1. THE LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
YOUTH GUARANTEE:
LESSONS FROM PRACTICE
OECD Forum on Partnerships and Local Development
10th Annual Meeting, 23-25 April 2014
Stockholm, Sweden

2. Overview
1. Context and rationale for the study
2. Methodology
3. Main findings
4. Questions for discussion

3. Context: Youth hit hard by the crisis
Source: Eurostat, LFS
Youth unemployment: 23.4% in January 2014

4. Significant cross-national disparities
Youth Unemployment, December 2013
Source: Eurostat, LFS

5. As well as regional…
Source:
European
Commission

6. NEET rates
2011: 12.9% in the EU, 15.8% in the OECD
Source: Eurostat, LFS

7. Council Recommendation on establishing the Youth
Guarantee, 22 April 2013:
“[Member States should] ensure that all young people
under the age of 25 years receive a good-quality offer of
employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a
traineeship within a period of four months of becoming
unemployed or leaving formal education”.
EU funding: Youth Employment Initiative (€6 billion over
2014-2015 + ESF 2014-2020 - €71 billion), targeted on
regions where youth unemployment exceeds 25%.
The European Youth Guarantee

8. The six implementation axes
Building-up
partnership based
approaches
Swift
implementation
of the scheme
Assessment and
continuous
improvement of
the scheme
Use of EU
Structural Funds
Early
intervention and
activation
measures
Supportive
measures for
labour market
integration

9. • Reviews experience in 7 EU countries
which have recently implemented
measures akin to the Youth
Guarantees.
• Focuses on instruments that depart
from traditional placement services
such as labour market information,
career’s guidance, counselling and job
search assistance.
LEED Study on the Local
Implementation of Youth Guarantees

10. Questions
•Under what framework conditions (both national and local)
are youth guarantees effective?
•Do certain local areas perform better than others? And if
so, why?
•What factors can explain local variations?
Methodology
•Mapping of national policy framework through review of
literature
•Interviews with national policy makers responsible for
youth guarantee
•Semi-structured telephone interviews with local PES
representatives (one interview per local case study area).
LEED Study on the Local
Implementation of Youth Guarantees

11. Shaping local Youth Guarantees – a
framework for analysis

12. The offer Full range of options available (individual counselling, career
advice, vocational guidance, training, apprenticeships, continued
education, internships, work trials, job subsidies). Possibility to
combine measures
Entitlements and
target groups
Universality principle: open to a wide diversity of groups (including
NEETs, potential school drop-outs, graduates - even up to the
age of 30).
Conditionality YP free to refuse an offer they don’t want without being
sanctioned
Temporal
dimension/Time scale
Focused on “path” as opposed to “entry”. Hence early to follow up
interventions are implemented.
The guarantee is activated within a very short time (a few weeks)
following registration with the PES.
Geographical
coverage
Full territorial coverage (no just in selected localities)
Funding Significant levels of national funding (irrespective of ESF
entitlements)
Delivery actors Broad-based partnerships beyond the PES (including youth
groups and representatives)
Other institutional and
operational features
Attempts to embed the YG in national legislation and to develop
effective monitoring tools.
A strong Youth Guarantee: “an ideal type”
of design and delivery features

13. Relevant YG instruments
Country Scheme/Instrument(s)
Denmark Youth Employment and Education
Programmes (focus on education)
Finland Youth Guarantee (revised version
of the 2005 “Social Guarantee”)
Flanders IBO (individual in-company
training) + Loopbaanakkoord
Germany Guidance and placement
Norway Combination of work experience
and training
Poland “Your Career Your Choice”
Sweden Job Guarantee (revised in 2011)

14. •
Case study localities
Large conurbations Remote areas
Name Population Name Population
Berlin Brandenburg
(Germany)
6 million leper (Flanders) 35,000
Copenhagen
(Denmark)
559,500 Ljusdal (Sweden) 19,500
Ghent
(Flanders)
248,200 Ostrów Mazowiecka
(Poland)
23,500
Kristiansand
(Norway)
89,770 Rosenheim
(Germany)
60,700
Poznan (Poland) 552,735 Skive (Denmark) 20,500
Stockholm (Sweden) 851,150 Sotkamo (Finland) 10,700
Vantaa
(Finland)
206,960 Tvedestrand
(Norway)
6,000

15. Main findings
• Strengths and weaknesses arising from local
labour market conditions:
 geographical spread (e.g. Berlin, Vantaa) or
remoteness reduce mobility and sometimes lead
to specific actions (e.g. Sotkamo)
 opportunities in rising sectors (e.g. tourism in
some remote localities such as Skive (but also
threat because of seasonality)
 Dependency on major local employer(s) or
employment sector(s) (e.g. leper with Picanol)

16. • Early interventions: an increasingly important
approach in many localities but variable degree
of cooperation between PES and schools.
• Engaging employers: remaining difficulty, lack
of resources – need for innovative projects
(Petra: ESF-funded project in Vantaa).
• Outreach activities: more common in remote
and well performing labour markets but can
create duplication/tensions with social work.
• The relationship between partnership models
and the nature of the local labour market: broad
platforms in large cities (e.g. Ghent at Work).
Main findings

17. • Guarantee of opportunity or guarantee of
outcome?
• Lack of flexibility at the local level
• The provision of mobility grants
• The timing of intervention
• The involvement of young people
• Broadening local partnerships
• Ongoing lack of indicators
• The right scale for policy transfer
Issues for attention

18. Questions for today’s discussion
1) What can the local level achieve in
the delivery of Youth Guarantees?
2) What are the most appropriate
approaches for those who need it
the most (early school leavers,
NEETs, etc.)?
3) How to ensure sustainable labour
market outcomes?