	32.9	35.4
Waikato	11.3	10.6	10.5	10.5	10.6	7.8	8.5	9.2	9.3	10.0
Bay of Plenty	8.9	8.3	8.4	9.1	8.6	8.1	5.4	6.0	5.5	5.9
Gisborne /  Hawke's Bay	5.5	5.8	6.4	5.2	5.3	6.0	6.6	6.6	6.1	6.2
Taranaki-Manawatu-Wanganui	7.2	9.6	8.6	8.3	8.6	9.2	8.6	9.8	9.5	9.5
Wellington	11.4	10.5	10.2	11.7	13.3	14.5	14.5	15.1	14.2	11.9
Canterbury	14.3	14.3	14.8	14.1	13.5	14.3	13.9	12.4	12.5	11.9
Otago-Southland	7.6	7.3	6.7	7.1	7.5	7.8	7.5	6.3	5.9	5.4

 

4.6 Participation by education history

Youth Training is targeted to young people with no or low qualifications on leaving school. Table 20 shows the distribution of learner placements by self-reported highest qualification attainment. It shows that the vast majority of learners do have low or no qualifications on placement.

There has been a shift over the years of participation away from young people with no qualifications towards those with level 1 or equivalent NCEA certification. This may be a consequence of the decline in the proportions of learners leaving school with no qualifications since 2006 (see table 2 and associated discussion regarding school leaver education attainment and early leaving exemption policy changes).

The proportion of students leaving school with less than NCEA level 1 declined from by 9 percentage points from 27.7 percent in 2005 to 18.9 percent in 2007, with the majority of this decline occurring in the little or no formal attainment category. The drop in Youth Training placements was 10 percentage points between 2005 and 2007.

Table 20 – Youth Training placements by  highest school qualification attainment by year

Note: qualification attainment is a self report by the learner and is not verified by the TEC on placement in Youth Training. Source: Tertiary Education Commission.
Highest school  attainment	1999 (%)	2000 (%)	2001 (%)	2002 (%)	2003 (%)	2004 (%)	2005 (%)	2006 (%)	2007 (%)	2008 (%)
No formal  secondary school qualifications/less than 12 credits at level 1	73.0	72.7	70.5	68.2	64.7	59.8	56.1	52.2	45.8	45.0
School  Certificate/ 12+ credits at level 1 or above	23.1	23.7	25.5	27.7	30.8	35.6	39.8	44.2	51.3	52.5
Sixth Form  Cert/12 + credits level 2 or above	2.4	2.0	1.9	1.8	1.8	1.7	0.9	0.0	0.0	0.0
University  Entrance / National Certificate Level 2	0.6	0.8	1.3	1.4	1.5	1.8	2.1	2.0	1.2	0.8
Higher School  Certificate/12-39 credits at level 3 or above BURSARY Exam A or B Bursary  Scholarship	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.5	0.6	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.1	0.0
Trade  Certificate	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0
Degree	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Unknown / Other	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.5	0.5	0.8	1.2	1.6	1.5

 

4.7 Participation by employment history

Table 21 shows the employment history of each learner before their placement in Youth Training. Most categories of learners have remained steady at around 1999 levels and the majority of participants have never worked in paid employment or have only ever worked part-time.

The proportion of learners who have worked part-time has increased between 1999 and 2008 by about 5 percentage points. The proportion who have worked full-time for over a year or more has halved between 1999 and 2008.

Table 21 – Youth Training placements by  previous employment history by year

Note: employment history is a self report by the learner and is not verified by the TEC on placement in Youth Training. Source: Tertiary Education Commission.
Learner employment  history	1999 (%)	2000 (%)	2001 (%)	2002 (%)	2003 (%)	2004 (%)	2005 (%)	2006 (%)	2007 (%)	2008 (%)
Unknown / N/a	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.0
Never worked in  paid employment	36.9	38.5	37.1	35.7	35.7	35.6	35.6	35.0	36.4	38.4
Only Worked Part-time	37.7	37.6	38.5	40.5	39.0	39.0	40.3	42.2	42.2	41.7
Worked Full-time  for less than 1 year	15.3	15.2	15.9	16.3	17.3	17.6	16.6	16.0	16.1	15.4
Worked Full-time  for 1 year or more	10.1	8.6	8.4	7.5	8.0	7.8	7.3	6.6	5.2	4.5
Unknown / N/a	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.0

 

4.8 Participation by original eligibility criteria

Learners must meet certain eligibility criteria to be allowed to participate in Youth Training. Nationality criteria require learners to hold New Zealand, Cook Islands, Nuiean or Tokelauan citizenship; hold New Zealand residency status, or have been granted refugee status and are required to study as part of their residency requirements. Learners should be less than 18 years old on initial acceptance in Youth Training or have left school within six months.

In addition, learners’ educational and labour market histories are inferred from their report of their educational attainment and their employment history (see preceding sections). The TEC collects two forms of eligibility criteria for each learner: their ‘original’ eligibility, which is the criteria under which they are initially permitted to enter Youth Training, and if their current placement is not their first, their ‘current’ eligibility, which is the criteria under which they are permitted to enter their current placement. Table 22 shows the various eligibility criteria and associated short codes as at May 2007.

Table 22 – Youth Training eligibility criteria as at May 2007

Note: qualification attainment is a self report by the learner and is not verified by the TEC on placement in Youth Training. Source: Tertiary Education Commission.
Eligibility for  Youth Training	Short code
Aged less than  18 with low qualifications and have left school or been exempt from school	LQ16/17
Aged 18 or over  and have left school within the last 26 weeks with low or no qualifications	SL18+
Aged less than  18, enrolled in Workbridge, and referred after an in-depth interview	WBR-YT
Aged less than  18 and a refugee who has left the Mangere refugee centre or entered the  country within the last year	REF-YT
Aged less than  18 years, referred by Work and Income as a youth client, referred by the  Youth Transitions service or registered unemployed for 13 weeks or more, with  no tertiary qualifications. The TEC applies an upper limit of 15% regionally  for learners with higher qualifications entering under this criterion. The  TEC grants approval on a case by case basis for learners without low  qualifications. A letter from the Youth Transitions service is considered  sufficient evidence	YNYOUTH
Aged less than  18 years, have left or been exempt from school with 81 or more credits on the  National Qualifications Framework (NQF) but have NCEA results that show fewer  than a total of 12 credits in English (literacy) and/or mathematics  (numeracy)	YT_FDS
Learners  re-entering the Youth Training programme within a period of six months retain  eligibility if they have fewer than 240 credits	ASSESYT

Table 23 shows the proportion of the total number of placements by each of these categories by the original eligibility of each learner. The majority of learners participating at any one time qualified for entrance to the programme originally under the LQ16/17 criteria. The YNYOUTH category grew a little across 1999 to 2008 so that it now accounts for 1.3 percent of placements by learners. The YT_FDS skills category was introduced after the Building Futures review in 2002 concluded that the Youth Training (and Training Opportunities) should be widened to include learners who lack foundation skills. The proportion of placements by YT_FDS learners peaked at 7.5 percent of all learners in 2006 but had dropped down to 4.4 percent by 2008.

Table 23 – Youth Training placements by original eligibility criteria by year

Original  eligibility criteria of learner	1999 (%)	2000 (%)	2001 (%)	2002 (%)	2003 (%)	2004 (%)	2005 (%)	2006 (%)	2007 (%)	2008 (%)
EXCPTN	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.5	0.5	0.9	1.0	2.1	1.6	1.5
LQ16/17	88.2	96.2	94.8	94.8	93.6	90.0	88.6	87.0	89.7	90.5
Other	3.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Refugee	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
SL 18+	2.0	0.7	2.3	2.8	2.5	2.1	1.3	1.3	1.8	1.9
UNKNOWN	3.3	0.7	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0
WorkBridge	2.1	1.1	1.4	1.1	0.7	0.8	0.6	0.9	0.7	0.4
YNYOUTH	0.5	0.8	0.9	0.8	1.1	1.7	2.1	1.2	1.4	1.3
YT_FDS	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	1.6	4.5	6.4	7.5	4.8	4.4

Learners may have multiple placements in Youth Training, which occur usually sequentially rather than concurrently as training is close to full-time. Table 24 shows the eligibility criteria for each learner at each placement. It shows that at any one time, around 37 percent of learners have re-entered Youth Training from a previous placement. The proportion placed under the LQ16/17 category has fallen by around 5 percentage points between 1999 and 2008 and exception to eligibility criteria placements have increased by almost 1 percentage point in that time.

Table 24 – Youth Training placements by eligibility criteria by year

Source: Tertiary Education Commission.
eligibility  criteria of learner at placement	1999 (%)	2000 (%)	2001 (%)	2002 (%)	2003 (%)	2004 (%)	2005 (%)	2006 (%)	2007 (%)	2008 (%)
ASSESYT	36.8	36.9	37.2	35.5	36.9	36.4	37.2	34.8	39.3	37.1
EXCPTN	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.7	0.7	1.7	0.9	1.1
LQ16/17	60.3	61.0	59.1	60.9	58.4	56.2	54.7	55.9	54.8	56.5
REF_YT	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
SL18+	1.3	0.5	1.7	1.9	1.6	1.3	0.7	0.9	1.2	1.2
WBR-YT	0.8	0.7	1.0	0.7	0.4	0.6	0.3	0.7	0.4	0.3
YNYOUTH	0.5	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.8	1.4	1.6	0.7	1.0	0.9
YT_FDS	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	1.4	3.5	4.7	5.3	2.4	2.9

 

Footnotes

7. In this paper, ‘participation’ in Youth Training is deemed to occur if a person is placed in a programme in a year. Placements in each year are counted for distinct individuals, that is, if a person is placed into a programme more than once in a year, the person is counted only once. ‘Participation’ and ‘placement’ are used interchangeably.
8. The effects of the present economic downturn were not seriously felt until early 2009 for the majority of the working population of New Zealand, although there are signs that younger people may have been experiencing the early effects by mid-2008.
9. Department of Labour, 2009.
10. Department of Labour, 2009.
11. However, it is possible that the NEET rate, as measured in the HLFS, may not adequately reflect the rate of youth inactivity, due to point in time, sampling errors and survey response changes.
12. Ibid.
13. Department of Labour, 2009.
14. Ibid.
15. Ministry of Education, 2008.
16. The official measure of unemployment is a count of the number of people in the labour force who are not working. Young women may not be considered to be in the labour force if care giving is their main activity.