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
of the scheme
Use of EU
9. • Reviews experience in 7 EU countries
which have recently implemented
measures akin to the Youth
• Focuses on instruments that depart
from traditional placement services
such as labour market information,
career’s guidance, counselling and job
LEED Study on the Local
Implementation of Youth Guarantees
•Under what framework conditions (both national and local)
are youth guarantees effective?
•Do certain local areas perform better than others? And if
•What factors can explain local variations?
•Mapping of national policy framework through review of
•Interviews with national policy makers responsible for
•Semi-structured telephone interviews with local PES
representatives (one interview per local case study area).
LEED Study on the Local
Implementation of Youth Guarantees
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
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
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.
Full territorial coverage (no just in selected localities)
Funding Significant levels of national funding (irrespective of ESF
Delivery actors Broad-based partnerships beyond the PES (including youth
groups and representatives)
Other institutional and
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
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
Poland “Your Career Your Choice”
Sweden Job Guarantee (revised in 2011)
Case study localities
Large conurbations Remote areas
Name Population Name Population
6 million leper (Flanders) 35,000
559,500 Ljusdal (Sweden) 19,500
248,200 Ostrów Mazowiecka
Poznan (Poland) 552,735 Skive (Denmark) 20,500
Stockholm (Sweden) 851,150 Sotkamo (Finland) 10,700
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).
17. • Guarantee of opportunity or guarantee of
• 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,
3) How to ensure sustainable labour
Notas do Editor
Youth hit hard by the crisis … In 2012, 16.3% young people aged below 25 were registered as unemployed in the OECD. In the European Union, the youth unemployment rate reached a new historic high of 23.5% in February 2013, more than twice as high as the adult rate, with some 5.7 million young people affected. Approximately one third had been out of work for over than 12 months. … with low-skilled youth hit hardest Young people who have only completed lower secondary education (early leavers from education and training) bear the highest risk of unemployment. In 2012, 30.3% low-skilled youth were out of work (compared an overall youth unemployment rate of 22.8%). … and NEET rates worryingly high There were 7.5 million NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training) across the EU, representing 12.9 % of young Europeans (aged between 15-24). Youth guarantee can be effective in preventing young people from drifting into long-term unemployment European policy-makers have thus called for urgent action on youth employment, notably via the implementation of Youth Guarantees (YG), a scheme which seeks to ensure that all young people aged under 25 receive a good-quality offer of employment, continued education, apprenticeship or traineeship within four months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal education. Using macroeconomic and national data, the emerging literature has shown that YG can be effective in achieving the primary objective of keeping young people connected to the labour market or to continued education thereby preventing them from drifting into long-term unemployment From 2014, the EU has made 6 billion euros available via the Youth Opportunities Initiative (YOI) to those regions and localities that display youth unemployment rates of over 25%. However, little is known about the local implementation and employment outcomes of YG. This knowledge gap is being addressed by the current LEED study on the local implementation of youth guarantee as part of the work on tackling disadvantage in a time of limited resources
Eight countries with relevant youth activation policy instruments were selected (Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Finland, Sweden) and in each of those countries, two contrasting localities (a remote area versus a large conurbation) were selected to conduct qualitative researchThe main criterion for selection is that instruments (generally implemented through the Public Employment Service) depart from traditional passive (or “semi-active”) services such as labour market information, career’s guidance, counselling and job search assistance. The YG schemes go a step further on the activation route offering young job seekers genuine opportunities to build their human capital through work experience (e.g. subsidised employment, apprenticeships, work placements with a community or non-profit organisation) or the acquisition of additional skills via continued education or a traineeship.
Indeed, labour markets are local in their nature and performance. The guiding hypothesis behind the study is that both the local nature of the labour market (volume and type of employment vacancies, educational, training infrastructure and opportunities, skills levels and gaps, etc.) together with local governance mechanisms and processes (competition, cooperation, partnership and interaction between local labour actors) explain variations in outcomes. When identified, these factors can eventually lead to recommendations for those countries seeking either to improve their practices or to develop new approaches. Methodology Some methodological caveats: among the eight participating countries, only Poland displays very high levels of youth unemployment (with 27.3% nationally in 2013, it is above the 25% threshold to qualify for EU funding). Moreover, two major EU member countries (France and the UK) and the South European member countries (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece) where youth joblessness is very acute were not included in the study. From a comparative (national) welfare state typology perspective, this absence may be seen as problematic. Nonetheless, the chosen focus on local variations and mechanisms and the participation of all those countries that are considered to be the most advanced with regard to the implementation of YG means that some meaningful lessons can be drawn.
Guarantee of opportunity or guarantee of outcome?All countries may need to consider the distinction between a guarantee of offer and a guarantee of outcome. Even if the PES makes a wide range of offers available, if it cannot ensure that all unemployed young people will actually be placed in a stable and lasting job, training or educational path, the notion of guarantee may lose its meaning. At present, the only country which is near the guarantee of outcome model is Finland. The suitability of the educational focusAt the national level, particularly for countries which adopt a strong educational focus for their YG: is this model applicable to all young people? Some youngsters may find a vocational or apprenticeship route better suited to their aspirations. The involvement of young peopleIt is striking that youth organisations are rarely consulted with regard to shaping YG either at the national or local level. Whether this major weakness is due to a lack of such representative organisations or to a lack of political commitment would be worth clarifying. Of course, some organisations like youth guidance Centres work in close cooperation with the local PES office (as in Denmark). Their involvement is undoubtedly useful to add specific expertise. However, such entities are administered by municipalities and do not directly represent the voice of young people. Broadening local partnershipsWhile there is of course little sense in involving a plethora of actors just for the sake of forming local partnerships, many local respondents tended to identify just one partner for the delivery of their youth guarantees. Broadening partnerships may be a means to expand the options available. This applies in particular to the local employer base and to local municipalities. The provision of mobility grantsWhile some localities mentioned using such instruments, they tend to be quite rare as offers tend to concentrate on the local labour market. Mobility grants might be helpful to compensate the lack of opportunities in depressed local labour markets. However, they would require strong PES inter-regional cooperation to support the young person’s move.The timing of interventionWhile most respondents mentioned that their YG opportunities occurred within the 4 months framework defined by the European Union (in some instances much earlier – within a few weeks), means to improve the swiftness of the intervention will need to be considered. Policy transferWhen seeking to transfer YG initiatives, it may be much more relevant to refer to types of local labour markets than seeking to import or copy a specific national model. For example, a depressed locality in Italy with high youth unemployment including graduates would be ill-advised to import the “Norwegian model” or “the German model”.