EUROPEAN COMMISSION Strasbourg, 4.10.2016 SWD(2016) 323 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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 The Youth Guarantee and Youth Employment Initiative three years on {COM(2016) 646 final}

{SWD(2016) 324 final}



Contents Table 1.Introduction 2.The Youth Guarantee in practice: progress towards the Recommendation’s implementation 2.1.The Youth Guarantee across the EU 2.1.1.Key features 2.1.1.1.Planning and implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes (points 2 and 27) 2.1.1.2.Set up for delivery (point 1) 2.1.2.Timely delivery of quality offers (point 1): results of the first and second data collections on the Youth Guarantee at EU level 2.1.2.1.Coverage within the NEET population and provision of timely offers: first results 2.1.2.2.Distribution across types of YG offers 2.1.2.3.Sustainability of integration after taking up a YG offer 2.2.Policy developments in Member States 2.2.1.A driver for reforms and innovation 2.2.1.1.Impact on the policy environment 2.2.1.2.Main areas of progress towards the Recommendation’s implementation 2.2.2.Key measures taken in Member States 2.2.2.1.Building up partnership-based approaches (points 2 and points 4-7) 2.2.2.2.Early intervention (points 3 and points 8-9) 2.2.2.3.Activation: personalised guidance and action planning (point 10)

2.2.2.4.Improving the provision of quality offers: focus on apprenticeship and traineeship reforms 2.2.2.5.Supportive measures for labour market integration: enhancing skills (points 11-15) 2.2.2.6.Supporting measures for labour market intervention: labour market-related measures (points 16-20) 2.2.2.7.Assessment and continuous improvement of schemes (points 24-26) 2.3.At EU level 2.3.1.EU support to implementation 2.3.1.1.Funding (points 1 and 2) 2.3.1.2.Commission support for implementation, mutual learning, and the exchange of good practices (points 3 and 4) 2.3.1.3.Monitoring (points 5 and 6) 2.3.1.4.Awareness-raising (point 7) 2.3.1.5.Other initiatives underpinning the Youth Guarantee’s implementation 2.3.1.6.European Court of Auditors reports on the Youth Guarantee 2.3.2.The Youth Guarantee on the international agenda 3.THE YOUTH EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVE: USE OF TARGETED EU FUNDING TO SUPPORT YOUTH EMPLOYMENT 3.1.Key features 3.1.1.The YEI: an important tool supporting Youth Guarantee schemes 3.1.2.Modalities of implementation 3.2.Progress on the ground and financial implementation 3.2.1.Beneficiaries reached and first results 3.2.2.YEI-supported actions

3.2.3.Financial Implementation 3.3.The added value of the YEI 3.4.Remaining YEI implementation challenges 3.5.Youth unemployment, still a challenge in the EU regions 3.6 EU support to implementation of the YEI 4.Delivering results 4.1.Since 2013, a significant fall in NEET rates and youth unemployment has resulted in greater convergence 4.2.NEET rates reductions driven by a fall in unemployed rather than inactive NEETs 4.3.Signs of positive impact of structural changes 5.Post 2016: challenges, opportunities and lessons learnt 5.1.Ensuring full and sustainable implementation 5.2.Better engaging with non-registered NEETs and the low-skilled 5.2.1.Supporting non-registered NEETs 5.2.2.An opportunity to up-skill young people 5.3.Strengthening capacity and partnerships and enhancing the quality of offers 5.3.1.Strengthening stakeholder capacity and partnerships 5.3.2.Better outcomes for young people: enhancing the quality of offers





COntent Table — Boxes The table below presents an overview of three categories of boxes that appear in the staff working document. Boxes Page Flagship measures and reforms Centres for Lifelong Career Guidance (CISOKs), Croatia 27 One-Stop Guidance Centre for youth, Finland 38 Youth Mediators, Bulgaria 39 Multi-Skilled teams to support youth with complex needs, Sweden 40 The Voluntary Labour Corps, Poland 41 Youth coaching, Austria 42 Building bridges to education, Denmark 44 NEETs study, Luxembourg 45 NEET Census, Malta 46 The Youth Guarantee, a pilot for ALMP reforms, Italy 48 Youth Employment Agencies, Germany 49 'Know and Do', Latvia 52 The Guarantee for Youth, France 53 Transition Traineeships, Belgium 60 Selected EU Initiatives Supporting the Youth Guarantee Your First EURES Job 69 Monitoring implementation through a specific Indicator Framework 80 The European Alliance for Apprenticeships 83 The Quality Framework for Traineeships 84 Lessons learnt Raising awareness of the Youth Guarantee: 'Youth Guarantee: three steps to finding a job' 82 Reaching out to young people facing multiple barriers 106 Finding the right combination of work, education and training to ensure successful transitions 108 Fostering employer engagement 111 Quality Youth Guarantee offers: an overview of existing principles 113 Making subsidised schemes work 114 1.Introduction While young people often experience difficulties in transitioning from school to work, the recession of the late 2000s exacerbated their already fragile position, with a peak in youth unemployment at 23.7 % in 2013 in the EU and annual rates exceeding 40 % in four Member States during that year. The economic crisis also increased youth disengagement from the labour market, captured by the growing number of young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs), which totalled 7.3 million young people in 2013 (13 % of all young people aged 15-24 years). This results from youth unemployment being particularly sensitive to the business cycle, but also from structural issues that were prevalent before the crisis. These issues include the lack of bridges between education systems and the world of work, inefficiencies in labour market institutions and labour market segmentation affecting young people particularly in several Member States. Such lost potential takes a heavy toll on European economies and calls for early intervention and activation: experiencing unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, at the beginning of one’s career can have negative long-term consequences in terms of future earnings and employment prospects of the individual (the ‘scarring effect’) and may lead to lower productivity levels overall. Promoting youth employment and improving school-to-work transitions has been an important priority in the EU agenda. A comprehensive set of initiatives was put in place, in particular further to the December 2012 Youth Employment Package. Through the Council Recommendation on establishing a Youth Guarantee adopted in April 2013, all Member States committed to 'ensure that all young people up to the age of 25 years receive a quality offer of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within four months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal education'. The Youth Guarantee has become a reality across the EU and has yielded encouraging results. Swift implementation began from 2014 onwards and a range of policies and financial instruments have been put in place to roll it out successfully. Significant EU financial support is provided notably by the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), which provides targeted funding of EUR 6.4 billion to support young people not in employment, education or training in regions struggling most with youth unemployment and inactivity, and by the European Social Fund (ESF). Three years on, there are 1.4 million fewer young unemployed in the EU and the number of young people not in employment, education or training dropped by 700 000 between 2013 and 2015. This staff working document (SWD) complements the Commission Communication ‘The Youth Guarantee and Youth Employment Initiative three years on’ which responds to a request from the June 2013 European Council. It reviews steps taken by Member States and at EU level to implement the Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative between April 2013 and July 2016. It examines the first results and successes to date and identifies challenges, bearing in mind that implementation of national Youth Guarantee schemes began in most Member States in 2014 and that structural reforms are still being implemented. Finally, it highlights how these challenges could be addressed and proposes additional guidance and clarifications (‘lessons learnt’) emerging from the three years of implementation. This staff working document is meant as a tool which policy makers can draw upon to understand how the Youth Guarantee is being delivered across the EU and support the continued implementation of their national Youth Guarantee schemes in the future. Practical examples aim to provide inspiration to countries facing similar challenges. Moreover, flagship examples highlighted in boxes – and proposed by Member States - present significant reforms and innovative or promising measures that are playing a central role in the Youth Guarantee’s implementation in their respective Member State. Where possible, success factors and innovative practices have been highlighted. This staff working document is also designed as a reference document of European and national resources on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee Recommendation. It is supported by a wealth of references to studies and reports and provides electronic links to further national and European resources. The reader is also oriented towards the European Commission’s website as it provides a valuable platform of resources that support national efforts. In particular, Section 2.2.2. provides an overview of key measures taken by Member States to support the implementation of their national Youth Guarantee schemes. Reporting builds on a range of evidence and inputs, including the results of the Employment Committee’s (EMCO) ongoing multilateral surveillance on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee, which comprises two rounds of data collection on Youth Guarantee schemes (covering the years 2014 and 2015) under a common Indicator Framework and EMCO key messages endorsed by the EPSCO Council on 7 March 2016. This staff working document also draws on Member States’ response to a questionnaire on implementation submitted to the Commission by 29 February 2016, a strategic dialogue with civil society held on 29 January 2016, an exchange with social partners during the 17 February 2016 Social Dialogue Committee meeting, and a consultation with young people at the European Youth Event that took place in the European Parliament in Strasbourg from 20-21 May 2016. Finally, it draws upon a report prepared by the European Employment Policy Observatory (EEPO) on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee.

A staff working document has also been published regarding the Quality Framework for Traineeships (QFT), one of the flagship measures supporting the Youth Guarantee’s implementation, on which Member States were asked to report on measures taken in accordance with the Quality Framework for Traineeships to the Commission by the end of 2015. 2.The Youth Guarantee in practice: progress towards the Recommendation’s implementation 2.1.The Youth Guarantee across the EU The Youth Guarantee (YG) has become a reality, just three years after the Recommendation’s adoption. The typical setup sees young people registering with a provider, which most commonly is a public employment service (PES). Following an individual assessment, the registered then receive an offer of employment, continued education, apprenticeship or traineeship. The YG's tailor-made approach means that young people will be offered different pathways to sustainable employment depending on their needs and situation (see Figure 1 below). National Youth Guarantee schemes vary significantly across the EU. This section reviews how Youth Guarantee schemes have been delivered, with a particular focus on the implementation of points 1, 2 and 27 of the part of the Youth Guarantee Recommendation which is addressed to Member States. Figure 1: The Youth Guarantee Pathways 2.1.1.Key features 2.1.1.1.Planning and implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes (points 2 and 27) In line with point 2 of the part of the YG Recommendation which is addressed to Member States, all Member States identified the “relevant public authority in charge of establishing and managing the Youth Guarantee and of coordinating partnerships across all levels and sectors”. Coordination falls in most Member States upon the ministry in charge of labour (or equivalent). However it can also be the responsibility of the ministry in charge of education and/or youth (as in Finland since 2015) or be shared between several ministries (as in Latvia, where both the Ministry of Welfare and the Ministry of Education and Science are steering the YG’s implementation). All Member States identified a Youth Guarantee Coordinator, usually an official from this authority and the main point of contact on YG implementation. Regional authorities also play a key role in managing or implementing the Youth Guarantee in several Member States, such as Belgium, Spain and Italy. All Member States submitted Youth Guarantee Implementation Plans (YGIPs) by May 2014, most of which have been published online under the responsibility of the respective Member States. The YGIPs identify steps to be taken to implement the Youth Guarantee, outlining the timeframe for key reforms and measures, the roles of public authorities and other partners, as well as how it will be financed. Several Member States (such as Finland, Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Malta) have already adopted revised YGIPs to respond more decisively to remaining challenges and to adapt activities and better align them with ESF- and YEI-programmed actions. By early March 2016, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Finland, Ireland were planning revisions to their YGIPs, as a result of changes in governments and/or policy orientations, or in the light of experience. Implementation started in 2014, with key measures being rolled out progressively. However, large scale reforms are still being deployed in many Member States including with EU funding support from both the 2007-13 and the 2014-20 programming periods. Pursuant to point 27 of the part of the YG Recommendation which is addressed to Member States, a few Member States opted for a gradual implementation and prioritised specific groups in the scheme’s initial phase. Hungary focused in a first instance on providing offers to the long-term unemployed within 6 months, then on those registered for more than 4 months. Full roll-out is expected in 2018. In Bulgaria, priority was given in 2014 to early school leavers, with a more limited scope of measures for other young people. Full implementation started in 2015. 2.1.1.2.Set up for delivery (point 1) While a majority of Member States target young people under 25, thirteen have extended the upper age limit to young people under 30 (Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain) or under 27 (in the Netherlands), among others to align with practices under the YEI. Some Member States apply differentiated age eligibility criteria for some types of support. Slovakia raised the age limit to 29 years, with a priority to the long-term unemployed in the 25-29 age group. In Finland, while the Youth Guarantee generally targets the under 25, it is open to recent graduates in the age group 25-29.

Registration takes place with specific Youth Guarantee providers, mostly commonly Public Employment Services (PES). Though less than half of the Member States have defined clear alternative entry points, other types of providers operate, typically for education offers or for the hardest to reach among the target group. These can be regions, Chambers of Commerce or third sector organisations (Spain), agencies responsible for general or vocational education, youth centres and agencies (Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg), agencies responsible for education (Portugal), or municipalities (Netherlands). Online registration with the Youth Guarantee is possible in eighteen Member States, mainly on the PES website. In order to provide targeted information about the services available to young people, Italy, Portugal and Spain have created specific online portals for registering with the Youth Guarantee. In Lithuania, a YG portal is currently being designed. As regards the time limit for delivering an offer, seventeen Member States set a four months period as proposed in the Recommendation. Five apply a shorter period, namely Austria (as soon as possible), Finland (3 months), Sweden (a 90-day guarantee), Denmark, and the Netherlands (with differentiated limits apply depending on the type of support). A longer time limit is applied for long term unemployed and non-qualified school leavers in Hungary (in the first phase of YG implementation) and in two Belgium regions – Flanders and Brussels – which apply a 6-month time limit. However, practice can differ significantly from the Recommendation, with the time limit being defined – in most Member States – from the moment of registration with the PES rather than at the moment when the young person leaves education or becomes unemployed. Youth Guarantee offers generally fall within the four categories identified in the Recommendation. Typical examples include: -Employment: open labour market employment (subsidised or not), self-employment supported through start-up and dedicated subsidies; -Continued Education: education opportunities including job-related training, reinsertion into the regular education system, bridging courses supporting this reinsertion, second chance education; -Apprenticeships; -Traineeships: open-market and ALMP traineeships. Ten Member States report applying a 'quality' definition to offers made within the framework of the Youth Guarantee (AT, BE, BG, CY, HU, IE, LV, LU, MT, PT, planned in HR in 2016), while 4 Member States report applying the same quality standards as those used to support all jobseekers (CZ, DK, LT, SK). Only a few Member States (AT, BE, MT, PT) report having set up minimum quality criteria for the purpose of reporting data under the common Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee (see Section 2.3.1.3). Most Member States define quality elements in the context of YEI-supported actions. Definitions of a 'quality offer' can be classified following a six-fold categorisation, with Member States typically applying a definition that encompasses several categories: -A sustainable offer (outcome-focussed): A 'quality' offer leads to a young person's transition towards sustainable labour market integration. National reporting on a young person's labour market situation 6, 12 and 18 months after receiving an offer supports assessment of this qualitative criterion (reflecting the approach applied in the context of the common Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee). This is the case in among others CY, HU, IE, LU, PT. -A tailored-made offer (input-focused): A quality offer is a personalised offer tailored to the individual profile of a young person, including labour market status, level of skills/qualifications, previous professional experience, previous unemployment/inactivity spans, household situation (e.g. joblessness) and caring situation (e.g. lone parent), health status. This criterion is applied in among others BG, CZ, HU, IE, LT, LU, MT, PT, SK. -Minimum quality standards offer: A few Member States introduced minimum quality standards for YG offers especially in the context of monitoring, including Austria (where training measures below 62 days and unpaid traineeships are not considered quality YG offers), Belgium-Wallonia (28 days for employment and traineeships), Portugal (with a minimum of 300 hours for training), Malta (where job offers below 6 months are not considered quality offers). -Intrinsic quality offer: the intrinsic qualities of an 'employment' offer are also considered by a number of Member States, including health and safety requirements (BG), travel time (LT, limited to 3 hours, 2 hours for a person with a disability or with family obligations), social insurance coverage (AT), providing conditions for individual development (BG), permanent employment (BG). -A demand-led offer: A quality offer is one which is aligned with current or future labour market needs (CZ, BG, IE). This is particularly relevant for offers of continued education and apprenticeships. For instance, Ireland's recently launched National Skills Strategy 2025 involves a range of stakeholders at the regional level (PES, social partners, employers, community organisations, school authorities) with a view to aligning offers within the educational and training system with the needs of the local labour market. -Subjective quality offer: A number of Member States are investigating the perspective of young people who benefit from different offers. In Luxembourg, the National Youth Report published in February 2016 gives a detailed insight of the perspective of young people who benefit from different measures, the results of which are contributing to deepen discussion on quality criteria.

Regarding the YEI/ESF-supported offers, there is also variation as to the definition of a good quality offer across Member States. In many cases there is no specification in the operational programmes about what is understood as a good quality offer. Where a good quality offer is directly or indirectly defined this generally falls into one or more of the following categories: suitable (in view of the person's needs), sustainable (an offer likely to lead to sustainable employment), satisfactory (based on self-assessment surveys of participants), rapidly provided (in view of the person becoming unemployed or leaving the education system) or well-designed offer (e.g. an offer based on labour market intelligence regarding areas with growth potential where the person could be placed). The aforementioned six composite categories that make up Member States' national definitions of a 'quality' offer lend themselves more or less easily to monitoring. While certain binary or clearly measurable variables (e.g. young person's labour market situation after 6, 12, 18 months, specific intrinsic qualities, or minimum quality standards) can support an assessment of an offer's quality, other (including a tailored-made offer) serve as qualitative standard against which offers should be considered. In practice, however, important variations can be seen in the quality of Youth Guarantee offers. Introducing better mechanisms to ensure that young people receive offers of high quality is essential (see Section 5.3). 2.1.2.Timely delivery of quality offers (point 1): results of the first and second data collections on the Youth Guarantee at EU level This section reviews Member States’ effectiveness in delivering timely, quality Youth Guarantee offers, as set out in point 1 of the part of the YG Recommendation which is addressed to Member States. It builds upon the results of the first and second data collection on Youth Guarantee schemes under the common Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee endorsed by the Employment Committee in May 2015 (see also Section 2.3.1.3). The Indicator Framework includes a set of aggregate (macroeconomic) indicators intended to provide an overview of the situation of youth in the labour market and (in the future) to indirectly monitor the impact of YG schemes on young people's labour market performance. Since the primary aim of YG schemes is to ensure that all young NEETs benefit from a quality offer within 4 months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal education, the Framework also comprises direct monitoring indicators focused on the extent to which delivery targets are being achieved and the target population reached. Finally, the real measure of the sustainability and the success of the schemes will be seen in the longer term integration of young people in the labour market. Follow-up indicators looking at the situation of participants 6, 12 and 18 months after exit are therefore crucial to the monitoring process. Indirect (macroeconomic) monitoring indicators should also show improvement in the medium-term. The first data collection was launched by the European Commission at the end of June 2015 and covered the reference year 2014. The second was launched in March 2016, covering the reference year 2015. The 2016 data collection exercise will be followed by yearly waves of data collection in 2017 and 2018 . Overall, despite the difficulties and learning process inherent in starting an EU-wide data collection exercise with new indicators, the first and second data collections were successful in that all Member States submitted data and the data collected facilitated the calculation of key indicators for most Member States and represent a good starting point for monitoring progress on an ongoing basis. The results of the first two data collection exercises provide a useful basis for monitoring the implementation of the Youth Guarantee in individual Member States, with the aim of enabling their continuous improvement. However, at this point in the process the results are not intended for making comparisons between Member States, given that for the time being data comparability across countries is limited. This can be explained by the fact that YG schemes have been launched in each country from very different starting points and as 2014 was the first year of monitoring, the late implementation of some YG schemes and the different methods that countries have chosen to report inflows to the schemes had an important impact on the results in each Member State and on their comparability. Also in some cases, results that appeared to be particularly good or bad are rather a reflection of the coverage of the data in this first year of monitoring rather than of the effectiveness of YG implementation. The impact of some of these factors should be significantly reduced in data for 2015 and beyond. 2.1.2.1.Coverage within the NEET population and provision of timely offers: first results Since 2014, more than 14 million young people have entered Youth Guarantee schemes, and an average of nearly two million young people registered at any one point in time. Around nine million young people have taken up an offer of employment, education, traineeship or apprenticeship under the Youth Guarantee. The analysis below presents in-depth monitoring data for the reference year 2014 and 2015. Nearly 5.5 million young people (3.0 million men and 2.5 million women) entered YG schemes in 2015, 1.4 million fewer than in 2014. The lower number of starts reflects partly the reduced inflows to unemployment in large countries such as Germany and the UK and partly the fact that the 2014 figures were bolstered by some countries that automatically transferred into the new scheme all young people that were already registered as unemployed on the launch date. At the same time, in Spain and Italy, the number of new starts during 2015 was significantly higher than in 2014 as awareness of the new schemes increased. Just under 2.5 million young people (1.3 million men and 1.1 million women) were registered with a YG provider at any point during 2015, virtually the same as in 2014. YG schemes therefore covered 37.5% of all NEETs aged 15-24 in the EU, a slightly higher proportion than in 2014 (35.5%) as the number of NEETs fell from just under 7 million to 6.6 million. Across the EU, YG schemes reached on average a higher proportion of young male NEETs (40.6%) than young female NEETs (34.3%). Coverage rates varied considerably between countries ( Figure 2 ), ranging from over 80% in Austria and France to just over 10% in Spain and Italy and less still in Malta (6%) and Hungary (3%) . On average, the coverage rate of YG schemes ("EU average”) in 2015 was 41.9% compared to 40.4% in 2014, the actual coverage in the EU as a whole ("EU28") being lower (37.5%) because of low coverage rates in three of the countries with the largest NEET populations (Italy, the UK and Spain) . Figure 2 - Coverage of YG schemes, 2014 and 2015 (% NEET population aged 15-24) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database Note: Empty columns show data for 2014 that are not comparable with data for 2015 but which are included in the EU level figures for 2014: BE - data for 2014 cover the Walloon region only; HU – the YG scheme started on 1 January 2015, data for 2014 refer to all young people registered as unemployed. In general, therefore, YG schemes are still some way off the objective of reaching all young persons that become NEET after leaving school or becoming unemployed, though it should be noted that the data do not cover all of the support provided. It remains the case that in most countries the YG monitoring data only cover young people that have registered with the public employment services and miss young people accessing support delivered by other providers. In Ireland and the UK, for example, data cover only young people aged 18 or over that receive an unemployment benefit. Consequently, services for younger NEETs (mostly delivered by education authorities) and older NEETs not receiving an unemployment benefit are not covered. In other countries, support delivered by specialist youth services (youth organisations, centres and associations, NGOs) may be missed but it is not possible at this stage to estimate the extent to which these might improve coverage of the target population.

Outflows from YG schemes in 2015 almost matched inflows with a total of 5.4 million young people (3.0 million men and 2.4 million women) exiting after taking up an offer or otherwise being deregistered during the year, slightly fewer than in 2014 (5.6 million). Of these, 2.2 million (40.3%) took up an offer of employment, education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within 4 months of registration, though the real figure is likely to be higher as the reason for leaving is unknown for more than a fifth of cases . The proportion of exits that were both timely and positive was slightly higher for women (41.3%) than for men (39.4%) and, at country level, varied from 94% in Hungary and over 70% in Denmark, Spain, Italy and Malta, to less than a quarter in Greece, France and the UK and less than 10% in Cyprus ( Figure ). On average across countries, 46.4% of exits were timely and positive in 2015 compared to 47.6% in 2014. The country average ("EU average") is higher than the overall EU figure ("EU28") because the better results (e.g. those over 60%) are mostly concentrated in countries where the YG covers relatively small numbers of NEETs, either because of the size of the NEET population (CZ, DK, MT) or because of low coverage rates (ES, HU and, to a lesser extent, IT). Figure 3 – Timely and positive exits from the YG, 2014 and 2015 (% all exits) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database Note: Empty columns show data for 2014 that are not comparable with data for 2015 but which are included in the EU level figures for 2014: BE - data for 2014 cover the Walloon region only. HU – the YG scheme started on 1 January 2015, data on exits by duration were not available in 2014. Of the 2.5 million young people (1.3 million men and 1.1 million women) enrolled in a national YG scheme and still waiting for an offer at any point during 2015, well over half (1.4 million or 58.1%) had been registered for more than 4 months (i.e. beyond the target period for delivering an offer). The proportion was slightly higher for women (59.3%) than for men (57.0%). This 2015 result (58.1%) represents a noticeable increase compared to 2014 (50.9%), a change that - at least in part - reflects the increasing maturity of the schemes in some countries . When the proportion of those currently registered in the YG for more than 4 months is high this may flag a general difficulty to deliver offers within the target period and/or an accumulation of young people that are difficult to place (and who may also need longer accompanying measures), something that may occur alongside high flows of short-term participants. During 2015, the proportion of YG participants registered for more than 4 months varied from less than 30% in Estonia, Malta and Luxembourg to more than 60% in Ireland and Slovakia and over 70% in Romania and France, with an average of 46.4% ( Figure ). The fact that the overall EU figure (58.1%) is significantly higher than the country average (46.4%) is largely (but not only) attributable to the situation in France, which accounted for nearly four in ten (37.6%) of the young people registered for more than 4 months , and, to a much lesser extent, Poland (11.4%). Figure 4 – Proportion of young people currently in a YG scheme and registered for more than 4 months, 2014 and 2015 (% annual average stock) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database Note: Empty columns show data for 2014 that are not comparable with data for 2015 but which are included in the EU level figures for 2014: BE - data for 2014 cover the Walloon region only; HU – the YG scheme started on 1 January 2015, data for 2014 refer to all young people registered as unemployed. 2.1.2.2.Distribution across types of YG offers Of the 2.2 million young people that took up an offer of employment, education, an apprenticeship, or a traineeship within 4 months of registering in a YG scheme, 1.5 million, or 70.2% took up an employment opportunity ( Figure , “EU28”). This includes open market jobs found on the own initiative of young people as well as those found with assistance from the YG provider, together with various forms of short and longer-term placements subsidised with public funds. The remaining 0.7 million mostly took up offers of a traineeship or continued education (13.6% and 12.1% of all timely offers respectively) while far fewer are reported to have taken up an apprenticeship (4.1%). There was very little difference between the sexes in terms of the types of offer taken up, except that a slightly higher proportion of women took up a traineeship (15.3% of timely offers compared to 12.2% for men). In practice, the numbers taking up all types of offer are likely to be understated. Firstly, in some countries, there are significant numbers of young people that leave the YG without any record of where they have gone and it is likely that a significant proportion will have found a job or, to a lesser extent, re-entered education or training. Secondly, some countries have difficulties to monitor particular types of offer. For example, it may not be possible to track young people returning to the regular education system, apprenticeships may be recorded as a form of employment offer and, in others, traineeships form part of the regular education system and are therefore recorded as education offers. The distribution of timely and positive offers by type of offer in each country has to be viewed bearing in mind the limitations of the data noted above but, on the basis of the data available, it is clear that employment offers are most important in the large majority of countries, accounting for an average of 69.3% of timely offers ( Figure , “EU average”). Exceptions are Denmark, Spain and Malta, where the YG schemes have a clear focus on improving the employability of young people through continued education (59.5%, 53.2%, and 77.1% of timely offers respectively, compared to an average of 16.8%) and Italy where traineeships are most important (61.7% compared to an average of 11.4%). Cyprus and Finland are the only other countries in which traineeships accounted for more than 30% of timely offers in 2015. On average, apprenticeships account for just 2.5% of known offers, with Spain and Austria the only countries to report than 10% apprenticeships (12.5% and 12.1% respectively). Figure 5 - Distribution of timely and positive exits by type of offer, 2015 (% timely and positive exits) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database

More than a quarter (just under 600 000 or 27.2%) of all known offers taken up within 4 months of registration were fully or partly subsidised with public money. This includes the majority of traineeships (87.8%), more than half of continued education offers (57.7%) and nearly half of apprenticeships (47.4%), but less than one in ten employment offers (8.9%). The proportion of timely offers that was subsidised varies from 100% in Spain and 98.8% in Malta to less than 1% in the Netherlands and the UK. 2.1.2.3.Sustainability of integration after taking up a YG offer Data on the situation of young people 6, 12 or 18 months after leaving the YG are not yet available for 8 of the 28 EU Member States (CZ, DE, EE, FR, NL, SI, FI and UK). Of the 2.5 million young people that left YG schemes in the remaining 20 countries during 2015, less than 0.9 million (35.5%) were known to be in employment, education or training 6 months after exit. The proportion known to be in a positive situation was slightly higher for women (36.3%) than for men (34.8%). However, it should be clear that these figures are likely to be significantly understated because the situation of just over one million (40.5%) of this cohort was unknown. In addition to those not providing any follow-up data, several other countries have limited capacity to track all young people after they leave the YG and lose contact with the YG provider . For example, the 6-month situation is unknown for almost 80% of exits in Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia, 75% in Bulgaria and nearly 70% in Poland. Indeed, the high proportion of unknowns in Poland, which accounts for more than a quarter of all young people followed-up in 2015, contributes to the overall EU figure of 35.5% in a positive situation ( Figure , “EU20”) being lower than the average across countries (40.1%, “EU average”) There are just five countries in which follow-up data for 2015 include less than 10% unknowns but even within this small group there is quite a wide range of results. The proportion of those leaving the YG in 2015 known to be in a positive situation 6 months later ranged from 71.4% in Ireland and 64.1% in Italy down to 37.7% in Spain and 30.4% in Hungary, with Denmark in the middle of the range at 49.9%. Figure 6 – Proportion of young people leaving the YG known to be in a positive situation 6 months after exit, 2014 and 2015 (% exits) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database Note: Empty columns show data for 2014 that are not comparable with data for 2015 but which are included in the EU level figures for 2014: BE - data for 2014 cover the Walloon region only. 2.2.Policy developments in Member States 2.2.1.A driver for reforms and innovation 2.2.1.1.Impact on the policy environment The Youth Guarantee acted as a powerful policy driver. Many Member States already had an array of relevant policies in place before the Recommendation’s adoption. However, the focus on early intervention, the way in which services and programmes are packaged and delivered within a specific timeframe through systematic partnerships, as well the focus on the most “invisible” NEETs (i.e. those hardest to reach) has been a driver for change, including in Member States which already had comprehensive instruments in place. The degree of impact on the policy environment, however, has not been homogenous across all Member States. A combination of a high political momentum, significant financial resources through the ESF and YEI (backed up by a specific ex-ante conditionality) and strong monitoring mechanisms at EU level was instrumental in supporting policy reform. Significant progress can be seen both in short-term measures which were taken as an immediate response to the high levels of youth unemployment and inactivity, and in the push for longer-term structural reforms to improve school-to-work transitions. Nevertheless, much remains to be done towards full implementation of the Recommendation across Member States. A total of 132 labour market reforms targeting young people were adopted in 27 Member States in 2013-2015, highlighting an important focus on youth. This marked increase in the number of youth-related reforms began already in 2012. They mostly concerned Active Labour Market Policies (ALMP), with a strong focus on employment subsidies, direct job creation measures, PES services and special schemes for youth (in many cases related to introducing new apprenticeship, work-based learning or traineeships type schemes) (see Figure 7 below). Open market traineeships were another important area of reform. Half of the Member States have, or report plans to, undertake legal changes strengthening their national framework's alignment with the Quality Framework for Traineeships since its adoption in 2014 Figure 7: Number of youth-related reforms classified by ALMP type Note: "Schemes for youth" mostly (but not always) consist of the introduction of new apprenticeship type schemes.

Source: European Commission, LABREF database The adoption of the Youth Guarantee and the launch of the European Alliance for Apprenticeships in 2013 (see Section 2.3.1.5) have put more focus on apprenticeships as a measure to facilitate school-to-work transitions. Almost all Member States put in place measures to strengthen their apprenticeship system. In a number of countries, structural reforms have been carried out to existing apprenticeship systems (e.g. BE, FR, SI, UK), while in others apprenticeship systems have been created, where they previously did not exist or existed at a very small scale (e.g. BG, ES, LV, LT, SK). Significant change can also be observed in PES structures and service delivery to young people. The majority of PES have expanded their existing service offer to young people, although this involved in most cases a modification of existing services rather than significant reorganisation or the creation of new services. Similarly, the elaboration of the YGIPs sparked increased institutional co-operation across ministries and sectors, levels of government, and with a broader range of actors (including social partners and youth organisations) (see Section 2.2.2.1). Besides, while the Youth Guarantee builds in many cases on existing measures and instruments, it has provided an opportunity to introduce new and innovative approaches (from a local, national but also international perspective), in particular in relation to reaching out to young people, establishing partnerships, improving service delivery, the prevention of early school leaving as well as recruitment subsidies (for flagship examples, see boxes in Section 2.2.2). Member States can be divided into three groups according to the degree to which the Youth Guarantee has acted as a driver for reform. This grouping takes into account the different starting points in terms of institutional context and macroeconomic conditions of Member States at the time the Recommendation was adopted. -Group A (accelerated reform): the Youth Guarantee has provided a new impetus and has accelerated policy developments in a number of Member States, especially in those facing major challenges and receiving significant EU financial support (BE, BG, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LV, PL, PT, SI), though stages of implementation might differ. -Group B (reinforced policy framework): the Youth Guarantee has helped to reinforce well-established policies through the scaling-up or adjustment of existing measures in Member States that already had comprehensive instruments in place that are broadly in line with the Recommendation (AT, DE, DK, EE, FI, IE, LU, MT, NL, SE, UK). -Group C (to date, reform is more limited): changes were more limited as a result of a variety of factors including a lower prioritisation, delays or discontinuity in key measures, or a focus on pre-existing schemes (CY, CZ, EL, ES, RO, SK). 2.2.1.2.Main areas of progress towards the Recommendation’s implementation Through its independent national experts, the European Employment Policy Observatory (EEPO) has assessed the degree to which various points of the part of the YG Recommendation which is addressed to Member States have been implemented (along the following scale: “full, partial, limited or null implementation”, see Figure 8 below). A cumulative, comparative assessment shows that points in relation to which most countries are perceived as complying with the Recommendation pertain in particular to the early stages of the setting up of the YG (e.g. starting points for delivery, swift implementation), strengthened partnerships, information and outreach (although engagement with those in the most vulnerable situations remains insufficient), reduction of non-wage labour costs, pathways to re-enter education. Points which seem to have been more challenging to address include, in particular the involvement of young people and youth organisations, the promotion of entrepreneurship and self-employment as well as labour mobility, strengthening stakeholders’ capacity and mutual learning activities. Figure 8: Proportion of Member States implementing the Council Recommendation Source: Implementation of the 2013 Council Recommendation on establishing a Youth Guarantee, European Employment Policy Observatory, Synthesis Report (not published) 2.2.2.Key measures taken in Member States

This section provides an overview of key measures and reforms introduced in Member States, many of which have been triggered by the YG. As such, it is a useful resources which policy-makers can draw upon to understand how the YG is being delivered across the EU. Practical examples, including flagship examples that present significant reforms and innovative or promising measures, aim to provide inspiration to countries facing similar challenges. This section also provides references to European and national resources on the implementation of the YG Recommendation. It is supported by a wealth of references to studies and reports and provides electronic links to further national and European resources. Finally, the following analysis examines the progress made in the implementation of the 28 points of the part of the YG recommendation that is addressed to the Member States. In this regard, it provides a non-exhaustive overview of measures and reforms taken in the context of the Recommendation’s implementation. It is structured along the following building blocks of the Recommendation: (1) Building up partnership-based approaches, (2) Early intervention and activation”, (3) Supportive measures for labour market integration, (4) Assessment and continuous development of schemes. Despite early successes, many challenges remain in order to achieve the full implementation of the Recommendation. This concerns, most notably, improving monitoring processes:  strengthening governance arrangements and partnership design: ensuring sustainable implementation and financing:  enhancing the quality of offers: better engaging with non-registered NEETs and the low-skilled. A dedicated chapter (Chapter 5) in this SWD highlights how these challenges could be addressed and proposes additional guidance and clarifications ("lessons learnt") emerging from the three years of implementation. 2.2.2.1.Building up partnership-based approaches (points 2 and points 4-7) The mobilisation of a range of actors towards a common goal is crucial to successfully delivering the Youth Guarantee. A number of Member States have established a two-tier partnership system, with processes of cooperation operating both at national and local levels. In practice, national-level partnerships aim to provide political impetus and direction and serve to monitor the implementation of the Youth Guarantee, while local partnerships were designed to support flexibility and the operationalisation of an integrated service delivery on the ground. Besides, experience from Member States shows that broad public-private-third sector partnerships with actors from both preventive (e.g. schools, social services, guidance services) and reactive and reintegration sectors (e.g. those supporting unemployed and inactive youth) are most effective in delivering the Youth Guarantee. While many Member States have taken steps to support the involvement of a wide range of actors and established institutional frameworks for partnerships, the functioning of these partnerships remains a challenge due to problems of design, which affects their ability to deliver (see Section 5.5).

Identifying a Youth Guarantee Coordinating Authority (point 2) Establishing partnerships to implement the Youth Guarantee requires the designation of a public authority in charge of establishing and managing the Youth Guarantee scheme and coordinating partner actions nationally. All Member States have done so, assigning overall coordination responsibility the ministry of labour (or equivalent) and in a few limited cases (such as Finland) to the ministries in charge of youth or education. Whether they are responsible for managing the Youth Guarantee or simply have a consultative role, newly established multi-stakeholder bodies provide political impetus and support a coordinated policy strategy at the stages of planning, implementation and/or monitoring of the Youth Guarantee. These coordinative bodies strengthen inter-ministerial cooperation and provide a valuable arena for exchange and consultation with a range of partners. For instance, in Bulgaria, a multi-partite Coordination Council for the implementation and monitoring of the YGIP was established (bringing together the state institutions, social partners, the National Association of Bulgarian Municipalities, and heads of nationally-represented youth organisations) and a National Framework Agreement for implementing the YGIP was signed in October 2014. The Croatian Council for the Development of the YGIP has been involved in the key stages of the YG’s development and coordinates its implementation. It involves key ministries, social partners, youth organisations as well as other bodies (such as Government’s Office for Cooperation with NGOs, Chambers of Economy and of Crafts). Similarly, in Latvia, an inter-ministerial and multi-stakeholder Youth Guarantee Implementation Advisory Board (with 35 members, including, employers, social partners and youth organisations) was introduced to manage and coordinate YG activities. In Spain, a large range of stakeholders are involved in the development, monitoring and implementation of the Youth Guarantee. They include in particular Social Partners, Public Administrations and Private sector agents: entrepreneurs’, employers' and workers' organisations, and young entrepreneurs’ organisations, the Youth Council and young people, organisations in the social economy, for self-employed workers and in equal opportunities, as well as private bodies in the third sector that participate in management of the European Social Fund. Portugal has made important steps in creating a broad network of partners – made up of public entities and NGOs - to deliver the Youth Guarantee and increase outreach out to NEETs, though challenges remain to make it fully operational. Implementation involves Central and Local public administration services, youth organisations, trade organisations, as well as social partner organisations and other relevant institutions working on education and vocational training and social inclusion. Overall, point 2 of the part of the Youth Guarantee Recommendation which is addressed to the Member States is among the points with a high assessment of implementation by the EEPO, with full or partial implementation in 68% of Member States. Local partnerships facilitate young people's transition into work Local partnerships serve to develop strategies for implementation aligned with the needs of the local labour market as well as provide an integrated approach to service delivery. Evidence from Member States shows that integrated service delivery can help ensure that young people are 'caught' at different stages of their disengagement process and offer a more 'seamless' provision of services in line with his/her needs, in terms of work placement, education and training but also more broadly in terms of subsistence, housing, health services, and social and psychological support. Multi-stakeholder partnerships at local level are in place in a number of Member States and sometimes mirror partnership structures organised at the national level. In Luxembourg, for instance, an inter-ministerial steering group of three government administrations responsible for delivering the three pillars of the Youth Guarantee (employment, education, activation) is in place and supported by an inter-ministerial secretariat. This cross-sectorial partnership has filtered down to the municipal level, where local steering committees, responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Youth Guarantee, meet on a monthly basis to discuss individual cases. In Poland, the Youth Guarantee is delivered via a multi-tier system involving labour offices, NGOs and intermediary organisations such as ‘voluntary labour corps’ (focusing on school-to-work transitions). In Austria, the cooperation initiated at the local level in the past as part of the ESF-funded ‘territorial employment pacts’ is expected to support the work of the new coordination offices for the Youth Guarantee in every region. A specific challenge is to include schools as new partners. Municipalities play a key role in the delivery of the Youth Guarantee in a number of Member States, where their involvement ranges from outreach activities and partnerships with local actors to the prevention of early school leaving and individual support. In Sweden, municipalities have since 2015 a clarified responsibility regarding young people under 20 who have not completed or are not attending upper secondary education. They should map and follow up young peoples’ employment and education situation, as well as offer them support to motivate them to start or resume upper secondary education. In the Netherlands, municipalities play a key role in labour market policies and the reintegration of the unemployed. In Belgium, the city of Ghent signed a specific agreement to combat youth unemployment and runs two guidance programmes under the auspices of the YG. In Latvia, the development of strategic partnerships between municipalities, local NGOs, social services, local PES offices and youth organisations has been a cornerstone of the Youth Guarantee’s delivery, especially as regards outreach activities. In Spain, the Gijón City Council took part in Youth Guarantee Pilot Project run by the Youth Activation Agency with 5 local and regional partners (including the PES, education authorities, a business Federation and Youth organisations). Among others, the project employed two dedicated street counsellors. This project was one of eighteen 1-year pilot projects launched in 2013 funded under the European Parliament Preparatory Action (EPPA) on the Youth Guarantee involved strong local partnerships at the municipal level (see Section 2.3.1.2).

Regions have also taken ownership of the YG scheme, adjusting it to regional circumstances. In Belgium, supporting youth employment and stepping up the implementation of the Youth Guarantee is a key priority within the 2025 Strategy for the Brussels region, adopted in June 2015. Under direct responsibility of the Minister President, and with the support of the ESF, the strategy involves all the relevant ministers and is implemented in partnership between key governance levels, in order to build bridges between the employment, education and youth sectors. A few Member States have sought to improve the design of local partnerships supporting the delivery of the YG, including through incentive structures and performance-based partnership agreements. For instance, within the context of its "Youth Engagement and Progression Framework", the Welsh Government employed 'funding letters' that make future state funding conditional on collaborative work between partners (e.g. Careers Wales – the organisation responsible for all career guidance in Wales – is required to work in partnership with local authorities and other organisations, including PES, to continue to benefit from state funding). Developing partnerships between public and private employment services, education and training institutions and career guidance services (point 5) Cooperation with education and training providers is an integral part of the Youth Guarantee. Schools' central role in supporting its implementation stems from their ability to (1) signal early exits from the education system to municipalities, PES or other relevant bodies, in order to ensure early intervention and (2) provide support and guidance to students on professional pathways and relevant services available to them. Involving education and training providers in the design and implementation of tracking system is key to ensuring that early intervention is provided to students at risk of becoming NEETs. While this task often falls under the responsibility of schools or bodies linked to education authorities and/or different types of local ‘youth agencies’ and youth oriented social work (see 2.2.2.2 early intervention), PES (including specialised services) are increasingly encouraged to intervene by partnering and building network with actors in this area. Several PES, which are the main providers of the YG in many Member States, report being involved in partnerships with vocational education and training institutions (CY, FR, DE MT, PL, PT) with a view to increasing employment, apprenticeship and traineeships opportunities for young people. Similarly, collaboration in the field of career guidance is central to better supporting students in their school-to-work transition. In this regard, close collaboration between PES/schools, career guidance's institutions and other actors in the education and training sector is essential. According to a 2015 study on the PES Implementation of the Youth Guarantee the majority of PES (26 out of 29) report that they have some partnerships in place to ensure that young people have full information and support available. Such PES partnerships are chiefly with schools, other educational institutions and NGO youth centres (e.g. BG, DE, FR, HR, LT, SI). A number of countries have strengthened the links between the PES, schools and guidance services. In Belgium (German-speaking community), all students are informed about the range of services and advantages offered when registered with the PES during the last school year. In Estonia, the PES initiated in 2015 a series of workshops on working life, job-search and employment opportunities aimed at all 8th and 12th grade students in cooperation with schools. In Romania, the Public Employment Services concluded a partnership with the National Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training Development, school inspectorates and schools to promote ALMPs or young people's participation in vocational training and education. 2.430 information sessions in schools took place in 2014-2015, reaching 100.620 pupils. In Slovakia, PES and schools typically work jointly to provide information and counselling services aimed at choosing a profession. Services are provided in group- or individual-based meetings in specialised PES premises or directly to students at secondary and primary schools. In Italy, the implementation of the Youth Guarantee has led to improvements in the coordination between PES and education institutions, an area which has traditionally been weak. This improved cooperation included the creation of a common informatics system integrating databases of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education and the launch of dedicated initiatives to promote ALMPs and Youth Guarantee in schools. Certain Member States have also established dedicated guidance institutions that support a partnership approach (see box on Croatia below). A number of Member States have established dedicated guidance centres, as in Croatia (see box below). In Denmark, Youth Guidance Centres provide guidance services for young people up to the age of 25 years, focusing on the transition from compulsory to upper secondary education or the labour market. The 52 centres cover 98 municipalities. They play an important role especially for young people who are not registered with the PES and serve to collect data on young people’s education and employment. Croatia: Centres for Lifelong Career Guidance (CISOKs) Eleven Centres for Lifelong Career Guidance (CISOKs) operate in Croatia and provide free lifelong career guidance services to all citizens with a special focus on youth, including inactive NEETs who are not registered with the PES. A total of 22 centres are foreseen by 2020. Intervention combines web-based services (self-assessment questionnaires, a job exchange portal), via a web portal ( www.cisok.hr ), and face-to-face services, including individual/group counselling on career management skills and workshops on job-search techniques. 110,717 people used CISOK services between July 2013 and January 2016, 95.6% of which were satisfied or very satisfied with the services they received. A number of innovative practices have contributed to the success of the Centres. The financing and delivery of services are based on a broad partnership model, involving municipalities, chambers, NGOs, youth organisations, employers, social partners, and schools. Similarly, CISOKs are built on a flexible service delivery model, where services are adapted to the local context including, labour market needs and partner organisations. Moreover, annual work plans and regular monitoring reports ensure a positive feed-back loop into delivery and service design activities. Counsellor support is based on a model of differentiated services tailored to the profile of individual clients. Finally, dislocation of CISOK offices from the PES premises helps to avoid negative preconceptions that some clients may have of the PES. Originally established in 2013 and financed through an Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA), the project's sustainability has been assured through national funding and the ESF for the programming period 2014-2020. Well-designed partnerships between public-private employment services can help to support the implementation of national YG schemes by enhancing Member States' capacity to meet increased demand for employment services (linked to changes in the economic cycle) and capitalising on the expertise and specialised services that private employment service can provide (which can complement existing PES provision). A tradition of cooperation exists in a number of countries (most notably in DK, FR, IE, NL, SE, UK). In France, for instance, since 2006 private placement agencies have supported the PES in placing hard-to-place jobseekers, such as young people and long-term unemployed. In other Member States, public-private cooperation between employment services is a comparatively recent addition to the national policy agenda (amongst others in BG, CY, EE, HR, LT, LU, LV, PT, RO, SI, SK). For instance, cooperation between public-private employment services is one of the aims of Bulgaria's National Employment Strategy 2013-2020 as well as that of the 'National Employment Strategy of the Slovak Republic for 2020". Overall, point 5 of the part of the Youth Guarantee Recommendation which is addressed to the Member States is among the points with a high assessment of implementation by the EEPO, with full or partial implementation in 72% of Member States. Ensuring the active involvement of social partners (point 6) Social partners' involvement level is essential for better preparing young people to the expectations of the labour market and strengthening the provision of quality offers. It can be boosted at strategic level in particular through partnerships with employers' and workers' organisations.

While progress has been made in point 6 of the part of the Youth Guarantee Recommendation which is addressed to the Member States, full and partial implementation is assessed to be present in only 61% of Member States, underlining pre-existing practices and weak progress in this field. Member States’ reporting indicates that social partners have been most involved during the phases of design and implementation of the Youth Guarantee (see Figure 9 below), though their level of involvement in practice varies significantly. Figure 9: At which stage were social partners involved with the development of the Youth Guarantee scheme? (multiple answers possible) Design 91.3% Implementation 78.26% Monitoring/evaluation 65.22% They were not involved 0% No Answer 4.35% Source: Member States’ self-reporting, February 2016 At EU level, social partners negotiated a Framework of Actions (FoA) on Youth Employment in June 2013 and undertook a range of actions in this context. They were, among others, involved in VET and apprenticeship reforms, outreach and awareness raising (among their respective member organisations or to a wider public), as well as promoting the attractiveness of jobs in sectors and professions that are facing current, or projected, skills shortages. A number of EU Sectoral Social Dialogue Committees (Chemical Industry, Commerce, Construction, Education, Electricity, Personal Services, Postal Services, Road Transport, Telecommunication) have reached joint positions on skills including specific actions on traineeships and some sectoral social partner organisations have made pledges under the European Alliance for Apprenticeships to raise the supply of apprenticeships and to improve their quality. Several sectors (Audio-visual, Commerce, Construction, Electricity, Extractive Industries, Footwear, Furniture, Graphical Industry, Life Performance, Maritime Transport, Metal Industry, Paper, Personal Services, Post Services, Ship Building, Steel, Tanning and Leather, Telecommunications, Textile and clothing, Woodworking) promote skills development and skills matching via specific projects and further joint activities. Similarly, European social partners actively support the European Alliance for Apprenticeships, being the co-signatories of the 2013 Declaration with the Lithuanian Presidency of the Council of the EU and the European Commission. Through the Declaration, the European social partners commit themselves to contributing to specific actions on apprenticeships and the Youth Guarantee. In the spring of 2016, the European social partners, with financial support from the EU, completed two projects supporting the development of high quality apprenticeships. A BusinessEurope-led project on the cost-effectiveness of apprenticeship schemes identified possible ways to strengthen employer engagement in apprenticeships systems, and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and Unionlearn (TUC) project made a proposal for 20 quality standards for apprenticeships. This proposal makes direct links to the guiding principles outlined in the Council Declaration on the European Alliance for Apprenticeships and the "High-performance apprenticeships & work-based learning: 20 guiding principles" (see Section 2.3.1.2). On the basis of these two initiatives, the European social partners agreed on a joint statement "Towards a Shared Vision of Apprenticeships" which calls for a wider debate to pave way for a tripartite opinion. At national level, structured involvement takes place primarily through multi-stakeholder structures (see Section above Identifying a Youth Guarantee Coordinating Authority (point 2)), as well as through specific ad hoc consultations (especially during the YGIP’s preparation), and bipartite or multi-partite agreements. Cooperation covers a number of policy areas, including, youth engagement, VET programmes and traineeships. In Romania, the National Trade Union Bloc was actively involved in the design and running of 22 Youth Guarantee Pilot Centres aiming to identify NEETs and provide them with integrated packages of services. In Austria, the trade unions and the Chamber of Labour have created a framework of quality traineeships, defining conditions such as the job profile of trainees, the training content and labour law standards for traineeships. An online platform has been created by the youth organisation of the trade unions. Its aim is to screen the traineeship advertisements posted by companies and to reveal illegal practices. In the United Kingdom, the Trade Union Congress is developing a youth engagement strategy, working with affiliates and third party organisations that deliver career information to young people and promote apprenticeships. The development and the implementation of quality apprenticeships requires involvement of many different stakeholders. Active participation of employers as providers of work-based learning is crucial, but it is necessary to involve both sides of industry in the governance of apprenticeship systems. In a number of countries, key stakeholders have joined forces to ensure a coordinated approach for stronger results and impact. For instance, in France, in July 2014, the President, the government, the social partners and the regions agreed on a number of ambitious measures to promote apprenticeships, contributing thus to the objective of increasing the number of apprentices from 420,000 to 500,000 by 2017. In Norway, the government, the social partners and the regional authorities have signed a Social Contract, which includes a target to increase the number of apprenticeships by 20%. In Germany, in 2014, the Federal Government, together with the Länder, the private sector, trade unions and the Federal Employment Agency, launched the “Alliance for Initial and Further Training 2015-2018” . The Alliance aims to improve the attractiveness of VET, upgrade young people's skills and improve school-to-work transitions. As part of the Alliance, the private sector has committed to offering 20,000 additional VET places each year (compared to the number of places registered with the PES in 2014) and to offer 500,000 traineeships each year for the purpose of career orientation. Engaging directly with employers (point 4) Equally important for the successful delivery of a Youth Guarantee scheme is the direct engagement of employers. In a number of Member States, public authorities have sought to secure employer engagement through national or regional agreements and joint initiatives in the context of Corporate Social Responsibility. Similarly, at the local level, PES have a key role to play in engaging with employers, most notably SMEs who are central to job creation. Overall, point 4 of the part of the Youth Guarantee Recommendation which is addressed to the Member States, remains among the areas where full and partial implementation is assessed the highest (with full or partial implementation in 85% of Member States).

In Belgium, the Public Employment and Training Services, acting through SynerJob, have signed a collaboration agreement with the Alliance For Youth, which includes 9 international companies. The agreement provides for the creation of 1,900 traineeships and employment opportunities in Belgium in 2016. Similarly, in the Netherlands, two labour market regions introduced networking events between youngsters and employers, whereby ten youngsters and ten employers meet in a relaxed ambiance, following which each employer presents a youngster through an “elevator pitch”. First results showed that 42% of the youngsters found work, 18% started education, 40% receives support by the local government. In Spain, Chambers of commerce cooperate in the dissemination and implementation of the YG Scheme. They assist young people with registration and implement comprehensive qualification and employment programme (PICE), where they create an individualised itinerary for each young person’s integration in the labour market. At the local level, the 18 pilot projects funded under the European Parliament Preparatory Action (EPPA) on the Youth Guarantee generated a number of valuable lessons on the issue of employer engagement, many of which conferred a central role to the PES in the proactive identification and engagement of employers within the framework of the Youth Guarantee. In Ireland, the Ballymun Youth Guarantee pilot project embraced a proactive, personal approach to employer engagement, done through telephone calls, face-to-face meetings and breakfast meetings. Similarly, appointing employer engagement officers, who act as single contact points for employers, also proved to be a successful strategy in the Spanish pilot projects of Gijon and Cartagena. Evidence shows that employer engagement is best supported by providing a varied 'menu' of possible involvement, ranging from 'light' actions (participating in career and job fairs, offering in-company visits and work tasters, providing short interventions on recruitment practices) to stronger support (offer of traineeships or apprenticeships), in addition to subsidised employment (see Section 5.5). This approach, adopted in the Ballymun project in Ireland, recognises that employers have different needs, resources and motivation for engaging with PES to support youth employment. For instance, in the Belgian region of Wallonia, a recently launched innovative project, "Mentoring of young jobseekers" (Parrainage des jeunes demandeurs d’emplois) aims to encourage volunteering in the private sector, where employees or entrepreneurs act as mentors to young jobseekers, thereby providing them with valuable support (including in job-search methods) and insight into the world of work. Involving young people and/or youth organisations (point 7) Involving young people and/or youth organisations in the design, delivery and continuous development/improvement of the Youth Guarantee scheme is vital because it promotes transparency, supports awareness-raising and outreach activities (especially to youth furthest from the labour market), and ensures that policies and reforms are tailored to the specific needs of young people. At the design stage, young people's involvement takes place primarily through multi-stakeholder coordination/monitoring structures at the national level (see Section above Identifying a Youth Guarantee Coordinating Authority (point 2)). The Finnish Youth Co-operation Allianssi is member of key working groups to monitor the implementation process and has an active and fruitful dialogue with public administration. In Portugal, the National Youth Council is a member of the Committee for Coordination and Monitoring of the Youth Guarantee and maintains a good working relationship with the national agency responsible for the coordination and implementation of the programme. However, the Council's influence on how the programme is being implemented in Portugal has remained limited to date and the Council has been directly involved in only a few key steps. At the implementation stage, youth organisations can valuably support outreach activities to unregistered youth and provide placement activities to disadvantaged young people (see Section 2.2.2.2 Early Intervention). An example of national authorities partnering with youth organisations can be found in the UK. The government has begun working with social enterprises, the third sector, NGOs, and youth organisations to reach out to and activate disengaged youth. This partnership is based on a payment by results commissioning model where incremental payments are linked to measureable outcomes (predefined at the start of the collaboration), such as engaging with a certain number of NEETs and getting them into a job of further education. The Slovenian Youth Council launched in October 2013 a communication campaign to make young people aware of the YG, jointly with other youth organisations and with the support of the governmental office for Youth. Activities included press conferences, high-level meetings, the setting-up of a website and a Facebook page, an art competition (with best works exhibited at the opening conference). Because of their central role in delivering the Youth Guarantee, it is interesting to note that a growing number of PES are also harnessing the expertise and skills offered by non-governmental youth organisations. In Lithuania, for example, the project 'Discover Yourself' implemented in all 60 municipalities involves a cross-sectoral partnership of local PES offices, the police, children rights protection services, social workers and local youth centres to support NEETs in gaining personal, social and professional skills. Member State reporting indicates that youth organisations have primarily been involved in the design and implementation stages of the Youth Guarantee (see Figure 10 below). Similarly, half of all PES (17 out of 29), which remain central actors within the YG's design and implementation, report that they involved young people and youth organisations in designing the organisation's Youth Guarantee services. Figure 10: At which stage were youth organisations involved with the development of the Youth Guarantee scheme? (multiple answers possible) Design 69.57% Implementation 73.91% Monitoring/ evaluation 43.48% They were not involved 8.7% No Answer 4.35%

Source: Member States’ self-reporting, February 2016 Evidence, however, shows that youth organisations involvement has been rather limited, with major variations in practice across Member States. The European Employment Policy Observatory concluded that compliance with point 7 of the part of the Youth Guarantee Recommendation which is addressed to the Member States is assessed as limited or null in 57% of Member States and remains one of the most challenging aspects of the YG’s governance model. Moreover, the level and depth of involvement of youth organisations varies widely both across and within Member States. An important consideration that has emerged from initiatives in the field pertains to the importance of ensuring that youth organisations are both able to effectively contribute to policy initiatives (i.e. have the capacity) and are representative of the plurality of young people. 2.2.2.2.Early intervention (points 3 and points 8-9) Information, outreach and awareness-raising in view of catchment and registration (points 3 and 8) About half of the NEET population are economically inactive and not looking for a job, with large variations across Member States (see Figure 11 below). Inactivity can result from a variety of factors, including family responsibilities and health issues but also discouragement and a lack of incentive to register as unemployed. Figure 11: Composition of NEETs by Member States (young people aged 15-24) in 2013 Eurofound (2016), Exploring the Diversity of NEETs Overall, in Europe there are slightly more female than male NEETs. While there are variations between countries, overall the female NEET rate was 12.7% against 12.3% of male in 2014 among 15-24 years old. This gender gap of 0.4% is considerably smaller than that observed in 2000 and 2011, which were 3.4% and 0.9% respectively. This improvement can be explained by the increased participation of young women in the labour market and in education and the nature of the economic crisis. The gender composition of the different categories of NEETs shows that young women are disproportionately represented among NEETs with family responsibilities. The share of young women who are NEETs due to family responsibility represents 88% of the total of this category. Put differently, one quarter of all young women who are NEETs fall within the category of NEETs unavailable due to family responsibilities (see Figure 12 below). While it is not possible to say what share has taken on such responsibilities voluntarily, this data does point towards the importance of supporting young women's re-entry into the labour market or education through childcare and adult care. Figure 12: Gender composition of NEET categories (young people aged 15-24) in 2013 Eurofound (2016), Exploring the Diversity of NEETs

Inactive NEETS are less likely to be registered with Public Employment Services or even local welfare services and, considering their low labour market attachment, are at higher risk of poverty and social exclusion (see Figure 13 below). Ensuring their early activation is crucial but can be particularly challenging in the face of low capacity to support the NEETs already in the system and when limited trust in public services and a lack of financial incentives to register act as a barrier for requesting support. Figure 13: NEET registered with Public Employment Services among the different subcategories, EU28 (young people aged 15-24) in 2013 Source: Eurostat, 2013/Eurofound elaboration Responsibility for outreach varies significantly across countries. In several Member States, including Austria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia and the Netherlands, it falls primarily upon municipalities or education/youth ministries. At this level, youth workers have a central role to play as they are able to reach young people in ways other services cannot, thanks to a long tradition of working with a diversity of young people and supporting them in unlocking their potential and enhancing their social capital. PES have more direct responsibilities or have been allocated funding to undertake outreach activities in, for instance, Croatia, Germany, and Lithuania. Finally, in the absence of institutional or legal arrangements for outreach work, a project-based, location or target group specific actions by NGOs and other bodies tends to prevail, as for instance in Romania. Outreach and awareness-raising activities to ensure young people's catchment and registration are central to Member States’ response to the Recommendation. The PES - which are key providers of the YG - have increased their pro-active work with NEETs; two-thirds are currently engaged in outreach work in the context of the YG implementation, for the most part relying on a network approach. Proactive work with schools and cooperation with NGOs and youth organisations are the outreach tools most frequently used by PES. Awareness-raising events or campaigns are also used by a majority of PES. Point 3 (ensuring that young people have full information about services available to them) and point 8 (developing outreach strategies) are among the points where compliance with the part of the Youth Guarantee Recommendation which is addressed to the Member States is assessed the highest by the EEPO (with full or partial compliance in 71% of Member States), highlighting steps forward in this field and its importance in implementing the Youth Guarantee. However, engagement with those in the most vulnerable situations remains insufficient: implementation of this specific aspect within point 8 is seen as limited or null in close to 39% of Member States. Awareness-raising on support available In a context where knowledge of Youth Guarantee schemes was rather limited, information and awareness-raising activities were organised in 21 Member States (including national activities in 13 and campaigns in specific areas of the YG in 8). They aimed primarily at raising the profile of support available to young people, but also at better informing employers of various possibilities of engagement. Jointly with national authorities, the Commission has also supported outreach and awareness-raising activities in 8 Member States (FI, LV, PT, RO in a pilot phase, and BG, EL, LT, SI in a first call for proposals), while an additional 5 Member States will be supported in 2016 (see Section 2.3.1.4 awareness-raising). Yet, adapting communication methods to a young audience remains a significant challenge. Almost three quarters of PES report a presence on social media, but mostly to inform on their overall services and interventions for youth. In this regard, there is potential for PES to make increased use of youth-specific communication channels. In Belgium (Brussels region), an online platform has been created to highlight actions and support available under the Youth Guarantee. In Croatia, an awareness-raising campaign on the national YG scheme took place in 2015. In Estonia, a two-week Youth Guarantee awareness-raising campaign took place in November 2015, involving dissemination through internet (news Portal, Facebook, You Tube), radios, cinemas and supermarket screens. In Italy, a two-phase campaign was carried out to accompany the start of the YG’s scheme in 2014. A first phase chiefly addressed companies, while a second phase directly targeted NEETs, including via online tools, presence on radio stations, TV, newspapers and cinemas, as well as participation in job and student fairs. Since late 2015, a television programme is broadcast that is dedicated to the promotion of initiatives offered within the framework of the Youth Guarantee and the sharing of success stories. In Luxembourg, a national campaign supported the launch of the Youth Guarantee in 2014, which included radio spots, flyers and a specific internet portal, as well as specific presentations given to employers. In Slovenia, since 2014, the PES has increased awareness-raising activities aimed at young people by publishing information on social media, establishing a new information platform and developing new applications for smartphones. Overall awareness of the Youth Guarantee among young people has increased in recent years, from 21% in 2014 to 24% in 2016. This improvement has been uneven across the EU, since in half of all Member States awareness has increased while in the other half it has remained stable or decreased. Yet figures indicate a significant surge in young people's awareness in countries which have invested in awareness-raising activities and/or in which media coverage of the YG was high, most notably, in Latvia (increase from 29% to 36%), Italy (25% to 50%), Portugal (17% to 31%), and Croatia (32% to 41%), Hungary (11% to 22%), and Austria (22% to 35%). Improving services’ accessibility PES have expanded the delivery of services through user and youth-friendly channels and improved their accessibility through online tools, specific websites or detached models of interventions.

Fifteen Member States provide the possibility of online registration including through specific YG platforms in Spain, Italy and Portugal. Several have set up alternative channels for young people who have not registered with the PES or are not entitled to, typically targeting the hardest to reach or low-skilled youth. Mobile or decentralised services can be a way to reach out to young people in their direct environment. In Lithuania dedicated information campaigns target the hardest to reach NEETs, through the use of promotional caravans which seek to engage young people in remote areas. A similar project is planned in Romania in late 2016. In Germany, PES have established several mobile career information centres (BiZ-Mobil) that drive to different training institutions and job fairs, offering mobile advice, information and counselling services to those who are living in smaller villages. In Spain, the region of Galicia launched a three-month information campaign in October 2015 targeting youth in rural areas. A bus provided information in 20 municipalities about opportunities available under the YG through collective seminars and individual assessment and guidance sessions. Staff also helped young people register with the YG. One-stop-shops bringing together various youth-related services operate in several Member States with or alongside PES, providing a broad range of services in a flexible and accessible way. In Luxembourg, the House of Guidance (“Maison de l’Orientation”) brings together existing government agencies in charge of employment, education and guidance in a single focal point for young jobseekers or any other young person seeking information and guidance. It guides them towards a training scheme, a job or career guidance. In France, Local Youth Centres (“Missions Locales”; part of the Public Employment Service) act as one-stop shops open to all young people aged 16-25. They provide employment and inclusion services and offer additional support and advice in different fields, from employment and training to health, housing, and citizenship. The Finnish One-Stop Guidance Centre for youth In 2015, Finland launched one-stop guidance centres for youth. Located in 35 municipalities so far, they provide low-threshold support to all young people below the age of 30, including personal advice and guidance, support in life management, career planning, social skills, as well as education and employment support. This measure aims to strengthen and simplify services for young people and eliminate the duplication of activities. An innovative practice and long-term goal of this measure is to develop an integrated career guidance model, with parallel face-to-face and multi-channel online services. Professionals at a Centre work as employees of their host organisations but are based in the Centre's common premises. Beyond sharing a same physical space, partner organisations act under a common trademark and exist as a network, including within a common digital platform. The Centre has access to functional services which both help in identifying the needs of young people as well as reinforcing their capacity to cope with day-to-day life. The One-Stop-Guidance Centre operates as a support for young people until a longer-term solution for their situation is found. This solution can be, for example, that the young person gains access to services offered by those within the cooperative network, or that they begin studies or start a new job. Partnerships lie at the heart of this initiative. Participating in the Center's broad cooperative network are a number of government authorities, such as experts from PES, the municipal social and health services, the municipal youth services, the social security office, educational institutions and workshops. In addition to all these, there are also a number of participating third-sector organisations and groups involved in voluntary work or other youth-related activities. The One-Stop Guidance Centre also operates as a link between young people and entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial organisations. Young people themselves also have an active role in the design and evaluation of the Centres and are involved in the daily activities. In order to improve accessibly, Centres are based in easy access locations for young people, such as shopping malls. Moreover, Centres do not only support the most vulnerable youth in order to avoid their stigmatisation within the target population. Launched in 2015, the programme's implementation is being coordinated by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy. It is funded mainly though ESF 2014-2020, with additional national funding. A dedicated national co-ordinating authority has been established to support the design and implementation of this measure, develop a common digital platform and internet-based guidance, and evaluate results. No evaluation has been carried out to date. Pro-active outreach especially towards those facing multiple barriers Engaging with young people furthest away from the labour market as early as possible is crucial in order to avoid long-term inactivity but often requires pro-active, intensive interventions with a broader range of partners to address a broad range of barriers that they face, including behavioural, social, educational and health-related. In Finland, outreach work is carried out by a network of outreach workers, active in most municipalities. They help young people reach public services that promote their growth, independence as well as access to education and work. Outreach workers meet young people in the most suitable place to them (such as at youth centres, school, office or café), are in close contact with student welfare teams, follow-up on school drop-outs and liaise as well with social workers, health care institutions, employment services. Bulgaria: Youth Mediators The 'Youth Mediator' measure was launched on 1 January 2015, with the aim of identifying, reaching-out, and activating NEETs who are not registered with the PES. By December 2015, 101 unemployed young people with tertiary education had been recruited and trained as "Youth Mediators", 98 of which are now working for municipalities across Bulgaria. Youth mediators act as intermediaries between inactive young people and public institutions that provide social, health, educational and other services. Their responsibilities include: identifying and reaching out to unregistered NEETs, determining their individual needs, informing them about employment, education and training opportunities, and directing them towards appropriate services. More generally, youth mediators cooperate with local partners to support the further integration of service delivery for NEETs. They work, for instance, with local NGOs to support outreach activities, with PES labour mediators on exchange of vacancies and cooperation with employers, and with schools in order to facilitate NEETs' reintegration into the education system. Early evaluations show promising results. During the period May-December 2015, youth mediators consulted with 5,078 youths, 2,030 were assisted in contacting organisation/institution in order to activate them; 1,398 were registered with Labour Offices. While not solely attributable to this measure, youth mediators played an important role in supporting registrations of young people with the PES: these increased by 17% during the January-February 2016, compared to the same period in 2015. The creation of a new position of "Youth Mediators", placed within the municipalities' administrations, is an innovative move which has helped to build valuable bridges between unregistered NEETs and public institutions. The measure is run by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy under the programme "Activating the Inactive" and funded nationally. EUR 330,984 were dedicated for the training and employment of 100 youth mediators (including accommodation, transport and remuneration of EUR 220 per month). The measure's end date is December 2017 but an extension is possible if its objectives are met. In Ireland, the Ballymun Youth Guarantee pilot project has partnered up with designated ‘street counsellors’ who walk the streets in the Ballymun area of Dublin four evenings a week to meet young people in their own environment and begin the process of building trust. In Germany, as part of the ESF pilot programme for the local empowerment of young people (JUGEND STÄRKEN im Quartier) running from 2015 to 2018, 178 pilot municipalities are creating social pedagogical counselling and mentoring services for young people in special need of assistance during the transition from school to work. In Romania, 27 pilot Youth Guarantee Centres were established throughout the country, by the Ministry of Labour with partners from the business community, trade unions, NGO's, professional, associations, foundations. Their objective was to reach the young NEETs registered with the PES and provide them with counselling and guidance services, training courses or place them directly within apprenticeship or traineeship schemes at employers or smoothen their transition to the world of work by sending them to an authorized skills assessment centres. Sweden: Multi-Skilled teams to support youth with complex needs In Sweden, the UngKOMP aims to improve the efficiency of the PES and strengthen its cooperation with municipalities in supporting young unemployed through the creation of multi-skilled teams comprising employees from PES and municipalities. The measure will be established in 20 municipalities during 2015-2018; each multi-skilled team will be made up of 12-17 PES employees and 2 municipal employees and will include, inter alia, an employment advisor, a psychologist, a social counsellor, an education advisor and a social worker. The measure, financed by the ESF, PES-budget and municipalities, will support 5,000 young people who are long term-unemployed or at risk of long-term unemployment, focusing on those with complex needs. The project's key innovative element is the design of the measure from the viewpoint of the young person. Rather than making young people find their way through a complex web of public services, it provides a holistic approach with the individual placed at the centre and actors collaborating closely in order to support him/her as effectively as possible. This approach is especially valuable for young people with complex needs and who display a low incentive to get engage with authorities. Another important success factor is considered to be welcoming and relaxed approach to engaging with young people. Participation is voluntary and meetings take place in a lounge-inspired environment which aims to give them a more casual feeling. The present project is a scaling-up of the previous ESF-funded "Young In" project (Unga, 2012-14, restricted to 5 municipalities), which was shown to be cost effective. Early evaluative results are positive and show that 62% of UngKOMP participants leave the project to enter employment or education, 25% leave the project for other know reasons, 13% leave the project for unknown reasons. The average duration of a young person's engagement in the project is 8 months. Poland: the Voluntary Labour Corps A central role in the implementation of the Youth Guarantee in Poland in relation to outreach strategies is played by the Voluntary Labour Corps (Ochotnicze Hufce Pracy, OHP). Placed under the authority of the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy, the Voluntary Labour Corps is made up of 738 units operating at national, regional and local level. These units make up an effective network supporting young people aged 15-24 years, including NEETs, in difficult situations or at-risk of social exclusion. The aim of the cooperation of OHP at local level is to ensure the widest outreach to young people requiring special support in terms of education and employment. OHP has a network of 721 units of care, education, training and labour market services, spread throughout the country (most often located in smaller towns). Due to the varied nature of their role, primary OHP units are divided into 2 groups: education and care units (217 units) and units performing tasks supporting young people's transition into the labour market (504 units), the later includes among others, youth centres, mobile centres for occupational information, youth employment offices, and ESF occupational training centres. OHP units have developed an effective system of reaching young people who are disadvantaged in the labour market, through cooperation with schools, education offices, churches (parish communities) and other institutions. OHP cooperates also with local governments and its specialised units (social welfare centres, family assistance centres, etc.). When designing effective outreach strategies, Member States should take into consideration the diverse backgrounds of NEETs (due in particular to poverty, disability, low educational attainment or ethnic minority/migrant background). In some countries, young asylum-seekers will be an increasing share of this group. In an approach to promote swift integration and prevent scarring effects and higher costs in the long-term, asylum-seekers under the age of 25