EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 22.5.2018 SWD(2018) 168 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Results of the open method of coordination in the youth field 2010-2018 Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS



Engaging, Connecting and Empowering young people: a new EU Youth Strategy

{COM(2018) 269 final}

{SWD(2018) 169 final}



Table of Contents Introduction Section 1 – Main achievements of the youth cooperation 2016-2018 1.1. Implementation of the EU Work Plan for Youth 2016-2018 1.2. Towards evidence-based youth policy 1.3. Updates in the legal framework and youth policy in Member States Section 2 – Lessons from the strategy’s evaluation 2.1. Main findings 2.2. Recommendations for the future Section 3 – Outcomes of the national reports 3.1. Progress towards the overall objectives and cross-sectoral cooperation 3.2. Mutual learning, dissemination and take-up of results 3.3. Supporting and developing youth work 3.4. Cross-border mobility of young volunteers 3.5. Structured Dialogue with young people and youth organisations 3.6. EU programmes and funds Section 4 – Other stakeholder consultations 4.1. Outcomes of the consultations 4.2. Views of other EU institutions and bodies

Section 5 – Outline of the future cooperation 5.1. Analysis of main changes needed for the EU Youth Strategy 5.2 Priority areas of the EU Youth Strategy 5.3. Renewed governance mechanisms for greater impact Annexes A. Council resolutions and conclusions on youth 2010-2017 B. National Reports replies on the influence of the EU Youth Strategy on the national and local level C. Evidence-based youth policy: list of studies carried out 2010-2018 D. Mutual learning: list of expert groups and results 2010-2018 E. Mutual learning: list of peer-learning activities and results 2014-2018 F. Structured Dialogue: list of topics per cycle 2010-2018 G. Structured Dialogue Cycle V - January 2016 to June 2017 (consultation numbers) H. EU initiatives and action in the eight fields of action I. Possible policy indicators for the priority areas proposed for the future cooperation over the period 2019-2027 J. Possible actions for a future EU Work Plan for Youth for 2019-2021 K. Glossary



Introduction EU youth cooperation can build on 30 years of experience, starting with a funding programme and since 2001 supported by policy cooperation. The Council adopted the current framework for European cooperation in the youth field, also known as the European Union (EU) Youth Strategy, in 2009 for the period 2010-2018. This framework is divided into three-year work cycles, at the end of which the Commission draws up a EU Youth Report.

The Commission now proposes to renew the EU Youth Strategy for 2019-2027. To support its strategic proposals in the dedicated Communication, the Commission provides in this Staff Working Document an assessment of the strategy (alongside another Staff Working Document providing statistics on the situation of young people). The document notably: ·takes stock of key achievements in the 2016-2018 period (Section 1), ·presents evidence from an external evaluation, Member States’ reports and outcomes of consultations (Sections 2-4), ·substantiates the key proposals made for the new EU Youth Strategy (2019-2027), in particular on the renewed EU Youth Dialogue (Section 5), ·proposes a list of policy indicators (Annex I), ·proposes a draft Work Plan (2019-2021) for consideration to Council (Annex J), All sections are illustrated by examples of actions at EU and national level. During 2010-2018, EU youth policy cooperation aimed at (1) creating more and equal opportunities for young people in education and the labour market and (2) promoting active citizenship, social inclusion and solidarity. To this purpose, the strategy aside from tackling classic youth topics took a cross-sectoral approach to emphasize the youth perspective in other EU policies such as education, health, employment and social inclusion. The strategy was implemented by gathering evidence-based, mutual learning, dialogue with young people and the mobilisation of relevant spending programmes. The interim evaluation of the Youth Strategy and stakeholder consultation during a full year of listening confirmed that EU youth cooperation has proven its value. It triggered both policy and legislative changes at national level and contributed to the capacity of organisations active in the youth field. Structured dialogue, mobilisation of EU funds, mutual learning and knowledge building are seen as the most influential instruments. At the same time, the evaluation noted areas for improvement: the priorities have been too wide-ranging, which resulted in a quasi 'a-la-carte' approach, where none of the Member States addressed all eight fields of action. This, coupled with the lack of strong monitoring tools, reduced the strategy’s effectiveness. Reaching a diverse and critical mass of young people, in particular those with fewer opportunities and active at grassroots level remains challenging. Stakeholders also pointed to the need to improve the impact of dialogue mechanisms and increase ownership of the EU Youth Strategy by greater stakeholder involvement. Duly considering the above lessons, the Commission proposes a new EU Youth Strategy (2019-2027) based on the following adaptations: ·More focus and flexibility to adapt European priorities in national contexts; ·Wider outreach to young people, in particular those with fewer opportunities; ·A new approach to working across policy areas; ·Improved transparency and monitoring framework; ·Multi-level and participatory governance; ·A clearer link between EU youth policy and related EU programme activities. Section 1 – Main achievements of the youth cooperation 2016-2018

1.1. Implementation of the EU Work Plan for Youth 2016-2018 In line with the strategy’s reporting requirements, this document reports on the third and last three-year cycle of implementation of the EU Youth Strategy. The Council adopted an EU Work Plan for Youth for the period 2016-1018 covering six lines of action, as described. The initiatives presented in the boxes under this section are youth related EU level actions in other policy areas that are linked to the priorities of the EU Work plan for youth, without being included within. Social inclusion of all young people The Structured Dialogue from 2016 to mid-2017 dealt with ‘Essential life skills and competences of young people in a diverse, connected and inclusive Europe for active participation in community and working life.’ Its outcomes were reflected in a Council resolution on Structured Dialogue in May 2017. The Youth Ministers adopted at the same time Council conclusions on ‘the role of youth work in supporting young people’s development of essential life skills that facilitate their successful transition to adulthood, active citizenship and working life.’ The Council also adopted Conclusions on role of the youth sector in preventing violent radicalisation in May 2016. Based on these conclusions, a Member States’ expert group examined evidence and good practice related to the role that youth work can play to promote active citizenship and prevent marginalisation and violent radicalisation. The Commission, following the results of expert cooperation on quality of youth work under the previous work plan (2014-2015) released a handbook on youth work quality systems and frameworks in the EU. Participation of all young people in democratic and civic life in Europe The Commission presented a study on the impact of transnational volunteering through the European Voluntary Service in 2017. It focused on impact both at individual level and at the level of organisations and local communities. It identified options to enhance the impact for individuals and organisations, especially for young people with fewer opportunities. The Maltese Presidency organised a Peer Learning Seminar on Democracy, Youth and Sport in May 2017. Transition of young people to adulthood, in particular into the labour market The EU Youth Strategy has put a strong emphasis on cross sectoral cooperation and synergies with activities developed through EU employment policies. The Commission presented a study on Youth work and youth entrepreneurship in 2017, which includes a mapping of youth work activities in this area. A peer learning activity supported by Erasmus+ took place in 2017 about ‘Youth work as a recognised tool for supporting young people’s transition to adulthood and the world of work.’ European Apprentices Network Since the launch of the European Alliance for Apprenticeships (EAfA) in 2013, greater emphasis is put on apprenticeships as a successful pathway for young people in transition from school to work. The EAfA joins 36 EU, EFTA and candidate countries and over 230 stakeholders (businesses, social partners, chambers, vocational education and training providers, regions, youth representatives or think tanks), to strengthen the quality, supply and image of apprenticeships in Europe, and to enhance apprentice mobility. A Council Recommendation on a European Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships, adopted in March 2018, sets out 14 criteria on learning and working conditions, as well as on framework conditions, that improve the quality and effectiveness of apprenticeships, to the benefit of learners, companies and society. In 2017 the Commission launched the European Apprentices Network (EAN), together with the European Youth Forum (YFJ) and the Organising Bureau of European School Student Unions (OBESSU). They agreed on the following tasks for the network: ·To clarify the perception of young people on apprenticeships through exchanging experiences, discussing challenges and sharing information on e.g. educational and employment policies and research. ·To function as an informal consultative body for the Commission on apprenticeships, particularly for the EAfA in relation to EU proposals/initiatives, events and meetings. ·To promote apprenticeships as a worthwhile career choice (e.g. through ambassadors for apprenticeships). ·To facilitate contacts between youth organisations and other actors in apprenticeships, especially members of the EAfA. The network includes fifteen members from twelve countries. They collectively identified seven priorities for the next years: 1)Quality education and quality assurance 2)Rights, responsibilities and protection 3)Legally binding agreements 4)Representation 5)Promoting apprenticeships 6)Anti-discrimination 7)Accessible information https://apprenticesnetwork.eu/ EMPLOYMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP Mobilising instruments to improve young people’s school to work transitions The Youth Guarantee, launched in 2013 and reaffirmed by the European Pillar of Social Rights, has become a reality across the EU. It gave opportunities to more than 3.5 million young people each year and was a driver for structural reforms and innovation in Member States. The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) supported the implementation of the Guarantee with a budget of EUR 8.8 billion during 2014-20 reaching already 1.7 million young people. Further efforts are nonetheless needed to reach more young people, especially those currently out of reach and to get better quality offers. Cooperation between the employment, education and youth sectors is key in this regard and has to be boosted. The Commission supports Member States to fully roll out their Youth Guarantee schemes: it monitors progress on the ground in the context of the European Semester, through specific data collection and in cooperation with the Employment Committee. It also provides numerous opportunities for mutual learning, among others through a database of promising practice and peer support to Spain and Cyprus. The European Social Fund supports youth entrepreneurship (investment priority dedicated to ‘self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation’) to raise awareness, facilitate mutual learning and build capacities which is further supported through financial instruments for microfinance and social entrepreneurship under the EU Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI). EMPLOYMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP Your first EURES Job Your first EURES Job (YfEJ) is an intra-EU job mobility scheme to help young people aged 18 to 35 from any of the EU countries, Iceland and Norway to find a work placement – job, traineeship or apprenticeship – in a different country from their country of residence. It also assists employers, particularly SMEs, to find the workers they need for their hard-to-fill vacancies. YfEJ is part of the 2014-2020 EU Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) as a 'targeted mobility scheme'. YfEJ offers direct funding for target groups (young people and employers) for an interview trip; relocation to the country of destination; a language course; recognition of qualifications; subsistence costs (for trainees and/or apprentices), integration programme for SMEs for the new mobile worker(s), trainee(s) or apprentice(s). Other services, e.g. training, mentoring can be made available by employment services participating in YfEJ projects. Until June 2017 (latest available data), the scheme helped 7350 young people to obtain placements. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1081 EMPLOYMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP Support to young people’s health and well-being, including mental health

A peer learning activity amongst Member States addressed ‘Participation of young people with mental health issues’ in 2016 and 2017, with a focus on youth empowerment through untapping their talents and skills. A first seminar addressed ‘the role of youth work’, the second ‘youth worker training to assist young people with mental health issues’ and the last ‘the role of schools in the inclusion of young people with mental health issues’. Tartu call for a healthy lifestyle During the 2017 European Week of Sport, Commissioners Phil Hogan (agriculture and rural development), Tibor Navracsics (education, culture, youth and sport) and Vytenis Andriukaitis (health and food safety) launched in Estonia the Tartu call for a healthy lifestyle that rolls out a roadmap for promoting healthy lifestyles in Europe, particular amongst children, over the next 2 years. The Tartu call includes: ·More funding for projects promoting sport (funded through Erasmus+) with a focus on specific settings such as schools; ·Encouraging innovative approaches to promoting and raising awareness for the benefits of healthy lifestyles through the EU's innovation and technology networks such as EIT Health and EIT Food; ·Promoting the EU school fruit, vegetables and milk scheme launched in 2017 as well as educational tools such as the teachers’ resource pack; ·Supporting campaigns to promote healthy diets and increasing the consumption of fruit and vegetables (such as the '5-a-day' campaign) within the programme to promote EU agricultural products funded each year through the Common Agricultural Policy. https://ec.europa.eu/sport/sites/sport/files/ewos-tartu-call_en.pdf HEALTH AND WELL-BEING Challenges and opportunities of the digital era for the youth sector and young people Digitalisation is increasingly impacting work realities including in youth and takes up a greater role in young people’s leisure time. The Council adopted conclusions on ‘promoting new approaches in youth work to uncover and develop the potential of young people’ in November 2016 and on ‘smart youth work’ have been agreed by the Youth Ministers in November 2017. The report of the expert group on ‘Addressing the risks, opportunities, and implications of digitalization for youth, youth work and youth policy’ provided policy recommendations, training needs and good practice examples in developing digital youth work across the EU. Safer Internet Activities at EU level – Safer Internet Centres The European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children sets out actions for online safety, combining financial support, legislation and self-regulation, involving Member States, industry and civil society. Under this framework, the EU co-funds a pan-European network of Safer Internet Centres, coordinated by Insafe and INHOPE, along with the core platform betterinternetforkids.eu as a single entry point for online tools and services for EU citizens and the Safer Internet community. The Centres deliver a range of awareness-ranging activities, including developing resources, hosting trainings and events for children and young people, and those that care for them, such as parents, carers, teachers, educators and other professionals in the children’s workforce. In 2016, Safer Internet Centres reached over 3 million people through events and trainings. Their helplines received more than 36,000 contacts connected to online issues such as cyberbullying and sextortion. The Commission's annual Safer Internet Day is now celebrated in over 140 countries on all continents and reached more than 20 million EU citizens in 2016. https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/web/portal/policy/insafe-inhope HEALTH AND WELL-BEING Finally, the Commission presented a study on ‘the impact of the Internet and social media on youth participation and youth work’ in 2018; it analyses new, alternative forms of young people’s participation alongside new ways of political engagement and interaction. It examines the role of youth work in supporting young people to develop digital skills and media literacy to exploit the new medium with a critical mind, together with new skills and competences required by youth workers in this changing context. Digital Education Action Plan The Commission’s Digital Education Action Plan (2018) outlines how the EU can help individuals, educational institutions and education systems to better adapt for life and work in an age of rapid digital change by making better use of digital technology for teaching and learning, developing relevant digital competences and skills for the digital transformation; and improving education through better data analysis and foresight. The Action Plan intends to: ·Tackle the connectivity divide between Member States regarding the uptake of very high capacity broadband in schools ·Support the digital readiness of both general and vocational schools ·Provide a framework for issuing digitally-certified qualifications and validating digitally-acquired skills that are trusted, multilingual and can be stored in professional profiles (CVs) such as Europass ·Create a Europe-wide platform for digital higher education and enhanced cooperation ·Strengthen open science and citizen science in Europe by piloting training, including continuous professional development courses on open science in higher education institutions at all levels (students, researchers, educators) ·Bring coding classes to schools in Europe, including by schools’ participation in EU Code Week ·Tackle the challenges of digital transformation by launching an EU-wide awareness-raising campaign targeting educators, parents and learners to foster online safety, cyber hygiene and media literacy; and a cyber-security teaching initiative ·Decrease the gender gap in the technology and entrepreneurial sector by promoting digital and entrepreneurial competences among girls. ·Build evidence on the uptake of ICT and digital skills in schools, by publishing a reference study assessing progress in mainstreaming ICT in education. ·Launch artificial intelligence and learning analytics pilots in education as of 2018 to make better use of the huge amount of data now available and thus help address specific problems and improve implementation and monitoring of education policy; ·Initiate strategic foresight on key trends arising from digital transformation for the future of education systems, in close cooperation with Member State experts and making use of existing and future channels of EU-wide cooperation on education and training. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/specific-actions-digital-education-action-plan EDUCATION AND TRAINING Opportunities and challenges raised by the increasing numbers of young migrants and refugees in the EU An expert group on young migrants and refugees will have finalised its work by the end of 2018. The mandate of this group foresees a collection and analysis of good practice examples detailing the specific contribution of youth work and non-formal and informal learning, in particular to facilitating the integration process of young people with a migrant background who already reside in Europe or have recently arrived. The expert group should also provide a practical toolbox for youth workers and youth organisations, offering useful tips and guidance useable in different Member States and policy recommendations. Protecting Children in migration Over the recent years, a growing number of children in migration have arrived in the EU, many of them without their families. This recent surge in arrivals has put national systems under pressure and exposed gaps and shortcomings. This is why in April 2017 the Commission adopted a Communication on the protection of children in migration . It sets out actions to reinforce the protection of all migrant children at all stages of the process. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/justice-and-fundamental-rights/rights-child/children-migration_en SOCIAL INCLUSION 1.2. Towards evidence-based youth policy

The EU Youth Strategy stresses the role of knowledge on the living conditions, values and attitudes of young women and men with a view to sharing it with other policy fields. The situation of young people is measured through a dashboard of EU youth indicators developed in 2011 with 41 indicators spanning eight fields of action. The most recent statistical data can be found in a youth section on Eurostat’s website . The Commission also publishes periodic Eurobarometer surveys dedicated to youth, with its latest edition released in January 2018. Knowledge was completed through several studies . To further develop its evidence-based approach to youth policy the Commission also works in partnership with the Council of Europe, managing the Pool of European Youth Researchers and the European Knowledge Centre on Youth Policy. The Commission also conducted an interim evaluation of the current EU Youth Strategy (see section 2) to gather information on the implementation of the cooperation. With the assistance of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency the Commission presented the Youth Wiki. This online platform launched in 2017 provides information on European countries’ youth policies. The EU research Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020 and Framework Programme 7) have funded a substantial body of research on issues related to youth inclusion, employment, well-being, education and participation . Youth Wiki The Youth Wiki is Europe’s online encyclopaedia in the area of national youth policies. Its main purpose is to support evidence-based European cooperation by providing up-to-date and user-friendly information on national policies supporting young people. The Youth Wiki collects qualitative information on youth policies across Europe, provided and annually updated by National Correspondents, allowing to monitor reforms and trends in policy orientations in the participating countries. The main sources of information consist of official documents from national authorities in the youth field, as well as studies, surveys, analyses and national data and statistics. Browse the Youth Wiki website by country or by policy field: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/youthwiki Youth work statistics website (Finland) For the purposes of data collection and evidence-based youth policy, a website titled www.nuorisotilastot.fi has been set up in Finland. This is a statistical service funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture. The statistics cover youth work services in different municipalities and provide information on NEET youth and the allocation of central government funding to youth work. The website was first launched in December 2015. Each of the statistical databases is updated annually, in addition to which smaller updates and new databases are published monthly. The statistics are also available in English. www.nuorisotilastot.fi KNOWLEDGE BUILDING



1.3. Updates in the legal framework and youth policy in Member States National Youth Laws Compared to 2010-2014, the situation has remained stable during 2016-2018. Most countries maintained or adapted legislation that refers to youth issues or contains a section which addresses the needs and/or rights of young people. National Youth Strategies Most countries have developed dedicated youth strategies and the situation remained stable since 2015. A number of countries have revised or updated their youth strategy, which usually covers a period of 4 to 10 years and often goes together with a specific action or implementation plan. Some Member States do not have a youth strategy as such (Greece) or not anymore (France, Italy, Poland) mainly due to a change of government. Two recent developments are noteworthy: in 2015 Netherlands has shifted the responsibility for welfare, support and care for all citizens, including young people, to the local (municipality) level to better streamline the services and approaches and to adapt them to local needs; and Cyprus introduced a youth strategy for the first time in 2017. Youth Law revised in 2016 (Luxembourg) The Youth Law carries a clear vision for youth participation, evidence-based youth research and regular and circular policy development. The National Assembly of Young People has the mission to give young people and youth organisations the possibility to participate in the examination of all issues related to youth policy at national and European level. The youth observatory (observatoire jeunesse) is in charge of monitoring youth issues with the mission to prepare, coordinate and initiate surveys, recommendations, analysis, studies and reports on the different aspects of the situation of young people in Luxembourg. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/en/content/youthwiki/12-national-youth-law-luxembourg YOUTH POLICY GOVERNANCE

New National Youth Strategy (Serbia) In 2015, Serbia started to prepare a new National Youth Strategy, seeking inspiration from the renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field. Considering times have changed since then, Serbia added Youth Safety as a strategic area. The Serbian National Youth Strategy 2015-2025 contains nine strategic areas: Youth Employment and Entrepreneurship; Education, Pedagogical Work With and Training of Youth; Youth Activism and Active Participation; Health and Well-Being of Young People; Youth Safety; Social Inclusion of Youth; Youth Mobility; Informing Youth; Youth Culture and Creativity. http://www.mos.gov.rs/public/ck/uploads/files/Dokumenta/Omladina/zakoni-i-strateska-dokumenta/Nacionalna%20strategija%20za%20mlade%20-%20ENG.pdf YOUTH POLICY GOVERNANCE



Section 2 – Lessons from the strategy’s evaluation The Commission conducted an interim evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy and the 2008 Council recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the EU for the period 2010 to mid-2015. This included 50 stakeholder interviews and a survey targeted at young people (with 720 replies) and youth organisations (250 responses). In line with the EU better regulation agenda, the evaluation covered the entire scope of the EU Youth Strategy, including the above-mentioned recommendation, the mechanisms for cooperation, implementation instruments and activities carried out by Member States and stakeholders under and outside of EU cooperation. It also addressed the links between the EU Youth Strategy and the recommendation and with EU programmes, such as Erasmus+, its predecessor Youth in Action and the European Structural and Investment Funds. 2.1. Main findings Relevance The evaluation considered the strategy overall as relevant to the needs and problems of young Europeans as well as to the activities of youth policy-makers in Member States. Two thirds of the national policy-makers and 80% of the youth organisations surveyed found the objectives and scope relevant to their needs and priorities. The EU Youth Strategy provided a broad and flexible framework for cooperation. Given the high number of possible actions it proposed, at least some topics were relevant to each Member State. Conversely, none of them addressed all. The relevance of the EU Youth Strategy stemmed partly from the fact that Member States saw it as an ‘à la carte’ approach rather than a set of shared objectives, but this was partly due to its wide scope and flexible approach; relevance also depended on the understanding of youth policy in Member States. Coherence Views are divided on the internal coherence of the EU Youth Strategy. One fifth of the stakeholders interviewed considered the strategy’s activities as inter-related and building on each other, while another fifth saw the need to better connect its different parts, viewed as too fragmented. As for external coherence at EU level, the strategy’s objectives and priorities were coherent with those of EU other policy areas. EU added value The main EU added value for Member States was that it provided them with policy inspiration, knowledge and expertise, leverage and legitimacy, opportunities and resources to move towards common objectives, increased visibility of some topics (such as volunteering) or processes. For instance in Slovenia, debates were influenced by good practices and inspired Slovenian youth policies. Austria or Bulgaria indicated that reform processes would have occurred but at a much slower pace had there not been the EU Youth Strategy. For 79% of the respondents to the public consultation, the EU Youth Strategy helped develop a youth strategy or a consistent approach to young people and youth policy at national level. Effectiveness The evaluation found the strategy partially effective in triggering concrete changes at national and organisational level. The impact of the cooperation depended on the youth policy history in each country (according to the level of policy development, it has either been perceived as a driver for change or only a contributing factor). The evaluation concluded that the most influential instruments of the EU Youth Strategy have been the Structured Dialogue, the mobilisation of EU programmes and funds, as well as mutual learning and knowledge building at a lower level. Efficiency

EU youth cooperation costs were found to be reasonable in relation to results, but there were limited resources available at national level to take full advantage of EU cooperation. 2.2. Recommendations for the future The main recommendations of the external evaluation were the following: Focus on a smaller number of clearly defined objectives, and align the use of EU youth cooperation instruments more clearly and strategically with cooperation objectives; Among the eight fields of action, education and employment seem to be relevant to most young people. However, the relevance of the policy areas varies across Member States. Some call for keeping the focus on ‘burning’ issues such as employment, education and training. Others pleaded for more attention for ‘core’ youth topics, such as youth work, volunteering and participation, which have been overshadowed in the aftermath of the crisis, but to which the youth cooperation framework can most meaningfully contribute. If the double focus of the strategy is maintained (both core youth issues and working across policy areas) the goals should be more focused rather than just listing possible actions in eight fields like in the EU Youth Strategy 2010-2018. Improve EU coordination of youth agenda and of the implementation instruments; align the use of cooperation instruments with the EU Youth Strategy’s objectives more clearly and strategically (including more links between funding programmes and the policy objectives) The objectives and priorities of the EU Youth Strategy were overall coherent to the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy. However, this is mainly due to its broad coverage rather than efforts to align the two strategies. The two were often perceived as separate approaches, each with their own objectives, rather than part of an integrated plan. The evaluation found that instruments and tools are most effective to trigger change when joined up. This was not systematically the case; some initiatives were seen as ‘stand-alone’. Better involve local and regional youth policy-makers In Member States with a devolved youth policy, the EU approach to youth policy was considered to be less consistent because of its more diverse implementation. In such countries, regional and local topics were insufficiently reflected at EU level and thus stronger engagement of local and regional-level policy actors in EU cooperation would be needed. Raise the bar of EU youth cooperation and formulate more ambitious objectives; find a new impetus for those countries with a strong tradition of youth policy Member States’ domestic youth policies have moved forward. As under the current framework period, initial conditions for youth policy were created or advanced, the next strategy should allow adjusting to different stages of maturity. It should be of value and offer inspiration also for the Member States, which are already fully aligned with the strategy’s principles and objectives. Some Member States are likely to have more needs and interest in some cooperation topics than others. Set up a monitoring framework which captures the achievements of the EU Youth Strategy and consider developing mutual learning on progress achieved According to the evaluation, the dashboard of EU youth indicators and the triennial reporting by Member States do not fully capture the actual contribution of the EU Youth Strategy to youth policy. A monitoring framework closely linked to the Strategy’s intervention logic could be designed to this effect. It could reflect, among others, the follow-up to the Structured Dialogue, both at EU and national levels, such as sharing where (which policy sector) and how (which initiatives) the dialogue recommendations have been taken up. Some recommendations have already been addressed, with developments such as the Council EU Work Plans for Youth, resulting in a better coordinated EU youth agenda and the Youth Wiki, which greatly improved the availability of and access to information on national youth policies and can underpin to mutual learning. The other recommendations have been tackled in the proposals for the future EU Youth Strategy as can be seen in Section 4.



Section 3 – Outcomes of the national reports This section assesses progress based on Member States’ reports in complement to the Youth Wiki. Since the latter covers the strategy’s eight fields of action, these reports concentrated on the strategy’s progress on its objectives and cross-sectoral issues. In the spirit of the core youth policy goal of youth participation in policy-making, implementation and follow-up, the Commission recommended Member States to consult with young people and their representatives when filling in their report. The European Youth Forum was invited to contribute at EU level. By end 2017, twenty-four Member States, Serbia and the European Youth Forum submitted reports.

3.1. Progress towards the overall objectives and cross-sectoral cooperation Progress made towards the overall objectives In the period 2010-2018, the overall objectives of European cooperation in the youth field were (i) to create more and equal opportunities for all young people in education and in the labour market; and (ii) to promote the active citizenship, social inclusion and solidarity of all young people. More and equal opportunities for all young people in education and in the labour market Out of the 24 Member States, which submitted a report, 16 considered progress towards the first objective as satisfactory both in their country and at EU level. Serbia shares this view. Six think that progress in their country has been satisfactory, but not at EU level (Germany, France, Poland, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom). Conversely, for Romania and Slovakia progress at EU level has been satisfactory, but not in their country. The European Youth Forum is of the view that progress towards this objective has been unsatisfactory. Empreende Já – Creativity and innovation (Portugal) The Portuguese Institute of Youth and Sport runs Empreende Já, from 2016 to 2018. It is co-funded by the European Social Fund and developed under the framework of the national Youth Guarantee Implementation Plan, with an overall budget of approximately EUR 5 million. It is part of the National Reform Programme, under the framework of Promotion of Innovation in the Economy to foster entrepreneurial culture and entrepreneurship support, based on creativity and innovation. This programme also intends to support the creation and development of companies and social economy’s entities (third sector) and to support the creation of jobs, mainly for young people. The programme targets young ‘NEETs’ between 18 and 29 years after having completed mandatory education. It has two editions. In each one, 315 participants have 250 hours of training (125 hours of general training on e.g. accountancy and business plan and 125 hours of specific training in the fields of their project/idea) and 30 hours of tutorship. Participants receive a 6-monthly grant of EUR 695 per month and must develop their project within this period, individually or with colleagues. The 90 best projects in each edition that effectively created a company or a social economy’s entity are supported with seed capital of EUR 10.000. Social entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial projects on Green, Blue and Orange Economies are especially encouraged, emphasising the social and environmental responsibility of businesses and the need to protect the right to work and to decent work. https://eja.juventude.gov.pt/ EMPLOYMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP Tearing down barriers to employment and education for young, black and minority ethnic carers (United Kingdom) Care 2 Work (C2W) was a multi-year programme that aimed to tackle the barriers faced by young carers from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups (BAME) when accessing employment, education and training. The project started in May 2015 and was concluded in April 2017 and was supported by Erasmus+ (Key Action 2). This strategic partnership was led by the London-based organisation, IARS and was delivered in partnership with three European Partners, namely Anziani e Non Solo (Italy), Linnaeus University (Sweden) and the Family and Children Care Centre (Greece). The programme aimed to generate and pilot new knowledge on the needs of BAME young carers with an ultimate goal of achieving institutional and cultural change in the United Kingdom and Europe. We hope that this change will help break the cycle of poverty and disadvantage for one of the most marginalised communities of our society. To achieve its objectives, this innovative youth-led project developed an evidence based on the needs of BAME young carers and used it to develop and pilot accredited, youth-led training (face-to-face and online). The training targeted young BAME carers as well as service providers and professionals. http://www.care2work.org/ SOCIAL INCLUSION Non-formal educational programme for young inmates of prisons (Latvia) ‘Breaking the Waves’ was about making the most of non-formal learning in Latvian prisons. Among its major outcomes were: ·Prison staff acquired non-formal learning methods and approaches; ·Young inmates developed competences contributing to their re-socialisation; ·Social inclusion was fostered by linking young inmates and youth NGOs. The first edition of the project (2012-2013) was co-funded by the Youth in Action programme. The second edition (2014) was financed by the Republic of Latvia. www.jaunatne.gov.lv and http://skelotvilnus.blogspot.com/ EDUCATION AND TRAINING Innovation and entrepreneurship (Denmark) Denmark has implemented innovation and entrepreneurship as a target area in the education system from primary education to PhD, in the spirit of the EU Youth Strategy’s area of action ‘Employment and Entrepreneurship’. www.ffe-ye.dk EMPLOYMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP Active citizenship, social inclusion and solidarity of all young people Fifteen Member States and Serbia consider that progress towards the second objective – to promote the active citizenship, social inclusion and solidarity of all young people – has been satisfactory both in their country and at EU level. This is also the case for Belgium/Flemish Community and Belgium/French Community. Progress towards this objective is considered as unsatisfactory by 8 Member States (Germany, Spain, France, Croatia, Poland, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom) and by Belgium/German-speaking Community. For Slovakia, progress in their country has not been satisfactory. For the European Youth Forum, there has been no satisfactory progress towards this objective either. Ad-hoc expert group on linking youth work to social work (Czech Republic) The Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports created in 2015 an expert group to explore closer cooperation between youth and social work and facilitate the recognition of their respective results. The group operates under the ‘Youth Chamber’, a cross-sectoral advisory body of the youth minister and consists of representatives of e.g. youth and social work networks, policy-makers from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and of Labour and Social Issues and practitioners. It focuses at facilitating social inclusion of young people who are difficult to reach. In the national context, youth work is covered by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports while social work is covered by the Ministry of Labour and Social Issues. Since 2015, the Youth Department of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports has experienced a new situation when youth workers increasingly address young people’s needs for being provided with social services – while social workers provide more non-formal education to their clients. Moreover, youth work urgently needs social workers’ experience for reaching out to unreachable young people. The expert group defined both the target groups of youth work and social work and facilities which provide youth and social work. Currently it is mapping legislation, statistics, training opportunities, validation of competences and resources of financial support concerning both. A workshop covered its results and explored new tasks in a workshop in the National Youth Conference in 2017. SOCIAL INCLUSION

Pilot projects supporting disadvantaged young people (Germany) The pilot project ‘Workshops for youth education and youth social welfare services in Lower Saxony’ involved in 2015 and 2016 19 workshops in vocational schools, in qualification measures, youth centres, foreign information fairs and Gesamtschulen (lower secondary level education offering courses leading to professional qualifications). Their aim was to promote the participation of disadvantaged young people in European learning mobility experiences. In total 807 young people received counselling and information. The activities took mainly place in Hanover and surroundings. The pilot project ‘Qualification of multipliers to promote counselling of disadvantaged young people on European learning mobility opportunities’ ran in 2015 and 2016. It focused on the qualification of multipliers in youth work and youth welfare to become local counsellors for mobility programmes. It also included counselling of grassroots migrants organisations on European mobility programmes and application procedures. http://www.profondo.org/index.php/projekte/aktuelle-projekte/ich-bin-dann-kurz-weg.html SOCIAL INCLUSIOIN ‘Think Human!’ (Greece) ‘Think Human!’ involved 24 youth workers from 12 countries (Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Greece, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Hungary, Germany, France, Sweden, Latvia, Ukraine and Georgia) to develop tools and capacity addressing the social dimension of the refugee crisis. Participants were introduced to a holistic approach, involving policies, measures and interventions to integrate refugees and migrants in their communities. https://thinkhumanblog.wordpress.com and https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/projects/eplus-project-details/#project/40e0922c-1d99-4a1e-9d38-64a57a6337a2 SOCIAL INCLUSION Increasing and diversifying European and international mobility (France) From 2013 till 2017, France pursued a Priority Youth Plan adopted by a Cross-Ministerial Committee for Youth, which. served as a ‘clear and evaluable’ roadmap for youth policy and measures that the public authorities must take to improve young people’s lives. Beyond a set of measures designed to benefit youth, the plan aimed to renew public action by fostering partnership work between ministries, local authorities, associations, social partners and young people. On the latter, it emphasised the principle of youth to co-create the policies that concern them. An important feature was facilitating access to European and international mobility for young people with fewer opportunities. YOUTH AND THE WORLD Cross-sectoral cooperation The EU Youth Strategy advocated a cross-sectoral approach where due account is taken of youth issues when formulating, implementing and evaluating policies and actions in other policy fields which have a significant impact on young people. Based on the analysis of the Youth Wiki, Section 1.5 ‘Cross-sectoral approach with other Ministries’, most Member States have one or more institutional mechanisms to ensure mainstreaming, for instance inter-ministerial meetings or working groups, interdepartmental coordination bodies or cross-sectoral committees. These either deal with youth policy in general or were set up to monitor specific policy measures (for instance the Youth Guarantee). It seems nevertheless that not all cooperation on youth matters is formalised; cross-sectoral cooperation also takes place ad hoc. According to the European Youth Forum, while not intending to achieve such a success from a cross-sectoral perspective, in reality the European Solidarity Corps is achieving a cross-sectoral approach for youth, bringing in such sectors as youth, employment, education, and emergency support mechanisms. Cross-sectoral approach in youth policy-making (Belgium/German-speaking Community) The EU Youth Strategy paved the way for a cross-sectoral approach. A Decree from 2011 governing the funding of youth work foresaw the adoption and implementation of a cross-sectoral youth strategy for each legislative period. Under the decree, the Government engages youth NGOs, the Youth Council and young people in drawing up the strategy. For each legislative period the Government adopts and implements a multidisciplinary Strategy Plan. It documents the environment of young people in the German-speaking Community and lays down targets and tasks to improve the situation of young people. [...] The Government involves youth centres and the Youth Council of the German-speaking Community as well as young people in drawing up the Strategy Plan. This includes the results of the analysis of the current situation and evaluation of the previous Strategy Plan to be carried out once in each legislative period by the Government as well as the social space analyses to be drawn up by the Open Youth Work agencies. A Steering Group to support the implementation is composed of representatives of the youth sector, the Government and the Ministry. www.jugendstrategieplan.be CROSS-SECTORAL APPROACH Recommendations for the future The reports addressed the question: ‘In the future, what would be the best way of youth policy to effectively influence other policy fields at European, national, regional/local level?’ In general terms, there is agreement about the benefit of stakeholder cooperation and that coordination should be improved. Youth strategies and policies should be comprehensive (Germany, Italy, Austria, Sweden). Whilst some Member States think that ideally, other policy fields should proactively seek cooperation with the youth sector and not the other way around (Czech Republic), others believe that strong coordination mechanisms (Germany, Austria) or one public authority (France, Serbia) are needed, and that the youth sector should strengthen its visibility and be more vocal on the core areas and positive impact of youth policy (Belgium, Cyprus, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania). To increase capacity, coordinators from different sectoral policies should be trained (Slovenia) and a mainstreaming tool-kit could be developed to monitor how other policies take account of children’s and young people’s concerns – inspired by good practice (Denmark). Luxembourg points out that debate with other policy fields must be concrete and clearly focused on what changes are looked for. If cross-sectoral projects are launched, all stakeholders must be included in the discussions from the start. In general, enough time and human resources are necessary for dialogue. Involving young people is paramount. Coordination mechanisms should include youth representatives (Austria), while participation mechanisms should be extended to other policy fields (Spain, Poland). The European Youth Forum sees the Structured Dialogue as a very useful tool in the pursuit of a cross-sectoral approach at EU, national, regional and local level. The Forum’s proposals for a new Structured Dialogue would allow policy-makers from different areas to take the lead depending on the topic of a given cycle. More specifically at EU level, stronger links between the EU Youth Strategy and other EU agendas are needed (Austria, Slovenia). Youth should be addressed in all EU policies (Netherlands). Young people should be consulted in other EU structures and policy areas dealing with youth as well (Estonia) and be involved in all stages of the EU Youth Strategy (Austria). EU youth policy should be youth-friendly, in particular its essence should be explained to young people in a youth-friendly language (Latvia). Other proposals include the organisation of mixed Council of Ministers meetings and cross-sectoral expert groups (Belgium/French Community) and an EU youth programme which could finance cross-sectoral projects while having a focus on youth and youth work in all other programmes (Austria). There is a need for more collaborative practice, to gain more experience and develop models for closer cooperation with other sectors working with young people. These links and the existing practice should be mapped, monitored and evaluated and lesson learnt should be shared across Europe (Estonia).

The European Youth Forum calls on all youth stakeholders to achieve a truly cross-sectoral approach. ‘The cross-sectoral approach should be outlined in each work plan created within the framework for cooperation; in the annex of each work plan, we propose to outline the project, where the funding comes from and the partner that we need to work with. These work plans would have been pre-discussed and proposed to the relevant partners to ensure their buy-in at an early stage (…) and supplemented by a “youth check” on all proposals’ (to assess their impact on young people).



3.2. Mutual learning, dissemination and take-up of results Mutual learning Mutual learning is seen as a key element in the cooperation. It allows identifying and learning from good practices in different Member States. Mutual learning is carried out through peer learning, conferences and seminars, high-level fora or expert groups supported by studies, analyses and web-based networks, involving different stakeholders. Types of activities Twenty-four Member States, as well as Serbia and the European Youth Forum, reported that they have engaged in mutual learning under the renewed framework since 2010. Fifteen Member States have hosted a mutual learning activity: Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Finland and Sweden. Mutual learning activities mentioned by the Member States Expert groups set up under the European Union Work Plans for Youth Peer-learning activities, such as those under the European Union Work Plans for Youth Bilateral and multilateral cooperation projects Transnational cooperation activities (TCA), which enable Erasmus+ National Agencies to collaborate and share best practice across Europe Strategic partnerships under Erasmus+ Policy debate on issues that matter to young people at the Education, Youth, Culture and Sports Council meeting in November 2017 Bilateral cooperation on youth affairs, such as between Estonia and Belgium/Flemish Community and with Finland Networks, such as the European Youth Information and Counselling Agency (ERYICA) International conferences, seminars and high-level learning exchanges Working groups or peer-learning activities taking place within the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’) International cooperation agreements in the education sector Seminars organised in the framework of the cooperation between the Visegrad Group and Eastern Partnership Countries in the youth field, such as those by Czech Republic and Poland European Youth Work Conventions organised by Belgium Partnership between the European Union and the Council of Europe in the youth field, including the European Knowledge Centre for Youth Policy (EKCYP) Motivation for mutual learning Based on the reports, the reasons for engaging in mutual learning are manifold and Member States put forward different aspects. Mutual learning is seen as useful to learn about good practices or difficulties encountered elsewhere. It provides valuable input for developing national, regional and local youth policies and can help check – or reinforce – one’s own policy in a given field. Another motivation is the interest in assessing the international ‘state of the art’ knowledge in a given field. Further incitements are working together, networking and seeking synergies with other Member States, or individual benefits for participants. The European Youth Forum valued invitations to participate in expert groups, which they saw as fora to exchange and share good practices with decision-makers and other stakeholders; and a space to network with Member State experts. To engage in future, Member States note that they need to consider several issues before engaging in mutual learning. First, the topic and objectives of a mutual learning activity must be clearly defined. If the topic is not reflecting national policies and priorities, engaging in such an exchange is not relevant. The link to youth work at local level should be stronger. Another prerequisite is related to resources. There should be staff available; the number of meetings should be limited and virtual exchanges favoured; individual learning experiences of participants should be transferred to the respective organisations and systems, for instance by enhancing national reflection processes; the participation of Member States should be kept voluntary. As regards funding, there is need for simple and flexible access to funds and sufficient resources; there should be a stronger link between EU youth policy and the EU funding in the youth field – for instance, the activities organised by the Commission and the Presidencies and the transnational cooperation activities (TCA) and the SALTO-YOUTH resource centres should work in synergy. The outcomes of mutual learning should be relevant to youth policy and the youth sector. They should not only be made visible at European, national, regional, local and cross-sectoral level, but also taken on board by EU institutions and bodies. The topics should reflect the EU youth policy, which in turn should be aligned to national policies. Thematic expert groups Under the framework for cooperation and the EU Work Plans for Youth, six thematic expert groups were set up with voluntary participation of Member States. For each group, around 20 Member States joined. Asked about the relevance and usefulness of these, most Member States consider them relevant or highly relevant, as illustrated by the following examples. a)The expert group report ‘The contribution of youth work to address the challenges young people are facing, in particular the transition from education to employment’ was presented and discussed for the Austrian context at a national stakeholder meeting , which the Austrian National Agency and the Austrian National Youth Council organised in the framework of the 2016 National Year of Youth Work (Jahr der Jugendarbeit). b)The expert group’s work on ‘The contribution of youth work to preventing marginalisation and violent radicalisation’ helped build a bilateral partnership between Belgium and France. It was taken into consideration when planning activities within a common declaration signed by the three Belgian and the French Youth Ministers on 30 May 2016. c)The handbook ‘Improving youth work: your guide to quality development’ is highlighted by the Czech Republic as a good example of using the full potential of expert group results and the guide seen as a valuable source of inspiration.

In case where expert group outcomes were not considered relevant or not used, reasons are not always given. Where this is the case, Member States highlight different aspects, such as the lack of relevance at national level, insufficient alignment to the national reality, or the fact that the results were too general and – as the highest common factor of all Member States’ challenges – too abstract. The European Youth Forum considers – in line with their role as NGO – facilitated the outcomes rather than used them. The Forum shared knowledge, expertise and studies on the relevant topics in expert groups which were included in the outcomes of the groups. Recommendations for future expert groups Regarding efficiency of expert groups, the evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy noted that mandates and objectives were insufficiently clear from the onset, participants were not always the most relevant or representative, the degree of commitment varied and there were language barriers. Member States acknowledge that by end 2017 improvements have been made (such as clearer mandates and time frames, profile of experts, better alignment with the EU Work Plan priorities, focus on practical tools). To get more out of future expert groups national reports made the following proposals. Membership Criteria to select the experts should be specific; yet a mix of researchers, policy-makers and practitioners has proved valuable. The nominated experts’ working experience and their link to the topic should be shared with the whole group, so that potential contributions of individuals can be identified (drafting, resource person). Experts should be motivated to devote their time and expertise to the topic and take part in meetings. In addition to experts nominated by the Member States, other experts with specific knowledge should be included. It is important to involve the local level and stakeholders. Young people should be involved, either as experts or as a ‘youth panel’ or through the national youth councils. A representative of the European Youth Forum should be a permanent guest of the group. Mandate The topic should be defined more concretely from the onset and linked to the EU youth policy agenda. In addition to the Council Working Party on Youth, the necessity, goals and expected results of expert groups should be raised at Directors-General for Youth meetings. The mandate of a specific expert group should be finalised jointly by the Commission and the Member States interested in joining the group. Duplication of work between the EU level and the partnership between the EU and the Council of Europe in the youth field should be avoided. There should be more cross-sectoral expert groups to foster a global approach of youth policies. Expert groups’ assignments should be clear-cut and realistic and the groups should know the target group for which they produce their outcomes. Expert group mandates should primarily focus on the formulation of technical recommendations and good practice examples related to youth work and youth policy. Working procedures There will always be some time needed to find common ground, which could be done with help of external facilitators and expectations from the chairperson(s) should be spelled out. The chairperson(s) should have a good knowledge of the composition and potential of the expert group, and could be active during the whole mandate and between meetings. Expert groups should draw more on the Erasmus+ and other relevant projects. If possible, meetings should be organised at different locations to allow field visits. At national level preparatory meetings should be held to share outcomes of the ongoing work and prepare meetings. Professional drafting and editing assistance should be provided. Better financial support would lead to the participation of all Member States. Meetings should be interpreted in the working languages of the European Commission (English, French and German). Reporting and information There should be a clear idea of the outlook of the final product from the start (toolkit, recommendations, compendium, report, etc.). The Council Working Party on Youth should be regularly informed and outputs should feed Council discussions. There should also be a clear approach to sharing knowledge and insights (including in various languages and with the support of communication experts). Where relevant, the outcomes need to be translated to the individual needs of youth organisations and practitioners; national support for dissemination is needed to reach all stakeholders. Dissemination activities should be supported with some funding and experts could contribute on communication, for instance by participating in events. It would be useful to organise seminars on the results, possibly with the Commission Representations. Dissemination should include the candidate countries. Bilateral partnership on preventing radicalisation (Belgium/French Community) A bilateral partnership with France on preventing radicalisation resulted in three seminars in Paris, Mechelen and Brussels and allowed the three Communities of Belgium and French colleagues to improve understanding of the problems related to disseminate educational tools and foster partnerships between organisations. http://www.wbi.be/fr/news/news-item/france-trois-communautes-belgique-unies-contre-radicalisation-jeunes#.WqKC9aIo1Ew MUTUAL LEARNING Dissemination and take-up of results

The dissemination of results is an implementation instrument of the framework for cooperation aiming for broad dissemination of outcomes among stakeholders to enhance visibility and impact of cooperation at local, regional, national and European level. Dissemination The evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy found that in some countries the outcomes of expert groups, for instance, were insufficiently disseminated notably at local level, but rather ‘kept within the walls of ministries’. Croatia mentions the lack of dissemination towards local and regional self-governments. Slovenia regrets that publicity about youth policies, European or national, is still relatively modest and limited to the youth sector and the media targeted at young people, youth organisations and youth stakeholders. Nevertheless, the national reports show that a wide range of stakeholders were informed about the results of the renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018). Relevant stakeholders informed about the results of the framework for cooperation Youth stakeholders All relevant colleagues in the youth ministry and personal offices of the ministers National working groups set up for the implementation of the strategy, such as the National Working Group for the renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field in Austria and the Federal Advisory Board on the Implementation of the EU Youth Strategy in Germany Government’s advisory bodies, such as the Advisory Board for Youth of the Government of the Republic of Croatia, the Youth Council of Serbia or the Committee for EU Affairs’ sub-committee on youth and sports affairs in Finland Policy-makers at local, regional, national and international level, for instance municipalities in the Netherlands and in Finland, department-level services in France and the partnership between the European Union and the Council of Europe in the youth field National youth and/or children councils councils and their member organisations, as well as youth councils at regional or local level Youth organisations; Youth centres; Youth services and youth information centres Youth delegates; Youth parliaments; Youth stakeholders involved in local projects Paid and volunteer youth workers and their national networks; other practitioners (non-formal education, early childhood education and care, school social workers, people working with young refugees and migrants, etc.) The voluntary, community and social enterprise sector Erasmus+ National Agencies Beneficiaries of the Erasmus+ programme Youth research and knowledge institutes Training institutes National Working Groups for the Structured Dialogue Young people Stakeholders from other sectors European institutions (European Parliament, Council of the European Union, European Commission) and bodies (Committee of the Regions, European Economic and Social Committee) The Permanent Representation to the EU Relevant ministries, mainly in the field of employment, education, social affairs, health, culture, sports, environment Institutional mechanisms aimed at cross-sectoral youth policy, such as the Cross-sectoral Youth Chamber in the Czech Republic or the Interdepartmental State Youth Policy Group in Slovakia Relevant actors at regional level, for instance teachers, coordinators of apprenticeships, job insertion projects, career guidance organisations, and services and organisations in the social field Private sector enterprises; actors from the sports sector; national and local media Civil society The non-exhaustive list below illustrates the variety of dissemination tools, means and methods by the Member States and the European Youth Forum to reach out to youth stakeholders not involved in the framework or relevant stakeholders from other sectors. Dissemination of information via existing institutional mechanisms or multiplier networks Institutional mechanisms aimed at cross-sectoral youth policy Government’s advisory bodies National Working Groups for the Structured Dialogue International youth organisations Youth council meetings Structured meetings, such as the debriefing after each EU Council meeting of ministers for youth with youth stakeholders and all relevant colleagues in the ministry (Belgium/German-speaking Community) or the ‘Roadmap for youth associations’ meetings regularly held by the Secretaries of State for Youth and Sport and the Portuguese Institute for Youth and Sport (IPDJ) Regular meetings between ministries, the Permanent Representation to the EU, National Agencies and youth councils of the three Communities of Belgium National action plans for youth, like in Luxembourg Cooperation of German-speaking National Agencies of all educational fields Funding mechanisms of Erasmus+ Youth in Action National information network for young people, for instance in Portugal National activities related to the Structured Dialogue: Structured Dialogue Ambassadors in Spain, national conferences on the Structured Dialogue in Lithuania Eurodesk Communication channels Websites; newsletters; social media posts; specific internet portals, such as the section for youth work professionals on the French portal http://decouvrirlemonde.jeunes.gouv.fr/ , the youth portal http://mlad.si/ created by the Slovenian Office for Youth, the Latvian portal www.jaunatneslietas.lv , or the portal for socio-educational instructors in Germany, www.jugendhilfeportal.de ; collaborative platforms, such as the internal platform for contact persons on radicalisation in France; e-mail; videos; articles in media and magazines; exhibitions; publications and reports, such as the European Youth Forum’s Shadow Report on Youth Policy; consultations; competitions, for instance ‘EDUinspiracje’, organised in Poland to disseminate the results of educational projects; face-to-face meetings with relevant stakeholders (information, presentations, discussions and debates, round tables, working groups, role plays and simulations). Events (examples) National Youth Conferences organised in the Czech Republic every 3 years (latest one: March 2017) or in Germany within the national youth strategy German Child and Youth Welfare Congress (DJHT), which included an expert programme with presentations, workshops and debates Symposia organised by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Families and Youth under the heading ‘Youth.Politics.Europe.Austria’ between May 2011 and November 2012 Annual conference for national and municipal stakeholders organised by the Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society (the 2017 conference included a workshop on the Handbook on improving youth work, with the Swedish member of the expert group) Youth Development Academy (ADJ) held in Portugal in 2015 and 2017, a week for the training and qualification of the young, youth organisations and public bodies working with and for youth Annual youth organisations’ day on 30 April in Portugal Events taking place during the European Youth Weeks International training courses Take-up of results For a majority of Member States, the framework for cooperation has reached, inspired and empowered national or local policy-makers in the youth field . There is clear evidence that the EU Youth Strategy was a source of inspiration for national youth strategies or plans (Czech Republic, France, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Slovakia, and Serbia). A more cross-sectoral approach towards young people is mentioned as an added value of the European cooperation (Czech Republic, France, Latvia, Slovenia, United Kingdom). The validation of non-formal and informal learning, the development of youth work and consultations and Structured Dialogue with young people and youth organisations, are also highlighted several times. However, as Finland points out, the influence is not going in one direction only, or is difficult to assess (Netherlands, Poland). EU youth policy is often complementary to national discussions and national objectives and results have successfully contributed to European discussions and objectives. Overall, the exchange and mutual learning with European counterparts seems to be appreciated. For the European Youth Forum, ‘the Structured Dialogue recommendations have been one of the most tangible and concrete outcomes of this cooperation framework. While many countries are already working on elements addressed under the eight fields of action, the Structured Dialogue is identified as uniquely European and solely as part of the European cooperation framework. While the outcomes and results of the Structured Dialogue have reached policy-makers, the follow-up has been low at national and local levels. The lack of awareness of the Structured Dialogue at local level is an important reason for this.’ EU Youth Strategy on Tour (Austria) Following the launch of the EU Youth Strategy, the Federal Ministry of Families and Youth, promoted a tour of the federal states during 2011 and 2012 under the heading ‘Youth.Politics.Europe.Austria’. It included symposia in 5 Länder. Together with the respective Youth Department, specific fields of action of the EU Youth Strategy were highlighted and examined with the respective players from that field. Both the contents of the EU Youth Strategy and the cross-sectional approach to youth policy were promoted. Apart from decision-makers, practitioners and multipliers were invited to join. ·Symposium ‘Youth and labour market’, 2011, Innsbruck - Field of action ‘Education and training as well as ‘Employment and entrepreneurship’; ·Symposium ‘where I am in demand, I stay! Ensuring youth participation', 2011, Graz - Field of action ‘Participation’; ·Symposium ‘Well-being in Vorarlberg', 2012, Bregenz - Field of action ‘Health and well-being’; ·Symposium ‘andersGLEICH’ (differentSAME), 2012, Linz - Field of action ‘Social inclusion’; ·Symposium ‘The young world and Salzburg – Young Salzburg and the world', 2012, Salzburg - Field of action ‘Youth and the world’. The events aimed to bring the European topics to the national and local levels and to join various players around a chosen topic to promote youth policy as a cross-sectional matter. Accordingly, apart from youth workers, representatives of the Public Employment Service, the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Labour, entrepreneurs, school principals, school inspectors, municipal youth officers, Regional Management teams as well as representatives of the district councils and the Chamber of Agriculture were present. DISSEMINATION



YouTubers informing about youth policy (Lithuania) In Lithuania an agreement has been signed with the most popular and best known YouTubers of the country, to spread information about the different actors in youth policy. The information provided is convenient, interesting and attractive for youth. It could also be used as publicity for young people. By the contract, the YouTubers must create at least 6 movies in their YouTube channel, presenting youth policy in Lithuania in an attractive way. The movies on YouTube had more than 120 000 views. DISSEMINATION 3.3. Supporting and developing youth work

Under the framework for cooperation, supporting and developing youth work should be regarded as cross-sectoral issues. The ways in which youth work can contribute to achieving the overall objectives – as well as be supported and recognised as an added value for its economic and social contribution – should be further examined and discussed. Lessons drawn from the youth work issues addressed For the 2018 EU Youth Report, Member States were asked about the lessons drawn from the youth work issues examined and discussed under the framework for cooperation. Youth work in general The discussions on youth work at EU level revealed that different Member States tend to share the same societal challenges and that results of European cooperation can provide valuable stimuli (Germany). In this country, the search for common ground at European level has triggered discussions on the concept of youth work (‘Jugendhilfe’) at national level. The diversity of youth work in Europe makes the cooperation interesting for Malta, although it can hinder the creation of a common understanding and position on youth work. A number of Member States refer to the local responsibility for youth work (Sweden, United Kingdom) and to the financial needs at local level (Italy, Poland). Denmark feels that greater synergy, coordination and dissemination of results between programmes and projects on national, regional and local level are needed. Austria calls on policy-makers to include the know-how of youth work practitioners, whilst Slovenia considers that the youth work sector must adapt to the growing trend towards measuring impact in education. Appropriate training for youth workers and leaders Some countries point to a looming or actual shortage or high dropout rate of youth workers (Belgium/German-speaking Community, Luxembourg) and stress the need for quality training (Austria). The working conditions of youth workers should also be improved (Luxembourg). In Belgium, the European cooperation has had a positive impact. For instance, training of youth workers is now more competence-based in the Flemish Community. The German-speaking Community provides another example: based on the Government’s Regional Development Concept ‘Ostbelgien Leben 2025’ which tackles the shortage of qualified youth workers, a professional training will be developed. It will meet the standards of the National Qualifications Framework and thus ensure recognition of the certificate outside the youth sector. As a starting point, a specific competence profile of youth workers will be drawn up based on the Austrian competence framework ( http://www.kompetenzrahmen.at/ ). Austria deplores that a clear definition of youth work as a profession is still lacking. In Latvia, regulations on training of youth work specialists specify their training system, including the necessary skills, competences and knowledge. Portugal would like to see a common identity of the youth work profession in Europe with the possibility of transferring equivalent training (as in the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System ECTS). Youth work courses at university are desirable as well. Spain also regrets that there is no EU-wide common view on youth work, which makes its professional development more difficult. Youth workers, especially voluntary ones, should benefit from lifelong learning to improve their skills (Spain). Estonia identifies an emerging need for cross-sectoral education and training for youth professionals in general. Within Erasmus+ Youth, the development of youth workers’ competences is on track. For example, a seminar in 2016 brought together experienced training actors to reflect on the ‘ETS’ competence model for youth workers to work internationally. Recognition of skills One of the strongest demands of youth workers and leaders is the recognition of their work, not only at European level, but also at national level (Spain). In Latvia, regulations on the recognition of non-formal education in youth work are being elaborated to ensure recognition, quality and financial support. Since there is no formal status and legal framework for youth workers in Croatia, the recognition of skills acquired in Erasmus+ international mobility is predominantly done via Youthpass. Austria also calls for governmental recognition of youth workers’ skills. Validation of non-formal and informal learning and the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) can be valuable tools for this. To do so, it is necessary to raise the awareness and make innovative changes, on national and regional level, of youth work and the parts of the education sector which are linked to youth work. Support for the mobility of youth workers and leaders Erasmus+ Youth has been fundamental to support youth workers and leaders (Portugal). According to Austria, funding for international mobility of youth workers is one of the most popular strands of this part of the programme; more funds could be used up easily. Based on the RAY research done in the programme, the competence development of youth workers through their participation in international projects is verified. It is important to support the mobility of youth workers and leaders in order to contribute to the quality development of youth work (Finland). The European Youth Forum also calls for an increased investment in the mobility of youth workers in the future programme. Promotion of innovative services and approaches for youth work The need to incorporate and to use more effectively digital media and technology in youth work and to promote new techniques, services and approaches for youth work are also amongst the lessons drawn from the youth work issues examined and discussed under the framework for cooperation (Estonia, Spain, Cyprus, Netherlands).



What worked well under the current framework The assessment of national reports shows that the framework for cooperation has had many beneficial effects when it comes to supporting and developing youth work. The exchange of good practices through all kinds of mutual learning activities is one of them.

Erasmus+ and other EU programmes and funds are considered as crucial support for youth work, not only at international level, but also at national and even local level. In this context, international mobility of youth workers, transnational cooperation activities (TCA), the SALTO-YOUTH resource centres and the Eurodesk network are mentioned. With regard to youth workers, their competence development through their participation in international projects and training courses has been of undeniable value. The same goes for other useful tools developed and promoted by the SALTO-YOUTH resource centres and the partnership between the European Union and the Council of Europe in the youth field. The majority of Member States also acclaim the increased recognition of the value of youth work and its contribution to society. Youth work now has a prominent place on the political agenda at European level, also thanks to the European Youth Work Conventions organised by Belgium in 2010 and 2015. The Youth Wiki contains a wealth of information on youth work at national level scattered across different sections. A background document has been prepared to highlight this information. Recommendations for the future In their reports Member States Serbia and the European Youth Forum, made concrete proposals for the future framework for cooperation. These recommendations, however, do not all go in the same direction. For example, there is a call for EU-level standards or requirements on the one hand, and need for flexibility on the other hand – in order to reflect different national realities and traditions. Youth work in general Not only should the support and development of youth work continue in future EU youth strategies and programmes (Belgium/German-speaking Community, Malta, Finland), but as a pillar of youth policy (Romania) a more ambitious plan or strategy on youth work is needed. Youth work should not only be regarded as a horizontal issue but also as an individual and important field of action (Estonia, Germany, Malta, Slovenia). There should be a distinction between youth policy and youth work, which should be equally covered (Czech Republic). It is important to set clear and realistic goals for European cooperation (Finland). The actions and plans for youth work should be more concrete and measurable (Cyprus). Cooperation with regional government authorities and other youth sector actors should be intensified. In order to do so, there should be more strategic use of funding instruments and a clearer link between policy decisions and programmes (Finland). Estonia calls for action plans to involve youth through youth work under the European Structural and Investment Funds. Horizon 2020 should be effectively used for research in the youth (work) field (Estonia). Knowledge on certain topics, including on the history of youth work in Europe, should be deepened (Belgium/Flemish Community). A better coordination of activities between the EU level and the partnership between the European Union and the Council of Europe in the youth field is desirable (France). Quality youth work Austria suggests that key competences for youth workers should be part of the EU Youth Strategy. Portugal suggests to establish ‘professional and volunteer profile requirements for the exercise of activity in youth projects between European, national and local levels’. Quality standards for youth work defined at EU level to be adapted to national realities (Croatia). Peer-learning activities and peer reviews will help developing practices and policies around youth work (Czech Republic, Estonia). Under the framework for cooperation concrete policy experimentation projects should be carried out, for instance on the professionalisation of youth workers, such as knowledge transfer from France to other countries interested in their legal framework regarding youth workers as salaried employees. Platforms for dialogue, sustainable networks and partnerships could foster more exchange among youth work actors across Europe (Estonia). Youth workers and leaders should have access to clear information channels activities (Spain). Recognition of youth work Member States still insist on raising awareness of the value of youth work to gain more recognition (Estonia, Slovakia). This includes devoting more time for dissemination and implementation (Belgium/French Community) and for supporting a 2020 European Youth Work Convention (European Youth Forum). Cross-sectoral cooperation should be strengthened (Germany, Lithuania, Austria, Slovakia) in particular between formal and non-formal education (Italy, Portugal). An institutional platform (e.g. a working group) would underpin discussions on national implementation of the EQF and validation of non-formal and informal learning within youth work; both governmental and non-governmental representatives could take part (Austria). There should be closer cooperation between authorities and youth workers (Romania). Sweden suggests developing strategies and measures for National Agencies of Erasmus+ Youth in Action to support youth work.



Digital youth work The role of youth work in a changing world should be at the centre of EU youth cooperation (Germany). Its potential to offer new services tailored to the needs of young people should be further examined (Serbia). Youth work would benefit from support step up its capacity to respond to challenges and reap opportunities stemming from new technologies and digital media (Estonia). This could include digital youth work reaching out to youngsters via Internet (Luxembourg). More attention is needed for the development of online tools and e-learning in youth work (Poland).





The ‘Easy Street’ Project (Ireland) ‘Easy Street’ engages and works with gang members to support positive change within its members and to facilitate their reintegration into the community. A dedicated outreach team of youth workers builds relationships with young people who are in gangs and encourages young people to look critically at their actions, reflect on the consequences and provides them with alternative options for their behaviour. Easy Street engages the gang members, identifies and harnesses the positive attributes within the gang and, using a youth work approach, provides the opportunity for those positive attributes to be experienced by the gang members and seen by others in the community in a more positive light. Through this process young people start to see and believe that they have strengths and are not just a nuisance to society and therefore should behave that way. Easy Street provides programmes and interventions that facilitate new experiences, in which needs are met in new ways that result in long term better outcomes for the gang members. Easy Street is also based on and supported by community-based role models who have turned their lives around by choosing healthy, positive, alternative lifestyles. Some young people, supported by Easy Street, have completely changed their lifestyles from what they eat, to when they sleep, to what they put into their body in terms of substances, to how they behave in their community, to how they are seen in their family and in turn how they impact on their younger and in some cases older sibling. https://publications.europa.eu/s/fnrL YOUTH WORK Youth Work Profession Act (Malta) The Youth Work Profession Act of 2015 gives formal professional recognition and status to youth workers. It regulates the profession and determines the qualifications and conditions for recognition. http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=12198&l=1 YOUTH WORK Development of youth work (Croatia) The Ministry of Demography, Family, Youth and Social Policy recognises the importance of youth work development, as well as a need for building the skills of youth workers and their professional development. In accordance with the National Youth Programme for the period from 2014 to 2017, in order to gain an insight into the organisation and implementation of youth work in Croatia, the Ministry of Demography, Family, Youth and Social Policy has established a Working Group to analyse possibilities of professionalising youth work. YOUTH WORK Day of youth work (Netherlands) The National Day of youth work took place on 25 April 2017 (Dag van het Jongerenwerk). The event was a work and exchange meeting of, by and for 250 youth workers from all over the Netherlands. Central theme of the day was ‘Connecting’: the youth worker connecting young people in the neighbourhood; connecting network partners such as the neighbourhood’s police officer, social team, school and work; connecting youth workers with each other https://www.aanmelden.nl/92866 YOUTH WORK 3.4. Cross-border mobility of young volunteers The framework for youth cooperation includes the promotion of learning mobility of all young people and of cross-border mobility of young volunteers in and outside of Europe. The Member States were asked what currently works well and what they would recommend for the future. Achievements under the current framework for cooperation The cross-border youth mobility programmes, including youth exchanges and cross-border volunteering, are unanimously seen as a great success under Erasmus+ with an extremely high interest among young people and an important unmet demand in some countries. National reports highlight a series of success factors, such as: ·High quality standards under the European Voluntary Service (EVS) (Lithuania, Austria); ·Support tools under the EVS (Latvia, Lithuania); ·Good knowledge management and the dissemination of good practices by National Agencies (Poland, Slovakia); ·Variety of duration and placements, which allowed engagement of a diverse group of young people (Lithuania, Malta, Sweden); ·A single brand name (Denmark) and good promotion by Eurodesk and other youth networks and organisations at regional and local level (Spain, France, Poland, Slovakia); ·A relatively simple and transparent implementation structure, which allowed both less and more experienced organisations to participate (Denmark, Croatia);

·Dissemination of results from research and studies on the benefits of mobility (Sweden) ·Concept that mobility is for all (Italy) coupled with a learner-centred approach and empowerment of young people (European Youth Forum). Beside the impact of cross-border mobility on individuals, some reports stress the positive outcomes at institutional and systemic level. In particular, the internationalisation of local organisations (Malta) and enhanced capacity of youth organisations and workers (Slovenia) are seen as important benefits for participating organisations. Mobility has become an integral part of national youth policy agendas in Germany and Estonia. The EU agenda inspired national initiatives around cross-border mobility, for instance JiVE in Germany, which promotes the participation of young people from all backgrounds in a mobility experience. The role of the 2008 Council recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the EU was acknowledged as an important contribution to national policy-making (France). In Austria, it resulted in legislative changes, notably the creation of a legal status of volunteers. In this context, greater compliance with the Visa Directive applying to EVS volunteers was also highlighted (Belgium/French Community). The expert groups and policy recommendations at EU level and in individual projects are seen useful (France, Italy). The cooperation framework is helpful in increasing understanding and dialogue among policy-makers, experts, educators and practitioners (Italy). Recommendations for the future In light of the above, the reports stress the need to build on the achievements of the current framework for cooperation and cross-border mobility programmes (Czech Republic, Austria). Continuity is seen as particularly important with regard to the establishment of the European Solidarity Corps. A series of concrete recommendations for the future have been made: Adequate funding Given the important unmet demand, several reports emphasise the need to ensure adequate funding by a separate budget line (Slovenia) and increased allocations (France), whilst the possibility of drawing on national and/or regional funds (Italy, Lithuania) should be explored.



Greater outreach While cross-border mobility actions have already reached a significant number of young people, there seems to be a consensus on the need to increase outreach further. Some suggestions go as far as every young person should have an opportunity for a mobility action for at least 6 months (Serbia, European Youth Forum). At the same time, the risk of losing quality as a result of too much focus on quantity was raised (Sweden). The reports call for involving more young people with fewer opportunities (Spain, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Finland, Sweden) and allowing young people from different backgrounds to meet each other (Luxembourg). The programme should become more inclusive and more accessible, while engaging non-organised young people is more costly (Estonia). Introducing financial incentives (Sweden) and providing additional funding could help remove financial barriers to participation and ensure greater involvement of smaller organisations (Malta). The formats on offer should be further diversified to better respond to young people’s needs. A pathway approach, including short-term and in-country mobility as a step forward to transnational mobility (Germany, Spain, Latvia, Austria, Finland) would be particularly useful for disadvantaged young people. The novel features of the European Solidarity Corps, with opportunities for in-country placements, were welcome. More promotion is also needed to increase outreach (Belgium/Flemish Community, Cyprus), for instance by encouraging networks (e.g. Eurodesk, European Youth Information and Counselling Agencies, European Youth Card Association) to develop information tools and step up their information activities (Portugal). The multipliers network should be further expanded and volunteering organisations operating in countries should be supported in their transition to international level (Slovakia). Youth organisations should make better use of digital tools and use more social networks/media (Slovakia). Quality and recognition of cross-border mobility of young people Member States stress that the benefits of international mobility should be better valued (Croatia, Italy) and its positive impact should be communicated more at local level (France). Awareness-raising, including sharing data with stakeholders (Slovakia), could be useful. It is also important to stay focused on quality and dissemination of good practice (Spain). The validation of competences should be further supported, for instance by promoting recognition tools, such as Youthpass. There is a need to develop a greater awareness by employers about the added value of non-formal learning mobility (France). Simplified implementation The implementation mechanism of cross-border mobility actions is seen as relatively simple, accessible and transparent (Poland) and the simplified reporting requirements are appreciated (Denmark). Yet, some reports see scope to further reduce administrative burden (Luxembourg, Austria, Finland). Among the administrative barriers highlighted are difficulties engaging young people registered with the national employment office and lengthy visa procedures. In this context, it was suggested that all young people on mobility should benefit from the simplified visa application process (Lithuania). The importance of greater flexibility was also stressed (United Kingdom). Reinforced policy cooperation

With the steady increase of cross-border mobility actions and the establishment of the European Solidarity Corps, there is a need for better cooperation on volunteering at EU level (Austria). A clearer status of volunteers would be an important step (Sweden) and further administrative and legal obstacles should be removed. It is also important to take account of national context and focus on local impact (Slovenia). Lifting young people out of exclusion through volunteering (Sweden) Since 2011 the organisation ‘ITER’ has sent 69 young volunteers (15 to 20 each year) abroad. It is geared towards young people not yet established on the labour market or lacking a natural point of entry. It aims to prevent long-term exclusion from the job market and society and to make the young people active, independent and employable. Before the exchange, they take part in networking meetings and training sessions on local culture, English language and voluntary work, and receive guidance from the staff. Then they travel abroad individually and work for between two weeks and twelve months at one of the project’s partner organisations. A support worker accompanies them and stays for the first one or two nights. On completing the volunteering period, the young people meet again in network meetings to share experiences. The City of Gothenburg uses this information for planning both the programme and the person’s next step towards gaining employment or starting education. The City of Gothenburg has broadened its working methods and learning from its work with the international partner organisations. It has been pushed to become more flexible and adaptable and keep up-to-date in a different way. These experiences from international work have a knock-on effect on other managers and colleagues in the organisation. 82% of participants have gone on to work or study after participating in the project. This lifts many young people out of exclusion and crime, providing great benefits to society. ITER, prioritised socially excluded young people or young people with special needs. Erasmus+ was used to the necessary contacts currently with partner organisations abroad. It is likely that the municipality would not have contributed financially if the EU had not been involved in financing it and it would have been a one-off project instead of the continuity that ITER has become. VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES



3.5. Structured Dialogue with young people and youth organisations Building on initial dialogue attempts, structured dialogue has mainly taken off in 2010 and is now well-recognised, reaching tens of thousands young people who discuss a specific topic every year all over Europe. It inspired many participatory processes at different governance levels. Some shortcomings have also been identified, the 2015 EU Youth Report already concluded that the structured dialogue must reach a much wider audience of youth groups, especially those that have not engaged in the dialogue so far. In its ‘Resolution on the Structured Dialogue and the future development of the dialogue with young people in the context of policies for European cooperation in the youth field, post 2018’, the Council invited the Commission, ‘based on the evidence, evaluation and consultations’, to ‘propose a renewed Structured Dialogue process as part of the European Cooperation in the Youth Field – post 2018.’ This section takes stock of Member States’ most recent experiences with the Structured Dialogue. General information about the opportunities available to young citizens in Europe to participate in politics and civil s