Abstract:

Young people aged 15 to 29 not in employment, education or training (NEET) remain a continues challenge across the EU. Eurostat data indicate that the NEET rate in 2024 in the EU was 11%. In Slovenia, it was 7.6%, while in Lithuania it reached 14.7%, nearly double despite similar population and sizes. However, although the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 impacted NEET rates across the whole EU; Slovenia’s rate remained stable, while Lithuania’s increased, reaching its highest in 10 years in 2024, nearly double Slovenia’s rate.

To address the issue, both countries implement EU policy-guided local projects, such as PUM-O+ (Project-Based on Learning for Young Adults) in Slovenia and JUNGTYS and Jaunimo Praktinių Įgūdžių Ugdymas [Youth Practical Skills Development] in Lithuania. These programmes function as alternative learning environments and provide NEET youth with a range of support services.

Furthermore, practitioners (youth workers, educators, social workers) working in these programs, provide professional guidance, social skills development, mediate between young people and other support services, and, importantly, support young people's re-engagement with the labour market, education or training. This is accomplished through both individualized and group-based approaches, as well as collaboration with other professionals and institutions across education, employment, and social sectors. However, research on youth unemployment has mostly focused on labour-market/education strategies, overlooking the specific role of professional approaches by those working directly with NEET youth.

This qualitative study aims to analyse how such support facilitates NEET youth (re)integration within targeted programs in Slovenia and Lithuania. Guided by ecological systems and social capital theories, it uses semi-structured interviews with 10 professionals working in programmes targeting NEET youth, which are analysed using thematic analysis. It explores the types of support, the resources and support mechanisms available for NEET youth, and practitioners’ perspectives on how broader social and educational policy frameworks shape their everyday practice.

Preliminary findings suggest that in Lithuania, practitioners tend to rely more on individualized guidance, while in Slovenia, a stronger focus is given to group-based activities that encourage peer learning and collaborative skills development. Collaboration with other professionals and institutions exists in both contexts, but Slovenia’s programmes appear to be better known across sectors, enabling stronger collaboration and easier access to resources and support mechanisms for NEET youth. Key barriers include housing shortages, rural exclusion, and limited vocational training opportunities.

The study highlights how support in alternative learning environments can facilitate the re-engagement of NEET youth. It also emphasizes the importance of integrating holistic social and alternative learning support into education and training policies. These findings are relevant for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers seeking to strengthen transition pathways for vulnerable youth across Europe.

Keywords:

NEET Youth, Youth Support Programmes, Integration to Education and Employment, Slovenia and Lithuania.