Youth unemployment : have EU policies made a difference? : an assessment of the Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative. Special report No 05, 2017.
Date: 2017-07-07
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU initiative, audit, report, young person, youth employment, youth policy, youth unemployment

EN 

2017 

NO 05

Special Report  Youth unemployment –  

have EU policies made 
a difference?

  An assessment of the Youth Guarantee 
and the Youth Employment Initiative

1977 - 2017

 
 
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi 
1615 Luxembourg 
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1
Enquiries: eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ContactForm.aspx
Website: eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditors

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017

Print 
PDF 
EPUB 

ISBN 978-92-872-7052-8 
ISBN 978-92-872-7058-0 
ISBN 978-92-872-7053-5 

ISSN 1831-0834 
ISSN 1977-5679 
ISSN 1977-5679 

doi:10.2865/40463 
doi:10.2865/798736 
doi:10.2865/17510 

QJ-AB-17-003-EN-C
QJ-AB-17-003-EN-N
QJ-AB-17-003-EN-E

© European Union, 2017
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

EN 

2017 

NO 05

Special Report

Youth unemployment –  
have EU policies made 
a difference?

An assessment of the Youth Guarantee  
and the Youth Employment Initiative

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

Audit team

02

The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or 
management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks 
to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and 
public interest.

This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber II of the ECA which specialises in investment for cohesion, 
growth and inclusion spending areas. Ms Iliana Ivanova, Dean of this Chamber, is the reporting Member. She was sup-
ported by Tony Murphy, Head of Private Office and Mihail Stefanov, Attaché; Emmanuel Rauch, Principal Manager; Marco 
Fians, Head of Task; Marija Grguric, Benjamin Jakob, Romuald Kayibanda, Kristina Maksinen, Aino Nyholm, Dana Smid 
Foltynova and Michele Zagordo, Auditors.

From left to right: Marija Grguric, Mihail Stefanov, Marco Fians, Benjamin Jakob, Iliana Ivanova, Michele Zagordo, 
Tony Murphy, Dana Smid Foltynova.

Contents

03

Paragraph

Glossary

I - XI 

Executive summary

1 - 26 

Introduction

1 - 5 

Youth unemployment in the European Union

6 - 10 

NEETs: young people not in employment, education or training

11 - 17 

Youth Guarantee

18 - 19 

Youth Guarantee monitoring arrangements

20 - 24  Youth Employment Initiative (YEI)

25 - 26  Previous ECA assessment of the Youth Guarantee

27 - 29  Audit scope and approach

30 - 158  Observations

30 - 59  Assessment of progress in the implementation of the Youth Guarantee

32 - 35  Decrease in the number of NEETs correlated with the decrease in youth population

36 - 42 

Limited progress in identification and registration of NEETs

43 - 52 

Increase in positive exits, but insufficient availability of offers

53 - 59 

Sustainable integration remains a challenge

60 - 98 

Factors impacting the results of the Youth Guarantee

61 - 72  No strategies with clear milestones and objectives to reach all NEETs

73 - 78  Overall cost of the Youth Guarantee and available funding not assessed by Member States

79 - 91  Member States’ approach impacts the sustainable integration of NEETs

92 - 98  Weak quality of data hampered the assessment of Youth Guarantee results

 
Contents 

04

99 - 158  Assessment of the contribution of the Youth Employment Initiative

102 - 111  Insufficient assessment of the NEET population impacted the YEI OP design

112 - 116  Risk that YEI/ESF substitutes national funding

117 - 134  The quality of data and the Commission guidance on data collection affect the measurement of  

the YEI results

135 - 138  Member States only partially utilised the additional pre-financing for YEI/ESF OPs

139 - 148  Reported results below expectations for YEI/ESF supported measures

149 - 158  Implementation difficulties confirmed by the directly sampled individual cases

159 - 182  Conclusions and recommendations

Annex  — 

 Monitoring of the Youth Guarantee: Member State differences in the data 
provided

Reply of the Commission

 
 
Glossary

05

The Employment Committee (EMCO) is the Council’s main advisory committee for Employment and Social Affairs 
in the employment field.

The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) is an EU 
Agency, whose role is to provide information, advice and expertise in the field of EU social policy on the basis of 
comparative information, research and analysis.

The European Social Fund (ESF) aims to strengthen economic and social cohesion within the European Union 
by improving employment and job opportunities (mainly through training measures), encouraging a high level of 
employment and the creation of more and better jobs.

The European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) are five separate funds that aim to reduce regional 
imbalances across the Union: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the 
Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is a United Nations agency dealing with labour issues, and 
international labour standards in particular.

A managing authority is a public or private body which has been designated by a Member State to manage 
an Operational Programme. Its tasks include selecting projects to be funded, monitoring how projects are 
implemented and reporting to the Commission on financial aspects and results achieved.

NEETs are people who are ‘neither in employment, education or training’. They include both unemployed and 
inactive people.

Operational Programmes (OPs) set out the Member States’ priorities, specific objectives and how funding is to be 
used to finance projects during a given period (generally seven years).

Outcome: A change arising from an intervention, usually in relation to its objectives (e.g. trainees who have found 
employment). Outcomes may be expected or unexpected, positive or negative.

Priority axes are the main spending areas of an Operational Programme. They consist of a group of operations 
which are related and have specific measurable goals.

A result is a measurable consequence deriving - directly or indirectly - from public intervention. In the context of 
cohesion policy, results are usually broken down into outcomes and impacts.

Young people: For the purpose of the Youth Guarantee, young people are defined as being between 15 and 25 
years of age, or, in some Member States, between 15 and 29.

Glossary 

06

Youth Action Team (YAT): In February 2012, the Commission, together with the eight Member States with the 
highest levels of youth unemployment at the time, set up Youth Action Teams consisting of national experts and EU 
officials to identify measures to make use of EU funding (including that from the ESF) still available under the 2007-
2013 programme period to support job opportunities for young people and small and medium-sized businesses.

The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) is an EU programme which aims to provide financial support to regions 
with youth unemployment rates above 25 %.

The Youth Guarantee is a Council policy designed to ensure that all young people up to the age of 25 receive 
a good-quality offer of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within four months of 
leaving formal education or becoming unemployed.

Youth Guarantee Implementation Plans (YGIPs) are prepared by the Member States to implement their Youth 
Guarantees at the national level. They set out the respective roles of public authorities and other organisations and 
how the Guarantee is to be financed (including the use of EU funds). They also determine how progress is to be 
assessed and lay down a timetable.

Executive summary

07

About the Youth Guarantee

I
Youth unemployment is not a new phenomenon and several EU Member States have experienced extremely high 
levels for many years. The 2008 economic crisis made it even more difficult for young people to integrate the labour 
market. While the situation has improved, more than 4.2 million people under the age of 25 in the EU were still 
unemployed at the end of June 2016.

II
One of the most significant EU initiatives to address this issue is the Youth Guarantee, under which Member States 
should ensure that all young people under 25 receive a good quality offer of employment, continued education, 
apprenticeship or traineeship within four months of leaving school or becoming unemployed.

III
In addition, the European Council agreed to establish the Youth Employment Initiative with an approved budget of 
6.4 billion euro (3.2 billion from a specific new EU budget line to be matched by 3.2 billion euro from ESF national 
allocations) to increase the EU financial support available to regions and individuals that were struggling the most 
with youth unemployment and inactivity.

How we conducted our audit

IV
We assessed whether the Youth Guarantee was delivering results in the Member States and whether the Youth 
Employment Initiative was contributing towards them. In particular, we examined whether Member States had 
made progress in implementing the Youth Guarantee, appropriately addressed the factors which might impact its 
implementation and whether they implemented the Youth Employment Initiative in such a way as to contribute to 
the achievement of the Youth Guarantee objectives.

V
To assess progress with the implementation of the Youth Guarantee, we visited the following seven Member States: 
Ireland, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Portugal and Slovakia. To evaluate the contribution provided by the Youth 
Employment Initiative, we visited the same Member States except for Ireland and Slovakia. Our audit covered the 
period between the official launch of the Youth Guarantee in April 2013 and May 2016.

Executive summary 

08

What we found

VI
While the seven Member States visited had made progress in implementing the Youth Guarantee and some results 
had been achieved, the current situation - more than three years after the adoption of the Council Recommen-
dation - falls short of the initial expectations raised at the launch of the Youth Guarantee, which aims to provide 
a good quality offer to all NEETS within four months.

VII
None of the Member States visited has yet ensured that all NEETs had the opportunity to take up an offer within 
four months, helping them to integrate into the labour market in a sustainable way. One important contributing fac-
tor is that it is not possible to address the whole NEET population with the resources available from the EU budget 
alone.

VIII
In addition, we conclude that the contribution of the Youth Employment Initiative to the achievement of the Youth 
Guarantee objectives in the five Member States visited was very limited at the time of the audit.

What we recommend

IX
For future initiatives in the area of employment, the Member States and the Commission should:

 ο manage expectations by setting realistic and achievable objectives and targets;

 ο

perform gap assessments and market analyses prior to setting up the schemes.

X
The Member States should:

 ο

 ο

 ο

 ο

establish appropriate outreach strategies to identify the entire NEET population with the objective of register-
ing them;

establish a complete overview of the cost of implementing the Youth Guarantee for the entire NEET population 
and prioritise the related measures to be implemented according to available financing;

ensure that offers are only considered to be of good quality if they match the participant’s profile and labour 
market demand and lead to sustainable integration in the labour market;

improve their monitoring and reporting systems in order to regularly provide quality data to facilitate the de-
velopment of more evidence-based youth policies, in particular, the capacity to follow-up the participants that 
exit the Youth Guarantee in order to reduce the number of unknown exits to the extent possible.

Executive summary 

09

XI
The Commission should:

 ο

 ο

 ο

 ο

together with EMCO, develop and propose standards for quality criteria for offers to be made under the Youth 
Guarantee;

identify and diffuse good practice in monitoring and reporting based on its overview of the existing systems 
across Member States;

ensure through its approval process for OP amendments that Member States perform a global assessment of 
the characteristics of the NEET population in order to ensure that the YEI measures included in the OPs will 
adequately address the needs of young persons;

revise its guidance on data collection to minimise the risk of overstatement of results. Member States should 
revise their baselines and targets accordingly.

Introduction

10

Youth unemployment in the European Union

01 
Youth unemployment is not a new phenomenon and several EU Member States 
have experienced extremely high levels for many years. The 2008 economic crisis 
has made it even more difficult for young people to integrate into the labour 
market. This situation is illustrated by the fact that the unemployment rate for 
young people (aged 15-24) increased by 8.8 percentage points between the first 
quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2013, when it reached its highest level, at 
23.9 %.

02 
During the same period, the unemployment rate for the older active population 
(aged 25-74) increased less (by 3.7 percentage points, from 5.8 % to 9.5 %). This is 
less than half the increase observed for the 15-24 age group (see Figure 1).

1
e
r
u
g
i
F

Unemployment rate for the 15-24 and 25-74 age-groups, from 2000 until June 2016, 
EU28 average

17.9 %

r
e
t
r
a
u
Q
t
s
r
i
F
-
0
0
0
2

7.9 %

25 %

20 %

15 %

10 %

5 %

0 %

23.9 %

r
e
t
r
a
u
Q
t
s
r
i
F
-
3
1
0
2

9.5 %

18.8 %

r
e
t
r
a
u
Q

d
n
o
c
e
S
-
6
1
0
2

7.6 %

15.1 %

r
e
t
r
a
u
Q
t
s
r
i
F
-
8
0
0
2

5.8 %

2000 Q1 2001 Q1 2002 Q1 2003 Q1 2004 Q1 2005 Q1 2006 Q1 2007 Q1 2008 Q1 2009 Q1 2010 Q1 2011 Q1 2012 Q1 2013 Q1 2014 Q1 2015 Q1 2016 Q1

Less than 25 years

From 25 to 74 years

Source: Eurostat unemployment rates EU-28, seasonally adjusted data.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 

11

03 
While the situation had improved since mid-2013, more than 4.2 million young 
people under the age of 25 in the EU were still unemployed at the end of 
June 2016 (average unemployment rate of 18.8 %). The worst affected Member 
States were Greece (47.7 %), Spain (45.2 %) and Italy (37.2 %) (see Figure 2).

2
e
r
u
g
i
F

Youth unemployment rate by Member State in June 2016 (under 25s)

Greece
Spain
Italy
Croatia
Portugal
Cyprus
France
Belgium
Slovakia
Finland
Romania
Latvia
EU28
Sweden
Ireland
Luxembourg
Poland
Lithuania
Estonia
Bulgaria
Slovenia
United Kingdom
Hungary
Denmark
Czech Republic
Austria
Netherlands
Malta
Germany

0 %

5 %

10 %

15 %

20 %

25 %

30 %

35 %

40 %

45 %

50 %

Source: Eurostat, seasonally adjusted youth (under 25) unemployment rate.

 
Introduction 

12

04 
Besides the financial consequences borne directly by young people, long periods 
of unemployment also have a negative effect in terms of future employability, 
increased risk of poverty, social exclusion and their role in society as a whole. In 
addition, there is a risk that talent and skills are not used optimally.

05 
Moreover, high youth unemployment has a negative effect on economic growth 
and productivity and represents a serious economic burden for society as 
a whole. For example, a large number of university graduates are unable to find 
jobs and therefore cannot contribute to economic growth through their skills and 
knowledge. Young people with few or no qualifications may struggle to enter the 
labour market and may be ‘locked out’ of work or increasingly find themselves 
stuck in a cycle of low pay with little opportunity for progression.

NEETs: young people not in employment, education or 
training

06 
In addition to the group of young people who are unemployed (i.e. available to 
start work and actively seeking employment), there is another large group of 
young people who are less motivated to be proactive and are, therefore, further 
detached from the labour market. These are inactive young people who are 
neither in education nor training and are referred to as inactive NEETs. Taken to-
gether, the two groups (‘unemployed’ and ‘inactive’ NEETs) aged between 15 and 
24 and, in some Member States up to 29, form a distinct population called ‘NEETs’. 
While the most commonly used indicator is the youth unemployment rate, it 
does not provide as complete a picture as the NEET rate. It should be noted that 
the NEET rate is lower than the youth unemployment rate (see Figure 3).

Introduction 

13

3
e
r
u
g
i
F

Youth unemployment rate vs NEET rate

Youth unemployment rate

Unemployed population

NEET rate

NEET population

Unemployed in
training

Unemployed 
NEETs

Unemployed 
NEETs

Inactive 
NEETs

Employed

Unemployed in
training

Unemployed
NEETs

Employed

Unemployed in
training

Unemployed 
NEETs

Inactive NEETs

Inactive in 
education

Active youth population

Youth population

Source: European Court of Auditors.

07 
The NEETs are the reference population used for the Youth Guarantee. Therefore, 
for the purpose of this report, we will also use the concept of NEETs instead of 
that of youth unemployment.

08 
The percentage of NEETs aged 15-24 increased after 2007, peaked in 2012 mainly 
due to the increase in the number of unemployed NEETs, and has fallen slightly 
since then (see Figure 4).

 
Introduction 

14

4
e
r
u
g
i
F

Evolution of the NEET rate in EU 28 during the 2007-2015 period

14 %

12 %

10 %

8 %

6 %

4 %

2 %

0 %

6.5 %

6.6 %

6.9 %

6.9 %

6. 3%

6.4 %

5.9 %

4.9 %

5.0 %

6.0 %

5.9 %

6.1 %

6.3 %

6.3 %

6.2 %

6.1 %

6.1 %

6.1 %

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Inactive NEETs

Unemployed NEETs

Source: Eurostat data NEET population 15 to 24 years of age.

09 
There were substantial differences in the NEET rates of the various Member States 
at the end of 2015 for the 15-24 age range (see Figure 5). While Italy and Bulgaria 
had NEET rates close to or above 20 %, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Ger-
many had rates close to or below 5 %.

10 
While the NEET rate varies greatly between Member States, the composition 
of the NEET population (15-24 years of age) also varies among them. The rates 
for unemployed NEETs are highest in Croatia (13.4 %), Greece (11.0 %) and Spain 
(10.6 %), where a scenario of economic growth could facilitate their integration 
into the labour market. The situation is different in Bulgaria (14.3 %), Italy (12.0 %) 
and Romania (11.7 %), where the rates of inactive NEETs are the highest. In these 
Member States, the labour services have to play a much more active role to inte-
grate young people into the labour market.

 
Introduction 

15

5
e
r
u
g
i
F

NEET rate by Member State and category (less than 25 years) in 2015

Italy
Bulgaria
Croatia
Romania
Greece
Spain
Cyprus
Ireland
Slovakia
Belgium
France
EU 28
Hungary
Portugal
United Kingdom
Poland
Estonia
Latvia
Finland
Malta
Slovenia
Lithuania
Austria
Czech Republic
Sweden
Denmark
Germany
Luxembourg
Netherlands

0 %

5 %

10 %

15 %

20 %

25 %

Inactive 

Unemployed

Source: Eurostat data NEET population 15 to 24 years.

 
16

1  Article 5(2) and Article 147 of 
the Consolidated Version of 
the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union (OJ 
C 115, 9.5.2008, p. 47).

2  COM(2010) 477 final of 

15 September 2010 ‘Youth on 
the Move’.

3  COM(2012) 729 final of 

5 December 2012 ‘Proposal for 
a Council Recommendation 
on establishing a Youth 
Guarantee’.

4  Council Recommendation of 
22 April 2013 on establishing 
a Youth Guarantee (OJ C 120, 
26.4.2013, p. 1).

5 

European Council Conclusions, 
27-28 June 2013, EUCO 
104/2/13 (http://www.
consilium.europa.eu).

Introduction 

Youth Guarantee

11 
The EU’s role in employment policy is to ensure that the employment policies 
of the Member States are coordinated, in particular by defining guidelines for 
these policies. The Commission may also support and, if necessary, complement 
national actions to combat unemployment1. One of the most significant EU initia-
tives to improve the situation of young people on the labour market is the Youth 
Guarantee.

12 
In September 2010, for the first time, the Commission called upon Member 
States to ensure that all young people were in employment or further education 
or had joined another activation measure within four months of leaving school 
or becoming unemployed. This was to be known as the ‘Youth Guarantee’. This 
proposal was put forward in the context of the Europe 2020 ‘Youth on the Move’ 
flagship initiative2, which advocated better education and training, more suc-
cessful labour market integration and greater mobility as tools to address youth 
unemployment.

13 
In December 2012, the Commission proposed a Council Recommendation to 
establish a ‘Youth Guarantee’ in its ‘Youth Employment Package’3. This can be 
considered a political commitment as it was adopted by the EU’s Council of 
Ministers in April 20134 and further endorsed by the June 2013 European Council5 
(see Box 1).

1
x
o
B

What is the ‘Youth Guarantee’?

Under the Youth Guarantee, Member States should ensure that, within four months of leaving school or 
becoming unemployed, young people under the age of 25 can either find a good quality job suited to their 
education, skills and experience or acquire the education, skills and experience needed to find a job in the 
future through an apprenticeship, a traineeship or continued education.

 
Introduction 

17

14 
The novelty of the Youth Guarantee is that, in addition to the existing measures 
in place for young people actively searching for employment, it aims systemati-
cally to reach those young inactive people who are not looking for a job and who 
are not in education or training. It aims at a sustainable integration of all NEETs in 
the labour market.

15 
The different stages of the Youth Guarantee pathway are described in Figure 6.

6
e
r
u
g
i
F

Youth Guarantee pathway

N EETS

Entry

Registration

Proﬁling and Accompanying
measures

n
o
i
s
u
l
c
x
E
/
t
u
o
-
p
o
r
D

p
u
e
k
a
T
n
o
N

Oﬀer
Proposal

Oﬀer
Take up

Negative
exit

Positive
exit

–  Employment
–  Continued Education
–  Apprenticeship
–  Traineeship

Return
to NEET
condition

Sustainable integration
into the labour market

Source: European Court of Auditors.

 
 
 
Introduction 

18

16 
The Council Recommendation requires that Member States should implement 
Youth Guarantee schemes ‘as soon as possible’. It also states that: ‘with regard 
to the Member States experiencing the most severe budgetary difficulties and 
higher rates of NEETs or youth unemployment, gradual implementation could 
also be considered’6. The Commission also encouraged Member States to priori-
tise youth employment in their national budgets.

6  Council Recommendation of 
22 April 2013 on establishing 
a Youth Guarantee (OJ C 120, 
26.4.2013) point 27.

7 

8 

EMCO meeting in Rome on 
22-23 September 2014.

See http://ec.europa.eu/social/
main.jsp?catId=115.

17 
There was no specified target date for the implementation of the Youth Guaran-
tee for the entire NEET population. As a first step, Member States were asked to 
prepare their Youth Guarantee Implementation Plans (YGIPs). These plans were 
due to be adopted by the end of December 2013, or the end of spring 2014, de-
pending on the individual Member State’s level of youth unemployment.

Youth Guarantee monitoring arrangements

18 
The Council Recommendation establishing the Youth Guarantee emphasises 
that Member States should monitor and evaluate all measures implemented 
under their Youth Guarantee schemes, so that more evidence-based policies and 
interventions can be developed on the basis of what works, where and why, thus 
ensuring the efficient use of resources and positive returns on investment.

19 
It mandates the European Commission to monitor the implementation of Youth 
Guarantee schemes in each EU Member State ‘through the multi-lateral surveil-
lance of the Employment Committee (EMCO)’. In 2014, the EMCO7 endorsed 
an indicator framework for monitoring the Youth Guarantee, accompanied by 
a comprehensive methodological manual8.

Introduction 

19

Youth Employment Initiative (YEI)

20 
In parallel, in February 2013, the Council and the European Parliament agreed to 
establish the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) with a dedicated budget line in 
order to increase the EU financial support available to regions and individuals 
that were struggling the most with youth unemployment and inactivity.

9  Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 

No 1304/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council 
of 17 December 2013 on the 
European Social Fund and 
repealing Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1081/2006 (OJ L 347, 
20.12.2013, p. 470).

10  Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013, 

recital 11.

21 
The YEI is part of overall ESF programming and is approved either in the form of 
specific YEI Operational Programmes or, within ESF Operational Programmes, 
either as a priority axis or as part of a priority axis9. The Commission therefore has 
a higher level of responsibility in this domain compared to the Youth Guarantee. 
While the Youth Guarantee is a political commitment to provide an offer to all 
NEETs less than 25 years old, the YEI is a funding instrument for measures that 
target individuals10 in the same population. The overall approved budget for the 
YEI is 6.4 billion euro for the 2014-2020 programme period, comprising 3.2 bil -
lion euro from a specific new EU budget line which is to be matched by at least 
3.2 billion euro from national allocations under the existing ESF.

Introduction 

20

22 
Regions eligible for YEI support are those that had a youth unemployment rate 
of more than 25 % for young people aged 15 to 24 in 2012 and Member States 
where the youth unemployment rate had increased by more than 30 % in 2012 
and which had youth unemployment rates higher than 20 % in 201211 (see 
Figure 7).

11  Article 16 of Regulation 

No 1304/2013.

7
e
r
u
g
i
F

Regions eligible for YEI funding

Eligible NUTS2 regions

eligible

not eligible

Sources: Eurostat, DG EMPL

Canarias

Guadeloupe
Martinique

Guyane

Mayotte Réunion

Açores

Madeira

Source: European Commission.

 
 
 
Introduction 

23 
The monitoring of YEI/ESF-funded Youth Guarantee measures follows the provi-
sions set out in the legal framework for the European Structural and Investment 
Funds (ESIFs)12.

24 
In October 2016, the European Commission published a Communication13 that 
highlights the main achievements of the Youth Guarantee and the Youth Em-
ployment Initiative since their launch in 2013 and draws conclusions on how to 
improve the EU and national efforts for deploying national Youth Guarantee 
schemes14. In parallel, the Commission proposed that the budget for the Youth 
Employment Initiative should be extended and that it should provide an ad-
ditional 1 billion euro for the YEI’s specific budget allocation over the 2017-2020 
period (matched by 1 billion euro from the ESF), to reach a total amount of 
8 billion euro15.

Previous ECA assessment of the Youth Guarantee

25 
In March 2015, the Court published a Special Report16 on the Commission’s sup-
port for Member States for the implementation of the Youth Guarantee. It identi-
fied three main risks to effective implementation:

 ο

the adequacy of the total funding;

 ο

the way in which a good quality offer is defined; and

 ο

the way in which the Commission monitors and reports on the results of the 
scheme.

26 
The current report builds on and supplements this analysis by assessing the im-
plementation of the Youth Guarantee at Member State level.

21

12  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
17 December 2013 laying 
down common provisions on 
the European Regional 
Development Fund, the 
European Social Fund, the 
Cohesion Fund, the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural 
Development and the 
European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund and laying 
down general provisions on 
the European Regional 
Development Fund, the 
European Social Fund, the 
Cohesion Fund and the 
European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund and repealing 
Council Regulation (EC) No 
1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 
20.12.2013, p. 320) and 
Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013.

13  COM(2016) 646 final of 

4 October 2016 ‘The Youth 
Guarantee and Youth 
Employment Initiative three 
years on’.

14  COM(2016) 646 final.

15  COM(2016) 603 final of 

14 September 2016 ‘Mid-term 
review/revision of the 
multiannual financial 
framework 2014-2020. An EU 
budget focused on results.’

16  Special Report No 3/2015 ‘EU 

Youth Guarantee: first steps 
taken but implementation 
risks ahead’ (http://eca.europa.
eu).

Audit scope and approach

22

27 
Through this audit, we assessed whether the Youth Guarantee was delivering 
results in the Member States and whether the Youth Employment Initiative was 
contributing towards it. In particular, we examined whether Member States:

 ο had made progress in implementing the Youth Guarantee. The aspects ex-

amined, based on the EMCO data reported by Member States, included the 
evolution of the number of NEETs, the identification and registration of NEETs, 
the provision of offers within four months and the subsequent sustainability 
of these offers;

 ο had appropriately addressed related factors which might impact the progress 
of implementation of the Youth Guarantee based on the provisions of the 
Council Recommendation. This included appropriate strategies to ensure 
the registration of all NEETs, the assessment of implementation costs and 
the available funding, the Member States’ approach towards the sustainable 
integration of NEETs, and the adequacy of monitoring and reporting by the 
Member States;

 ο had implemented the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) in such a way as to 

contribute to the achievement of Youth Guarantee objectives.

28 
In order to assess the progress made regarding the implementation of the Youth 
Guarantee, we visited seven Members States: Ireland, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, 
Portugal and Slovakia. For each of them our analysis is based on the age group 
they selected, i.e. 15-24 or 15-29 years of age. In addition, in order to evaluate the 
contribution provided by the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), we visited the 
same Members States except for Ireland and Slovakia and we reviewed six OPs 
(five national and one French regional). The Member States were selected based 
on the following main criteria:

 ο

their youth unemployment rate;

 ο

the percentage of NEETs over the total population in the same age group;

 ο

their share of the total specific YEI financial allocation.

Audit scope and approach 

23

29 
Evidence was obtained from:

 ο

documentary reviews at EU and national level;

 ο

interviews with the national authorities responsible for implementing the 
Youth Guarantee and the managing authorities of the YEI/ESF OPs;

 ο

an analysis of data (including those reported to EMCO);

 ο

an examination of a sample of 175 individuals who benefited from YEI subsi-
dised offers, 35 in each of the five Member States, to examine the contribu-
tion provided by the YEI.

The audit in the Member States covered the period between the official launch of the 
Youth Guarantee in April 2013 and May 2016.

Observations

24

Assessment of progress in the implementation of the 
Youth Guarantee

30 
We considered that it was an appropriate time to assess progress in the imple-
mentation of the Youth Guarantee, given that the Council Recommendation had 
been approved in the first half of 2013.

31 
On the basis of both the data reported by Member States to EMCO and EUROSTAT 
data on NEETs and the youth population, we assessed, for the seven Member 
States visited, whether:

 ο

the number of NEETs had decreased since the introduction of the Youth 
Guarantee;

 ο

the Member States had made progress in identifying and registering NEETs;

 ο

 ο

all registered NEETs had received an offer of employment, a traineeship, an 
apprenticeship or continued education within four months;

young people that had benefited from the Youth Guarantee were being sus-
tainably integrated into the labour market.

Decrease in the number of NEETs correlated with the 
decrease in youth population

32 
Between the launch of the Youth Guarantee and the first quarter of 2016, the 
overall youth population in the seven Members States visited had decreased 
by roughly 286 000. Demographic factors, including the natural decrease in the 
young population and net migration had contributed towards this.

Observations 

25

33 
In the same period, the NEET population decreased in all Member States visited, 
except for France, by almost 374 000. However, the increase in the youth popula-
tion in France was due to a technical adjustment reported by Eurostat in the first 
quarter of 2014. Without France, the decrease in the youth and NEET population 
would have been 500 000, and 432 000 respectively (see Table 1).

(in thousands)

1 Youth population and NEET population in 2013 and 2016  
e
l
b
a
T

Youth population

NEET population

Change

Change

2013Q1 

2016Q1

2013Q1 

2016Q1

IE

ES

FR

HR

IT

PT

SK

542

4 562

7 284

778

9 286

1 720

1 133

520

4 398

7 497

743

9 165

1 658

1 040

Total

25 306

25 020

Source: Eurostat data.

-22

-165

213

-36

-120

-63

-94

-286

86

839

797

181

2 289

293

215

4 701

66

622

855

135

2 258

227

164

4 327

-21

-217

58

-46

-32

-66

-52

-374

 
Observations 

26

34 
Our analysis shows that this reduction in the NEET population was not due to an 
increase in the number of young people employed. While youth unemployment 
rates have decreased as a whole in the seven Member States visited, the number 
of young people in employment actually decreased by 40 000 between the first 
quarter of 2013 and the same period of 2016.

35 
The major contributing factor towards the decrease in the NEET population was 
the number of young people in education, which increased by 315 000 during the 
same period. This could be explained by the fact that young people tend to stay 
longer in education and defer their entry into the labour market during periods 
of low economic growth (see Table 2).

2 Composition and evolution of the youth and NEET 
e
l
b
a
T

population for the Member States visited (in thousands) 
from the first quarter of 2013 to the first quarter of 2016

Status

Unemployed NEETs

Inactive NEETs

Total NEETs population

Employed

Unemployed in training

Inactive in education

Total youth population

Source: Eurostat data.

2013Q1

2016Q1

Change

2 699

2 002

4 701

6 948

765

12 891

25 306

2 312

2 014

4 327

6 908

579

13 206

25 020

-387

13

-374

-40

-186

315

-286

 
Observations 

27

Limited progress in identification and registration of NEETs

36 
The Youth Guarantee is aimed at all young people irrespective of their labour 
market status. Prior to the introduction of the Youth Guarantee, all Member 
States were already providing support to those NEETs who were actively seeking 
employment. In general, this was done by public employment services (PES) or 
similar providers, with registration being a pre-requisite for obtaining support.

37 
The Council Recommendation calls on Member States to put in place Youth Guar-
antee schemes which aim to provide a good quality offer to all young people 
becoming unemployed or leaving formal education within four months. This 
requires the identification of all NEETs, in particular those not actively searching 
for a job (i.e. inactive NEETs), who are not covered by the existing systems. This 
required structural reforms, necessitating the involvement of new partners work-
ing closer with this target group, and additional financial resources.

The share of NEETs registered by the end of 2015 did not 
substantially increase after the introduction of the Youth 
Guarantee

38 
The seven Member States visited had different starting points in terms of the 
NEET population already covered prior to the launch of the Youth Guarantee. The 
percentage of NEETs already identified in France was 82 %, compared to Italy, 
where it only represented around 38 % (see Table 3).

39 
The different levels of progress by Member States are partially explained by the 
fact that their Youth Guarantee schemes were not launched at the same time. 
In addition, some Member States decided to transfer all young people who 
were already registered with the PES (or similar providers) to the Youth Guaran-
tee scheme, whereas others decided to build up specific new Youth Guarantee 
registers.

Observations 

28

Registered unemployed before the Youth Guarantee and registered NEETs in 
2014 and 20151 (in thousands)

3
e
l
b
a
T

Before YG2

2014

2015

IE 
15-24

ES 
15-29

FR 
15-24

HR 
15-29

IT 
15-29

PT 
15-29

SK 
15-29

Registered

NEET population

%

Registered

NEET population

%

Registered

NEET population

%

Registered

NEET population

%

Registered

NEET population

%

Registered

NEET population

%

Registered

NEET population

%

48

74

65 %

461

707

65 %

673

821

82 %

121

177

68 %

925

2 414

38 %

142

265

54 %

134

225

60 %

46

80

58 %

465

685

68 %

726

851

85 %

94

166

56 %

51

2 413

2 %

100

245

41 %

87

201

43 %

37

74

50 %

788

1 273

62 %

715

889

80 %

89

151

59 %

213

2 349

9 %

109

220

50 %

80

184

43 %

1 

 The ‘before YG’ figures used correspond to the percentage of persons registered at the PES as unemployed within the Youth Guarantee age 
bracket before it started. The data used in Spain were provided by the Spanish PES because EMCO data only covers NEETs who are registered 
with the SNGJ (the Spanish Youth Guarantee database). The 2014 data for France only takes into account Pôle Emploi in order to avoid double 
counting with the local employment offices, the Missions Locales. The 2014 and 2015 figures correspond to average figures over the year.

2 

 Data used as before YG were: Ireland 2013Q4; Spain 2014Q2; France 2013Q4; Croatia 2013Q4; Italy 2014Q1; Portugal 2014Q1 and Slovakia 
2013Q4.

Source: PES for the baseline before YG; EMCO database for the number of NEETs in Youth Guarantee in 2014 and 2015; and Eurostat for the NEET 
population.

 
Observations 

29

40 
For example, in Italy, the national authorities decided not to automatically trans-
fer to the Youth Guarantee scheme those young people that fulfilled the NEET 
criteria but had already registered as unemployed with the PES. Instead, they 
required all of them to re-register. This was a deliberate choice by the national 
authorities which created an additional burden for the NEETS and resulted in 
a very low registration rate.

Youth Guarantee contribution to NEETs registration process 
difficult to assess

41 
The total number of NEETs entering the Youth Guarantee in the seven Member 
States visited (i.e. registering with a Youth Guarantee provider) totalled 2.6 mil-
lion in 2014. In 2015, this increased by 32 %, reaching a total of more than 3.4 mil-
lion. However, with the exception of Spain, Italy and France, the number of 
registered NEETs was lower in 2015 than for the previous year (see Table 4).

4 Total number of people entering the Youth Guarantee1
e
l
b
a
T

Registered entries

Change 
2015/2014

IE

ES

FR

HR

IT

PT

SK

Total

2014

2015

60 200

572 694

1 046 478

272 154

144 368

335 151

174 397

2 605 442

54 600

1 268 613

1 082 215

171 739

420 279

266 311

165 425

3 429 182

-9 %

122 %

3 %

-37 %

191 %

-21 %

-5 %

32 %

1 

 The data from Spain was provided by the Spanish PES because EMCO data only covers NEETs who are 
registered with the SNGJ (the Spanish Youth Guarantee database). The 2014 data for France only takes 
into account Pôle Emploi in order to avoid double counting with the local employment offices, the 
Missions Locales.

Source: EMCO database and Eurostat.

 
Observations 

30

42 
Our analysis shows that the significant divergences between Member States were 
due to the following:

 ο

 ο

 ο

 ο

in Spain, the two main factors were: 1) reporting on data on NEETs only 
started in July 2014; 2) the age bracket was extended in July 2015 to include 
NEETs aged 25-29, which resulted in almost 390 000 additional registrations;

in Italy, reporting only covered the eight month period from May 2014, as the 
authorities decided not to migrate potential NEETs already registered with 
the PES prior to this date and started registrations from zero;

in France, the source of data changed between the two years. The 2014 data 
only took into account the figures for the public employment service (‘Pôle 
Emploi’) in order to avoid double counting with the local employment offices 
(‘Missions Locales’). For 2015, however, the figures compiled by EMCO also 
included the Missions Locales data;

in Croatia and in Portugal, all previously registered NEETs were included in 
the 2014 figures, which explains the high number of registrations for 2014. In 
addition, Portugal only reported after March 2014, i.e., for 10 months of that 
year.

Increase in positive exits, but insufficient availability of 
offers

43 
There are three ways for registered NEETs to leave the Youth Guarantee scheme:

 ο

take up an offer of employment, traineeship, apprenticeship or continued 
education; or

 ο

voluntarily abandon the scheme; or

 ο

be excluded on the basis of national rules/practice (e.g. after a repeated fail-
ure to participate in planned activities).

Observations 

31

44 
NEETs can leave the Youth Guarantee preparatory phase through a positive or 
negative exit. A positive exit corresponds to the take-up of an offer. A negative 
exit means that the young person continues to be an unemployed or inactive 
NEET. If the Member State is not capable of verifying the status of the NEET after 
his/her departure from the scheme, his/her destination is registered as unknown, 
which may be linked to a positive or negative exit. The lower number of NEETs 
with unknown status is indicative of a monitoring system that performs well (see 
paragraphs 92 to 98).

45 
All NEETs that participate in accompanying measures, such as individual action 
planning, individual case-management for those requiring more support or train-
ing services (e.g. basic skills, soft skills, mentoring, etc.) are considered as being in 
the Youth Guarantee preparatory phase and not as exiting the scheme.

46 
At the end of 2015, the share of positive exits varied substantially among Member 
States, ranging from 58 % in Spain to 99 % in Italy (see Figure 8).

47 
The rate of unknown destinations, for example 42 % in Spain, generally reflects 
the poor quality of the data. The very low number of unknown destinations 
(< 1 %) in Italy can be attributed to the creation of a database that, amongst 
other things, tracks the situation of the Youth Guarantee participants. In addition, 
the low number of negative exits in Italy could be partly due to the fact that all 
participants sign a declaration of immediate availability to start a measure.

Observations 

32

8 Percentage of exits by type (cumulative 2014-2015)1
e
r
u
g
i
F

120 %

100 %

17 %

42 %

37 %

30 %

80 %

3 %

0 %

4 %

2 %

80 %

33 %

14 %

15 %

3 %

0 %

1%

99 %

58 %

59 %

68 %

64 %

71 %

IE

ES

FR

HR

IT

PT

SK

Unknown destination

Negative exit

Positive exit

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %

1 

 The data from Spain were provided by the Spanish PES because EMCO data only covers NEETs who are registered with the SNGJ (the Spanish 
Youth Guarantee database). The 2014 data for France only takes into account Pôle Emploi in order to avoid double counting with the local 
employment offices, the Missions Locales.

Source: EMCO database.

48 
Slovakia registered the highest share of negative exits (15 % for 2014-2015). In 
2014, however, Slovakia reported 2 % negative exits and 29 % unknown destina-
tions. In 2015, the number of negative exits increased to 26 % and the number of 
unknown destinations decreased to less than 1 % due to changes in the report-
ing system, but this does not explain why there were so many negative exits.

 
Observations 

33

49 
Employment was the most common destination of positive exits in all Member 
States visited, with the exception of Italy, where traineeships represented 54 % 
of them. In all other Member States visited, exits towards employment ranged 
between 64 % in Ireland and 90 % in France (see Figure 9).

9 Distribution of positive exits by type of destination (cumulative 2014-2015)1
e
r
u
g
i
F

27 %

12 %

54 %

18 %

14 %

13 %

8 %

2 %
8 %
6 %

0 %

1 %

0 %

1 %

100 %
90 %
80 %
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0 %

0 %
9 %

64 %

84 %

90 %

86 %

5 %
11 %

31 %

1 %
2 %

4 %
4 %

83 %

80 %

5 %
4 %

72 %

IE

ES

FR

HR

IT

PT

SK

Total

Employment

Education

Apprenticeship

Traineeship

1 

 The data from Spain were provided by the Spanish PES because EMCO data only covers NEETs who are registered with the SNGJ (the Spanish 
Youth Guarantee database). The 2014 data for France only takes into account Pôle Emploi in order to avoid double counting with the local 
employment offices, the Missions Locales.

Source: EMCO database.

 
Observations 

34

50 
A comparison between the number of positive exits and the number of NEETs 
registered with the Youth Guarantee shows that, in 2014, the number of positive 
exits in the seven Member States visited covered only around half of the total 
registrations (53 % in 2014 and 62 % in 2015). In 2015, the rate of positive exits 
increased in all Member States covered (except Ireland) (see Figure 10). The in-
crease in Croatia (from 41 % to 67 %) and Portugal (from 42 % to 62 %) was mainly 
due to the decrease in the newly registered NEETs (see paragraph 42, fourth 
indent). The increase in positive exits (from 22 % to 68 %) in Italy actually reflects 
a significant increase in the number of offers made and the shorter reporting pe-
riod for 2014 (see paragraph 42, second indent). The above figures demonstrate 
that additional efforts are required to provide an offer to all registered NEETs as 
requested by the Council Recommendation.

0
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

Positive exits out of the total number of registered NEETs1

90 %

80 %

70 %

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %

81 % 80 %

67 %

68 %

62 % 62 %

57 %

53 %

72 %

62 %

60 %

62 %

53 %

41 %

42 %

22 %

IE

ES

FR

HR

IT

PT

SK

Total

2014

2015

1 

 The data from Spain were provided by the Spanish PES because EMCO data only covers NEETs who are registered with the SNGJ (the Spanish 
Youth Guarantee database). The 2014 data for France only takes into account Pôle Emploi in order to avoid double counting with the local 
employment offices, the Missions Locales.

Source: EMCO database.

 
Observations 

35

70 % of 2014 positive exits took place within four months

51 
The Council Recommendation states that Member States should provide offers 
to NEETs within four months. EMCO guidelines on reporting data consider the 
date of the NEETs’ registration with a Youth Guarantee provider to be the starting 
point for the calculation of the four months.

17  See EMCO Methodological 

manual, Indicator Framework 
for Monitoring the Youth 
Guarantee (YG), paragraph 81.

52 
None of the Member States visited during the audit were able to provide all 
NEETs the opportunity to take up an offer within four months of entering the 
Youth Guarantee scheme. However, for the positive exits in 2014, 70 % took place 
within the four month deadline. In France, Croatia, Italy and Portugal, the situa-
tion worsened in 2015 compared to 2014 (see Figure 11) resulting in an overall 
average of 59 %. We also note that the Italian starting date for the four month 
period for taking up an offer to the NEETs is the date when a NEET is assessed 
and profiled rather than the moment he/she registers for the Youth Guarantee 
scheme. This means that the actual waiting time for the individual is even longer. 
Additional efforts are required to increase the share of NEETs for which the four 
month target is met.

Sustainable integration remains a challenge

53 
The final objective of the Youth Guarantee is to help young people join the 
labour market in a sustainable way. Therefore, the EMCO monitoring framework 
requests that the situation of young people at 6, 12 and 18 months after the date 
they leave the scheme is followed-up17. Their situation is considered positive if 
they are in employment, education or training and negative if they have returned 
to NEET status.

54 
We analysed this data, which differs substantially among Member States, for 
young people who exited the scheme in 2014 or in 2015.

Observations 

36

1
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

Positive exits from the Youth Guarantee within four months (2014 and 2015)1

120 %

100 %

80 %

60 %

40 %

20 %

0 %

74 %

69 %

70 %

48 %

46 %

58 %

49 %

43 %

95 %

84 %

72 %

68 %

70 %

59 %

54%

47 %

IE

ES

FR

HR

IT

PT

SK

Total

2014

2015

1 

 The data from Spain were provided by the Spanish PES because EMCO data only covers NEETs who are registered with the SNGJ (the Spanish 
Youth Guarantee database). The 2014 data for France only takes into account Pôle Emploi in order to avoid double counting with the local 
employment offices, the Missions Locales.

Source: EMCO database.

 
Observations 

37

Situation six months after exiting the Youth Guarantee

55 
The share of young people who exited the scheme in 2014 and were still em-
ployed, in education or training six months later ranges between 56 % (in Por-
tugal) and 71 % (in Ireland). The French authorities did not provide the relevant 
data to EMCO in September 2016 (see Table 5).

5 Situation six months after exiting the Youth Guarantee for people  
e
l
b
a
T

entering the scheme in 2014 and 20151

2014

2015

Positive

Negative Unknown

Not  
applicable2

Positive

Negative

Unknown

Not  
applicable2

71 %

63 %

61 %

68 %

56 %

4 %

54 %

21 %

15 %

17 %

0 %

11 %

16 %

13 %

8 %

21 %

22 %

32 %

33 %

80 %

33 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

71 %

37 %

60 %

65 %

47 %

4 %

48 %

21 %

47 %

13 %

0 %

11 %

14 %

18 %

8 %

0 %

17 %

27 %

25 %

80 %

26 %

0 %

16 %

10 %

8 %

17 %

2 %

9 %

IE

ES

HR

IT

PT

SK

Total

1  The data for Spain are the data reported to EMCO and only cover the situation of people registered at SNGJ.
2  Not applicable: at the time data was collected, participants have not yet reached the six months since when they left the Youth Guarantee.

Source: EMCO database.

56 
The trend in 2014 and 2015 for people maintaining a positive exit after six months 
is relatively stable, with the exception of Spain. Here, the percentage decreased 
from 63 % to 37 %, while the negative or unknown exits increased from 36 % to 
47 %. These results partly reflected the change in the target NEET population to 
include the 25-29 age group (see paragraph 42, first indent).

 
Observations 

38

57 
In Slovakia, only 4 % of the people who exited the Youth Guarantee scheme in 
2014 or 2015 were reported as still being in employment, education or training 
six months later. This result is heavily influenced by the high number (80 %) of un-
known situations which makes it difficult to assess the level of sustainable labour 
market integration achieved. Indeed, for these cases there was no information on 
their status, which indicates that the Slovak national authorities are having dif-
ficulty monitoring the ongoing situation of participants.

Situation 12 and 18 months after exiting the Youth Guarantee

58 
The Member States, with the exception of France and Italy, reported on the situ-
ation of individuals 12 months after exiting the scheme. In 2014, the situation of 
young people 12 months after a positive exit was similar to that after six months. 
Spain is the exception, as only 45 % maintained this status after 12 months, 
compared to 63 % after six months (see Tables 5 and 6). The rate for successful 
integration 18 months after a positive exit fell when compared to 12 months in all 
Member States except for Ireland.

Positive, negative and unknown situations at 12 and 18 months for  
exits in 20141, 2

6
e
l
b
a
T

2014 - after 12 months

2014 - after 18 months

Positive Negative Unknown

65 %

45 %

64 %

56 %

3 %

46 %

28 %

34 %

17 %

13 %

18 %

22 %

7 %

21 %

20 %

32 %

79 %

32 %

IE

ES

HR

PT

SK

Total

Not 

applicable3 Positive Negative Unknown
7 %

25 %

67 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

33 %

62 %

41 %

2 %

41 %

29 %

14 %

12 %

19 %

20 %

38 %

17 %

26 %

78 %

33 %

Not 
applicable3

0 %

0 %

7 %

21 %

2 %

6 %

1  Data for Spain are the data reported to EMCO, and only cover the situation of the persons registered at SNGJ.
2 

 The figures above are based on the situation of individuals at a given moment in time, which means that an individual in a negative situation 
after 12 months can change to a positive one after 18 months.
 Not applicable: at the time data was collected, participants have not yet reached the 12 and 18 months since when they left the Youth 
Guarantee.

3 

Source: EMCO database.

 
Observations 

39

59 
For young people who exited the scheme in 2015, the Court did not assess the 
situation 12 months after positive exits, as only four Member States reported 
figures. In addition, almost two-thirds of the reported participants had not yet 
reached the 12 month cut-off point.

Factors impacting the results of the Youth Guarantee

60 
In this section, we assess whether the Member States had adequately addressed 
the factors which might negatively impact the implementation of the Youth 
Guarantee. In particular, we assessed whether Member States had:

 ο

drawn up appropriate strategies to ensure the registration of all NEETs;

 ο

estimated the overall cost of the Youth Guarantee and what would be the 
available level of funding;

 ο

taken measures to ensure the sustainable integration of NEETs;

 ο

set up an appropriate monitoring and reporting system.

No strategies with clear milestones and objectives to reach 
all NEETs

61 
The Council Recommendation states that the Youth Guarantee aims to reach 
all young people under the age of 25 within four months after becoming un-
employed or leaving formal education. Member States should actively seek to 
identify and register all NEETs and motivate them to join the Youth Guaran-
tee scheme. The Council Recommendation also highlights the importance of 
strengthening cooperation between relevant stakeholders (such as public and 
private employment services, education and training institutions, employers, 
youth organisations and non-governmental organisations working with youth) in 
order to reach the entire NEET population.

Observations 

40

62 
Therefore we examined whether the Member States had:

 ο

set out a coherent strategy with concrete and measurable objectives for 
reaching all NEETs; and

 ο

involved and consulted the relevant stakeholders.

Some Member States only targeted a narrow sub-population of 
NEETs

63 
Based on our analysis of the Youth Guarantee Implementation Plans (YGIPs), we 
found that, in two of the seven Member States covered (Italy and Ireland), the na-
tional authorities had decided to focus on a narrower sub-population (see Box 2). 
This led to a situation where a significant part of the NEET population was not 
targeted from the start.

2
x
o
B

Target NEET population in Ireland and Italy: around 30 % of the overall NEET 
population excluded

Italy: The YGIP targeted young people aged 15-29 who were available for work (1 723 000 in 2013). However, 
those young people who had not provided a declaration of immediate availability (DID - Dichiarazione di 
immediata disponibilità) prior to registering for the scheme (28 % of the overall NEET population in the same 
year) were not considered in the calculation of the target.

Ireland: The YGIP focuses on young people aged 18-24 who, in the fourth quarter of 2013, were not in em-
ployment and were receiving unemployment benefits, and self-reported unemployed people (45 000 people, 
70 % of the total NEET population). Unemployed students, inactive self-reported students, carers, and people 
who were inactive due to disability were excluded from the target. This latter group comprised 18 900 per-
sons (30 % of the total NEET population).

 
Observations 

41

NEETs are required to be proactive to participate

64 
Another approach which limits the scope of the Youth Guarantee in some Mem-
ber States is the requirement of ‘proactivity’ from the individuals concerned. 
In Spain, in order to participate in the Youth Guarantee scheme, NEETs have to 
register, on their own initiative, with the Sistema Nacional de Garantía Juvenil 
(SNGJ). This proactivity is also required under National Employment Law 18/2014. 
As a result, people who were already registered elsewhere, for example with 
the PES, could not be migrated automatically to the Youth Guarantee but were 
required to register again.

65 
We also note that Ireland followed a different approach which, although costly, 
proved to be effective in identifying the entire NEET population above 18 years 
of age (see Box 3).

3
x
o
B

Income support subsidy in Ireland

Ireland provides all unemployed people aged 18 or over with income support of a minimum of 100 euro 
a week per person without children. Because of this, the authorities believe that all but an insignificant num-
ber of NEETs aged 18 or over are registered with the Department of Social Protection.

66 
We found that the Member States strategies were not focused enough, did not 
include quantified objectives and did not clearly set a calendar for reaching the 
entire NEET population. Nevertheless we noted that several of the Member States 
visited had developed innovative strategies for reaching previously unidenti-
fied NEETs, by making use of awareness campaigns through both traditional and 
modern media channels (e.g. social networks).

 
Observations 

42

67 
The Commission, in its communication18 has concluded that more effort is need-
ed to support young people who are furthest away from the labour market - the 
NEETs who have traditionally been hardest to reach (even before the crisis) and 
have so far benefited the least from improvements. This corroborates our find-
ings relating to progress in identifying and registering all NEETs.

18  COM(2016) 646 final - The 

Youth Guarantee and Youth 
Employment Initiative three 
years on, p. 11.

Relevant stakeholders’ involvement not clearly defined

68 
The seven Member States visited mentioned the need to involve and consult rel-
evant stakeholders. However, they did not specify how these partnerships would 
contribute to the overall objective of reaching all NEETs. The only exception was 
Portugal, but even there it remained unclear as to how the partners were to con-
tribute towards the identification and registration of all NEETs (see Box 4).

4
x
o
B

The Portuguese YGIP - targets set for the identification/registration of the NEET 
population

The Portuguese YGIP aims to reach the entire NEET population by 2019. The relevant stakeholders are respon-
sible for reaching 47 % of the NEETs who are not registered with the public employment service. However, 
it sets the targets to be attained by the relevant stakeholders in general terms, without specifying in detail 
the objectives per partner. It also does not mention any financial contribution to be provided to the relevant 
stakeholders or how they are meant to accomplish this objective without extra resources.

69 
We also found that since the launch of the Youth Guarantee specific agreements 
with relevant stakeholders had been signed in all Member States visited. For ex-
ample, the Spanish public employment service had signed agreements with insti-
tutions like Instituto de la Juventud (INJUVE), Federación de Asociaciones Empresari-
ales de Empresas de Insercion (FAEDEI) and the Spanish Red Cross, with a view to 
reaching the most vulnerable NEETs. Slovakia had signed three agreements with 
ESF-supported social partners in 2015, with a view to motivating inactive NEETs 
to register with the employment services. However, in all cases, the exact targets 
to be achieved by the partner organisation were not defined.

 
Observations 

43

70 
This shows that there is an increasing involvement of relevant stakeholders which 
work in close contact with the inactive NEET subgroup. However, there still needs 
to be a clearer definition of their involvement and how they can contribute to the 
process in the most efficient and effective way.

Unemployed NEETs decreased whereas inactive ones remained 
stable

71 
The total NEET population targeted by the Youth Guarantee decreased in the sev-
en Member States visited from 4.7 million people to 4.3 million people between 
the first quarter of 2013 and the end of March 2016 (see Figure 12).

the seven Member States visited (first quarter 2013 - end of March 2016)

2 Number of unemployed and inactive NEETs (in thousands) in  
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

2 900

2 699

2 700

2 500

2 300

2 100

1 900

1 700

1 500

2 002

2 312

2 014

2013Q1 2013Q2 2013Q32013Q4 2014Q1 2014Q2 2014Q3 2014Q4 2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1

Unemployed NEETs

Inactive NEETs

Source: Eurostat data on the number of unemployed and inactive NEETs.

 
Observations 

44

72 
This reduction was due to a fall in the unemployed component of the NEET popu-
lation (- 387 000 people), whereas the figure for inactive NEETs remained practi-
cally unchanged (+ 13 000 people)19. This corroborates the fact that additional 
efforts are needed to reach the inactive NEETs20.

19  The seasonal peaks registered 
in the third quarters are 
related to the end of the 
academic year.

20  COM(2016) 646 final, p. 9.

Overall cost of the Youth Guarantee and available funding 
not assessed by Member States

73 
Prior to the introduction of the Youth Guarantee, all Member States were already 
providing assistance to registered unemployed young people in the context of 
their active labour market policies and, in particular, through their PESs (or similar 
bodies). The introduction of the Youth Guarantee brought two additional chal-
lenges to the Member States:

 ο

 ο

firstly, the support provided is meant to address all NEETs and not just those 
that are registered as unemployed with the PES; and

secondly, the support provided to all NEETs is meant to lead to an offer within 
four months of their leaving formal education or becoming unemployed.

74 
We therefore examined whether the Member States had estimated the additional 
cost of providing the required offer to all NEETs within four months as required 
by the Council Recommendation and identified the level of available funding.

75 
We found that:

 ο None of the seven Member States visited could provide an estimate of the 

additional expected cost for their specific situation.

 ο

In general, the YGIPs for all Member States visited presented a series of meas-
ures to be offered to NEETs based on the 2014-2020 ESIF funding, notably 
from the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) and the European Social Fund 
(ESF).

Observations 

45

76 
Recent research by independent organisations provides indicative figures of 
what could be the cost of reaching all NEETs in EU. ILO estimates that the annual 
cost would be approximately 45.4 billion euro 21 whereas Eurofound forecast that 
the cost would be 50.4 billion euro per year 22.

21 

ILO, ‘The Youth Guarantee 
programme in Europe: 
Features, implementation and 
challenges’, August 2015.

22  Eurofound, ‘Social Inclusion of 

Young People’, 
September 2015.

77 
In comparison, the total ESF/YEI funding available to the 28 EU Member States 
for the 2014-2020 period totals 86.4 billion euro (i.e. 12.3 billion euro per year). 
Moreover, during the seven year programme, 12.5 billion euro in ESF/YEI funds 
(or 1.8 billion euro per year) have been programmed to be spent on ESF in -
vestment priority 8.ii (sustainable integration into the labour market of young 
people), out of which 6.4 billion euro have been programmed under YEI initiative 
which directly target NEETs.

78 
Therefore, it is not possible to address the whole NEET population, which was the 
expectation raised by the Council Recommendation, with the resources avail-
able from the EU budget alone. In this respect, there is a need for Member States 
to properly assess the costs of their Youth Guarantee schemes and prioritise the 
related measures according to the available financing.

Member States’ approach impacts the sustainable 
integration of NEETs

79 
The final objective of the Youth Guarantee is to enhance the skills/employability 
of the NEETs and enable their sustainable integration into the labour market. Ac-
cording to the Council Recommendation, measures implemented in the context 
of a Youth Guarantee scheme, aimed at boosting the competences of individu-
als, should help address existing skills mismatches to better meet labour-market 
demands. Moreover, the further the individuals concerned are detached from the 
labour market, the more assistance their integration requires. Offers should be 
tailored to the profile and qualification level of individuals. They also should com-
ply with minimum requirements for a good quality offer.

Observations 

46

80 
Thus, we examined whether the Member States visited:

23  Eurofound, ‘Exploring the 

diversity of NEETs’ July 2016.

 ο

 ο

systematically addressed the skills mismatch in the context of their Youth 
Guarantee;

assessed the NEETs’ profiles and ensured a uniform approach among the vari-
ous providers; and

 ο made use of a definition of a good quality offer.

Skills mismatch not identified and addressed in the context of the 
Youth Guarantee

81 
The NEETs group is highly heterogeneous23. However, none of the Member States 
visited had performed a comprehensive analysis of the NEET population includ-
ing a skill mismatch analysis. In Portugal and Spain, for instance, the YGIP was 
based only on the statistical data for NEETs provided by the national statistical 
offices, such as age distribution, qualifications and gender.

82 
Among the Member States covered, only Ireland has developed a systematic 
approach to addressing skills mismatches and aligning the training portfolio of 
NEETs to meet the needs of the local area. This exercise is carried out on an an-
nual basis for a certain catchment area, by a combination of census and a labour 
force survey, together with the local employers’ representatives and the local 
training providers. However, this system was already in place before the launch of 
the Youth Guarantee.

83 
All other Member States visited addressed the skills mismatch in specific studies 
and/or analyses carried out by various institutions. However, these studies were 
not, or were only partially, taken into account when designing the types and 
number of offers to be included in the YGIPs.

Observations 

47

Profiling systems modified due to the Youth Guarantee in three of 
the Member States visited

84 
The introduction of the Youth Guarantee triggered the modification of the profil-
ing system for NEETs in Italy, Spain and Ireland. However, Croatia, Slovakia, France 
and Portugal maintained their previous systems.

85 
In Croatia and Slovakia (where there is just one Youth Guarantee provider, the 
PES), the profiling system is based on a qualitative assessment by a case officer. 
In France the assessment is also made by a case officer, but there is a multitude 
of service providers assessing the NEETs and these do not follow a uniform 
approach.

86 
Portugal, Ireland and Italy use a system that is based, firstly, on an automated 
scoring system and, secondly, on qualitative profiling via a case officer’s assess-
ment. In Ireland and Portugal, the sole Youth Guarantee provider responsible for 
assessing the NEETs is the PES, whereas this is done by multiple providers in Italy 
(see Box 5).

5
x
o
B

A new profiling system for NEETs in Italy for the Youth Guarantee

For the Youth Guarantee scheme, Italy has introduced a standard NEETs profiling procedure for all YG provid-
ers. This involves calculating a vulnerability coefficient for each of the young people concerned (low, medium, 
high or very high). This calculation is based on their personal characteristics (such as age, gender, educational 
background, work experience, etc.) as well as their place of residence (profile of the local production system, 
regional or provincial unemployment rate, etc.) This assessment provides a standardised basis to help job cen-
tre advisors identify the most suitable service/offer for the individual. A wide margin of discretion is left to the 
job centre advisors when determining the pathway that the NEET will follow on the Youth Guarantee scheme. 
Guidelines are currently being drawn up to assist job centre workers in carrying out the qualitative profiling 
that subsequently leads to the signing of a personalised service agreement. The mandatory use of this system 
contributes to a consistent treatment of all NEETs.

 
Observations 

48

87 
Spain is migrating from a non-harmonised multi-regional profiling assessment, 
made by a case officer, to a common framework for assessing and profiling 
the NEETs across the country. This will be based on a standardised employabil-
ity questionnaire which has been drawn up by the PES and the Autonomous 
Regions.

24  The Draft Council Conclusions 
on the implementation of the 
Youth Guarantee and the 
Youth Employment Initiative 
(15015/16, 1 December 2016) 
calls for at discussion of 
standards for quality criteria 
under the Indicator 
Framework.

88 
An automatised system is not necessarily better than a fully personalised or com-
bined one. However, it is important to highlight that the former is more likely to 
guarantee a uniform and consistent treatment of all NEETs, whereas the second 
relies more on the ability and experience of the case officers.

Several Member States have defined a good quality offer

89 
The notion of a good quality offer differs among Member States24, but some 
common criteria do exist. In Ireland, France and Portugal, the definition of a good 
quality offer is set out in rather broad terms in the national YGIPs and is associ-
ated directly with sustainable integration into the labour market. On the other 
hand the Spanish YGIP defines the main characteristics of good quality for each 
type of offer.

90 
In addition, in two Member States covered by this report (Italy and Slovakia), the 
Youth Guarantee has also contributed to the development of a comprehensive 
definition of a good quality offer, which in the case of Slovakia is legally bind-
ing (see Box 6). Croatia has not yet adopted a definition of a good quality offer, 
but this is currently under review by the newly-formed Council for Executing the 
Youth Guarantee Implementation Plan.

6
x
o
B

Definition of good quality offer in Slovakia

The definition of a good quality offer is set out in the Employment Services Act. Any job offer that is subsi-
dised by either the state budget or the YEI/ESF must provide a minimum working time and duration of the 
employment contract/self-employment activity, and fulfil requirements for the sustainability of the job after 
cessation of support. In addition, it also covers the monthly amount of the subsidy and its total duration. The 
offer also needs to take account of the health status of the recipient, his/her qualifications and professional 
skills and previous experience. In April 2015, Act No 61/2015 Coll. on vocational education and training de-
tailed what constitutes a good quality apprenticeship offer in the framework of dual education.

 
Observations 

49

91 
A legal definition of a good quality offer in itself does not guarantee a positive 
outcome for participation in the Youth Guarantee. Irrespective of the quality of 
the offers, sustainable integration of NEETs into the labour market requires eco-
nomic growth.

Weak quality of data hampered the assessment of Youth 
Guarantee results

92 
The Council Recommendation emphasises the need to monitor and evaluate all 
measures under the Youth Guarantee schemes. Good quality data is required to 
develop evidence-based policies and interventions on the basis of what works, 
where and why, thus ensuring the efficient use of resources and positive returns 
on investment.

93 
Therefore, we examined whether the Member States had introduced systems 
which allowed the proper monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of 
their Youth Guarantee schemes.

94 
A pre-requisite for assessing the progress made due to the Youth Guarantee is 
the availability of a baseline situation prior to its implementation (e.g. the num-
ber of NEETs receiving assistance from the PES before its launch). In this regard, 
all the Member States visited only had limited information on the type of assis-
tance that NEETs had received, the number of offers/services provided and the 
related costs.

95 
We also noted several inconsistencies and reliability issues in the data reported 
by Member States to EMCO. Comparability is affected as they have different ways 
of reporting data to EMCO regarding, for example, the targeted age group, the 
methodology for calculating the number of entries at the launch of the Youth 
Guarantee, information on exits and the availability of follow-up data (see also 
Annex).

Observations 

50

96 
Problems, including the completeness of data, were noted in Member States that 
had multiple Youth Guarantee providers but no single harmonised reporting 
system.

97 
This is the case for France, for instance, where the national authorities are not 
able to report on the situation of NEETs after they have left the scheme (see para-
graph 55). In addition, the French monitoring system does not cover all potential 
Youth Guarantee providers. For instance, offers provided to school drop-outs by 
the Ministry of Education through the Réseaux Formation Qualification Emploi are 
not included. A similar situation occurred in Portugal, where offers provided to 
NEETs by the Ministry of Education were not reported.

98 
Italy, on the other hand, has introduced a comprehensive electronic monitoring 
system for the Youth Guarantee scheme (see Box 7).

7
x
o
B

Use of an integrated database to monitor the Youth Guarantee (Italy)

In 2014, Italy set up an electronic system to manage the Youth Guarantee scheme. It is designed to register 
and subsequently check the NEET status of the programme participants in a single database. The data entered 
in the system containing information on the employment status of the participants also includes information 
provided by the provincial departments and job agencies. This system is also linked to the database of the 
Ministry of Education, allowing for a check on the educational situation of the persons concerned. Weekly re-
ports on the number of registered NEETs and offers made are published in the monitoring section of a specific 
Youth Guarantee website.

 
Observations 

51

Assessment of the contribution of the Youth 
Employment Initiative

99 
The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) was introduced to support the imple-
mentation of the Youth Guarantee and reinforce and accelerate the delivery of 
measures targeting individual NEETs.

100 
As the YEI funding supplements financing available under the ESF and consti-
tutes a significant share of the financial resources available for the implemen-
tation of the Youth Guarantee, we assessed how it contributes to the aspects 
already covered in the previous sections of this report relating to the overall 
implementation of the Youth Guarantee.

101 
We therefore examined:

 ο whether adequate analyses and assessments had been carried out for the YEI 

interventions included in the OPs;

 ο whether meaningful objectives and monitoring mechanisms had been devel-

oped to assess the results; and

 ο what results had been achieved so far and whether they were in line with the 

established targets.

Insufficient assessment of the NEET population impacted the 
YEI OP design

102 
Given the heterogeneity of the NEET population, a fact highlighted by the Coun-
cil Recommendation, a detailed assessment would have been needed to properly 
establish the YEI target population.

Observations 

52

103 
We found that the assessments carried out by the visited Member States to estab-
lish the YEI target population were superficial and generic. All five Member States 
had divided the YEI target population into two subgroups: inactive NEETs and 
unemployed NEETs. Specific targeting was not carried out for categories such as 
early school leavers, economically and socially vulnerable people, the long-term 
unemployed, or people who are most detached from the labour market.

104 
For instance, in France, the national YEI OP states that half of the NEETs between 
15 and 24 are highly qualified and are temporarily absent from the labour market. 
However, it does not outline whether the YEI resources will be focused on the 
remainder of the population which are more likely to need assistance.

105 
None of the five Member States visited made a global assessment of the charac-
teristics of the NEET population, as they only used statistical data such as age and 
regional distribution and level of education to substantiate the options included 
in the OP. Therefore, no proper gap assessment was performed by the national 
authorities.

106 
Moreover, no studies were carried out to identify the NEETs’ locations, or their 
social, family and economic backgrounds. There were also no studies to deter-
mine which measures could maximise the sustainable integration of the differ-
ent subgroups of NEET into the labour market. In addition, market assessments 
were not used to establish the number of people to be enrolled in YEI subsidised 
measures, such as job offers, training, traineeships or apprenticeships. No gap 
or skills mismatch assessments were performed to justify the priority areas for 
intervention.

107 
For the five Member States visited the overall number of NEETs benefiting from 
YEI financing was established on the basis of the amount to be allocated to 
a certain type of offer and its unit cost. The allocation to be given to each specific 
type of offer was not based on an assessment.

Observations 

53

108 
For instance, Spain approved a set of measures to be financed by the YEI, but 
each region had the power to decide the exact features and cost of each measure 
to be co-financed by the YEI.

25  Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 

No 1303/2013.

109 
The lack of a comprehensive knowledge of the NEETs population contributed to 
a rather vague design of the OPs which did not define the target groups most in 
need or why the proposed measures would be the most appropriate ones to ad-
dress the existing misalignments.

110 
We found that the main driver for the allocation of funds was the availability of 
providers who could make offers to NEETs. The Croatian ESF OP explicitly men-
tions that the YEI funds target inactive and unemployed NEETs who can be rap-
idly included in measures, leaving long-term unemployed NEETs to be financed 
by the ESF from 2019 onwards.

111 
Relevant stakeholders, in particular the youth organisations, unions and employ-
ers’ organisations were indeed consulted during the preparation of the opera-
tional programmes. However, when we interviewed these organisations, some 
made complaints about the transparency of the procedure and considered that 
there was a lack of due consultation. For instance, in Portugal, the representatives 
of unions and youth organisations claimed that their involvement had only been 
requested at a late stage in the preparation of the OP.

Risk that YEI/ESF substitutes national funding

112 
YEI funds are provided from the EU budget as a top-up to the already available 
ESF funds for 2014-2020 OPs, so that additional support can be provided to help 
individual NEETs, in particular those most in need. The EU funds used for the YEI/
ESF should, however, not replace public or equivalent expenditure by the Mem-
ber States25.

Observations 

54

113 
The Member States visited were not in a position to confirm whether YEI/ESF 
funds would generate a net increase in the public expenditure allocated to 
the NEETs. Therefore, there is a risk that YEI/ESF resources will not lead to a net 
increase in the level of available funding for NEETs and that they will at least 
partially substitute expenditure previously financed from the national budgets. 
The fact that expenditure was eligible as from September 2013 even though the 
Commission only approved the first YEI/ESF OPs/axis in June/July 2014 (in France 
and Italy), and the remaining four OPs assessed were approved at the end of 
2014, only served to increase this risk.

114 
In addition, our assessment of the YEI/ESF OPs/axis also showed that the majority 
of the measures which were to receive YEI financing already existed prior to the 
introduction of the Youth Guarantee. For Portugal, this was the case for 81 % of 
the YEI funds. While this in itself is not necessarily negative, it shows that there is 
a risk that YEI/ESF support substitutes national funding.

115 
It is also unclear whether the target values for performance indicators for out-
puts from the YEI/ESF OPs correspond to a net increase in the number of NEETs 
receiving assistance or not. For instance, the YEI axis of the Spanish ESF OP aims 
to provide support to 1 057 527 NEETs. However, the national authorities did not 
confirm that this figure corresponded to a net increase in the number of offers 
that would be provided to them (as compared to before the YEI came into force).

116 
It is even more difficult to assess the added value of the YEI funds in providing as-
sistance to the NEETs when the OPs only partly substantiate the allocation of the 
funds available. This is the case for Croatia, where only 69 % of the funds avail-
able for the YEI axis of the ESF OP are allocated to specific measures, whereas the 
remaining 31 % are not yet linked to any measures.

Observations 

55

The quality of data and the Commission guidance on data 
collection affect the measurement of the YEI results

26  Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 

(Annex II).

117 
To measure the achievements relating to the use of the YEI/ESF funding, the 
regulation has defined 12 mandatory result indicators26. For all these indicators 
a baseline scenario and targets should be set and implementation data subse-
quently monitored and reported.

118 
We assessed the adequacy of the baseline scenarios and the result targets set by 
the Member States visited as well as the way they are compiling and reporting 
the monitoring data.

Quality of data hampers the assessment of baseline scenarios 
and targets

119 
During the negotiation of the operational programmes, the Commission is 
required to check the reliability of the baseline scenarios used in order to ensure 
the robustness of the targets. This is part of the ex-ante conditionality check, and 
where the baseline cannot be supported by evidence or historical data is missing, 
an action plan should be prepared by the relevant Member State.

120 
The Commission provides guidance to the Member States on how to determine 
the baselines. However in all Member States assessed we observed that the 
baseline for the result indicators was generally based on historical data of success 
rates in finishing similar measures, on the participants’ subsequent integration in 
the labour market and on statistical information such as the distribution between 
inactive and unemployed participants.

Observations 

56

121 
We asked the national authorities to provide evidence to support the underlying 
data in this regard. All Member States provided generic explanations about the 
process of compiling the data, but none was capable of providing the requested 
information in full.

122 
For instance in Italy and Spain, the compilation of the data was the result of 
a bottom-up approach. Indeed, for both Member States, evidence was provided 
that data had been collected regionally on the NEETs’ success rate in completing 
the measures, and their subsequent rate of integration into the labour market. 
However, the underlying data used by the different regions to obtain the base-
line were not made available to the Court for assessment.

123 
In Portugal, the underlying data was provided, but we found errors in the calcula-
tion of the indicators. In addition, the data used to estimate the baseline indica-
tors were not sufficiently comprehensive (see Box 8).

8
x
o
B

Identified weaknesses in the setup of baseline values in Portugal

Calculation error: In the calculation of the baseline value for indicator CR01 (‘unemployed participants who 
complete the YEI supported intervention’), the denominator used was not consistent with the data used to 
calculate the numerator, since the denominator included more measures than those used to calculate the 
numerator. If both had been consistent, the baseline ratio would have increased from 50.5 % to 79 %. Similar 
problems were detected in indicators CR04 and CR07 which constitute a variation of CR01 but applied to long 
term unemployed and inactive NEETs.

Insufficient representativeness: The results obtained from the INSERJOVEM programme were used as a proxy 
to estimate indicators CR02 (‘unemployed participants who receive an offer of employment, continued educa-
tion, apprenticeship or traineeship upon leaving’) and CR03 (‘unemployed participants who are in education/
training, gain a qualification, or are in employment, including self-employment, upon leaving’). However 
INSERJOVEM is not sufficiently broad to be representative of education or entrepreneurship measures. Similar 
problems were detected in indicators CR05, CR06, CR08 and CR09 which constitute a variation of CR02 and 
CR03 but applied to long term unemployed and inactive NEETs.

 
57

27  Annex D - Practical guidance 
on data collection and 
validation May 2016.

Observations 

124 
One important element for setting both baseline and target values for the 
performance indicators is the establishment of the expected success rate of the 
participants. In Croatia and Portugal, different success rates were used depend-
ing on the entrance status of the participants, with inactive NEETs having a lower 
expected success rate. However, no evidence was provided to substantiate the 
different rates used. In Spain and Italy, the expected success rates used were the 
same irrespective of whether the participants were inactive or unemployed as 
no statistical correlation existed between their entrance status and their success 
rate.

125 
As regards the targets to be achieved in the reference year, it was found that not 
all Member States expected to make progress compared to the baseline situa-
tion. In the French national YEI/ESF OP, for instance, the objectives to be achieved 
were similar to those already observed in the past. Where higher estimated 
success rates were set as targets, these were not substantiated, or only in very 
general terms.

126 
The reliability of the baseline scenarios and the targets set in all Member States 
could not be assessed due to the fact that either the underlying supporting data 
was not made available to us or, when provided, it was not considered to be of 
sufficient quality.

Issues with Commission guidance on data collection

127 
In order to support Member States and ensure consistency in the reporting of 
the result indicators, the Commission issued guidance setting out the minimum 
requirements that each monitoring system must adhere to in order to be able to 
perform the tasks required by the Regulations27.

Observations 

58

128 
According to the Commission’s guidance, YEI/ESF result indicators should capture 
whether participants complete the YEI intervention, whether they subsequently 
receive an offer or actually change their situation, irrespective of whether they 
complete the intervention or not, and whether or not the offer received is linked 
to their participation in the YEI/ESF supported measure. A person that does 
not complete a YEI/ESF co-financed intervention or operation can therefore be 
counted as a positive result in terms of offers received and take-up, which implies 
that the YEI/ESF indicators are no longer assessing the added value of a YEI ac-
tion. This approach entails the risk of overstating the results (see Box 9).

9
x
o
B

YEI results overstated

As an example, let us take the case of a NEET flagged to participate in a one-year training programme aiming 
to provide a qualification designed to help him/her join the labour market, andlet us suppose that, after six 
months, and without completing the training and obtaining a certificate, the person in question leaves the 
measure, for instance, to accept a two-month job offer in a completely different field. The Commission guid-
ance suggests that this person should be counted as not having completed the YEI intervention, but as having 
received an offer upon leaving the intervention and as having taken up an offer within four weeks of complet-
ing the YEI measure. The indicator would then attribute the job offer to the YEI intervention, although this is 
not actually the case.

129 
On the basis of this interpretation, it is difficult to measure whether the YEI inter-
ventions were contributing to the sustainable integration of NEETs in the labour 
market.

130 
In addition, the Commission’s guidance explicitly mentions that result indicators 
should take into consideration all offers, regardless of their quality, in order to 
clearly identify the situation of a person four weeks and then six months after 
his/her participation in the co-financed measure. However, it is not very precise 
as to when an offer counts towards the result indicators, due to a rather flexible 
interpretation of the ‘upon leaving’ condition. Offers received during YEI support 
are counted as a result, as are those which are not linked to the YEI-subsidised 
offer and those resulting from the participant’s own initiative.

 
59

28  Annex D - Practical guidance 
on data collection and 
validation May 2016, p. 95.

Observations 

131 
The Commission guidance also states that the result indicators should include 
‘those who have gained a qualification as a result of the intervention’28. For 
instance, if the YEI intervention consists of providing certified training lead-
ing to a final qualification, this person is counted as having usefully completed 
the measure on qualification. However, this achievement is again automatically 
counted as a result in the reported indicators of the situation four weeks and six 
months later. This situation was observed during the visit to Spain.

132 
Another issue that raises questions in the Commission guidance concerns partici-
pants that receive an offer in a YEI operation but do not accept it. The guidance 
indicates that this offer should be counted as a positive result even if declined 
and not appropriate to the profile of the person.

133 
Similarly, there is the case where a YEI participant receives another offer (also 
subsidised by the YEI), either in the same or a different field. If the person accepts 
the second offer he/she is counted as not having completed the previous action 
and at the same time, he/she also counts as having received an offer due to the 
YEI. In reality, this person is being counted twice and the YEI resources are ‘com-
peting’ for the same person in an inefficient way.

134 
Based on the above, we conclude that the Commission’s interpretation in its 
guidance leads to situations where the data used for reporting the result indica-
tors do not accurately reflect the impact of the YEI-co-financed measures and 
tend to overstate the results.

Observations 

60

Member States only partially utilised the additional  
pre-financing for YEI/ESF OPs

135 
In May 2015, the Commission proposed an increase in the initial pre-financing 
rate for the specific YEI/ESF allocation to 30 % (instead of the normal 1 %), with 
the aim of providing a quick response to youth unemployment29. The same regu-
lation also requires that 50 % of the additional pre-financing amount, or 14.5 % of 
the total YEI funds allocated to the Member States, be substantiated through the 
submission of interim payment requests as of 23 May 2016. Member States that 
do not fulfil this condition are required to reimburse the total additional initial 
pre-financing amount.

29  Regulation (EU) 2015/779 of 

the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 20 May 2015 
amending Regulation (EU) No 
1304/2013, as regards an 
additional initial prefinancing 
amount paid to operational 
programmes supported by 
the Youth Employment 
Initiative (OJ L 126, 21.5.2015, 
p. 1).

136 
Apart from Portugal, which managed to justify the total additional pre-financing 
received until 23 May 2016, the remaining Member States visited were only in 
a position to submit payment requests which correspond to a fraction of the ad-
ditional pre-financing received, varying from the 58 % justified by France to 32 % 
in case of Spain (see Figure 13).

3
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

Percentage of additional YEI pre-financing justified as of 23 May 2016

110 %

100 %

90 %

80 %

70 %

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %

100 %

58 %

50 %

50 %

32 %

ES

FR

HR

IT

PT

Source: SFC2014.

 
Observations 

61

137 
In 2016, due to the justified amount being less than 50 %, the Commission re-
quested from Spain a reimbursement of 273.6 million euro. However, this did not 
entail a loss of EU funding for the Member State, since the total EU contribution 
allocated remained unchanged.

138 
The fact that Member States were only able to partially utilise the increased 
level of pre-financing indicates that, when proposing the increased additional 
pre-financing, the Commission underestimated the time required to put in place 
appropriate structures to spend and claim expenditure.

30  Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 

No 1304/2013.

31  Articles 50(1) and 50(2) of 

Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013.

32  The 2015 annual 

implementation report for 
Spain did not provide any 
updates of the figures already 
provided as part of the first 
AIR, which had been 
estimations. This was due to 
the national authorities’ 
decision not to report figures 
for operations which had not 
yet been formally selected or 
were only partially 
implemented.

Reported results below expectations for YEI/ESF supported 
measures

139 
The YEI’s results must be clearly demonstrated and communicated, and envisage 
specific monitoring and evaluation arrangements30 in addition to the standard 
annual implementation report which has to be submitted to the Commission for 
each ESF OP31.

140 
For the five Member States visited, we reviewed the annual implementation 
reports to assess the progress made since 2013. Our analysis does not cover 
Croatia since the agreement on the YEI grant was only signed in November 2015, 
and implementation only started in the second half of 2015. Moreover, the 2015 
annual implementation report for Spain did not provide any updated figures and 
reported the 2014 figures again32.

141 
By the end of 2015, the extent to which Member States had achieved the YEI out-
put targets differs: in France (Nord-Pas-de-Calais), the initial output targets, i.e. 
the number of participants, had already been exceeded (111 %), whereas, in Italy, 
only around 23 % of the initial target had been attained (see Figure 14.1).

Observations 

62

142 
Also, the share of participants that completed the YEI/ESF funded Youth Guar-
antee scheme varies among Member States: we note, in particular, that less than 
one third of the participants finished the intervention in the case of the national 
French YEI/ESF OP and the YEI/ESF axis of the Portuguese ESF OP. This raises 
concerns regarding the effectiveness of the Youth Guarantee measures funded 
by the YEI/ESF (see Figure 14.2).

4
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

Achieved with YEI/ESF funds as of the end of 20151

14.1 - % of total YEI output target reached

120 %
100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0 %

111 %

41 %

2 %

ES

FR national

FR-NPDC

38 %

23 %

IT

PT

N/A

HR

14.2 - % of participants that completed the intervention

80 %
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0 %

69 %

43 %

25 %

47 %

32 %

ES

FR national

FR-NPDC

N/A

HR

IT

PT

1  Data for Spain refer only to 2014.

Source: 2015 Annual Implementation Report.

 
Observations 

63

143 
The information reported by Member States also shows that the inactive NEET 
group benefitted least. For example, in Portugal, none of the participants were 
from the inactive group. Moreover, just 1 % of the participants in the five Mem-
ber States visited had a disability, 8 % were immigrants (95 % of whom were in 
France) and 22 % came from an unemployed household (Portugal accounted for 
50 % of these).

Limited use made of YEI/ESF funding by the end of 2015

144 
The spending levels reported in the 2015 annual implementation reports show 
that only Portugal submitted a payment request equivalent to 47 % of the total 
YEI/ESF budget during the year. Apart from Spain, which did not declare any 
amount for committed expenditure, the remaining Member States commit-
ted between 24 % (Italy) and 85 % (France – Nord-Pas-de-Calais) of the overall 
budget (see Figure 15).

5
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

Percentage of expenditure committed at the end of 2015

90 %
80 %
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0 %

85 %

76 %

69 %

73 %

24 %

0 %

ES

FR national

FR-NPDC

HR

IT

PT

Source: 2015 Annual Implementation Report.

 
64

33  Article 19(6) of Regulation (EU) 

No 1304/2013.

Observations 

145 
This illustrates that the additional EU funding made available through YEI/ESF has 
not been fully used by Member States to provide additional support measures 
for NEETs, with the risk that the additional pre-financing may have to be reim-
bursed to the Commission (see paragraphs 135 to 138). In view of this, many of 
the Member States mentioned that they had not yet made the relevant admin-
istrative arrangements to certify the expenditure incurred (i.e. they had not yet 
designated the managing and certifying authorities). A common problem in this 
regard was the setting up of an IT system capable of ensuring that the expendi-
ture was traceable.

Implementation delays limited the value of the first 
evaluations of YEI/ESF support measures

146 
Member States should carry out an evaluation to assess the effectiveness, ef-
ficiency and impact of ESF/YEI support at least twice during the programme 
period. The first evaluation had to be completed by 31 December 201533 with 
a second by 31 December 2018.

147 
Our analysis showed that since the programmes were still in their early stages 
none of the evaluation reports submitted by Member States assessed the ef-
ficiency of the YEI funded measures, their cost-effectiveness or their impact. Limi-
tations in the monitoring systems and the lack of reliable data also impacted the 
quality of these evaluations. In particular, Spain, Croatia and Portugal reported 
having experienced difficulties in implementing the IT system used to manage 
the information database.

148 
Based on the above, we consider that, although the regulation provided for the 
first evaluations by 31 December 2015, delays in implementation limited their 
usefulness.

Observations 

65

Implementation difficulties confirmed by the directly sampled 
individual cases

149 
We also examined the individual cases for a sample of 175 participants in Youth 
Guarantee measures that had been co-financed by YEI/ESF. In each Member State 
35 people were randomly selected, except for France, where 20 participants were 
selected from the national OP and another 15 from the Nord-Pas-de-Calais OP.

34  The Spanish eligibility rules 
required prior registration in 
the YG database - Sistema 
nacional de Garantía Juvenil. 
Furthermore, although Spain 
asked the Commission if it 
could increase the age for YEI 
OP beneficiaries on 3.12.2015, 
it was found that some 
participants were more than 
25 years of age before that 
date.

150 
When entering the Youth Guarantee scheme, 78 % of all selected participants 
were unemployed, 14 % were inactive and 8 % did not fulfil the criteria for being 
considered NEETs (see Figure 16.1). Additionally, 11 % of the participants had 
started the measure before the Youth Guarantee was launched or were outside 
the age bracket set out in the OP34, making them ineligible for co-financing.

Characteristics of the YEI participants in the sample

16.1 - Entrance status

6
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

8 %

14 %

78 %

Unemployed NEETs

Inactive NEETs

Not a NEET

 
Observations 

66

6
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

16.2 - Age distribution at registration for YG

Age
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16

7

5

4

6

10

9

11

10

14

3

1

22-25 y.o.
54 %

36

21

20

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

16.3 - Level of education at entrance

20 %

31 %

49 %

Below secondary

Secondary

Tertiary

Source: ECA based on information provided by the Member States on the individuals.

 
Observations 

67

151 
Of the participants 54 % were concentrated in the 22-25 age range (see Fig-
ure 16.2). Furthermore, 80 % had secondary education or above, with more than 
30 % having tertiary education (see Figure 16.3). These numbers confirm that the 
people benefiting most from the YEI were the ones who were most qualified and 
better educated.

152 
Of the 175 people covered by this review 25 had left the Youth Guarantee with-
out receiving an offer of employment, a traineeship, education or an apprentice-
ship. The remaining 150 did receive one, with traineeships alone accounting for 
45 % of the offers (see Figure 17). In the 25 cases where no offer was received, 
this was either because the beneficiaries dropped out, or because the accompa-
nying measure expired without leading to an offer. This was the case in France, 
where some Youth Guarantee providers stopped providing support to the NEETs 
after four months due to a misinterpretation of how the four month rule should 
be applied.

Types of offer

Education - 18 %

7
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

Apprenticeship - 8 %

Employment - 29 %

Traineeship - 45 %

Source: ECA based on information provided by the Member States on individuals.

 
Observations 

68

153 
In Italy, it should be noted that in all cases in the sample of people who took up 
a traineeship offer (nine people), there were significant delays in payments (at 
least two months). Italy acknowledged that the delay in payment was a recurrent 
problem overall for traineeships, and not only for the sample. Indeed, the aver-
age delay for receiving a payment was 64 days.

154 
The time lag between registration for the Youth Guarantee and take-up of the 
offer was, on average, 112 days (i.e. less than four months). In 27 % of the cases, 
however, the time between registration and take-up exceeded four months, and 
in 7 % of the cases, one year.

155 
Based on the Member States’ criteria of what constitutes a good quality offer, the 
offers provided to the participants were considered to be of good quality in 91 % 
of the cases. However, mismatches were found between the participants’ profiles 
and the offers (see Box 10).

0
1
x
o
B

Examples of mismatches between individual profiles and offers

A person with a university degree in civil engineering and with three years of professional experience as 
a mathematics teacher received a one-year traineeship offer at a language school, where the objective of the 
training was to develop his skills as a teacher and learn how to act in the classroom. After nine months, the 
participant left the traineeship in favour of unemployment.

A person with a university degree in labour relations received a two-week job offer to work as a construction 
worker, whereas his file contained no reference to past experience in this area or any particular interest in 
work in this field.

A person with a Master’s degree in legal and forensic psychology received a training offer in marketing and 
management without having shown any particular interest in this area.

 
Observations 

69

156 
At the time of the review, 62 % of the participants had completed the measure, 
23 % were still in the measure and 15 % had abandoned the measure received 
(around two-thirds of them in Croatia) (see Figure 18.1).

157 
The sustainability of the participants’ integration in the labour market is still 
a challenge. 38 % of the participants were employed or attending education 
measures, but 19 % of the participants had returned to NEET status. In addition, 
for 27 % of the participants (mostly in Spain, France and Italy), the situation is 
unknown (see Figure 18.2).

158 
The employment and traineeship offers showed better rates for the integration 
of participants in the labour market (see Figure 18.3). This can be partially ex-
plained by the fact that participants in these measures were less detached from 
the labour market, possessed the highest education levels and had more years 
of professional experience. Apprenticeships showed the best results in terms of 
preventing people from returning to NEET status. This is linked to length of the 
apprenticeships, which last from one to three years.

Rate of accomplishment of the measures and current status of participants

18.1 - Rate of accomplishment of the measures

8
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

62 %

23 %

15 %

Still in the measure

Measure completed

Measure abandoned

 
Observations 

70

8
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

18.2 - Participants’ status at the time of the audit visit

0 %

5 %

10 %

15 %

20 %

25 %

30 %

35 %

40 %

Education

1%

Employed

Unknown

38 %

27 %

 Still in the measure

  Back to NEET status

16 %

19 %

18.3 - Participants’ status per type of oﬀer received at the time of the audit visit

70 %

60 %

50 %

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

0 %

58 %

59 %

43 %

43 %

25 %

21 %

10 %

33 %

30 %

16 %

11 %

8 %

19 %

15 %

4 %

4 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

0 %

Traineeship

Employment

Apprenticeship

Education

Education

Employed

Unknown

Still in the measure

Back to NEET status

Source: ECA based on information provided by the Member States on the individuals.

 
Conclusions and 
recommendations

71

159 
We conclude that, while the seven Member States had made progress in imple-
menting the Youth Guarantee and some results had been achieved, the current 
situation, more than three years after the adoption of the Council Recommen-
dation, falls short of the initial expectations raised at the launch of the Youth 
Guarantee, which aims to provide a good quality offer to all NEETs within four 
months. In addition, the contribution of the Youth employment initiative to the 
achievement of the Youth Guarantee objectives in the five Member States visited 
was very limited at the time of the audit.

Assessment of the progress of the implementation of 
the Youth Guarantee

160 
Our assessment, based on the expectations raised by the requirements of the 
Council Recommendation proposing the Youth Guarantee, is that none of the 
Member States had yet ensured that all NEETs had the opportunity to take up 
an offer within four months which would help them to integrate into the labour 
market in a sustainable way. As the Youth Guarantee is based on a Council recom-
mendation, i.e. ‘soft law’, its implementation depends on the goodwill of Member 
States.

161 
In relation to the progress made in the identification and registration of NEETs, 
we found that the share of NEETs registered by the end of 2015 had not shown 
a marked increase and, furthermore, it was difficult to assess the Youth Guaran-
tee’s contribution (see paragraphs 36 to 42).

162 
For the same period, the level of positive exits from the Youth Guarantee varied 
across the Member States visited, with employment being the most common 
type of exit. For 2014, the number of positive exits covered only around half of 
the total registrations which increased in 2015 to 62 % (see paragraphs 43 to 50).

Conclusions and recommendations 

72

163 
Moreover, 70 % of the positive exits has complied with the four-month deadline 
in 2014. However, the situation worsened for four of the visited Member States in 
2015, reducing the overall average to 59 % (see paragraphs 51 to 52).

35  COM(2016) 646 final.

164 
With regard to the sustainability of positive exits, we analysed the information 
available for participants 6, 12 and 18 months after they left the Youth Guarantee. 
We found that the level of sustainability deteriorated progressively from 6 to 12 
to 18 months (see paragraphs 53 to 59).

Recommendation 1

For future initiatives in the area of employment, the Member States and the Com-
mission should:

 ο manage expectations by setting realistic and achievable objectives and 

targets;

 ο perform gap assessments and market analyses prior to setting up the 

schemes.

Deadline for implementation: whenever a new initiative is proposed.

Analysis of the factors impacting the results of the 
Youth Guarantee

Inadequate strategies to reach all NEETs

165 
The Member States did not create adequate strategies with clear milestones 
and objectives to reach all NEETs. Indeed, some Member States did not target 
all young people as requested by the Council Recommendation, but only a sub-
population. In addition to this, in some cases, the onus was placed on the NEETs 
to be proactive in participating in the scheme. Therefore, more effort is needed 
to support those young people who are most detached from the labour market, 
a conclusion also shared by the Commission in its communication35 (see para-
graphs 61 to 67).

Conclusions and recommendations 

73

166 
Relevant stakeholders can be key players in reaching those furthest away from 
the labour market. While they were involved to some degree in all the Mem-
ber States visited, there is a need for a clear definition of how they should be 
involved and how they can contribute to the process in the most efficient and 
effective way (see paragraphs 68 to 70).

167 
The inactive NEET population (who are the most detached from the labour mar-
ket), remained stable at around 2 million people in the Member States visited, 
between 2013 and the end of March 2016, while the population of unemployed 
NEETs had decreased from 2.7 million to 2.3 million people (see paragraphs 71 
to 72).

Recommendation 2

Member States should establish appropriate outreach strategies to identify the 
entire NEET population with the objective of registering them. These strategies 
should set out concrete and measurable annual objectives and identify the main 
challenges and appropriate action plans to overcome them. The Commission 
should support Member States in this respect.

Deadline for implementation: mid-2018.

No assessment of cost and available funding by Member 
States

168 
While employment policy is primarily the competence of Member States, none 
of the seven visited were able to provide an estimate of the additional expected 
cost of providing an offer to all NEETs within four months. In addition, their YGIPs 
presented a series of measures to be offered to NEETs based on 2014-2020 ESI 
funding, notably from the YEI and the ESF (see paragraphs 73 to 75).

Conclusions and recommendations 

74

169 
Compared to the estimated costs for implementing a Youth Guarantee at EU 
level, according to recent research by the ILO and Eurofound, the level of YEI/
ESF funding available for the 2014-2020 would only address a small proportion 
of the required amount. Therefore, it is not possible to address all young people 
becoming unemployed or leaving formal education, which was the expectation 
raised by the Council Recommendation, with the resources available from the EU 
budget alone (see paragraphs 76 to 78).

Recommendation 3

Member States should establish a complete overview of the cost of implement-
ing the Youth Guarantee for the entire NEET population. Based on this estimate, 
they should prioritise the related measures to be implemented according to the 
available financing.

Where requested by Member States, the Commission should support them in this 
process.

Deadline for implementation: mid-2018.

Difficulties with the sustainable integration of NEETs

170 
According to our assessment, no comprehensive analysis of the NEET popula-
tion has been carried out. However, all Member States visited addressed skills 
mismatches in different studies, but their conclusions were not taken sufficiently 
into consideration when designing the types and number of offers to be included 
in the YGIPs (see paragraphs 81 to 83).

Conclusions and recommendations 

75

171 
All Member States have considered a definition of a good quality offer, and while 
this concept differs, some common criteria do exist. In three Member States, the 
definition is set out in rather broad terms in their YGIPs and is associated directly 
with sustainable integration into the labour market. While this is a welcome 
development, it does not in itself guarantee a positive outcome of participation 
in the Youth Guarantee, as sufficient economic growth is a pre-requisite for the 
sustainable integration of NEETs into the labour market (see paragraphs 89 to 91).

172 
We highlighted this problem in the results section above when we showed that 
the proportion of positive exits decreased as time went by after the participants 
left the scheme (after 6, 12 and 18 months respectively). An adequate skills as-
sessment and proper profiling in view of labour market demand are crucial for 
better sustainability (see paragraphs 84 to 88).

Recommendation 4

The Commission should, together with EMCO, develop and propose standards for 
quality criteria for offers to be made under the Youth Guarantee.

Member States should ensure that offers are only considered to be of good qual-
ity if they match the participant’s profile and labour market demand and lead to 
sustainable integration in the labour market.

Deadline for implementation: mid-2018.

Poor quality of data

173 
All Member States visited had only limited information on the type of assistance 
that NEETs had received prior to the launch of the Youth Guarantee, on the 
number of offers/services provided and the related costs. We also noted several 
inconsistencies and reliability issues in the data reported by Member States to 
EMCO; these affected comparability. Problems, including the completeness of 
data, were noted in Member States that had multiple Youth Guarantee providers 
but no single harmonised reporting system (see paragraphs 92 to 98).

Conclusions and recommendations 

76

Recommendation 5

The Commission should identify and diffuse good practice in monitoring and 
reporting based on its overview of the existing systems across Member States.

The Member States should improve their monitoring and reporting systems in 
order to regularly provide quality data to facilitate the development of more 
evidence-based youth policies. In particular they should improve the capacity to 
follow up the participants that exit the Youth Guarantee in order to reduce the 
number of unknown exits to the maximum extent possible.

Deadline for implementation: mid-2018.

Assessment of the contribution of the Youth 
Employment Initiative

174 
As the YEI funding supplements the funding available under the ESF and consti-
tutes an important part of the financial resources available for the implementa-
tion of the Youth Guarantee, we assessed how it contributed to the overall imple-
mentation of the Youth Guarantee. We conclude that the contribution of the YEI 
in the five Member States visited has so far been very limited due to shortcom-
ings in the design of OPs in terms of the YEI, issues regarding the measurement of 
the YEI results and the fact that additional pre-financing made available was only 
partially used.

Shortcomings in the design of OPs in terms of the YEI

175 
None of the five Member States visited made a global assessment of the char-
acteristics of the NEET population and there was no proper gap assessment 
performed by the national authorities. The overall number of NEETs benefiting 
from YEI financing was established on the basis of the amount to be allocated, 
without any assessment of the type of offer and its unit cost. Although they were 
consulted, some relevant stakeholders made complaints about the transparency 
of the procedure and considered that there was a lack of due consultation (see 
paragraphs 102 to 111).

Conclusions and recommendations 

77

Recommendation 6

The Commission should ensure through its approval process for OP amendments, 
in particular in view of the impending significant increase in YEI funding, that 
Member States perform a global assessment of the characteristics of the NEET 
population in order to ensure that the YEI measures included in the OPs will ad-
equately address the needs of the young persons.

Implementation date: amendment of OPs following increase in YEI budget 
allocation.

Risk that YEI/ESF substitutes national funding

176 
The Member States visited were not in a position to confirm whether YEI/ESF 
funds would generate a net increase in the public expenditure allocated to the 
NEETs. Therefore, there is a risk that YEI/ESF resources will not result in a net 
increase in the available funding for NEETs and that they will at least partially 
substitute expenditure previously financed from the national budgets. Our 
assessment of the YEI/ESF OPs/axes showed that the majority of the measures 
which were to receive YEI financing already existed previously, which increases 
such a risk (see paragraphs 112 to 116).

The quality of data and the Commission guidance on data 
collection affect the measurement of the YEI results

177 
We conclude that the reliability of the baseline scenarios and the targets set for 
the YEI result indicators could not be assessed in all Member States visited due 
to the fact that either the underlying supporting data was not made available or 
when provided it was not of sufficient quality (see paragraphs 119 to 126).

178 
In addition, the interpretation of the Commission in its guidance on data collec-
tion leads to situations where the data used for reporting the result indicators 
do not accurately reflect the impact of the YEI co-financed measures and tend to 
overstate the results (see paragraphs 127 to 134).

Conclusions and recommendations 

78

Recommendation 7

The Commission should revise its guidance on data collection to minimise the 
risk of overstatement of results. In particular:

 ο

 ο

The YEI result indicators should only report the situation of YEI participants 
that completed the measure, assessing their situation at four weeks and six 
months after completion.

In the case of training measures aiming at certification, their accomplishment 
should not be counted again as an achievement at four weeks and six months 
after completion.

Member States should revise their baselines and targets accordingly.

Deadline for implementation: September 2017, in time for Member States to be 
able to reflect it in their 2017 annual implementation report.

Pre-financing for YEI/ESF OPs not fully used

179 
Both the Commission and the Member States underestimated the time needed to 
make the necessary administrative arrangements on the ground to start spend-
ing and claiming the YEI funds, resulting in the Member States only partially 
using the additional pre-financing. At the end of 2015, only Portugal had submit-
ted a payment request to the Commission. Spain was requested to reimburse 
273.6 million euro (see paragraphs 135 to 138).

Reported results below expectations for YEI/ESF supported 
measures

180 
Based on a review of the reported results in the AIRs of the Member States visited 
we noted different levels of achievement of the YEI output targets and in the 
percentage of participants that completed the intervention. We also noted that 
the inactive NEET group benefited the least from the support provided and that 
limited use had been made of the YEI/ESF funding by the end of 2015 (see para-
graphs 138 to 142).

Conclusions and recommendations 

79

181 
While the regulation provided for the first evaluations of the YEI by 31 Decem-
ber 2015, delays in implementation limited their usefulness (see paragraphs 144 
to 148).

Implementation difficulties confirmed by the directly 
sampled individual cases

182 
The results of the sample revealed that the people who benefited most from 
YEI co-financed measures were the ones that were easiest to reach, whereas the 
most disadvantaged groups were under-represented. Issues concerning the eli-
gibility of participants were detected and the sustainability of the integration of 
participants in the labour market was a challenge. There were further shortcom-
ings in the profiling of individual participants and the matching of offers received 
(see paragraphs 149 to 158).

This Report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mrs Iliana IVANOVA, Member 
of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 8 March 2017.

For the Court of Auditors

Klaus-Heiner LEHNE
President

 
 
 
Annex

80

Monitoring of the Youth Guarantee: Member State differences in the data provided

x
e
n
n
A

IE

Age group

18-24

Starting Point

Entrants

New starts only: new starts in the year (including re-entries)

New starts plus initial stock: new starts in the year (including re-
entries) plus stock of people already registered on the YG launch date

Continuous reporting: new starts in the year (including re-entries)

Characteristics of entrants

Entry to YG coincides with registration as unemployed (or with the 
start of a claim for full unemployment benefits)

Individual application to YG service followed by validation of NEET 
status (not clear that people necessarily have to be registered 
unemployed)

Individual application to join YG, followed by assessment of status

Unknown

Stock

All people currently registered in the YG  
(and not having taken up an offer)
By definition will include only people that joined  
since the YG launch date (in 2014)

All people currently registered in the YG  
(and not having taken up an offer), irrespective of registration date

All people currently registered (and not having taken up an offer), 
irrespective of registration date

January 
2014

IE

X

IE

X

IE

X

ES

15-29

July 
2014

ES

X

ES

X

ES

X

FR

16-25

January 
2014

FR

HR

15-29

January 
2014

HR

X

HR

X

HR

X

X

FR

X

FR

X

IT

15-29

May 
2014

IT

X

IT

X

IT

X

PT

15-29

March 
2013

SK

15-29

January 
2014

PT

SK

X

PT

X

X

SK

X

PT

SK

X

X

Annex 

x
e
n
n
A

Exits

All exits in the year - by definition means people that also joined 
in 2014

All exits in the year

All exits in the year, including those that were part of the initial stock 
and who initially registered before the YG launch date

Completeness of data on exits by destination (positive)

Completeness of data on exits by destination (negative)

YES

Partial

YES

Partial

NO

Completeness of different situations in follow-up data

YES

NO

Duration

Measured from registration date

Measured from date of registration - any duration is possible

Measured from the date of YG launch (for those already in the stock 
prior YG) and registration date (for new entrants in the year)

IE

X

IE

X

IE

X

IE

X

IE

X

ES

X

ES

X

ES

X

ES

X

ES

X

FR

X

FR

X

FR

X

FR

X

FR

X

IT

X

IT

X

IT

X

IT

X

IT

X

HR

X

HR

X

HR

X

HR

X

HR

X

81

PT

SK

X

PT

X

PT

X

PT

X

PT

X

SK

X

SK

X

SK

X

SK

X

X

Annex 

82

x
e
n
n
A

Specific comments:

Ireland

Spain

France

Croatia

Italy

 ο

 ο

 ο

 ο

 ο
 ο

 ο

 ο

Exits to apprenticeships included under education.

The original target group was 15-24 years of age and it was extended to include  
25-29 year-olds in 2015.
All exits are reported as being subsidised. Not clear if/how open market offers are counted. 
For this reason, the data used for Spain are the data sent by the PES, since they also incorpo-
rate non-subsidised offers.
6-month follow-up data, 2014, concerning different situations only complete for employed 
and unemployed.

France provided data for two providers Pôle Emploi and Missions Locales.
Since there is a risk of double counting, the datasets have not been aggregated and tables 
showing the results of the data collection only include data for the provider that covers the 
largest population of young people (Pôle Emploi).

Exits to apprenticeship included under education.

Entrances in Italy for 2014 cover the period May 2014-December 2014, so that a significant 
proportion of entrants will not have had the chance to reach four months.

Portugal

 ο

Exits to unemployment include participants in short-term training (25-300 hours).

Reply of the Commission

83

Executive summary

About this report

The Commission considers that the current results in Youth Guarantee implementation do not fall short of initial 
expectations.

Whilst recognising that additional efforts are still needed to reach out to all young people, delivering quality and 
timely offers, the Commission underlines that the Youth Guarantee has led to positive results. In particular, as 
highlighted in the Commission Communication (COM/2016/646) ‘The Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment 
Initiative three years on’, it has provided a strong impetus on structural reforms and policy innovation, areas which 
are outside of the scope of this report.

Common Commission reply to paragraphs VI to VIII
The Commission considers that the current results in Youth Guarantee implementation do not fall short of initial 
expectations. The Commission notes that the Court’s conclusions are based on an assessment of the aspects set 
out in the scope of the audit. The October 2016 Commission Communication (COM/2016/646) ‘The Youth Guarantee 
and the Youth Employment Initiative three years on’ points at first positive results and additional crucial elements, 
such as the Youth Guarantee’s impetus on structural reforms and policy innovation. This has been recognised by the 
European Council which on 15 December 2016 called for the continuation of the Youth Guarantee and welcomed 
the increased support for the Youth Employment Initiative. Besides, the EPSCO Council of 8 December 2016 con -
firmed first positive results achieved by measures and reforms implemented to date.

In its October Communication, the Commission recognises that Youth Guarantee schemes have not yet reached all 
young people who have become unemployed or left school and identifies a number of key areas for improvement, 
including better engaging with non-registered NEETs and the low-skilled.

The Commission considers that the YEI has made a substantial contribution for the Youth Guarantee in these Mem-
ber States. In spite of delays in some of Member States, implementation has advanced steadily in 2016. In July 2016 
1.4 million people had participated in a measure supported by the YEI in the 20 eligible Member States. By end of 
November 2016 this number had increased to 1.6 million people. The YEI is perceived by all these Member States as 
a key mechanism or lever through which to operationalise the Youth Guarantee. In some cases, it is being used to 
support most or all measures planned under Youth Guarantee schemes, for instance in Spain where 80% of all Youth 
Guarantee actions are funded through the YEI. In Italy the YEI became the driver for a major reform and led to the 
set-up of new youth employment services.

The Commission’s Communication (COM/2016/646) ‘The Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative 
three years on’ highlights these results.

Although it is still early to assess the results – as operations are ongoing and many of these young people are still 
being supported – we can already say that the YEI has achieved one of its first objectives – to place youth employ-
ment at the core of political decisions in Member States.

IX First bullet
The Commission considers that the recommendation is primarily addressed to Member States.

The Commission accepts the recommendation insofar as it concerns the Commission and intends to set out appro-
priate actions when new initiatives will be proposed.

Whilst fully recognising the importance of managing expectations and setting realistic targets, the Commission 
would however like to underline the importance of setting an ambitious policy goal, which has contributed to creat-
ing political momentum around the Youth Guarantee.

Reply of the Commission

84

IX Second bullet
The Commission considers that the recommendation is primarily addressed to Member States.

The Commission accepts the recommendation insofar as it concerns the Commission and intends to set out appro-
priate actions when new initiatives will be proposed.

In the process of preparing Member States’ YGIPs, the Commission has asked Member States to identify and analyse 
key structural challenges and specific gaps relevant to their national situation, and outline an indicative timeline for 
gradual implementation of the Youth Guarantee, if envisaged.

X First bullet
The Commission notes that the recommendation is addressed to Member States.

The Commission is already supporting Member States to establish their outreach strategies by offering financial 
support and policy advice in the form of technical assistance, capacity building and mutual learning.

X Second bullet
The Commission notes that the recommendation is addressed to Member States.

The Commission would indeed welcome a better overview of the estimated cost of all planned measures to imple-
ment the Youth Guarantee and will wherever possible and upon request of the Member States, support them in this 
process. The modalities for such support can however not be defined at this stage.

X Third bullet
The Commission notes that the recommendation is addressed to Member States.

X Fourth bullet
The Commission notes that this recommendation is addressed to Member States.

XI First bullet
The Commission accepts this recommendation insofar as it concerns the Commission and will explore the possibility 
of discussing standards for quality criteria in the context of the work on Youth Guarantee monitoring in EMCO.

Reply of the Commission

85

XI Second bullet
The Commission accepts the recommendation and considers it partially implemented.

The Commission is already cooperating closely with Member States in this field, in particular through the work in 
the EMCO Indicators Group, the support offered to Member States reporting data under the Indicator Framework 
and the ILO targeted support given to 3 Member States as part of the EC-ILO action on youth employment.

XI Third bullet
The Commission does not accept this recommendation.

The Regulations do not set out a specific requirement for a detailed assessment of the characteristics of the differ-
ent subgroups of young people supported by the YEI in the Operational Programme.

Nevertheless, the Commission works with Member States in different fora for supporting them in activities reach-
ing out to the inactive young persons. In this context, the Commission will continue providing guidance to Member 
States for the design of measures that are tailored to the needs of the different groups of population targeted by 
the YEI.

XI Fourth bullet
The Commission does not accept this recommendation.

By measuring the situation of only YEI participants who have completed the operation, there is a potential risk of 
under-reporting of results. In addition, the revision suggested by the Court would entail a change in the rationale of 
measurement whereas the common result indicators are compulsory for all Member States and have been agreed 
upon with them.

The Commission would like to underline that the counting methodology adopted for YEI is based on the conven-
tions used for ESF indicators, notably counting positive exists, independently of the completion of operations. 
Furthermore, any such change of the rules in force would place a significant burden on Member States and hamper 
comparability of data reported prior to a change in the convention.

An evaluation is required in order to conclude on whether the results for a participant are directly attributable to 
the YEI (or ESF) intervention and this is not feasible within the monitoring system.

The Commission will pursue its efforts to shed more clarity on monitoring issues by continue providing guidance 
and requesting Member States’ feedback in the several existing relevant fora.

Reply of the Commission

86

Observations

40
This procedure was a choice to create a nationwide reliable registry for Youth Guarantee.

48
Slovakian projects under Youth Guarantee primarily target long term unemployed young people. The success rate 
in these cases of hard-to-place groups is in general lower as they are more prone to drop out of the programme.

52
The Commission considers this result particularly positive taking into account the high bar set by the Indicator 
Framework: exit from YG scheme occurs on take-up of an offer and not on acceptance.

Common Commission reply to paragraph 63 and Box 2
Even though the NEET indicator is very important for policy making and it is the best available proxy for the moni-
toring of the YG, disentangling the heterogeneity of NEETs is important in order to have a better understanding of 
the characteristics and needs of the various subgroups. This will allow Member States to identify the initiatives and 
measures most urgently needed to effectively re-integrate young people into the labour market or education, in 
the spirit of gradual implementation of the Youth Guarantee. Since 2017, and in the spirit of gradual implementation 
foreseen in the Council Recommendation, Italy is working in the direction of expanding the target population.

64
In Spain, the Royal Decree-Law of 23 December 2016 states that young people who register or re-register as unem -
ployed in the Public Employment Service will be automatically registered in the national Youth Guarantee system.

75 First alinea
The Commission would welcome a better overview of the estimated cost of all planned measures to implement the 
Youth Guarantee in each Member State but it is also aware that any estimates of the costs of a Youth Guarantee are 
subject to caveats, since for many Member States implementation of the Youth Guarantee also requires in-depth 
structural reforms of training, job-search and education systems to drastically improve school-to-work transitions 
and the employability of young people.

That is why the resources needed to implement a Youth Guarantee may greatly vary from one Member State to 
another and although significant EU financial support is available the investment of national resources in support-
ing young NEET and implementing the necessary reforms is crucial. These should be prioritised in national budgets.

Reply of the Commission

87

Common Commission reply to paragraphs 77 and 78
Within the ESF/YEI allocation, the amount of EUR 12,5 billion referred to by the Court does not represent the total 
amount of funding programmed for the Youth Guarantee as Member States have allocated resources under other 
investment priorities for measures that implement the Youth Guarantee. Around EUR 11 billion are allocated to 
measures such as modernisation of employment services and self-employment measures which will also indirectly 
support youth employment and around EUR 27 billion are allocated to thematic objective 10 (education) that ben-
efits in particular young people.

78
As stated above, the amount of resources available from the ESF/YEI to address the Council recommendation on 
the Youth Guarantee is higher than 12.5 billion euros. The Commission has also provided guidance to Member 
States urging them to allocate more resources from the ESF and their national budget in order to tackle youth 
unemployment1.

85
In France, while it is true that procedures differ between Pôle Emploi and Missions locales, this is justified by the fact 
that the latter deal with a specific target group - mostly low-qualified young people. At the same time, a common 
monitoring of the two systems effective as of 2017, called Trajam, will enable to have an overview of the 2 systems 
and to get follow up indicators that will improve monitoring.

The share of common tools of diagnosis between education (PSAD) and employment operators (ML) are being 
developed.

95
The 2015 data collection exercise has seen a clear improvement in the completion and quality of data compared 
to that for 2014. A number of countries have made substantial efforts to adjust the methods used to collect and/or 
compile their Youth Guarantee monitoring data in order to improve coherence with the specifications of the Indica-
tor Framework. Qualitative data on the characteristics of offers have also been improved. These efforts contribute 
to improved comparability of the data between countries, even if there are still some specific issues that need to be 
taken into account when interpreting results.

Key areas for improvement relate to the completion of follow-up data (still not available for 8 countries) and reduc-
ing the number of unknown destinations and subsequent situations in both exit and follow-up data.

1  Guidance on implementing the Youth Employment Initiative – European Social Fund thematic paper – September 2014 – European Commission – 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.

Reply of the Commission

88

97
The Commission notes that the completeness of the French monitoring system is limited by the fact that by virtue 
of the law ‘Informatique et Libertés’ of 1978, there is no easy way for identifying one person throughout the sys-
tem (no one personal administrative number), implying a risk of double counting. That is why it has been decided 
to limit data collection only to the two main providers of public employment services - Pôle Emploi and Missions 
Locales.

Common Commission reply to paragraphs 102 and 103
It should be noted that Article 16 of the ESF Regulation states that the YEI should target young people below 25 or 
below 30 that are not in employment, education or training without requiring a detailed assessment of the char-
acteristics of the different subgroups of young people. In the context of shared management, it is up to Member 
States to identify the target group of the YEI. Member States decided to concentrate YEI resources on specific target 
groups and use the ESF for other measures targeting most difficult and hard to reach groups of young people.

Several means were used by the Commission to assess the YEI target population during the discussions with Mem-
ber States on the programmes. First, the Commission relied on the ex-ante evaluation, which was part of all Opera-
tional Programmes (as set out in Articles 26(4) and 55 of the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR)). Moreover, in the 
case of the YEI, Member States had to comply with an ex ante conditionality which required them to have in place 
a strategic policy framework for promoting youth employment.

Second, the Commission requested Member States to include in their Operational Programmes a description of the 
main groups of young people targeted by the YEI based on their assessment, in particular with regard to the age 
group despite that there is no specific.

Finally, the Commission also provided guidance to Member States on how to identify the target population of the 
YEI2.

Common Commission reply to paragraphs 104 to 106
The Regulations do not require Member States to identify the different subgroups of the population targeted by the 
YEI. Nevertheless, the measures supported by the YEI in France clearly target low qualified young people far away 
from the labour market, with some 40% of the total budget exclusively focussed on this group. Indeed, according to 
the 2015 Annual Implementation Report, 45.9% of the participants had a qualification level inferior to upper sec-
ondary education.

2  Guidance on implementing the Youth Employment Initiative – European Social Fund thematic paper - September 2014 - European Commission – 

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, page 7.

Reply of the Commission

89

108
According to Article 4(4) of the CPR, Member States prepare and implement programmes at the appropriate territo-
rial level in accordance with their institutional, legal and financial framework. Therefore, this stems from the specific 
institutional organisation of the Member State.

In Spain there is a common catalogue of offers defined in the Youth Guarantee law at national level and each region 
with competences in delivering active labour market policies has the right to select those that are more appropriate 
for the social and economic situation in the region.

111
According to Article 4(4) of the CPR Member States prepare the Partnership Agreement and Operational pro-
grammes in accordance with their institutional and legal framework. These procedures should be transparent and 
ensure due consultation and involvement of relevant partners, also in line with the provisions set out in the Euro-
pean Code of Conduct on Partnership (Article 5 and Article 26 of the CPR). The Regulations require involvement 
and consultation of relevant partners. Accordingly, the Operational programme should provide information on the 
actions taken to involve partners in the preparation of the operational programme.

In Portugal, regarding the preparation of the YEI part in the Operational Programme, the cooperation / validation 
already done for the YGIP was considered as valid. The consultation procedures for the OP were fulfilled.

113
Article 95 of the CPR does not require Member States to increase public expenditure regarding certain types of 
measures or target groups. What is required is that Member States maintain a certain level of public or equivalent 
structural expenditure. According to Article 95(4) and Annex X compliance with additionality is verified, when appli-
cable, only at regional or even national level and not by type of measure or target group.

Common Commission reply to paragraphs 115 and 116
Article 95 and Annex X of the CPR do not impose that there is a net increase in the people covered by previously 
funded measures under the national budget. What is required by the Regulations is that the funds are used for 
measures that contribute to specific objectives and investment priorities identified in the operational programmes.

119
In addition to the requirement described by the Court, the Commission had made available to the Member States 
two background papers on setting and adjusting targets for the ESF well ahead of the discussions in 2013. Further, 
the Commission required a methodological document from Member States if the information supporting the base-
line scenario could not be found in the ex-ante evaluation. The Commission considers that these provisions taken 
together were sufficient.

Reply of the Commission

90

120
The approach followed by Member States in setting baselines is coherent with the guidance provided and makes 
use of relevant statistical data.

121
See Commission reply to paragraph 119.

122
See Commission reply to paragraph 119.

123
See Commission reply to paragraph 119.

The baseline estimate for the indicators took into account the past policy/measures that were considered as objec-
tives and/or target groups. However, this was the first time that such a methodology was put into practice and 
that the employment and training measures financed included specific young inactive NEETs as one of the target 
groups. This made it difficult to establish the baseline and projection of results. The main obstacle of the exercise 
for Portugal was the lack of historic data on inactive NEETs.

Box 8 - Identified weaknesses in the setup of baseline values in Portugal
See Commission reply to paragraph 119.

124
See Commission reply to paragraph 119.

125
See Commission reply to paragraphs 119 and 120, in particular as regards the need to take into account macro-eco-
nomic conditions and level of ambition in the target setting.

In France the expected success rates reflect the fact that most of the implemented schemes are targeted to low-
qualified young people far away from the labour market and reflect both past experience and the estimated rate of 
identification of the NEETs.

Reply of the Commission

91

Common Commission reply to paragraphs 128 to 134
The Commission would like to underline that the methodology adopted for YEI is based on the conventions used 
for ESF indicators, notably counting all positive exists, including early exits. The Commission has been providing 
guidance3 to Member States on how to measure common result indicators, notably requiring that positive exits are 
counted only once in the case of a participant repeating the same operation. Therefore the Commission considers 
the risk to be limited. Further, Managing Authorities are required to evaluate at least twice during the life of the 
programme the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of the YEI, including the sustainability of results.

138
The Commission proposed to increase the pre-financing under the YEI to help some Member States that were strug-
gling to launch or continue measures due to lack of funding. The last reporting from Member States shows that the 
additional pre-financing had a positive impact on the ground. Even if some Member States were unable to declare 
sufficient expenditure in order to secure the additional pre-financing it helped boost implementation. Moreover, it 
should be noted that most of the Member States succeeded in securing the additional pre-financing.

142
In France, the reason why a relatively large number of participants do not complete the action is that a significant 
proportion actually manages to exit the scheme with a positive outcome before the end. Indeed, the 2015 Annual 
Implementation Report indicates that 53% of participants had a positive exit whether before (e.g. finding a job 
which is the most desired outcome) or at the end of the scheme.

143
It is up to Member States to identify the target group of the YEI. As the YEI has a limited amount of resources, 
Member States have decided to concentrate these resources on certain target groups and use the ESF (or national 
budget) for others.

The Commission considers the fact that participants in Portugal did not belong to the inactive NEET group as nor-
mal for the following reasons:

—  at the time of the audit only the Public Employment Service’s measures had been financed through YEI. The PES 

mainly works with the unemployed NEET group in two typologies: Internships and Employment Support;

—  the Young Guarantee in Portugal started by assessing the NEET situation of all young people already enrolled in 

the public employment service, signalling them for priority intervention;

—  data analysed on Figure 5 demonstrate that the NEET rate is more representative in the group of the unem-

ployed than in the inactive ones.

3  Monitoring and Evaluation of European Cohesion Fund – European Social Fund – Programming period 2014-2020 – June 2015 – Annex D – 

Practical Guidance on data collection and validation – May 2016.

Reply of the Commission

92

145
The fact that certain Member States did not manage to secure the additional pre-financing does not mean that 
they had a slow start in the implementation of measures under the YEI. In many cases, Member States had sufficient 
expenditure but were unable to claim it because they did not meet the necessary condition for submission of pay-
ment applications to the Commission (i.e. they had not yet designated the managing and certifying authorities).

147
The YEI evaluations managed to exploit at the most possible degree the information and data available.

Most of the first YEI evaluations submitted by Member States to the Commission focused on design of the measures 
adopted, their relevance and implementation of the operations.

148
Given that expenditure was eligible since September 2013, the Commission considers that the evaluation findings 
were useful to steer the programmes for the remaining period.

153
The Commission is closely monitoring this issue. The Managing authority of the YEI programme together with the 
regions is trying to elaborate new solutions for the payment of traineeships to participants in the framework of the 
programme in order to reduce the delay.

Conclusions and recommendations

Common Commission reply to paragraphs 159 and 160
The Commission considers that the current results in Youth Guarantee implementation do not fall short of initial 
expectations The Commission notes that the Court’s conclusions are based on an assessment of the aspects set out 
in the scope of the audit. The October 2016 Commission Communication (COM/2016/646) ‘The Youth Guarantee and 
the Youth Employment Initiative three years on’ points at first positive results and additional crucial elements, such as 
the Youth Guarantee’s impetus on structural reforms and policy innovation. This has been recognised by the Euro-
pean Council which on 15 December 2016 called for the continuation of the Youth Guarantee and welcomed the 
increased support for the Youth Employment Initiative. Besides, the EPSCO Council of 8 December 2016 confirmed 
first positive results achieved by measures and reforms implemented to date.

In its October Communication, the Commission recognises that Youth Guarantee schemes have not yet reached all 
young people who have become unemployed or left school and identifies a number of key areas for improvement, 
including better engaging with non-registered NEETs and the low-skilled.

Reply of the Commission

93

The Commission considers that the YEI has made a substantial contribution for the Youth Guarantee in these Mem-
ber States. In spite of delays in some of Member States, implementation has advanced steadily in 2016. In July 2016 
1.4 million people had participated in a measure supported by the YEI in the 20 eligible Member States. By end of 
November 2016 this number had increased to 1.6 million people. The YEI is perceived by all these Member States as 
a key mechanism or lever through which to operationalise the Youth Guarantee. In some cases, it is being used to 
support most or all measures planned under Youth Guarantee schemes, for instance in Spain where 80% of all Youth 
Guarantee actions are funded through the YEI. In Italy the YEI became the driver for a major reform and led to the 
set-up of new youth employment services.

The Commission’s Communication (COM/2016/646) ‘The Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative 
three years on’ highlights these results.

Although it is still early to assess the results – as operations are ongoing and many of these young people are still 
being supported – we can already say that the YEI has achieved one of its first objectives – to place youth employ-
ment at the core of political decisions in Member States.

161
In its October 2016 Communication the Commission recognises more effort is needed to support those young 
people who are furthest away from the labour market. While results are becoming visible on the ground, Youth 
Guarantee schemes have not yet reached all young people who have become unemployed or left school and young 
people in the most vulnerable situations, including the low-skilled and non-registered NEETs, are under-represented 
among beneficiaries.

However, as indicated in the Communication, the Youth Guarantee has shifted the focus to early intervention and 
non-registered NEETs, highlighted existing gaps in service delivery and ensured a new focus on outreach. It has 
also helped to break down silos across policy areas and build viable partnerships between key players in charge of 
outreach.

Figures corresponding to the average annual stock of young people in the Youth Guarantee preparatory phase 
in 2014 and 2015 reflect for some Member States a legitimate choice to opt for a gradual implementation of their 
Youth Guarantee schemes. Only in the medium term, once additional data collection exercises have been com-
pleted, will the Commission be in a position to assess progress made in the identification and registration of NEETs.

163
The Commission considers these results particularly positive taking into account the high bar set by the Indicator 
Framework: exit from Youth Guarantee scheme occurs on take-up of an offer and not on acceptance. Moreover, 
for the EU as a whole, the percentage of timely and positive exits (take-up of an offer within four months) from the 
Youth Guarantee has increased in 2015 compared to 2014. Increases are also recorded at EU level in the percentage 
of positive situations 6 months after exits and in the proportion of NEETs reached by the Youth Guarantee.

Reply of the Commission

94

Recommendation 1 First alinea
The Commission considers that the recommendation is primarily addressed to Member States.

The Commission accepts the recommendation insofar as it concerns the Commission and intends to set out appro-
priate actions when new initiatives will be proposed.

Whilst fully recognising the importance of managing expectations and setting realistic targets, the Commission 
would however like to underline the importance of setting an ambitious policy goal, which has contributed to creat-
ing political momentum around the Youth Guarantee.

Recommendation 1 Second alinea
The Commission considers that the recommendation is primarily addressed to Member States.

The Commission accepts the recommendation insofar as it concerns the Commission and intends to set up appro-
priate actions when new initiatives will be proposed.

In the process of preparing Member States’ YGIPs, the Commission has asked Member States to identify and analyse 
key structural challenges and specific gaps relevant to their national situation, and outline an indicative timeline for 
gradual implementation of the Youth Guarantee, if envisaged.

165
The Commission agrees that more efforts are needed to support those young people who are most detached from 
the labour market but wishes to remind the Court that the Council Recommendation allows for gradual implemen-
tation of Youth Guarantee schemes and that there is no specified target date for the implementation of the Youth 
Guarantee for the entire NEET population.

Besides, outreach was an important element in Member States’ approach to the Youth Guarantee. Most encouraged 
young people to register with providers and two-thirds of public employment services engaged in outreach work 
when implementing the Youth Guarantee. Increasing awareness, accessibility and the range of services was instru-
mental in this regard, through the development not only of online registration and targeted campaigns but also of 
one-stop-shops, mobile or decentralised services and proactive work with a broader range of partners.

Recommendation 2
The Commission notes that the recommendation is primarily addressed to Member States.

The Commission accepts the recommendation insofar as it concerns the Commission and notes that it is already 
implementing it. The Commission is indeed already supporting Member States to establish their outreach strategies 
by offering financial support and policy advice in the form of technical assistance, capacity building and mutual 
learning.

Reply of the Commission

95

168
The resources needed to implement a Youth Guarantee may greatly vary from one Member State to another. In 
many Member States EU resources are likely not to be sufficient to complete the ambitious reforms required to 
implement the YG and should be complemented by national budgets.

The Commission would however welcome a better overview of the estimated cost of all planned measures to imple-
ment the Youth Guarantee in each Member State but it is also aware that any estimates of the costs of a Youth Guar-
antee are subject to caveats, since for many Member States implementation of the Youth Guarantee also requires 
in-depth structural reforms of training, job-search and education systems to drastically improve school-to-work 
transitions and the employability of young people.

169
The Commission has always underlined that although significant EU financial support is available to support the 
Member States, Member States must also prioritise youth employment measures in their national budgets.

However, the Commission acknowledges there is a need to increase the resources made available at EU level for 
tackling youth unemployment. Accordingly, the Commission has recently proposed to increase the amount of 
resources under the YEI for 2017-2020.

Recommendation 3
The Commission notes that the recommendation is primarily addressed to Member States.

The Commission would indeed welcome a better overview of the estimated cost of all planned measures to imple-
ment the Youth Guarantee and will wherever possible and upon request of the Member States, support Member 
States in this process. The modalities for such support cannot, however, be defined at this stage.

Recommendation 4
The Commission accepts this recommendation insofar as it concerns the Commission and will explore the possibility 
of discussing standards for quality criteria in the context of the work on Youth Guarantee monitoring in EMCO.

The Commission notes that the second part of the recommendation is addressed to Member States.

Reply of the Commission

96

173
The 2015 data collection exercise has seen a clear improvement in the completion and quality of data compared 
to that for 2014. A number of countries have made substantial efforts to adjust the methods used to collect and/or 
compile their YG monitoring data in order to improve coherence with the specifications of the Indicator Framework. 
Qualitative data on the characteristics of offers have also been improved. These efforts contribute to improved 
comparability of the data between countries, even if there are still some specific issues that need to be taken into 
account when interpreting results.

Key areas for improvement relate to the completion of follow-up data (still not available for 8 countries) and reduc-
ing the number of unknown destinations and subsequent situations in both exit and follow-up data.

The EPSCO Council has in this respect called on Member States to pursue efforts to achieve better alignment of 
national data with the common Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee, taking into account the 
current possibilities and limitations of national data.

Recommendation 5
The Commission accepts the first part of the recommendation and considers it partially implemented as explained 
below. The Commission is already cooperating closely with Member States in this field, in particular through 
the work in the EMCO Indicators Group, the support offered to Member States reporting data under the Indica-
tor Framework and the ILO targeted support given to 3 Member States as part of the EC-ILO action on youth 
employment.

The Commission notes that the second part of this recommendation is addressed to Member States.

174
The Commission considers that the YEI has made a substantial contribution for the Youth Guarantee in these 
Member States. In spite of delays in some of Member States, implementation has advanced steadily in 2016. See 
Commission reply to paragraph 159. The Commission adopted on the 4th October a Communication reporting on 
progress made by Member States in the Youth Guarantee and the YEI - COM (2016) 646, The Youth Guarantee and 
Youth Employment Initiative. One of the conclusions of this Communication is that in spite of delays in the set-up 
of the structures, the YEI is regarded across the 20 eligible Member States as a key mechanism to implement the 
Youth Guarantee. In some cases it is used to support most or all measures under the Youth Guarantee schemes. This 
report also shows that progress has been increasing since end of 2015. The fact that Member States did not submit 
the full amount of the additional pre-financing in payment applications does not mean that they have not used 
it fully or even more. As Member States were only required to claim half of the additional pre-financing in Union 
Contribution (which includes both the specific allocation for the YEI and the ESF contribution to the YEI), they may 
have decided not to claim the expenditure immediately (e.g. for treasury reasons, for reasons linked to verification 
of expenditure).

Finally it is important to note that at this stage results should be read with caution and be regarded as preliminary. 
Firstly, because operations may take longer than one or three years. Secondly, because many Member States prefer 
to report only on completed operations (as this options is allowed in accordance with the legal framework applica-
ble to the YEI).

Reply of the Commission

97

175
The Commission notes that the Regulations do not set out a specific requirement for a detailed assessment of the 
characteristics of the different subgroups of young people supported by the YEI. The Regulations require involve-
ment and consultation of relevant partners but they do not require that all proposals from relevant partners are 
taken into account. Accordingly, the Operational Programme should provide information on the actions taken to 
involve partners in the preparation of the operational programme.

176
The Commission notes that Article 95 and Annex X of the CPR do not determine that Member States cannot use the 
ESI Funds to support measures previously supported with the national budget. In addition, these provisions also 
don’t require Member States to increase public expenditure regarding certain types of measures or target groups.

The purpose of Article 95 is to prevent that Member States reduce their level of public investment. The verifica-
tion of compliance with additionality is made in accordance with Article 95(4) and Annex X. This verification, where 
applicable, is based on the overall level of public investment at national or regional level and not on the type of 
measures funded by the Member State.

Recommendation 6
The Commission does not accept this recommendation.

The Regulations do not set out a specific requirement for a detailed assessment of the characteristics of the differ-
ent subgroups of young people supported by the YEI in the Operational Programme.

Nevertheless, the Commission works with Member States in different fora for supporting them in activities reach-
ing out to the inactive young persons. In this context, the Commission will continue providing guidance to Member 
States for the design of measures that are tailored to the needs of the different groups of population targeted by 
the YEI.

177
The Commission considers that the provisions put in place were sufficient.

In particular, during the discussions on the programmes, baseline scenarios were assessed by the Commission to 
check the robustness of the targets.

In case that the information was not found in the ex-ante evaluation, the Commission usually asked for a methodo-
logical document.

The Commission had made available to the Member States two background papers on setting and adjusting targets 
for the ESF well ahead of the discussions in 2013. If the baseline could not be supported by evidence or historical 
data was missing, an action plan was required in the framework of general ex-ante conditionality 7.

Reply of the Commission

98

178
The Commission considers that the indicators count different steps in a path towards inclusion/the labour market. 
In case the participant is supported by two consecutive interventions, that are the same, the completion of the YEI 
intervention and the reception of the offer are counted only once, upon leaving. In case the participant is supported 
under two different operations, and both are completed, then the participation would be counted twice as com-
pleting the YEI supported intervention and at least once as receiving an offer upon leaving the first intervention.

Recommendation 7
The Commission does not accept this recommendation.

By measuring the situation of only YEI participants who have completed the operation, there is a potential risk of 
under-reporting of results. In addition, the revision suggested by the Court would entail a change in the rationale of 
measurement whereas the common result indicators are compulsory for all Member States and have been agreed 
upon with them.

The Commission would like to underline that the counting methodology adopted for YEI is based on the conven-
tions used for ESF indicators, notably counting positive exists, independently of the completion of operations. 
Furthermore, any such change of the rules in force would place a significant burden on Member States and hamper 
comparability of data reported prior to a change in the convention.

An evaluation is required in order to conclude on whether the results for a participant are directly attributable to 
the YEI (or ESF) intervention and this is not feasible within the monitoring system.

The Commission will pursue its efforts to shed more clarity on monitoring issues by continue providing guidance 
and requesting Member States’ feedback in the several existing relevant fora.

179
The Commission notes that, in many cases, Member States had sufficient expenditure but were unable to claim it 
because they did not meet the necessary condition for submission of payment applications to the Commission (i.e. 
they had not yet designated the managing and certifying authorities).

Common Commission reply to paragraphs 180 and 181
At this stage results should be read with caution and be regarded as preliminary. Firstly, because operations may 
take longer than one or two years. Secondly, because many Member States prefer to report only on completed 
operations (as this options is allowed in accordance with the legal framework applicable to the YEI). It is also not 
possible to draw conclusions on the basis of the expenditure claimed to the Commission as financial implementa-
tion does not reflect implementation on the ground.

Reply of the Commission

99

181
Carrying out the first YEI evaluation by December 2015 was explicitly required by the Regulation, in light of eligi-
bility of expenditure since September 2013. The Commission considers that the evaluation findings were useful to 
steer the programmes for the remaining period.

182
The Commission agrees that the measures should be tailored to the needs of the young persons and that the profil-
ing of participants is very important. In this context, the Commission has provided guidance to Member States on 
the design of measures.

Article 16 of the ESF Regulation determines that the YEI should target young people below 25 or below 30 that are 
not in employment, education or training. It does not impose any requirements on the specific groups that should 
be supported. Therefore, it is up to Member States to identify the target group of the YEI, within the limits set out 
in Article 16 of the ESF Regulation and in accordance with the reality in the Member State. As the YEI provides for 
a limited amount of resources, Member States decided to concentrate YEI resources on specific target groups and 
use the ESF for other measures targeting most difficult and hard to reach groups of young people. Many of the 
measures targeting these vulnerable groups are programmed under investment priority 9i.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

(cid:127) 

one copy: 
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

(cid:127)   more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:

(cid:127) 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Event

Adoption of the Audit Planning Memorandum/Start of audit

Official sending of draft report to Commission (or other auditee)

Adoption of the final report after the adversarial procedure

Commission’s (or other auditee’s) official replies received in all languages

Date

9.9.2015

26.1.2017

8.3.2017

31.3.2017

 
This report examines the progress made by the EU Youth 
Guarantee in ensuring that under 25’s receive an offer of 
employment, education, apprenticeship or training within 
four months of leaving school or becoming unemployed. It 
also evaluates the Youth Employment Initiative, which 
increased financial support for those struggling the most. 
We found limited progress and results which fall short of 
expectations with regard to of providing a good quality 
offer to all NEETs (those not in employment, education or 
training). We make a number of recommendations both to 
the Member States and to the European Commission to 
improve the current and future initiatives in the area of 
employment.

1977 - 2017