Economic and Social Reports
The NEETEST youth: Not in employment, education or training, excluding short transitions

Recent evidence has pointed to a weakening (i.e., “slackening”) of the youth labour market, or indications that there are increasingly more young job seekers than there are jobs available for youth. Indeed, the September 2025 unemployment rate for youth (those aged 15 to 24 years) was 14.6%— the highest rate since September 2010 (excluding the COVID-19 pandemic years of 2020 and 2021).^Note This reignites longstanding concerns associated with unproductive youth,^Note who may be at risk for economic and social difficulties. On a broader scale, this situation may have long-term ramifications for the economy and society.

A standard way of identifying at-risk youth is through the concept of “not in employment, education or training” (NEET).^Note This measure is informative because it estimates the stock of at-risk youth over specified periods (often short), which could be closely correlated with time-varying determinants such as economic conditions. However, NEET is measured at a snapshot date^Note (generally with the Labour Force Survey), which could capture short-term transitions between jobs or schooling (i.e., normal frictions in the labour market). Moreover, with few exceptions, youth who provide care for their own children or others are classified as NEET.^Note Yet caregiving is often a form of paid employment, so it is clearly a form of productive activity. As such, caregiving (even if unpaid) could arguably be excluded from any measure of being potentially at risk for economic and social difficulties.^Note

This short article proposes a narrower alternative to NEET that addresses both concerns. Youth are considered not in employment, education or training, excluding short transitions (NEETEST), if they were NEET (excluding unpaid caregiving) for a period of one full year.^Note To do so, the article leverages the T1 Family File (T1FF), the Longitudinal Worker File (a combination of T1 files, T4 files, Record of Employment files and the Longitudinal Employment Analysis Program) and the Postsecondary Student Information System (PSIS).^Note Specifically, youth are NEETEST if, during a full calendar year, they did not work (i.e., they did not claim T4 wages and salaries, gross self-employment income, or other employment income on their T1 tax form and they did not receive a T4 slip from their employer), they were not at school (i.e., they did not claim tuition credits on their T1 tax form, did not appear in the PSIS data as enrollees and did not have a job separation to return to school based on their Record of Employment) and they did not provide care for others (i.e., they did not claim the Canada caregiver credit^Note on their T1 tax form; were not on maternity or parental leave;^Note and did not have a job separation for pregnancy, parental leave or compassionate care based on their Record of Employment). The article focuses on youth aged 20 to 29 because younger individuals may be in high school, given compulsory school laws, or taking a gap year after high school by choice. The analysis is also limited to individuals living in the provinces because the Labour Force Survey does not provide complete coverage in the territories.

The analysis consists of two parts. First, the annual NEET and NEETEST rates are shown for all available years (2017 to 2022). This is followed by a basic profile of NEET and NEETEST youth in 2022, based on various socioeconomic characteristics that can be measured with the 2021 Census of Population: gender, age, highest level of educational attainment,^Note province of residence and community size (census metropolitan area [CMA], census agglomeration [CA], or not a CMA or CA).^Note

About 7% to 8% of youth in their 20s were NEETEST: They did not work, attend school or provide care for others throughout a given year

Chart 1 compares the percentage of youth aged 20 to 29 who were NEET or NEETEST, from 2017 to 2022. Generally, almost twice as many youth were considered NEET, compared with NEETEST. This is not surprising because NEET is a snapshot measure, while NEETEST is an annual measure. Moreover, the NEETEST measure excludes individuals who provide care for others. 

Data table for Chart 1

Data table for chart 1
Table summary
This table displays the results of Data table for chart 1 NEET and NEETEST, calculated using percent units of measure (appearing as column headers).

	NEET	NEETEST
	percent
Notes: NEET = not in employment, education or training; NEETEST = not in employment, education or training, excluding short transitions. Sources: Statistics Canada, Labour Force Survey (NEET) and T1 Family File, Longitudinal Worker File, Postsecondary Student Information System, and 2021 Census of Population (NEETEST).
2017	13.8	7.8
2018	13.1	7.6
2019	13.0	7.4
2020	19.2	8.0
2021	14.6	8.0
2022	12.5	7.6

Over the period of study, the NEET rate was usually 13% to 14%. The exception was during the COVID-19 pandemic, when several retail stores and restaurants (where many youth were employed) had to close or limit their operations for safety measures. The NEET rate jumped from 13.0% in 2019 to 19.2% in 2020 and remained relatively high in 2021 (14.6%).

By contrast, the NEETEST rate was more stable over the period, ranging from 7% to 8% throughout. The NEETEST rate rose slightly during the pandemic, from 7.4% in 2019 to 8.0% in 2020 and 2021. The relative stability of the NEETEST measure over time may not be entirely surprising, given its annual—rather than monthly—approach to measurement. The fact that the lockdowns related to the pandemic began around mid-March 2020 meant that youth could work as usual in the first two and a half months of 2020, and by 2021, many lockdown measures had eased. 

Compared with NEET youth, NEETEST youth were relatively more concentrated among women, older youth, individuals with no postsecondary education, youth from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and youth outside census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations

How different are NEETEST youth from NEET youth? Table 1 paints a basic socioeconomic profile of both groups of youth in 2022.

While 8.5% of young women aged 20 to 29 were NEETEST in 2022, 6.7% of their male counterparts were NEETEST that year. By contrast, the NEET rates were almost the same for men (12.5%) and women (12.4%), even though the definition of NEET includes individuals providing caregiving (which is more common among women), while the opposite is true for the NEETEST definition.

The pattern by age group was similar. NEET rates were more or less the same for those aged 20 to 24 (12.6%) and 25 to 29 (12.4%). However, the NEETEST rate was higher for the older group (8.6%) than for the younger one (6.5%).

NEETEST youth were also relatively more concentrated among individuals with lower levels of educational attainment, especially those with no postsecondary credentials. For example, 15.7% of high school graduates (with no further completed education) were NEET, compared with 9.1% of bachelor’s degree graduates (resulting in a ratio of 1.7:1). By contrast, 7.6% of high school graduates were NEETEST, compared with 2.6% of bachelor’s degree graduates (resulting in a ratio of 2.9:1). 

Geographically, Quebec registered the lowest NEET rate (9.7%), while the highest rates could be found in Newfoundland and Labrador (17.3%) and New Brunswick (16.2%). All other provinces registered NEET rates from 11.8% to 13.4%. Based on the NEETEST rate, Quebec ranked second lowest, at 5.6%, behind Prince Edward Island (4.7%). Most other provinces posted substantially lower NEETEST rates compared with their respective NEET rates, except for Manitoba (12.5%) and Saskatchewan (13.2%)—both similar to their respective NEET rates.

Finally, NEET and NEETEST rates varied considerably by community size. While 11.9% of youth in CMAs were NEET, 15.0% of youth outside CMAs or CAs were in the same situation (resulting in a ratio of 1.3:1). By contrast, 6.8% of youth in CMAs were NEETEST, compared with 12.4% of youth outside CMAs or CAs in the same situation (resulting in a ratio of 1.8:1).

Discussion

This article compared two complementary approaches to quantifying youth potentially at risk for economic and social difficulties. Overall, almost twice as many youth were considered NEET, compared with NEETEST, over most of the period of study (2017 to 2022). Moreover, the NEET rate was more sensitive to large economic fluctuations; this is not surprising given that it is measured at a point in time rather than over a full year (as with the NEETEST measure). Youth who were NEETEST were relatively more concentrated among women, older youth, individuals with no postsecondary education, youth from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and youth outside CMAs and CAs.

These differences in the characteristics of NEET and NEETEST youth, particularly by province of residence and community size, may be because of differences in other characteristics, economic factors, education or caregiving opportunities, etc. A useful avenue for future research would be to further investigate these differences based on a broader set of factors within a multivariate framework.

Authors

Marc Frenette and Tomasz Handler are with the Economic and Social Analysis and Modelling Division, Analytical Studies and Modelling Branch, at Statistics Canada.

References

Bourbeau, E., & Pelletier, R. (2019). Young people not in employment, education or training: What did they do in the past 12 months? Labour Statistics at a Glance, Catalogue no. 71-222-X. Statistics Canada.

Contini, D., Filandri, M., & Pacelli, L. (2019). Persistency in the NEET state: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Youth Studies, 22(7), 959–980.

Statistics Canada. (2025). Education Indicators in Canada: Handbook for the Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program (Catalogue no. 81-582-G).