COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the Council Recommendation on a Quality Framework for Traineeships
Date: 2023-01-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: continuing education, cooperation in the field of education, first job, integration into employment, job access, professional qualifications, traineeship, young person, youth employment

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.1.2023  SWD(2023) 9 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the Council Recommendation on a Quality Framework for Traineeships {SWD(2023) 10 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation ........................................................................................... 3 

2.  WHAT  WAS  THE  EXPECTED  OUTCOME  OF  THE  QUALITY  FRAMEWORK  OF 

TRAINEESHIPS (QFT)? ...................................................................................................................... 5 

2.1 Description of the QFT and its objectives ............................................................................. 5 

2.2 Points of comparison ........................................................................................................... 10 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ....................... 13 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 21 

4.1.  TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE QFT SUCCESSFUL AND WHY? ............................................... 21 

4.2.  HOW DID THE QFT MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND TO WHOM? ................................................. 42 

4.3.  IS THE QFT STILL RELEVANT? .................................................................................................... 43 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................................. 48 

5.1 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 48 

5.2 LESSONS LEARNED ........................................................................................................................... 50 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 53 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ................................................... 55 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX ....................................................................................................... 82 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ........................................................................... 91 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................................. 96 

ANNEX VI. RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE EVALUATION STUDY ........................................... 115 

ANNEX  VII.  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  2014  QUALITY  FRAMEWORK  FOR 

TRAINEESHIPS (QFT) .................................................................................................................... 117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of figures 

Figure 1 - QFT intervention logic ................................................................................................... 9 
Figure 2 - EU-27 average unemployment, NEET and long-term unemployment rate (15-29 years 
old), 2008-2014 ............................................................................................................................. 10 
Figure 3 - EU27 average unemployment, NEET and youth long-term unemployment rate (15-29 
years old), 2014 - 2021 .................................................................................................................. 14 
Figure 4 - Share of young people (aged 20-29 years) estimated to potentially take up an OMT by 
EU Member State, 2014 and 2020, ordered by 2020 values from low to high ............................. 16 
Figure 5 - Application of the QFT on the ground across the EU (country map) ........................... 27 
Figure 6 - Trainee survey: job offers at the end of a traineeship, by sector................................... 32 

Table of tables 

Table 1 - Regulatory approaches in 2014 ...................................................................................... 13 
Table 2 - Comparison between the 2013 Eurobarometer and the 2022 trainee survey ................. 17 
Table 3 - Regulatory approaches to traineeships in EU Member States ....................................... 19 
Table 4 - Conformity with QFT principles – OMTs ..................................................................... 23 
Table 5 - Conformity with QFT principles – ALMP Traineeships ............................................... 24 
Table 6 - Financial incentives in Member States .......................................................................... 37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

ALMP traineeships 

Application on the ground 

EFQEA 

Conformity 

Traineeships as part of active labour market policies 
(ALMPs), organised by Public Employment Services 
(PES) in cooperation with employers, based on a 
tripartite agreement with the aim to help unemployed 
or inactive young people into employment. 

The  degree  to  which  regulation  established  is  in  fact 
abided  by  (i.e.  practically  applied)  in  traineeships 
taking place in the country. 

Council  Recommendation  on  a  European  Framework 
for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships 

The  degree  to  which  national  legislation  regulates 
traineeships as per the quality standards outlined in the 
QFT. 

Cross-border (or transnational) 
traineeships 

Traineeships  that  take  place  in  an  EU  country  other 
than the EU country where the trainee resides.  

NEETs 

Young people neither in employment nor in education 
and training 

Open-market traineeships 

PES 

QFT 

Traineeships 

Open-market  traineeships (OMTs) are non-mandatory, 
bilateral,  and  private  agreements  agreed  between  a 
trainee  and  a  traineeship  provider  (public/private/non-
profit)  without  the  involvement  of  a  third  party  and 
without a formal connection to education or training. 

Public employment services 

(Council  Recommendation  on  a)  Quality  Framework 
for Traineeships 

A limited period of work practice, whether paid or not, 
which  includes  a  learning  and  training  component, 
undertaken  in  order  to  gain  practical  and  professional 
experience with a view to improving employability and 
facilitating transition to regular employment 

YG / Youth Guarantee 

(Council  Recommendation  on  establishing  the)  Youth 
Guarantee 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Council  Recommendation  of  10 March  2014  on  a  Quality  Framework  for 
Traineeships  (2014/C  88/01)  (hereinafter  QFT)  aims  at  helping  young  people 
transition  from  education,  unemployment  or  inactivity  into  the  labour  market  through 
quality traineeships that enhance their skills and allow them to gain work experience.  It 
sets out 21 quality principles1 for traineeships outside education curricula that can ensure 
high-quality  learning  content  and  adequate  working  conditions.  The  QFT  is  also  an 
important  reference  point  for  determining  what  constitutes  a  good  quality  offer  of 
traineeships under the reinforced Youth Guarantee2.  

As  emphasised  in  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  Action  Plan,  “[t]raineeships  or 
internships  allow  to  gain  practical  and  first-hand  experience.  They  are  usefully 
facilitating  young  people’s  access  to  the  labour  market.  Yet,  this  aim  can  only  be 
achieved  if  traineeships  are  of  good  quality  and  apply  fair  working  conditions”.  The 
Action  Plan  announced  that  the  Commission  will  “[r]eview  in  2022  the  Council 
Recommendation  on  the  Quality  Framework  for  Traineeships,  notably  as  regards 
working conditions”. The evaluation of the QFT also contributed to the 2022 European 
Year of Youth. 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

This  report  presents  the  findings  of  the  Commission’s  evaluation  of  the  QFT.  In  line 
with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  it  assesses  the  extent  to  which  the  QFT  is 
effective, efficient and coherent, provides EU added value and remains relevant to 
tackle present needs3.  

Principle  20  of  the  QFT  recommends  that  Member  States  “provide  information  to  the 
Commission  by  the  end  of  2015  on  the  measures  taken  in  accordance  with  this 
Recommendation”.  Based  on  the  information  received,  the  2016  Commission  Staff 
Working  Document  (SWD)  ‘Applying  the  Quality  Framework  for  Traineeships’4  
analysed the extent of Member States’ conformity with the quality principles of the QFT 
and pointed out remaining gaps. Its results were used for the present evaluation and are 
referred to below whenever relevant. The 2016 assessment did not, however, assess the 
extent to which the quality principles of the QFT were applied on the ground. 

1 See Annex VII for the full list of the 21 quality principles. In addition to these, the QFT contains the (first 
point),  which  is  not  considered  a  quality  principle  on  its  own,  but  an  overall  recommendation  to 
Member States to implement the (21) quality principles that follow thereafter. 

2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020H1104%2801%29  

3 Please see Annex VI for the full list of research questions.  

4 Commission Staff Working Document ‘Applying the Quality Framework for Traineeships’{COM(2016) 

646 final}, {SWD(2016) 323 final} 

3 

 
 
                                                           
Moreover, despite the progress made since 2014, the youth unemployment rate remains 
at  nearly  double  the  unemployment  rate  of  the  overall  labour  force  (15-64  years)5, 
indicating that  young people  continue to face structural  challenges to  access  the labour 
market.  Given  the  current  geopolitical  and  macro-economic  uncertainties  and  their 
impact  on  the  labour  market,  the  central  objective  of  the  QFT  remains  particularly 
pertinent:  the  improvement  of  the  quality  of  traineeships,  in  particular  as  regards 
learning  and  training  content  and  working  conditions,  with  the  aim  of  easing  the 
transition from education, unemployment or inactivity to work.  

This  evaluation  report  describes  the  current  situation  in  the  EU  in  terms  of  youth 
employment,  the  prevalence  and  quality  of  traineeships,  the  extent  to  which  the  QFT 
principles  are  adequately  implemented6  across  the  27  Member  States  and  achieved  the 
expected results. It reports on the main developments between the years 2014 and 2021. 
The evaluation report also assesses the extent to which the QFT principles are still fit for 
purpose in light of the current challenges. This includes a reflection on the relevance of 
quality  aspects  which  are  not  covered  by  the  QFT.  Finally,  the  evaluation  identifies 
whether  traineeships  and  the  implementation  of  the  QFT  may  have  had  an  impact  on 
youth  employment  through  quality  traineeships  (in  particular  learning  content  and 
working conditions), as well as on the prevalence of cross-border traineeships.   

A key limitation of this evaluation report concerns the lack of systematic data collection 
on  traineeships  at  EU  level,  in  particular  on  open  market  traineeships  (OMTs).  In 
addition,  information  on  traineeships  across  the  EU  is  based  on  varying  definitions, 
which  poses  problems  of  comparability  for  the  analysis.  Another  challenge  relates  to 
isolating the impact of the QFT on youth employment from the impact of traineeships in 
general  and  of  other  youth  employment  measures.  While  the  research  conducted  in 
support of this evaluation did not allow to establish a strong relation between the QFT (a 
non-binding  instrument),  the  extent  of  its  integration  in  the  national  legislation  or 
frameworks and the quality of traineeships, some indications of the possible impacts of 
the QFT on the quality of traineeships and youth employment were found.    

The  limitations  outlined above  have  consequences  on  e.g.  the  estimation  of  traineeship 
prevalence, the examination of the impact of the QFT on traineeships and the assessment 
of how well traineeships support  the employability of  young people. This evaluation  is 
largely  based  on  a  dedicated  study7  carried  out  in  2022  which  is  built  on  mapping 
activities, stakeholder interviews and surveys (both a targeted survey of former, current 

5 In 2021, at the end of the evaluation period, youth unemployment rate in the EU was 13% whereas the 

overall unemployment rate was 7%. 

6 The adequate implementation includes (a) the reflection of QFT principles in national legislation and/or 
national quality frameworks; (b) the existence of enforcement and/or regular follow-up monitoring to 
verify compliance with national legislation and/or national quality frameworks; and (c) on-the-ground 
compliance with national legislation and/or national quality frameworks. 

7 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023). 

4 

 
                                                           
and potential future trainees, as well as a public consultation).  In addition, research and 
studies on traineeships exist8, the results of which have been used in this evaluation.  

2.  WHAT  WAS  THE  EXPECTED  OUTCOME  OF  THE  QUALITY  FRAMEWORK  OF 
TRAINEESHIPS (QFT)? 

2.1 Description of the QFT and its objectives 

Traineeships,  also  known  as  internships,  are  an  important  entry  point  into  the  labour 
market for young people. They complement traditional classroom instruction and allow 
obtaining important skills through practical experience.  

At the time of adoption of the QFT in 2014, youth unemployment figures had reached 
all-time highs due to the impact of the global financial and economic crisis. Employment 
opportunities  in  general  were  scarce,  and  there  were  concerns  that  (low  quality) 
traineeships  would  gain  ground,  including  to  substitute  regular  jobs.  A  2013 
Eurobarometer survey9 pointed out that 18% of traineeships did not provide a meaningful 
learning experience, 23% took place under substandard working conditions, and in effect 
did not constitute real traineeships but simply low-cost replacements for regular jobs.  

At the same time, research increasingly confirmed that the value of traineeships in easing 
the  transition  to  employment  depended  on  their  quality  in  terms  of  learning  content 
and  working  conditions.  For  example,  the  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the 
Commission  proposal  for the QFT10 demonstrated a highly  significant  link between the 
quality  of  traineeships  and  the  employment  outcome.  Quality  traineeships  bring  direct 
productivity benefits, improve labour market matching and promote mobility, notably by 
decreasing search and matching costs both for enterprises and for trainees.  

The Impact Assessment also described the challenge caused by the fragmented, or even 
lacking,  legislation  applicable  to  traineeships  in  the  EU.  Furthermore,  even  where 
legislation existed, there were notable enforcement challenges. 

Based on these findings, the Commission proposed the QFT to provide EU-wide quality 
standards for traineeships and to discourage traineeships with poor learning content or 
working  conditions.  The  QFT  complemented  the  objectives  of  the  Youth  Guarantee, 

8  E.g.  European  Network  of  Public  Employment  Services  (2021),  Remuneration  of  Open-Market 
Traineeships  in  EU-27;  European  Commission  (2018),  Traineeships  under  the  Youth  Guarantee: 
Experience  from  the  Ground,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg;  European 
Commission  (2016),  Applying  the  Quality  Framework  for  Traineeships,  SWD  (2016) 324  Final;  the 
Flash  Eurobarometer  378  The  experience  of  traineeships  in  the  EU.  November  2013;  European 
Commission  (2012),  Study  on  a  comprehensive  overview  of  traineeship  arrangements  in  Member 
States. 

9 Flash Eurobarometer 378. The experience of traineeships in the EU. November 2013. 

10 See e.g. the Impact Assessment accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Recommendation on 

a Quality Framework for Traineeships. SWD(2013)495 final. P. 15.  

5 

 
 
                                                           
which had been adopted one year earlier to address youth employment in a broader sense. 
11  The  QFT  also  contributes  to  the  United  Nations’  Sustainable  Development  Goal 
(SDG) 8, i.e. to “promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and 
productive employment and decent work for all”, by supporting young people’s transition 
to the labour market whilst providing minimum quality standards.  

For the purposes of the  QFT, traineeships  are understood as  a limited period of work 
practice,  whether  paid  or  not,  which  includes  a  learning  and  training  component, 
undertaken  in  order  to  gain  practical  and  professional  experience  with  a  view  to 
improving employability and facilitating transition to regular employment. 

The  QFT  applies  to  Active  Labour  Market  Policy  (ALMP)  traineeships  as  well  as 
traineeships  offered  in  the  open  market  (OMTs).  The  QFT  does  however  not  cover 
work experience placements that are part of curricula of formal education or vocational 
education and training. Traineeships of which the content is regulated under national law 
and  whose  completion  is  a  mandatory  requirement  to  access  a  specific  profession 
(medicine, architecture, etc.) are also not covered by the QFT.  

The QFT has the following objectives: 

 to  facilitate  a  smooth  transition  from  education  to  employment  and  to  increase 

young people’s employability; 

 to increase the quality and the transparency of the traineeship  market  ex ante, in 
order to make it easier for traineeship candidates to screen the offered quality before 
they make a commitment with a traineeship provider;  

 to  increase  the  awareness  of  rights  and  obligations  among  trainees  and 

traineeships providers; 

 to  ensure  more  coherent  regulatory  approaches  across  Member  States  through 
common  principles  to  be  put  in  place  in  national  legislation  and/or  national  quality 
frameworks; 

 to  facilitate  cross-border  traineeships  by  addressing  the  need  for  transparent  and 

clear information in view of the regulatory fragmentation across Member States. 

11 The YG Recommendation aimed at ensuring that all young people up to the age of 25 years receive a 
good-quality offer of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within four 
months of becoming unemployed or leaving formal education. In 2020, the YG was reinforced, and it 
was extended to all young people under the age of 30.  

6 

 
                                                           
To reach these objectives, the QFT supports the improvement of working conditions and 
the  learning  content  of  traineeships  through  21  quality  principles12  which  include 
provisions to enhance transparency of and information on traineeships (see box below). 
Of  these,  principles  19  and  20  are considered  are considered  action points for Member 
States  rather  than  specific  quality  elements  to  be  applied  to  traineeships.  They  are 
therefore  not  assessed  as  such  in  the  evaluation.  The  QFT  also  outlines  how  the 
Commission intends to, inter alia, support Member States’ action through EU funds, the 
exchange of good practices, and monitoring.  

The principles of the 2014 QFT  

The 2014 Council Recommendation asks Member States to:  

1. 

Improve the quality of traineeships, in particular as regards learning and training content and working 
conditions, with the aim of easing the transition from education, unemployment or inactivity to work by 
putting in practice the following principles for a Quality Framework for Traineeships:  

Conclusion of a written traineeship agreement  

2.  Require that traineeships are based on a written agreement concluded at the beginning of the traineeship 

between the trainee and the traineeship provider;  

3.  Require  that  traineeship  agreements  indicate  the  educational  objectives,  the  working  conditions, 
whether an allowance or compensation  is provided to the trainee by the traineeship provider, and the 
rights and obligations of the parties under applicable EU and national law, as well as the duration of the 
traineeship […];  

Learning and training objectives  

4.  Promote  best  practices  as  regards  learning  and  training  objectives  in  order  to  help  trainees  acquire 
practical experience and relevant skills; the tasks assigned to the trainee should enable these objectives 
to be attained;  

5.  Encourage traineeship providers to designate  a  supervisor for trainees guiding the trainee through the 

assigned tasks, monitoring and assessing his/her progress;  

Working conditions applicable to trainees  

6.  Ensure  that  the  rights  and  working  conditions  of  trainees  under  applicable  EU  and  national  law, 
including limits to maximum weekly working time, minimum daily and weekly rest periods and, where 
applicable, minimum holiday entitlements, are respected;  

7.  Encourage  traineeship  providers  to  clarify  whether  they  provide  coverage  in  terms  of  health  and 

accident insurance as well as sick leave;  

8.  Require  that  the  traineeship  agreement  clarifies  whether  an  allowance  or  compensation  is  applicable, 

and if applicable, its amount;  

Rights and obligations  

9.  Encourage  the  concerned  parties  to  ensure  that  the  traineeship  agreement  lays  down  the  rights  and 
obligations  of  the  trainee  and  the  traineeship  provider,  including,  where  relevant,  the  traineeship 
provider's policies on confidentiality and the ownership of intellectual property rights; 

12  The  first  point  in  the  QFT  is  not  considered  a  quality  principle  on  its  own,  but  an  overall 
recommendation to Member States to implement the (21) quality principles that follow thereafter. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Reasonable duration  

10.  Ensure a reasonable duration of traineeships that, in principle, does not exceed six months, except in 

cases where a longer duration is justified, taking into account national practices;  

11.  Clarify the circumstances and conditions under which a traineeship may be extended or renewed after 

the initial traineeship agreement expired;  

12.  Encourage the practice of specifying in the traineeship agreement that either the trainee or the 

traineeship provider may terminate it by written communication, providing advance notice of an 
appropriate duration in view of the length of the traineeship and relevant national practice;  

Proper recognition of traineeships  

13.  Promote the recognition and validation of the knowledge, skills and competences acquired during 

traineeships and encourage traineeship providers to attest them, on the basis of an assessment, through 
a certificate;  

Transparency requirements  

14.  Encourage traineeship providers to include in their vacancy notices and advertisements information on 
the terms and conditions of the traineeship, in particular on whether an allowance and/or compensation 
and health and accident insurance are applicable; encourage traineeship providers to give information 
on recruitment policies, including the share of trainees recruited in recent years;  

15.  Encourage employment services and other providers of career guidance, if providing information on 

traineeships, to apply transparency requirements;  

Cross-border traineeships  

16.  Facilitate the cross-border mobility of trainees in the European Union inter alia, by clarifying the 

national legal framework for traineeships and establishing clear rules on hosting trainees from, and the 
sending of trainees to, other Member States and by reducing administrative formalities;  

17.  Examine the possibility to make use of the extended EURES network and to exchange information on 

paid traineeships through the EURES portal;  

Use of European Structural and Investment Funds  

18.  Make use of the European Structural and Investment Funds, namely the European Social Fund and the 

European Regional Development Fund, in the programming period 2014-2020, and the Youth 
Employment Initiative, where applicable, for increasing the number and quality of traineeships, 
including through effective partnerships with all relevant stakeholders;  

Applying the Quality Framework for Traineeships  

19.  Take appropriate measures to apply the Quality Framework for Traineeships as soon as possible;  

20.  Provide information to the Commission by the end of 2015 on the measures taken in accordance with 

this Recommendation; 

21.  Promote the active involvement of social partners in applying the Quality Framework for 

Traineeships; 

22.  Promote the active involvement of employment services, educational institutions and training 

8 

providers in applying the Quality Framework for Traineeships.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To  understand  how  the  QFT  was  expected  to  work,  the  intervention  logic  (Figure  1) 
outlines the rationale of the intervention and the needs that triggered it. It also describes 
the objectives and expected outputs and the way how they were supposed to be achieved 
(actions). 
Figure 1 - QFT intervention logic 

NEEDS 

  Reduce youth unemployment  
  Reduce NEETs rates 
 
 

Improve working conditions for young people, in particular as regards traineeships 
Improve the learning content of traineeships 

OBJECTIVES 

 
 
 
 

 

to facilitate a smooth transition from education to employment 
to increase young people’s employability 
to increase the quality of traineeships  
to  increase  awareness  of  rights  and  obligations  among  trainees  and  traineeships 
providers 
to facilitate cross-border traineeships  

ACTIONS 

  Quality Framework for Traineeships (QFT) provided by the Council 
  Member  States  to  improve  the  quality  of  traineeships  by  implementing  the  quality 

 

principles of the QFT 
Commission to foster cooperation, monitor progress, promote the QFT, support Member 
States through EU funds and examine with Member States the possibility of using EURES 
to facilitate cross-border traineeships 

OUTPUTS 

Member States: 

 

Integration  of  QFT  principles 
traineeships 

in  national 

legislation  or  national  frameworks  for 

  Monitor and enforce the application of QFT principles on the ground 
 

Strengthened  cooperation  with  social  partners  and  other  relevant  stakeholders  in 
implementing the QFT 
Clarification of rules and reduced administrative burden for cross-border traineeships 

 

Traineeship providers: 

 

Providing quality traineeships in conformity with the QFT principles 

 

Increased  number  of  quality  traineeship  offers  and  increased  transparency  of  traineeship 
vacancies 

RESULTS 

  Higher awareness of rights and obligations amongst trainees and traineeship providers 
  Quality traineeships offering a smooth transition from education to employment 
 
 

Increased employability of young people 
Increased number of cross-border traineeships 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2 Points of comparison  

The  points  of  comparison  against  which  the  intervention  is  assessed,  concern  young 
people’s  situation  on  the  labour  market,  the  prevalence  and  quality  of  traineeships,  as 
well  as  regulatory  approaches  at  the  time  of  adoption  of  the  QFT  in  2014.  It  is,  in 
particular  the  parts  on  the  prevalence  and  quality  of  traineeships,  mainly  based  on  the 
information  provided  in  the  2013  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a 
QFT13, which in turn largely relied on the 2013 Eurobarometer survey on traineeships14. 
Where possible, the 2013 Eurobarometer survey is directly referenced.  

Young people’s labour market situation in 2014 

In 2014, both the youth unemployment rate (15-29) and the share of young people who 
were  neither  in  employment,  education  or  training  (NEETs)  in  the  EU  were  high, 
standing at 18.7% and 15.7% respectively. Both rates had followed an upward trend from 
the  onset  of  the  global  financial  and  economic  crisis  in  2008  (respectively  12.3%  and 
13.1%), reaching their peaks in 2013. Although variations between Member States were 
significant, these figures show the long-lasting impact the crisis had on young people.  

Figure 2 - EU-27 average unemployment, NEET and long-term unemployment rate (15-29 years 

old), 2008-2014 

Source:  Eurostat,  youth  unemployment  rate  by  sex,  age  and  country  of  birth15;  young  people 

13  European  Commission  (2013),  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  Council 

Recommendation on a Quality Framework for traineeships. SWD(2013)495. 

14  Flash Eurobarometer 378. The experience of traineeships in the EU. November 2013. The survey was 
carried out in the (then) 27 EU Member States and Croatia, among EU citizens aged 18-35. Some 12,921 
EU respondents from different social and demographic groups were interviewed via telephone in their 
mother tongue 

15 https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=yth_empl_100&lang=en 

10 

 
                                                           
neither in employment nor in education and training by sex, age and labour status; youth long-
term unemployment rate (12 months or longer) by sex and age16 

Furthermore, the share of young people that were out of work for a prolonged period – 12 
months or longer – stood at 7.5% in 2014. It had reached its peak in 2013 at 7.7%, with 
long-term consequences on young people’s skills and employability, future earnings and 
well-being. 

Prevalence of traineeships in 2014 

Although official statistics on traineeships do not exist, the 2013 Eurobarometer survey17 
provided some indications on their prevalence. These findings should be interpreted with 
caution  due  to  limitations  on  the  representativeness  of  Eurobarometer  surveys.  The 
Eurobarometer results indicated that traineeships were widespread around the time of the 
adoption  of  the  QFT,  with  46%  of  respondents  aged  from  18  to  35  in  the  EU  having 
undertaken  at  least  one  (and  often  more  than  one)  traineeship.  At  the  time,  experts18 
estimated  that  the  number  of  traineeships  was  on  the  rise.  One  reason  for  this  trend 
was that the majority of traineeships was unpaid or low-paid and represented a relatively 
affordable option for companies in times of crisis19. It might also have reflected the lack 
of  better  employment  opportunities  for  young  people  in  the  context  of  high  youth 
unemployment. 

In terms of traineeship prevalence by sector, according to a 2012 Commission study20, 
OMTs  were  becoming  widespread  across  all  sectors.  9%  of  them  had  a  cross-border 
nature. 

The study also found that unpaid or low-paid traineeships were particularly present in the 
creative (e.g. culture, art, design, publishing) and media/journalism sectors. Furthermore, 
larger  organisations  were  found  more  likely  to  offer  traineeships  compared  to  SMEs. 
However, the SME test which was carried out in 2012-201321 showed that the majority of 
respondent  SMEs  (71.9%)  did  consider  traineeships  as  a  way  to  select  and  train  future 
employees and highlighted the importance of traineeships for job creation. 

16 https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=yth_empl_120&lang=en 

17 Flash Eurobarometer 378. The experience of traineeships in the EU. November 2013.  
18  European  Commission  (2012),  Study  on  a  comprehensive  overview  of  traineeship  arrangements  in 

Member States. 

19  European  Commission  (2013),  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  Council 

Recommendation on a Quality Framework for traineeships. SWD(2013)495. 

20 Idem 

21  European  Commission  (2013),  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  Council 

Recommendation on a Quality Framework for traineeships. SWD(2013)495. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                           
Quality of traineeships in 2014 

Before the adoption of the QFT, the quality of traineeships across the EU presented 
several  areas  of  concern.  The  2013  Eurobarometer  results  indicated  that  one  in  three 
traineeships was deemed unsatisfactory, either in terms of working conditions22 (25% of 
all traineeships), learning content (18%) or both. It also found that 32% of respondents 
received compensation, and only 41% of these indicated that this was sufficient to cover 
living costs. The  widespread  use of unpaid and/or low-paid traineeships entailed the 
risk of traineeships being abused to replace regular employment. It also raised concerns 
about equal opportunities, especially for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.  

Another  common  criticism  concerned  the  (frequent)  lack  of  social  security  and/or 
health/medical insurance coverage, entitlement to holidays, sick or holiday pay, and 
pension  entitlements.  Furthermore,  the  absence  of  adequate  monitoring  was  also 
identified as an element that negatively affected traineeship quality.  

The  aforementioned  2012  Commission  study  moreover  highlighted  recurrent 
weaknesses in the learning content of traineeships. It found that in particular trainees in 
OMTs  were  frequently  asked  to  perform  tasks  which  were  either  irrelevant  to  their 
learning needs or perceived as too mundane.   

The 2013 Eurobarometer highlighted that a lack of information was an important cause 
for the lower prevalence of cross-border traineeships, with 38% of those who would have 
been  interested  in  doing  a  traineeship  abroad  citing  insufficient  information  on 
traineeship regulations in other Member States as an obstacle. 

Lastly, in terms of the extent to which traineeships contributed to  fostering the labour 
market  integration  of  young  people,  less  than  a  third  of  respondents  to  the 
Eurobarometer (27%) had been offered a work contract after the end of their traineeship 
by the same employer who provided the traineeship. 

Regulatory approaches in 2014 

The  regulatory  approaches  to  traineeships  varied  widely  across  Member  States  and 
types of traineeships in 2014 (see Table 1). Nine Member States had a specific regulation 
on traineeships. ALMPs traineeships were more often regulated, as compared to OMTs23. 
While certain Member States (e.g. France) regulated all types of traineeships by law (i.a. 
forbidding OMTs to ensure that all traineeships are monitored by a third party institution) 
many  other  countries  did  not  have  in  place  any  specific  legislative  framework  for 
trainees.  Less  than  half  of  the  then  28  Member  States  had  legislative  provisions  on 
traineeships’  duration,  remuneration  or  social  protection  coverage.  Additionally,  in  11 

22 Unsatisfactory working conditions refer to long working hours, lack of coverage for health and safety or 

occupational risks, lack of clarity of the applicable legal regimes, etc. 

23 European Commission (2012), Study on a comprehensive overview of traineeship arrangements in 

Member States. 

12 

 
                                                           
Member  States  there  were  legislative  and  administrative  barriers  to  transnational 
traineeships24.  

Table 1 - Regulatory approaches in 2014 

Regulatory approach 

Traineeships (no distinction made in type of traineeships) 

Specific regulation on traineeships 

EE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, PT, SI, SK (9) 

The  widely  diverse  approach  to  regulation  reflected  the  equally  great  variety  of 
approaches to defining traineeships and/or trainees. As of 2012, most Member States had 
either  a  definition  in  their  legislation  or  at  least  reached  a  common  national 
understanding  of  the  concept  of  a  traineeship.  However,  this  did  not  result  in  a 
homogenous or coherent definition of a traineeship across the EU. Among the common 
characteristics  of  traineeships  that  could  be  found  in  legislative  frameworks  across 
Member States prior to 2014 were: the general educational purpose; the practical element 
of learning; and the temporary nature of the traineeship. Some national regulations also 
addressed aspects related to information on working conditions and rights of the trainee 
during the traineeship25. 

Even in  countries where legislative and regulatory  frameworks  existed, the presence of 
these  regulations  did  not  guarantee  that  traineeships  were  of  high  quality,  due  to  their 
inadequate enforcement, particularly in the open market26. 

3. 

HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

Current state of play 

Young people’s labour market situation  

While high quality traineeships can help young people in their transition to employment, 
their  situation  on  the  labour  market  depends  on  many  other  factors,  above  all  the 
economic  situation.  Before  the  COVID-19  pandemic  began  in  2020,  the  youth 
employment  rate  was  steadily  improving,  though  the  crisis  induced  by  the  pandemic 
interrupted this trend. The information presented below aims to illustrate the context in 
which the QFT was implemented. 

24 European Commission (2013), Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for a Council 

Recommendation on a Quality Framework for traineeships. SWD(2013)495. 

25 European Commission (2012), Study on a comprehensive overview of traineeship arrangements in 

Member States. 

26  European  Commission  (2013),  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  Council 

Recommendation on a Quality Framework for traineeships. SWD(2013)495. 

13 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 3 - EU27 average unemployment, NEET and youth long-term unemployment rate (15-29 

years old), 2014 - 2021 

20,

18,7

15,7

17,3

15,2

15,8

14,5

14,2

13,7

13,1

12,8

12,6

11,9

13,8

13,3

13,1

13,0

7,5

6,6

5,6

4,8

4,1

3,4

3,2

3,5

15,

10,

5,

0,

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Youth Unemployment

NEETs

Long-term unemployed (12 months or longer)

Source: Eurostat (LFSA_URGAN, TESEM150, YTH_EMPL_120) 

Since  the  adoption  of  the  QFT  in  2014,  youth  unemployment  in  the  EU  followed  a 
decreasing  trend  from  18.7%  to  11.9%  in  2019.  In  2020,  triggered  by  the  Covid-19 
pandemic,  youth  unemployment  increased  to  13.3%,  while  slightly  decreasing  again  in 
the following year to 13%. The NEETs rate in the EU followed the same trend, falling 
from  15.7%  in  2014  to  12.6%  in  2019,  with  a  spike  in  2020  at  13.8%  and  decreasing 
again to 13.1% in the year after.  

As  for  long-term  youth  unemployment,  the  effect  of  the  Covid-19  pandemic 
manifested itself with a slight delay, as it followed a downward trend between 2014 and 
2020 dropping from 7.5% to 3.2% but rose again to 3.5% in 2021.  

Though  compared  to  2014,  the  labour  market  situation  of  young  people  has  improved 
significantly, the uncertainty on the mid- and long-term impacts of the Covid-19 induced 
disruptions,  the  Russian  invasion  of  Ukraine,  the  energy  crisis  and  the  rising  costs  of 
living call for caution. Furthermore, the youth unemployment rate remains at almost 
double  the  unemployment  rate  of  the  overall  labour  force  (15  –  64  years)27, 
indicating the structural challenges that  young people continue to face. Such challenges 
include  the  lack  of  professional  experience  compared  to  older  workers,  and  if  hired, 
being  more  prone  to  be  employed  under  precarious  conditions  including  temporary 
contracts. 

27 7.1% in 2021 (Eurostat online code: LFSA_URGAN) 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Prevalence of traineeships  

Robust  and  EU-wide  comparable  data  on  the  prevalence  of  traineeships  is  lacking  and 
therefore, estimations28 were made. The share of young people estimated to potentially 
take  up  a  traineeship  across  the  EU  has  increased  from  16.6%  in  2014  to  17.2%  in 
2020.29 Trainees with educational qualifications below tertiary education are not captured 
by this estimate. In the 2013 Eurobarometer survey on traineeships30, traineeships were 
found to be more prevalent among university graduates (61%), compared to persons with 
no tertiary qualifications (40%). The trainee survey (conducted as part of the 2023 study 
supporting  this  evaluation)31  also  found  that  the  majority  of  respondents  (973  out  of 
1,836 (53%)) had tertiary educational attainment when undertaking their traineeship. As 
is the case with the 2013 Eurobarometer survey, the results of this trainee survey need to 
be taken with caution, in light of the limited representativeness of such a survey32. 

Based  on  indications  provided  by  the  trainee  survey33,  the  difference  between  women 
and men seems to have become more pronounced, with women increasingly more likely 
than men to undertake an OMT. 1,212 out of 1,836 (66%) of female respondents in the 
trainee  survey  and  606  out  of  1,836  (33%)  of  male  respondents  had  completed  one 
traineeship  after  finishing  their  education.  The  2013  Eurobarometer  resulted  in  49%  of 
female respondents and 43% of male respondents with a traineeship experience34.  

28 The traineeship prevalence proxy used is the number of students enrolled in tertiary education multiplied 
by  the  activity  rate  to  estimate  the  potential  number  of  young  people  that  may  have  completed  a 
traineeship (further details can be found in Annex II) 

29 See Annex II for the methodological explanation 

30 Flash Eurobarometer 378. The experience of traineeships in the EU. November 2013. 

31 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

32 The trainee survey covered EU27 and targeted young people (aged 15-29) with traineeship experience or 
with interest in doing a traineeship. 3,787 responses were collected, of which 1,912 responses were in 
the  main  target  group  (>  18  years,  with  traineeship  experience  after  2014  or  interested  in  doing  a 
traineeship). Depending on the question, those respondents doing/having done a mandatory traineeship 
or an EU institution traineeship were eliminated, resulting in 1,836 responses.  

33 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

34 European Commission, Flash Eurobarometer 378: the experience of traineeships in the EU, 2013. P. 10. 

15 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 4 - Share of young people (aged 20-29 years) estimated to potentially take up an OMT by 

EU Member State, 2014 and 2020, ordered by 2020 values from low to high35 

Estimate share (2014) %

Estimate share (2020) %

U
L

U
H

O
R

G
B

Z
C

T
P

E
B

L
P

T
L

R
H

E
I

S
E

Y
C

I

T S
A

E
D

V
L

L
E

L
N

K
D

25,0%

20,0%

15,0%

10,0%

5,0%

0,0%

*
e
g
a
r
e
v
a
U
E

Source: 2023 study supporting the evaluation. Note: the EU average is calculated using the data 
from  the  20  Member  States  that  have  OMTs  in  their  labour  market  (i.e.  excluding  Estonia, 
Finland, France, Italy, Malta, Sweden and Slovakia).  

There  are  also  indications  that  cross-border  traineeships  have  become  more  common 
since 2014. The trainee survey36 shows that 363 out of 1,912 (19%) of respondents had 
undertaken a cross-border traineeship. This may suggest that the number of cross-border 
traineeships has increased since 201437, as per the objective of the QFT.  

The  QFT  refers  to  the  use  of  the  European  Job  Mobility  Portal  (EURES)  to  exchange 
information on paid traineeships. The 2016 EURES regulation38 introduced an obligation 
for  Member  States  to  share  on  the  EURES  portal  information  and  guidance  on  (paid) 
traineeships at national level as from 2018. The trainee survey indicated that 239 out of 
1,836  (13%)  of  respondents  made  use  of  the  EURES  portal  to  find  a  cross-border 
traineeship.  

35 Data on the number of students enrolled in tertiary education[educ_uoe_enrt01] was sourced from: 

https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=educ_uoe_enrt01&lang=en and data on the 
activity rate [tepsr_wc160] was sourced from: 
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=tepsr_wc160&lang=en 

Data on the number of students enrolled in tertiary education was not available for the Netherlands in 2014.    

36 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

37 As 2014 data on cross-border traineeships is lacking, this is based on the  European Commission Study 
on a comprehensive overview of traineeship arrangements in Member States (2012), which  found that 
9% of traineeships had a transnational nature at the time. 

38 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0589&from=EN  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Quality of traineeships  

The main element of the QFT is the written traineeship agreement that indicates the 
educational  objectives,  adequate  working  conditions,  rights  and  obligations,  and  a 
reasonable duration for traineeships (see recital 11 of the QFT39).  

Assessing  these  quality  elements,  the  2023  study  supporting  this  evaluation  shows  that 
there are indications that the quality of traineeships since 2014 has generally increased. 
This  observation  is  based  on  the  responses  of  national  stakeholders  to  targeted 
consultations,  the  trainee  survey,  the  vacancy  analysis  (all  three  conducted  in  the  2023 
study supporting the evaluation40) as well as to the public consultation carried out as part 
of this evaluation.  

The public consultation provided indications that overall the quality of traineeship offers 
has improved to a large or moderate extent (143 out of 239 respondents (60%)) and that 
there  are  more  traineeships  of  good  quality  (120  of  169  (71%)  of  respondents  in  the 
public consultation).  

When comparing the outcomes of the 2013 Eurobarometer and the 2022 trainee survey, a 
more mixed picture emerges: 

Table 2 - Comparison between the 2013 Eurobarometer and the 2022 trainee survey (carried out 

under the 2023 study supporting the evaluation)41 

Eurobarometer, 
Commission, 2013 

European 

Survey  of  trainees,  2022  (under 
the  2023  study  supporting  the 
evaluation) 

Trend 

Learning 
outcomes 

Job outcomes 

18%  of  respondents  consider  they 
have 
anything 
professionally  useful  during  their 
traineeship (N=3,464). 

learned 

not 

of 

respondents 

who 
27% 
traineeship  were 
completed  a 
offered  an  employment contract  at 
the  end  of 
traineeship 
(N=5,945). 

their 

13%  of  respondents  considered 
they  have  not  learned  anything 
professionally  useful  during  their 
traineeship. (N=1,836) 

42% of respondents indicated that 
they were offered a job after their 
OMTs (N=1,836). 

39 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014H0327(01) 

40 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

41  In  addition  to  the  aforementioned  limitations  regarding  the  representativeness  of  both  surveys,  the 
comparison between the two surveys needs to be taken with caution, as the surveys are not identical in 
e.g. questions asked, number and sample of respondents, and methodology applied. However, the 2013 
Eurobarometer did serve as the basis for the 2022 trainee survey.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Written agreement  35% 

trainees  did  not  have  a 
written  traineeship  agreement  or 
contract  with the host  organisation 
or company (N=5,945). 

17%  did  not  sign  such  a  written 
agreement. (N=1,836). 

Transparency 

42%  of  respondents  said  that  the 
advertisement  made  clear  how 
much the traineeships was paid 

21%  of  respondents said that  the 
vacancy  notice  mentioned 
the 
amount  of  the  allowance  and/or 
compensation (N=1,836). 

Certificate 
reference letter 

or 

64%  of  respondents  stated  that  at 
the  end  of  the    traineeship  the 
organisation  or  company  gave  a 
certificate  or  a  letter  of  reference 
(N=5,945). 

68% of respondents reported that 
received  either  a 
they  had 
certificate 
letter  of 
(32%),  a 
reference  (24%)  or  both  (12%) 
(N=1,836). 

Duration 

15%  of  respondents  stated  that 
their  traineeship  lasted  longer  than 
6 months (N=5,945). 

22%  of  respondents  stated  that 
their 
traineeship  lasted  longer 
than 6 months (N=1,912). 

As  shown  in  the  table  above,  compared  to  2013,  the  share  of  trainee  respondents  who 
consider  that  their  traineeship  did  not  result  in  useful  professional  skills  and  work 
experience  decreased  to  below  20%  in  2022.  Furthermore,  while  in  2013,  27%  of 
respondents reported to have been offered a job after their traineeship, this increased to 
42% (771 out of 1,836) in the 2022 trainee survey. On the written agreement principle, 
the share of trainees without such an agreement was much higher in 2013 (38%) than in 
2022 (17%, or 312 out of 1,836 respondents). The percentage of respondents indicating 
to have received a certificate or reference letter also slightly increased. However, based 
on the two surveys, a negative trend can be observed for the following quality princples: 
the  amount  of 
in 
transparancy  of  (information  provided 
pay/allowance/compensation) and duration of traineeships42.  

the)  vacancies  (i.e. 

In addition, the 2023 study supporting this evaluation examined almost 2,000 vacancies 
in the 27 Member States on their alignment with the QFT principles on transparency (i.e. 
providing information in the vacancy on the terms and conditions of the traineeship). It 
found  a  higher  alignment  for  ALMP  traineeships  compared  to  OMTs.  Vacancies  for 
OMTs  in  15  Member  States  complied  hardly  or  to  a  low  extent  with  the  quality 
principles  on  transparency,  while  this  was  the  case  in  only  six  Member  States  for 
vacancies for ALMP traineeships. 

Regulatory approaches  

Similar  to  the  situation  in  2014,  the  2023  study  supporting  this  evaluation43  found  that 
national legislation generally regulates ALMP traineeships to a high degree, but OMTs to 

42 The QFT recommends a reasonable duration of in principle 6 months.  

43 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
a  more  modest  degree.  Since  2014,  five  Member  States  (BG,  ES,  LT,  LU  and  RO) 
adopted legislation on OMTs. 12 Member States (BE, BG, DK, EE, EL, HR, IE, IT, LT, 
PT, RO, and SK) adopted legislation covering ALMP traineeships.  

In  addition,  ALMP  traineeships  are  more  likely  to  be  governed  by  specific  laws  on 
ALMPs,  whereas  OMTs  are  more  likely  to  fall  under  general  labour  law  or  specific 
provisions on OMTs, if regulated at all. This is illustrated in the table below:  

Table 3 - Regulatory approaches to traineeships in EU Member States 

Regulatory approach 

201444 

2021 

Specific measures in the 
labour code or in 
dedicated legislative 
instruments 
General labour 
legislation 

Traineeships (no distinction 
made between types) 
EE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, PT, SI, 
and SK (9) 

 No information available 

AT, BG, BE, DE, DK, EL, 
EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IT, LT, 
LU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SK, SI, 
SE (21) 
CZ, HU, LV, NL (4) 

ALMP traineeships 

OMTs 

No regulation 

 No information available 

CY, IE (2) 

BE, BG, DE, ES, 
FR45, LU, LT, RO, 
PL, PT, SI (11) 

AT, CZ, DK, EL, 
HR, HU, IE, LV, NL, 
SE (10) 
CY, EE, IT, FI, MT, 
SK (6)46 

Integration of QFT principles in national legislation or frameworks 

Based on the 2016 Commission SWD47 and the 2023 study supporting this evaluation the 
degree of the reflection of the QFT principles in national legislation or frameworks (i.e. 
Member States’ ‘conformity’ with the QFT) can be assessed. However, and in particular 
given  the  non-binding  nature  of  the  QFT,  it  is  not  possible  to  establish  a  causal  link 
between regulatory developments at national level and the adoption of the QFT.  

A slight increase in terms of conformity can be observed for OMTs (four Member States 
fully/mostly aligned in 2016 versus seven Member States in 2021). A larger increase is 
observed  for ALMP traineeships, with  18 Member States  fully/mostly in conformity in 
2021 versus 15 in 2016. Further analysis can be found in section 4. 

44 Based on European Commission (2012), Study on a comprehensive overview of traineeship 

arrangements in Member States, which was the most relevant information available for 2014. 

45 In FR, open market traineeships are prohibited. Therefore, the specific legal measure should be seen in 

that light. 

46 To be noted that OMTs are rare or do not exist in EE, IT, FI, MT and SK. 

47 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0324&from=HU 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Application of the QFT on the ground  

The practical application of the QFT on the ground was assessed as part of the 2023 
study supporting this evaluation through a vacancy analysis (comprising 1,972 vacancies 
on  OMT  as  well  as  ALMP  traineeships  in  all  27  Member  States),  desk  research  and 
interviews with stakeholders, and the trainee survey. The analysis found that the practical 
application  of  the  QFT  principles  is  lagging  behind  their  legislative  implementation  in 
the majority of Member States, in particular for OMTs. Further analysis can be found in 
section 4. 

20 

 
 
 
4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS  

The analysis in this section is based on the evidence provided in sections 2 and 3 unless 
otherwise  mentioned.  The  different  research  activities  carried  out  in  the  2023  study 
supporting  this  evaluation48  (i.e.  targeted  consultations,  mapping  and  case  studies) 
underpin  the  assessment  of  the  five  evaluation  criteria  (effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence, added value and relevance). In addition, the public consultation conducted by 
the  Commission  supports  the  assessment  of  four  out  of  five  evaluation  criteria,  i.e. 
effectiveness, efficiency, added value and relevance. 

For the following analysis, it is to be noted that the QFT is a non-binding instrument. It 
cannot be ascertained that changes observed since the adoption of the QFT in 2014 are a 
direct  result  of  the  QFT.  Furthermore,  the  21  principles49  of  the  QFT  cannot  all  be 
considered  “quality  principles”  as  such.  Principle  150  is  a  general  recommendation  to 
Member  States  to  improve  the  quality  of  traineeships  by  putting  in  practice  the  quality 
principles of the QFT and principles 19 and 2051 are considered action points for Member 
States rather than specific quality elements inherent to quality traineeships and are thus 
not assessed as such.  

4.1.  TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE QFT SUCCESSFUL AND WHY?  

Effectiveness 

Integration of QFT quality principles in national legislation and frameworks  

Since  the  adoption  of  the  QFT  there  has  been  moderate  progress  in  the  take  up  of  its 
quality principles in national legislation and frameworks, with notable differences across 
Member States and types of traineeships.  

Since 2014, 14 Member States (BE, BG, DK, EL, EE, ES, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, PT, RO, 
SK)  have  adapted  or  introduced  legislation  (either  on  OMTs  or  ALMP  traineeships  or 
both) integrating quality principles of the QFT in their legislative or policy frameworks. 
Such  changes  were  more  prevalent  in  national  legislation/policy  governing  ALMP 
traineeships  (identified  in  12  Member  States),  than  OMTs  (identified  in  five  Member 
States).  

48 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

49 See Annex VII for a full list of the principles of the Quality Framework for Traineeships. 

50 1. Improve the quality of traineeships, in particular as regards learning and training content and working 
conditions, with the aim of easing the transition from education, unemployment or inactivity to work 
by  putting  in  practice  the  following  principles  for  a  Quality  Framework  for  Traineeships:  (QFT 
Recommendation) 

51 19. Take appropriate measures to apply the Quality Framework for Traineeships as soon as possible; 20. 
Provide information to the Commission by the end of 2015 on the measures taken in accordance with 
this Recommendation; (QFT Recommendation) 

21 

 
                                                           
In the targeted consultations as part of the 2023 study supporting this evaluation52, some 
stakeholders  argued  that  the  legislation  in  certain  Member  States  may  not  have  been 
amended since 2014, because traineeship standards are adequately governed by existing 
legislation53 or because certain types of traineeships do not exist or are very rare54. For 
example, since the adoption of the QFT, Estonia, Finland, and Malta did not implement 
legislative changes on OMTs, which are rare in these countries55. This underlines that the 
extent to which the QFT principles have been integrated in national legislation depends 
on the overarching existing legislative framework for traineeships in the country as well 
as  the  (perceived)  prevalence  and  uptake  of  specific  types  of  traineeships  in  the  labour 
market.  

Examples of the integration of the QFT in national legislation 

Bulgaria  -  The  Labour  Code  provides  that  the  written  contract  shall  specify  the 
nature  of  the  work,  the  period  of  the  traineeship,  the  remuneration,  working  time 
arrangements,  the  conditions  for  termination  and  how  practical  skills  should  be 
acquired.  However,  the  QFT  transparency  principles  for  traineeship  vacancies  (on 
traineeship conditions) are not regulated in legislation.  

Luxembourg  -  A  law  specifically  putting  in  place  all  principles  of  the  QFT  was 
introduced in 2020. 

Finland  -  QFT  principles  are  implemented  in  Finnish  legislation  on  ALMP 
traineeships.  For  example,  the  Finnish  work  try-out  programme  describes  in  detail 
whether the trainee is entitled to an allowance or compensation, and the amount.  

In  some  Member  States  (e.g.  BG,  ES,  FI,  IE)56,  stakeholders  (including  youth 
representatives,  PES  and  national  policymakers)  expressed  the  view57  that  the 
introduction  of  new  policies  had  led  to  an  improved  alignment  with  the  QFT.  For 
example, representatives from both the PES and a youth organisation underlined that the 
new  labour  market  reform  in  Spain  had  increased  conformity  with  the  QFT.  National 
policymakers in Bulgaria highlighted  that the QFT drove legislative changes in relation 
to OMTs. 

The  mere  fact  that  changes  were  made  to  national  legislation  or  frameworks  on 
traineeships does not mean that national legislation or frameworks have fully integrated 

52 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

53 E.g. stakeholders in AT, DE, NL and SI were of this opinion. 

54 Such as open market traineeships in EE, FI, FR, IT, MT, SE and SK. 

55 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

56 Only on ALMP traineeships in the case of FI and IE. 

57 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

22 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
all  QFT  quality  principles.  Therefore,  the  extent  of  the  integration  of  the  QFT  quality 
principles has also been analysed, and is hereafter referred to as conformity (see Table 4 
on  OMT  and  Table  5  on  ALMP  traineeships)58.  For  the  purpose  of  this  evaluation,  the 
conformity with the QFT principles under the dimensions ‘written agreement’, ‘learning 
‘proper 
and 
recognition’,  and  ‘transparency  requirements59  was  assessed.  This  assessment  builds  on 
desk research and on targeted consultations using a scoring method explained in Annex II 
Methodology. 

‘reasonable  duration’, 

‘working  conditions’, 

training  objectives’, 

Table 4 - Conformity with QFT principles – OMTs 

Degree of conformity 

201660 

2021 

Fully/mostly 

BE, BG, LT, SI (4) 

BE, BG, ES, LT, LU, RO, SI (7) 

Partially  

CZ, DE, ES, PL, PT, RO (6) 

AT, CZ, DE, HU, NL, PL, PT (7) 

Modestly  

AT, DK, EL, HU, IE, LU, NL (7)  CY, EL, HR, IE, LV (5) 

Not implemented 

 DK (1) 

Not applicable 

CY, EE, FI, MT, SE, SK (6) 

EE, FI, FR61, IT, MT, SE, SK (7) 

Source: 2016 Commission SWD and 2023 study supporting this evaluation.  

58 Legend: 

Fully/mostly: 10 or more out of 12 principles are complied with.  
Partially: 6 to 9 out of 12 principles are complied with. 
Modestly: 3 to 5 out of 12 principles are complied with.  
Not implemented: 2 or fewer out of 12 principles are complied with.  
Not applicable. This type of traineeship is rare or does not exist. 

59 See recital 11 of the QFT Council Recommendation: ‘The main element of the Quality Framework for 
Traineeships  is  the  written  traineeship  agreement  that  indicates  the  educational  objectives,  adequate 
working  conditions,  rights  and  obligations,  and  a  reasonable  duration  for  traineeships’  (https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014H0327(01)) 

60 In the 2016 SWD, four MS (FR, HR, IT, and LV) were  categorised as “Not Applicable”, as the study 
concluded that in those countries open market traineeships were either illegal, very rare or nearly non-
existent and there was no information available on conditions and thus on QFT compliance. 

61 Open market traineeships are prohibited in FR. 

23 

 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Table 5 - Conformity with QFT principles – ALMP Traineeships 

Degree of conformity 

2016 

2021 

Fully/mostly  

AT, BE, BG, CY, DK, EL, FR, 

HU, LU, MT, PT, RO, SE, SI, 
SK (15)  

AT, BE, BG, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, 
IT, LT, LU, MT, PL, PT, RO, 
SE, SI, SK (18) 

Partially  

CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, HR, IE, IT, 

CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, HU, 

LT, LV, NL, PL (12)  

LV, NL (9) 

Modestly  

Not implemented  

- 

- 

- 

- 

Source: 2016 Commission SWD and 2023 study supporting this evaluation 

A  slight  improvement  in  terms  of  conformity  can  be  observed  for  OMTs  with  four 
Member  States  fully/mostly  aligned  in  2016  versus  seven  Member  States  in  2021.  A 
larger  improvement  is  observed  for  ALMP  traineeships,  with  18  Member  States 
fully/mostly in conformity in 2021 versus 15 in 2016.  

In  2021,  the  QFT  principles  that  are  most  commonly62  implemented  by  legislation 
(either  fully  or  partially)  across  the  EU-27  are  the  same  across  OMTs  and  ALMP 
traineeships: 

1.  Trainees' rights and working conditions are respected including limits to maximum 
weekly  working  time,  weekly  rest  periods,  minimum  holiday  entitlements 
(covered  in  18  Member  States  in  legislation  governing  OMTs  and  in  all  27 
Member States for ALMP traineeships);  

2.  The traineeship is based on a written agreement (covered in 17 Member States 
in legislation governing OMTs and in 27 Member States for ALMP traineeships);  

3.  The written agreement indicates key information including educational objectives, 
working conditions, if compensation is provided and how much, rights/obligations 
of  all  parties,  and  the  duration  (covered  in  17  Member  States  in  legislation 
governing OMTs and all 27 Member States in ALMP traineeships). 

62  The  number  of  Member  States  having  implemented  fully  or  partially  were  counted  to  assess  which 

principles have been implemented most commonly.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  QFT  principles  that  are  least63  implemented  in  legislative  frameworks  of  Member 
States are also the same across OMTs and ALMP traineeships:  

1.  Traineeship providers include in their vacancies information on the conditions of 
the traineeship (this is not implemented at all in six Member States for OMTs and 
in nine Member States for ALMP traineeships);  

2.  The  duration  of  the  traineeship  does  not  exceed  six  months  (in  seven  Member 

States for OMTs and in seven Member States for ALMP traineeships); 

3.  The knowledge, skills and competences acquired by the trainee are recognised by 
the  traineeship  provider  through  an  assessment  and  a  certificate  (six  Member 
States  do  not  implement  this  at  all  for  OMTs  and  seven  Member  States  for 
ALMP traineeships).   

Practical application on the ground 

While some notable alignment of Member States’ traineeship standards to the QFT 
could be observed, the practical application of these regulatory standards on the ground 
is lagging behind in most Member States, notably for OMTs. 

This  assessment  is  based  on  the  following  research  elements  of  the  2023  study 
supporting this evaluation64: 

  The  analysis  of  traineeship  vacancies  for  both  types  (OMTs  and  ALMP 
traineeships)  in  each  Member  State  with  regard  to  their  conformity  with  the 
transparency principles of the QFT; 

  Desk  research  and 

traineeship  providers 
interviews  conducted  with 
(employers) and other actors involved in the practical application of the QFT 
(e.g. national authorities); 

  Research  on  the  impact  of  the  QFT  on  trainees  and  the  society,  through  the 

trainee survey, desk research and interviews65.  

The  study  observed  that  the  quality  parameters  of  ALMP  traineeships  are  more 
closely aligned with Member States’ regulatory frameworks than in the case of  OMTs. 
The practical application of the QFT principles for ALMP traineeships can be considered 
as  low  or  very  low  in  only  two  Member  States66,  while  all  other  Member  States67  are 

63 The  number of  Member States not  having implemented at all  were counted to assess  which principles 

have been implemented the least.  

64 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

65 To be noted that it was not always possible to disentangle the impact on trainees of national legislation 

from the impact of practical implementation on the ground 

66 “Low” in CZ and EL  

67 However, no information could be gathered on AT. 

25 

 
                                                           
assessed to moderately or to a high degree apply the QFT on the ground. For OMTs, the 
picture  (see  country  map  below)  is  less  positive  and  more  diverse  with  no  Member 
States  applying  the  QFT  to  a  high  degree  on  the  ground,  nine  Member  States  to  a 
moderate degree68, eight Member States to a low extent69, three Member States to a very 
low extent70 and for the rest (seven)71, OMTs were found not to be existing or very rare.  

As regards the  transparency principles of the QFT, a vacancy  analysis  as part of the 
2023  study  supporting  this  evaluation72  scanned  through  1,972  vacancies  in  all  27 
Member States (of which 1,272 were on OMTs and 700 concerned ALMP traineeships). 
42%  of  the  analysed  OMT  vacancies  and  59%  of  the  ALMP  traineeship  vacancies 
mentioned  allowance  or  compensation.  21%  of  OMT  vacancies  and  44%  of  ALMP 
vacancies  indicated  the  amount.  These  results  support  the  view  that  the  application  of 
the QFT principles on the ground is higher for ALMP traineeships than for OMTs.  

The trainee survey as part of the same study also suggests that the practical application of 
the  QFT  principles  is  higher  in  certain  sectors  than  in  others.  For  example,  most 
respondents in the sectors ‘Financial and Insurance services’ and ‘Professional, scientific 
and technical activities’ stated that they had signed an agreement at the beginning of their 
traineeship  (1,469  of  1,836  (80%)  and  1,487  of  1,836  (81%)  respectively).  The  QFT 
quality principles were found to be applied less in sectors such as arts, entertainment and 
recreation,  health  and  social  work,  and  education.  Furthermore,  sectors  with  a  larger 
share  of  small  enterprises  were  more  likely  not  to  apply  the  QFT  principles  due  to  the 
limited  human  and  financial  capacity  to  handle  the  administrative  burden  –  or  the 
perceived administrative burden – of ensuring quality traineeships. 

More generally, a low level of awareness of the QFT principles and the potential benefits 
of  quality  traineeships  amongst  young  people  and  employers  alike  hampered  the  QFT 
reaching its full potential in terms of effectiveness.  

68 AT, BE, DE, ES, HU, LT, LU, NL, RO 

69 BG, CZ, HR, IE, LV, PL, SI, PT 

70 CY, DK, EL 

71 EE, FI, FR, IT, MT, SE, SK (To be noted that OMTs are prohibited in FR) 

72 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

26 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 5 - Application of the QFT on the ground across the EU (country map)73 

Monitoring and enforcement 

Principle 19 of the  QFT recommends that Member States take  appropriate measures  to 
apply  the  QFT  as  soon  as  possible.  However,  the  monitoring  and  enforcement  of  the 
relevant national legislation governing traineeships is in many cases not fit for purpose. 
There are substantial variations between the existence and functioning of monitoring and 
enforcement  mechanisms  across  Member  States.  Such  mechanisms  exist  in  all  27 
Member  States  for  ALMP  traineeships,  while  for  OMTs,  they  exist  in  14  Member 
States74.  

73 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

74 AT, BE, BG, CY, EL, DE, DK, EL, ES, HU, IE, LT, LU, PT, RO, SI, SK. 

27 

 
 
                                                           
The case studies75 and interviews (as part of the targeted consultations)76 carried out for 
the 2023 study supporting this evaluation suggest that even where such mechanisms exist 
for  OMTs,  they  have  a  limited  impact  on  ensuring  the  practical  application  of 
regulations. This can be attributed to an insufficient capacity of labour inspectorates or a 
less systematic monitoring by labour inspectorates where traineeships are regulated as a 
specific employment relationship (instead of being covered by general labour law, which 
is more systematically monitored).  

The decision of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Social Rights on the case brought 
by the European Youth Forum regarding the possibilities under Belgian law allowing for 
unpaid  internships  noted  that  the  “labour  inspectorate  is  not  sufficiently  effective  in 
detecting  and  preventing  “bogus  internships”77.  Moreover,  point  163  of  the  decision 
explained  that  “[t]he  Committee  found  that  the inspection  system  which  solely  depends 
on individual complaints by interns, considering their disadvantaged situation, cannot be 
considered as  sufficiently efficient  in  preventing  misuses of  unpaid  internship contracts 
in violation of Article 4§1 of the Charter”78.  

A lack of clarity on who is responsible also weakens Member States’ monitoring and 
enforcement capacities. The 2023 study supporting this evaluation highlighted the cases 
of Belgium where there are ambiguities on which level of government is responsible and 
Italy, where a lack of cooperation between different national authorities makes it difficult 
to carry out controls effectively.79  

In  the  targeted  consultations80  with  national  authorities  and  employers,  some  (EE  and 
SK)  stated  that  the  application  of  the  QFT  on  the  ground  is  also  impeded  by  a  lack  of 
awareness  among  both  trainees  and  employers  about  the  QFT  quality  principles  (or 
relevant  national  legislation  which  they  should  observe).  In  addition,  employers 
highlighted the following obstacles:  

  The lack or the complexity of existing relevant legislative frameworks; 
  Organisational changes due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic; 
  Difficulties  in  cooperation  between  public  employment  services  (PES)  and 
employers, and insufficient PES capacity to properly match trainees with labour 
market needs. 

75 In particular those on IT and ES 

76 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

77 The decision of the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) in European Youth Forum (YFJ) v. 

Belgium, Complaint No. 150/2017, which became public on 16 February 2022. 

78 Idem. The Charter refers to the Revised European Social Charter. Article 4§1 of the Charter refers to the 
right  of  workers  to  “a  remuneration  such  as  will  give  them  and  their  families  a  decent  standard  of 
living”.  

79 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

80 Idem 

28 

 
                                                           
More generally, consultations with EU and national stakeholders (in interviews as part of 
the  targeted  consultations)  gave  indications  that  the  QFT  may  be  lacking  practical 
guidance for employers / traineeship providers on the overall implementation of the QFT. 

Involvement of relevant stakeholders 

The QFT  (principles 21  and 22) recommends promoting the active involvement of  key 
stakeholders, 
including  social  partners,  public  employment  services,  education 
institutions and training providers in applying the QFT.  

The public consultation carried out in support of this evaluation gave indications that the 
active  involvement of social partners and key stakeholders in  implementing  quality 
traineeships was considered very important or important by some stakeholders (i.e. rated 
as very important  by all six trade union  respondents  (100%), two out  of three business 
associations respondents (66%), important by 32 out of 85 public authorities (38%), 12 
out  of  34  former  or  current  trainees  (35%),  and  23  out  of  56  academic/research 
institutions  (41%)).  This  aspect  is  deemed  particularly  relevant  by  social  partners,  with 
employer  organisations  and  trade  unions  valuing  stakeholders’  engagement  the  most 
(67% and 100% respectively).  

The involvement of social partners through collective agreements (e.g. AT, FI and ES) 
tends  to  focus  on  working  conditions.  The  case  study  on  Austria81  observed  that 
improvements  for  trainees  mainly  related  to  establishing  a  minimum  pay  in  certain 
sectors  (not  a  QFT  principle),  but  that  in  the  Information  Technology  sector  the 
collective  agreement  also  required  a  training  plan  to  be  defined  (relevant  to  the  QFT 
principle of defining learning and training objectives). In Finland, trade unions at sectoral 
level are involved in collective agreements, which also cover traineeships as regards pay, 
quality issues, rights and working conditions. The case study on Spain82 found that trade 
unions  regularly  engage  in  negotiations  with  employer  organisations  and/or  the 
government  in  relation  to  traineeship  relevant  legislation,  such  as  the  recently  adopted 
labour market reform (RDL 32/2021). This reform specifies the need for supervision and 
individual training plans. 

Besides collective agreements, social partners are involved in discussions on regulation 
and/or  policy-making  with  regards  to  traineeships  (FI,  HR,  IT,  LU,  IE)  and  in 
monitoring the implementation of policies relevant to traineeships (FI and DK). It was 
not  possible  to  deduce  from  the  evidence  gathered  in  the  2023  study  supporting  this 
evaluation  whether  such  involvement  has  had  an  impact  on  the  application  of  the  QFT 
principles.   

In  all  Member  States,  the  case  studies  and  interviews  conducted  in  the  targeted 
consultations83  found  that  PES  are  actively  involved  in  the  design,  delivery  and 

81 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

82 Idem 

83 Idem 

29 

 
                                                           
promotion of ALMP traineeship programmes, at times in cooperation with other national 
authorities  and  employers/employer  organisations.  PES  also  develop  guidance  and 
support for key actors (such as traineeship providers) on how to implement high quality 
traineeships. 

Impact on easing labour market transitions 

Quality  traineeships  can  have  a  positive  impact  on  young  people  through  increased 
employability in terms of relevant skills, practical experience and access to professional 
networks  and,  as  explained  earlier,  one  of  the  key  aims  of  the  QFT  is  indeed  to  help 
young  people  transition  from  education,  unemployment  or  inactivity  into  the  labour 
market.  

This was confirmed to be the case by the trainee survey84, carried out in 2022 as part of 
the  2023  study  supporting  this  evaluation,  where  over  80%  of  respondents85  (strongly) 
agree  that  the  tasks  they  did  during  their  traineeship  helped  them  gain  practical 
experience and relevant skills as well as achieve their learning and training objectives86. 
771 out of 1,836 (42%) of respondents were offered a job after their traineeship, and 717 
(93%) of them reported that traineeship helped them at least to some extent to get a job 
offer. Even higher starting salaries have been identified in some Member States87.  

The evidence gathered as part of the study does not allow to ascertain the impact of the 
implementation of the QFT itself on trainees, as it was not possible to determine to which 
extent the QFT has influenced the legislation. However, the study assessed which of the 
QFT  principles88  were  considered  most  useful  for  facilitating  young  people’s  labour 
market integration based on the views gathered through the trainee survey and interviews 
conducted  in  the  targeted  consultations  (see  box  below).  On  the  QFT  principles  not 
mentioned in the box below, the views as to their impact on the labour market integration 
of young people were less pronounced.  

84 Idem 

85 1,506 of 1,836 (82%) also indicated that the traineeship helped them gain real-life work experience and 
1,524  of  1,836  (83%)  reported  that  they  acquired  skills  and  competences  specific  to  the  sector  they 
were working in 

86 Exact figures are: 496 of 1,836 (27%) strongly agree and 918 of 1,836 (50%) agree with the statement 

”My tasks helped me achieve my learning and training objectives”. 

87 OECD. Evaluating Latvia’s Active Labour Market Policies. 2019. 

88  Those  linked  to:  written  agreement,  learning  and  training  objectives,  working  conditions,  rights  and 

obligations, reasonable duration, proper recognition, transparency, and cross-border mobility 

30 

 
                                                           
QFT principles which are most likely to have a positive impact on labour market 
integration of young people: 

Defining  learning  and  educational  objectives  of  the  traineeship,  including  the 
appointment  of  a  supervisor  or  a  mentor.  These  elements  were  highlighted  by 
employer  organisations  from  Italy,  Lithuania  and  Hungary  as  well  as  EU  level 
employer organisations and trade union representatives from the Netherlands, Croatia, 
Bulgaria, France and Poland. In the trainee survey of the evaluation study, 89% of the 
respondents  stated  that  ‘the  possibility  of  trying  out  different  tasks’  and  85%  that 
‘having access to training opportunities’ were important/essential for trainees in their 
traineeship.  

A written traineeship agreement can be considered a particularly important element. 
Representatives from public employment services in particular highlighted that having 
a traineeship contract, with clearly defined educational objectives and standards, helps 
trainees  understand  what  is  expected  from  them,  so  that  they  can  meet  workplace 
requirements  and  increase  their  chances  of  obtaining  employment  following  their 
traineeship. The QFT principle on a written traineeship agreement has, in the view of 
stakeholders  from  Estonia,  Cyprus,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Poland  and  Slovakia 
contributed to reducing the exploitation of trainees and to a greater awareness of their 
rights. 

The  trainee  survey  conducted  as  part  of  the  evaluation  study  also  highlighted  sectoral 
differences,  with  respondents  working  in  arts,  entertainment  and  recreation  and  health 
and  social  work  most  likely  to  disagree  that  their  traineeship  made  their  transition 
from school to work easier (33% for both sectors (i.e. 38 out of 115 and 63 out of 191 
respectively)).  Trainee  respondents  from  the  Financial  and  Insurance  and  Information 
and Communication sectors were most likely to agree with this statement (96 out of 134 
(72%) and 95 out of 134 (71%). These findings are mirrored when examining the actual 
outcomes  of  the  traineeship  following  completion.  Trainees  in  the  Financial  and 
Insurance  sector  were  most  likely  to  report  that  they  had  been  offered  a  job  after  their 
traineeship  (80  out  of  134  respondents  in  the  sector  (60%)),  followed  by  those  in 
Construction (43 out of 76 (56%)). Trainees in education were most likely to report that 
they  had not received an offer of a job  after their traineeships (119 out  of 172  (69%)), 
followed  by  those  in  health  and  social  work  (126  out  of  191  (66%))  and  arts  and 
entertainment (74 out of 115 (64%)).  

31 

 
 
Figure 6 - Trainee survey: job offers at the end of a traineeship, by sector 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Financial & insurance activities

Construction

Professional, scientific & technical activities

Wholesale & retail trade, transport,…

Public sector / administration

Information & communication

Grand Total

Industry (except construction)

Other, please specify

Agriculture, forestry & fishing

Arts, entertainment & recreation

Health & social work

Education

60%

56%

48%

40%

44%

52%

43%

42%

42%

42%

41%

40%

36%

36%

34%

31%

Yes

No

57%

58%

58%

58%

59%

60%

64%

64%

66%

69%

Source: The 2022 trainee survey, 2023 study supporting this evaluation 

Inclusiveness 

Although  inclusiveness  is  not  a  principle  in  the  QFT,  a  large  variety  of  stakeholders 
consulted in the 2023 study supporting this evaluation, including national authorities, the 
public  employment  services,  youth  organisations  and  the  European  Disability  Forum, 
reported that vulnerable young people were less able to benefit from traineeships.  

For  example,  young  people  from  rural  areas  and  in  the  outermost  regions89,  with 
disabilities, from a lower socio-economic background, with a migrant background, from 
the  Roma  community,  or  with  lower  educational  attainment  were  identified  as  groups 
that may face obstacles in access, often linked to financial support. Young people from 
rural  areas  may  often  choose  not  to  participate  in  traineeships  in  urban  areas,  as  this 
would mean leaving their home regions without the guarantee of being hired afterwards. 
This  suggests  that  additional  support  might  be  necessary  for  these  groups.  Companies 
were  also  reported  to  hire  those  trainees  that  are  most  skilled  and/or  educated,  thus 
hampering  access  for  young  people  with  lower  education  level  or  skills.  In  addition, 
young people without networks (acquaintances, families, etc.) are likely to be less able to 
access traineeship opportunities, as traineeships are often found through such networks90.  

89 Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte, La Réunion, Saint-Martin (FR), Azores and Madeira 

(PT), Canary Islands (ES). 

90  In  the  trainee  survey  carried  out  as  part  of  the  study  supporting  this  evaluation,  the  most  commonly 
reported  way  of  finding  a  traineeship  was  via  the  trainees’  own  networks,  i.e.  through  friends, 
acquaintances, or families (33% of respondents).  

32 

 
 
 
                                                           
Another  barrier  for  vulnerable  groups  to  access  traineeships  is  the  lack  of  traineeship 
programmes  tailored  to  their  needs,  for  example  catering  for  specific  training  or 
upskilling needs or accessibility requirements in the case of disabilities.   

To  overcome  such  obstacles,  some  Member  States  have  introduced  measures  to  help 
vulnerable  young  people  access  traineeships.  The  following  box  presents  some  such 
examples.  

Inclusive traineeships - Examples 

Latvia:  ALMP  traineeship  providers  in  Latvia  must  provide  an  employment 
contract in accordance with the Labour Law. For a trainee with disabilities, the State 
provides support for making adjustments to the workplace up to €1,000. 

Ireland:  A  number  of  paid  traineeships  within  the  civil  service  are  reserved  for 
individuals from underrepresented groups, including those with a disability.   

Italy: In Italy, the maximum duration of a traineeship is 12 months. However, this is 
extended to 24 months for people with a disability to take into account the additional 
time they may need to get used to the workplace. 

Impacts on cross-border traineeships 

The  QFT  (principle  16)  recommends  also  that  cross-border  mobility  of  trainees  in  the 
European  Union  be  facilitated  inter  alia  by  clarifying  the  national  legal  framework  for 
traineeships  and  establishing  clear  rules  on  hosting  trainees  from,  and  the  sending  of 
trainees to, other Member States and by reducing administrative formalities. Principle 17 
of the QFT recommends examining the possibility to make use of the extended EURES 
network (and to exchange information on paid traineeships through the EURES portal). 

Though  cross-border  traineeships  seem  to  have  increased  over  the  years  (363  out  of 
1,912  (19%)  of  the  2022  trainee  survey  respondents  had  undertaken  a  cross-border 
traineeship), barriers remain. These barriers are linked to the lack of (financial) resources 
and information. In the trainee survey: 

  478  out  of  1,293  (37%)  indicated  that  a  lack  of  financial  resources  limits  their 

possibilities to undertake a traineeship abroad; 

  478 out of 1,293 (37%) also mentioned a lack of interest as their main reason for 
not looking for a cross-border traineeship, which might indicate a broader need to 
further  disseminate  information  on  traineeships  and  their  positive  effects  on 
young people’s career pathways; 

  349 out of 1,293 (27%) of trainees surveyed mentioned not being well-informed 

about cross-border traineeships. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
The trainee survey indicated that 239 out of 1,836 (13%) of respondents made use of the 
EURES  portal  to  find  cross-border  traineeship  opportunities.  The  study  supporting  the 
Commission’s ex-post evaluation of EURES91 indeed highlighted difficulties in providing 
specific support services targeting youth regarding inter alia traineeships, mostly due to 
persisting differences in  and a lack of harmonisation of national legislative frameworks 
for  traineeships  outside  of  education  (e.g.  legislative  uncertainties  regarding  the 
definition of trainees). 

Efficiency  

It  is  difficult  to  provide  quantitative  estimations  of  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the 
application of the QFT principles, even more so as it proved challenging to disentangle 
the benefits and costs related to providing traineeships in general from any additional or 
different  benefits  or  costs  related  to  the  application  of  the  QFT  principles  specifically. 
The  analysis  on  costs  and  benefits  is  based  on  stakeholder  consultations,  the  trainee 
survey  and  case  studies  that  were  carried  out  as  part  of  the  2023  study  supporting  this 
evaluation92. While evidence on quantifiable benefits is challenging to obtain, the study 
provides  qualitative  evidence93  of  a  range  of  benefits  of  quality  traineeships  for  young 
people, employers and society.  

Benefits for young people 

Benefits of the QFT for young people include: an increased number and increased quality 
of traineeships, reduced levels of exploitation of trainees including a better understanding 
of their rights, and an increased level of validation and certification of learning outcomes. 
National interviewees from Estonia, Cyprus, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland and Slovakia 
noted that the QFT can be linked to reduced exploitation of trainees, by highlighting the 
importance of traineeships having a written contract/agreement. National consultees from 
Malta  and  Luxembourg  stated  that  the  obligation  to  have  such  contracts/agreements  in 
place  has  helped  trainees  understand  their  rights.  National  stakeholders  from  Croatia 
noted  that  ALMP  traineeships  designed  to  meet  the  QFT  have  improved  trainee  rights, 
putting  them  on  the  same  level  as  other  employees.  According  to  1,338  out  of  1,836 
(62%)  respondents  to  the  trainee  survey,  traineeships  also  facilitate  young  people’s 
that  QFT 
transition 
implementation had a positive impact on the results of ALMP traineeships, with 77% of 
trainees  in  the  personal  care  sector  in  2017-2018  employed  in  that  sector  after  their 
traineeships.  

labour  market.  Cypriot  national  authorities  noted 

the 

to 

91  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion,  Study 
supporting the ex-post EURES evaluation and the second biennial EURES report, Publications Office, 
2021, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/98807 

92 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

93  From  the  case  studies  and  targeted  consultations  conducted  under  the  2023  Study  supporting  the 

evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

34 

 
 
                                                           
The  trainee  survey  also  highlighted  key  traineeship  benefits  such  as  trainees  meeting 
their  learning  objectives  and  gaining  skills.  This  is  illustrated  by  1,432  out  of  1,836 
(78%)  respondents  agreeing  or  strongly  agreeing  that  their  traineeship  helped  them 
achieve their learning and training objectives, and 1,506 out of 1,836 (82%) agreeing or 
strongly agreeing that they gained practical experience and relevant skills. Irish national 
stakeholders reported benefits for young people through improved skills, noting that the 
QFT  helped  highlight  how  their  traineeship  offer  could  be  improved  to  align  with  best 
practice.  A  Career  Traineeships  pilot  based  on  QFT  principles  was  developed,  and  an 
evaluation94  of  the  pilot  found  that  trainees  enhanced  their  knowledge,  skills,  and 
proficiency in real work settings.  

Benefits for employers 

Based on the interviews carried out by the national experts with national stakeholders in 
the  context  of  the  targeted  consultations95,  benefits  for  employers  include  an  increased 
understanding  of  the  quality  aspects  of  a  traineeship  and  more  transparency  about 
traineeship requirements, including the rights and obligations of employers. These allow 
for  improving  the  quality  of  traineeships  which,  in  turn,  can  improve  the  employer’s 
reputation  and  capacity  to  attract  better  candidates.  Quality  traineeships  also  enable 
employers to benefit from financial incentives96 that are available, such as in the case of 
ALMP  traineeships,  to  fill  skills  gaps  in  their  companies  by  attracting  new  talent  that 
they can train for their individual/specific future skills needs, and to improve productivity 
and  reduce  turnover  by  investing  in  these  individuals’  professional  development  and 
career  progression.  Furthermore,  quality  traineeships  allow  employers  to  ‘try  out’ 
workers.  Consultees  from  Finland  and  Malta  noted  that  the  QFT  benefits  employers 
through  making  traineeship  requirements  transparent.  In  particular  the  requirement  to 
have a contract in place benefits employers as it clarifies their rights and obligations. 

Benefits for the society and the economy 

The  QFT  has  supported  youth  employment  in  the  EU  by  providing  a  more  stable  EU-
wide  quality  framework  for  easing  the  school-to-work  transition  via  traineeships,  by 
giving  young  people  job-based  skills  and  a  chance  to  demonstrate  their  potential  to 
employers.  In  the  Irish  case  study  it  was  reported  that  “[b]enefits  for  society  include 
increased  employability  as  a  result  of  the  production  of  relevant  skills  tailored  to 
employment needs”97. However, it should also be noted that national authorities stressed 

94 ICF (2018) Developing Best Practice in Work-Based Learning - An Evaluation of the Career Traineeship 

Pilot Final Report 28 March 2018. Available at: 
https://www.solas.ie/f/70398/x/8948babc28/developing-best-practice-in-work-based-learning-an-
evaluation-of-the-career-traineeship-pilot.pdf 

95 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

96  In  addition  to  subventions  at  national  level,  some  traineeships  can  be  financially  supported  by  the 

European Funds. 

97 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

35 

 
                                                           
the  difficulty  of  assessing  social  impact,  due  to  the  problem  of  isolating  the  specific 
effect of the QFT on traineeships98. 

Costs 

The  2023  study  supporting  this  evaluation  has  also  examined  the  costs  associated  with 
the  implementation  of  the  QFT.  Costs  identified  for  employers  include  concluding 
agreements with public employment services or training centres, supervising the trainees, 
assessing and certifying the trainees’ skills, advertising the traineeship opportunities, and 
developing training plans. These costs are difficult to quantify and breaking them down 
to  costs  associated  with  offering  traineeships  in  general  versus  costs  associated  with 
implementing  the  QFT  as  such  proved  to  be  impossible.  Nevertheless,  the  following 
(qualitative) analysis describes administrative and adjustment costs linked to traineeships 
in general and provides indications, where possible, as to which costs may be attributed 
to the QFT.  

Administrative  costs  for  implementing  OMTs  and  ALMP  traineeships  differ,  with 
ALMP traineeships offering many more forms of financial support for employers, while 
entailing  also  administrative  costs  both  for  employers  and  for  public  authorities. 
Additional  costs  for  public  authorities  include  investing  in  public  services  and  labour 
inspectorates  to  monitor  compliance  with  national  legislation.  Applying  for  and 
managing  subsidies  is  itself  costly  to  employers,  especially  for  small  companies  with 
limited  capacity  for  these  administrative  tasks.  In  the  Irish  case  study99,  for  example, 
stakeholders  emphasised  the  significance  of  administrative  costs  for  employers  due  to 
higher  levels  of  quality  assurance  and  compliance  with  contractual  frameworks  for 
ALMP traineeships. However, none of these costs can be directly attributed to the QFT. 

Adjustment costs in adapting to the requirements of QFT principles were also noted by 
some  of  the  consulted  stakeholders,  including:  the  costs  associated  with  designing 
programmes,  implementing  new  legislation,  assessing  trainees’  skills  at  the  start  of  a 
traineeship, developing training plans to ensure learning objectives are met, supervising 
trainees, and certifying trainees’ skills at the end of a traineeship. 

In  general,  costs  were  raised  as  a  limiting  factor  for  applying  the  QFT  principles. 
National  authorities  and  employers  mentioned  limited  human  and  financial  resources 
(mainly  linked  to  the  need  to  provide  supervisors,  specify  learning  objectives  and 
cooperate with the public employment services in case of ALMP type of traineeships) as 
an obstacle. National authorities also referred to their limited resources for the promotion 
and communication about traineeships. 

98 Idem 

99 Idem 

36 

 
                                                           
 
No  evidence  was  found  of  significant  enforcement  costs  associated  with  the 
implementation of the QFT and stakeholders did not identify such costs in the interviews 
or case studies. The key issue here is that enforcement of traineeship  regulations would 
normally be undertaken  by the national  labour inspectorate or equivalent  and any costs 
would  be  incurred  by  the  relevant  national  authorities.  Such  inspections,  however, 
normally focus on the enforcement of the relevant national legislation. Even where that 
legislation has been influenced to some extent by the QFT it is not possible to separately 
identify enforcement costs due to the QFT.  

16  Member  States  use  financial  incentives  to  support  quality  improvements  in 
traineeships.  They  are  generally  used  in  three  main  ways:  to  encourage  or  enable 
traineeships; to improve their quality; and/or to enable trainees to be kept on at the end of 
their traineeship. Financial incentives are mainly used in the case of ALMP traineeships. 

Table 6 - Financial incentives in Member States 

Type of incentive 

Member State 

To encourage or enable traineeships 

BG, CY, DE, EL, ES, HR, IT, LU, LV, MT, SK, SI, EL, PL, 
RO 

To improve traineeship quality 

BG 

To enable trainees to be hired 
following their traineeship  

BG, SK, IE, ES 

These  types  of  incentives  include  public  subsidies  and/or  social  security  contribution 
reductions  for  companies  providing  traineeships.  Member  States  have  also  relied  on 
financial  support  from  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  such  as  the  Youth 
Employment  Initiative  and  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF),  as  recommended  by  the 
targeted  consultations100,  public  employment  service 
QFT 
representatives  highlighted  that  employers  can  receive  grants  to  support  wages  for 
mentors and supervisors. A national trade union noted that ESF funding is also  used by 
employers, but requires a great deal of administrative commitment in terms of reporting. 

(principle  18). 

In 

100 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Examples of financial incentives and use of European funds 

Spain 

The  case  study  on  Spain101  gives  the  example  of  subsidies  to  employers  for  ALMP 
traineeships  funded  through  the  Youth  Guarantee  in  November  2020.  The  subsidies 
ranged  from  €694.82  to  €810.62  per  month  per  trainee,  equal  to  1.2  to  1.4  times  the 
IPREM102  (with  the  higher  rate  applying  to  trainees  with  disabilities).  Subsidised 
employers must pay a wage equal to 80% of the IPREM and social security contributions 
and  must  justify  the  training  content  of  their  traineeships.  The  implication  is  that  the 
difference  between  the  wage  and  the  subsidy  (i.e.  40-60%  of  the  IPREM)  covers  the 
extra cost of providing the traineeship. 

Bulgaria 

The  New  Opportunity  for  Youth  Employment  initiative  offers  employers  incentives  to 
hire young people up to the age of 29, and subsidises the cost of a supervisor, transport 
costs and wages for trainees. This initiative also includes an exemption from a number of 
social  security  contributions  if  the  employer  subsequently  signs  a  permanent  contract 
with the trainee. 

Germany 

Employers  who  take  on  young  people  for  in-company  introductory  training  receive  a 
subsidy that covers trainees’ pay and a lump sum for the trainees’ total social insurance 
contributions.   

Based  on  the  case  studies  and  targeted  consultations  conducted  in  the  2023  study 
supporting  this  evaluation103,  the  most  often  held  perception  of  stakeholders  is  that  the 
total costs related to the implementation of the QFT are proportionate to the benefits.  
Throughout the research104, stakeholders highlighted benefits more often than costs, and 
while  quantification  was  difficult,  their  inability  to  identify  significant  costs  associated 
with the QFT in its current form suggests that such costs are unlikely to be large enough 
to outweigh the benefits that were more frequently identified.  

Among  the  factors  limiting  the  efficiency  of  the  QFT  are  a  lack  of  monitoring  and 
enforcement and a lack of awareness. In particular, some employers do not seem to be 
aware  of  the  potential  benefits  of  offering  a  quality  traineeship,  nor  of  funding 
opportunities  available  to  support  employers  offering  such  traineeships.  In  targeted 

101 Idem 

102 Indicador Público de Renta de Efectos Múltiples (IPREM): a reference standard for social benefits 

103 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

104 Idem 

38 

 
                                                           
consultations105,  employer 
the 
implementation  of  the  QFT  principles  is  also  likely  to  be  less  efficient  in  small 
companies and micro-enterprises than in larger firms.    

in  particular  emphasised 

representatives 

that 

Coherence with other policies supporting quality jobs for young people 

At  EU  level,  the  objectives,  target  groups  and  measures  to  implement  the  QFT  display 
overall a good level of coherence with other relevant EU initiatives, policies as well 
as funds and programmes.  

The QFT contributes to the European Pillar of Social Rights106, in particular principle 4 
on  ‘Active  support  to  employment’  and  the  objectives  of  the  EU  Youth  Strategy,  in 
particular  goal  7  ‘Quality  Employment  for  All’,  which,  amongst  others,  calls  for  the 
recognition and validation of competencies acquired through internships, apprenticeships 
and other forms of work-based learning, volunteering and non-formal education as well 
as  equal  access  to  quality  information  and  adequate  support  mechanisms  to  prepare 
young people for the changing labour market and future of work107. In addition, the QFT 
is coherent with the Reinforced Youth Guarantee108, which aims to ensure that all young 
people  receive  a  good  quality  offer  of  employment,  continued  education,  an 
apprenticeship or a traineeship within four months of becoming unemployed or leaving 
formal  education  and  recommends  to  ensure  that  traineeship  offers  adhere  to  the 
minimum standards laid out in the QFT. Coherence with the European Solidarity Corps 
is  found  in  the  projects  funded  and  supported  under  this  initative,  amongst  which 
traineeships.  Synergies  also  exist  with  other  EU  initiatives  on  traineeships  and 
apprenticeships, such as the Digital Opportunity Traineeships109 funded under Erasmus+, 
which aims to help companies fill vacancies with digitally competent candidates through 
traineeships.  and  the  European  Framework  for  Quality  and  Effective  Apprenticeships 
(EFQEA) that sets out similar quality principles for apprenticeships (more details below). 
It is also coherent with the goals of the main relevant EU funding mechanisms, including 
the  Youth  Employment  Initiative  (YEI)110,  the  ESF+111,  NextGenerationEU112  and 
Erasmus+113.  

105 Idem 

106https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/economy-works-people/jobs-growth-and-
investment/european-pillar-social-rights/european-pillar-social-rights-20-principles_en  

107https://youth.europa.eu/strategy_en#:~:text=The%20EU%20Youth%20Strategy%20focuses,European%

20Youth%20Goals%20were%20developed. 

108 https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1079&langId=en 

109 https://erasmusintern.org/digital-opportunities  

110 https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1176 

111 https://ec.europa.eu/esf/home.jsp 

112 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/recovery-plan-europe_en 

113 https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/  

39 

 
 
                                                           
As  for  coherence  with  relevant  EU  labour  legislation,  the  Directive  on  adequate 
minimum  wages in  the  European Union114 applies  to  (paid)  trainees insofar as they  fall 
under  the  definition  of  ‘worker’,  as  defined  by  national  law  with  consideration  to  the 
case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Council Recommendation 
on  Access  to  social  protection  for  workers  and  the  self-employed115  similarly  only 
addresses the situation of trainees who are in an employment relationship.  

Overall,  there  is  also  a  fairly  good  level  of  coherence  between  the  objectives,  target 
groups  and  measures  to  implement  the  QFT,  and  the  relevant  employment,  social,  and 
education  and  training  policies  at  national  and  regional  level.  These  policies  have  the 
common goal to provide young people with relevant practical work experience and skills 
in a safe environment in which their rights are protected.  

The way various national or regional measures are implemented might however lead to 
varying degrees of coherence across Member States. Overall, the majority of national 
and  regional  stakeholders  consulted  in  the  2023  study  supporting  this  evaluation116, 
including  policymakers,  social  partners,  youth  organisations  and  chambers,  were  of  the 
opinion that there was a better coherence of policies at  EU level  than at  national  level. 
These views often referred to the QFT not being fully integrated in national  or regional 
policy, but only to a certain extent.  

In particular, the degree of coherence with the QFT is generally higher for employment 
policies, as compared to policies in the fields of education, training or social inclusion. 
This reflects the fact that the QFT excludes traineeships which are a mandatory part of 
formal education or training programmes, and that the responsibilities for labour market 
and  education  policies  are  often  dispersed  between  different  parts  or  levels  of 
government.  The  2023  study  supporting  this  evaluation  pointed  out  that  due  to  the 
complexity  of  labour  law  and  its  interaction  with  education  and  training  systems,  there 
remain some grey areas in which there is potential for duplication and incoherence. This 
notably concerns the interaction of policies supporting traineeships with those supporting 
apprenticeships. 

In  this  regard,  the  European  framework  for  quality  and  effective  apprenticeships 
(EFQEA)117 of March 2018 sets out 14 criteria for quality and effective apprenticeships. 
There are many similarities with the QFT, for example addressing dimensions such as the 
written  agreement,  learning  objectives  or  outcomess,  transparency  and  working 
conditions, as well as EU-level monitoring and cooperation with other key stakeholders. 
Most stakeholders consulted under the  2023 study  supporting this  evaluation are of the 
opinion that the EFQEA has led to greater involvement of stakeholders, and has a clearer 
scope,  a  higher  and  more  specific  quality  ambition  in  terms  of  more  direct 

114 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022L2041&qid=1671007127164 

115https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2019.387.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2019:387:TOC 

116 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

117 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018H0502%2801%29 

40 

 
                                                           
recommendations, a higher degree of regulation of apprenticeships, which are generally 
considered as employment contracts, and benefits from useful supporting measures under 
the  European  Alliance  for  Apprenticeships  (EAfA)  and  the  Apprenticeship  Support 
Services.  These  perceptions  are  to  be  seen  in  light  of  fundamental  differences  between 
apprenticeships  and  traineeships,  whereby  apprenticeships  are  required  to  lead  to  a  full 
qualification  of  professional  or  vocational  education  and  training,  while  traineeships 
covered by the QFT are, at most, complimentary to education and training. In addition, 
apprenticeships are highly regulated, often on a tripartite basis, whereas traineeships (in 
particular the open market type) are either unregulated or partially regulated118.  

There  are  also  different  degrees  of  coherence  within  the  field  of  national  employment 
policies. Policies on ALMP traineeships, which by nature are designed in the context of 
national employment integration measures, tend to be better aligned with the goals of the 
QFT.  This  is  less  so  for  policies  regarding  OMTs,  due  to  the  diversity  of  regulatory 
approaches  to  traineeships  across  the  EU  and  the  prominent  role  of  employers  in  the 
determination of the conditions for these types of traineeships.  

regional 

stakeholders 

Some  national  and 
(including  policymakers,  business 
representatives,  education  and  training  organisations  and  social  partners)  suggested 
(during interviews and expert meetings held in the targeted consultations119) a widening 
of  the  scope  of  the  QFT  to  cover  more  types  of  traineeships,  including  traineeships 
which  form  a  part  of  education  and  training  programmes.  However,  at  the  validation 
workshop (September 2022) that took place in the context of the 2023 study supporting 
this evaluation120, some  employer organisations and national  authorities raised concerns 
that  broadening  the  scope  of  the  QFT  could  give  rise  to  discrepancies  with  existing 
legislation on compulsory traineeships and/or traineeships that are part of education and 
might further complicate ongoing discussions on issues such as remuneration. 

Finally, in some Member States (e.g. MT, RO, SK), national and EU funding has been 
a driver for promoting coherence with the QFT. National policymakers in Romania and 
Slovakia  particularly  underlined  the  role  of  the  Youth  Guarantee  in  ensuring  the  QFT 
principles  were  implemented.  In  Malta,  youth  organisations  highlighted  the  role  of 
national and EU funds (especially the ESF) in promoting synergies and coherence with 
the  QFT,  in  particular  by  bringing  national  and  regional  policymakers  from  relevant 
fields (education and training, employment, social) together. 

118 European Commission (2012), Study on a comprehensive overview of traineeship arrangements in 
Member States. 

119 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

120 Idem 

41 

 
 
                                                           
4.2.  HOW DID THE QFT MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND TO WHOM? 

Despite the challenges in isolating the impact of the QFT from the impact of pre-existing 
national  measures  and  of  traineeships  in  general,  the  2023  study  supporting  this 
evaluation suggests that the QFT has added value to the design and implementation 
of  policies  on  both  OMTs  and  ALMP  traineeships  in  several  Member  States.  The 
added  value  was  found  to  have  been  greatest  to  national  and  regional  level  policy-
makers. 

In  particular,  the  QFT  has  provided  a  common  EU  reference  point  for  quality  in 
traineeships, which has helped national authorities to align and improve national systems 
and legislation: 

 

 

 

 

In  Bulgaria,  interviewees  stated  that  the  QFT  has  specifically  driven  legislative 
changes regulating OMTs.  

In  Spain,  although  legislation  on  traineeships  was  already  in  place,  more  recent 
legislative  amendments  are  in  line  with  the  QFT,  improving  legislative  and 
possibly also practical implementation. 

In  Ireland  too,  it  was  reported  that  the  QFT  provided  a  framework  for  the 
development  of  the  country’s  own  national  policy  on  traineeships,  and  was  of 
great benefit in terms of helping policymakers to do this quickly and effectively. 

In Greece, the QFT has been the impetus for a range of practical improvements to 
traineeships,  such  as  putting  into  place  a  register  of  traineeship  providers,  a 
register of companies, and a code of ethics for traineeships. 

The extent of the EU added value varies according to factors such as whether instruments 
and  measures  were  already  in  place  prior  to  the  QFT.  The  EU  added  value  appears  to 
have  been  greatest  in  Member  States  where  traineeship  systems  were  less  developed 
before  the  adoption  of  the  QFT.  This  is  supported  by  views  gathered  in  the  targeted 
consultations121 with representatives from the newer Member States. Stakeholders from 
Croatia122  for  example  highlighted  that  the  QFT  helped  to  lay  the  groundwork  and  set 
policy  standards  that  had  an  extra  weight  in  the  national  context.  In  Romania,  recent 
legislation  on  traineeships  was  modelled  on  all  the  principles  listed  in  the  QFT.  In 
Bulgaria,  stakeholders  emphasised  that,  since  2014,  traineeships  offered  by  large 
multinational  companies  have  become  more  structured,  including  an  individual 
traineeship plan and a mentor.  

National authorities (such as ministries of labour and education and public employment 
services) all agree on the added value of the QFT in setting out a common EU framework 
as well as its impact on the ground. Youth, civil society and trade unions generally agree 

121 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

122 HR became an EU Member State on 1 July 2013, while BG and RO joined the EU on 1 January 2007. 

42 

 
                                                           
too, but they also  consider that the EU added value is somewhat limited by the weaker 
application of the QFT on the ground.   

As for employer organisations, the added value lies in an increased understanding of the 
quality elements of traineeships, and in case the QFT principles are applied, reputational 
benefits.  Some  employers  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  QFT  has  limited  added  value 
because labour markets vary substantially across Member States, while others highlight 
that the QFT’s added value precisely lies in its flexible and non-binding nature. 

4.3. 

IS THE QFT STILL RELEVANT? 

The  principles  of  the  QFT  remain  relevant  for  improving  the  quality  of  traineeships 
and fostering the labour market integration of young people. Relying particularly on the 
public  consultation  survey,  the  targeted  consultations  (in  particular  the  interviews  by 
national experts with national stakeholders and the trainee survey), and the case studies 
carried out in the 2023 study supporting this evaluation123, stakeholders agree that while 
most  QFT  principles  are  pertinent,  the  following  elements  from  the  QFT  tend  to  be 
particularly  associated  with  better  post-traineeship  outcomes:  learning  objectives124, 
written agreement125 and the provision of a supervisor126.  

There  were  more  divergent  views  on  the  relevance  of  limiting  the  duration  of 
traineeships. On the one hand, a limited duration can prevent the replacement of regular 
jobs  by  traineeships127.  On  the  other  hand,  sufficiently  long  traineeships  can  allow 
employers  to  see  them  as  an  investment  in  their  future  workforce  and  enable  young 
people to acquire relevant competences128.  

As  for  the  relevance  of  the  QFT  itself,  there  are  mixed  views  on  whether  the  QFT 
should be revised, remain in place or even be discontinued. While a few stakeholders 

123 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

124 All interviewed stakeholder groups agreed on this in the targeted consultations. 254 out of 259 (98%,) 
of  public  consultation  survey  respondents  considered  learning  and  training  objectives  as  either  very 
important or important. Also in the public consultation survey, 7 out of 8 (88%) of companies/business 
organisations and 6 out of 6 (100%) of trade union respondents identified the learning component as 
particularly important.  

125 As expressed by PES and national authorities in targeted consultations. The public consultation further 
supports this:  concluding a  written agreement at the beginning of the  traineeship  was identified as a 
key element increasing traineeship quality by 200 out of 259 (77%) of respondents. 24 out of 34 (71%) 
of former or current trainees responding to the public consultation survey selected the existence of a 
written agreement as very important.  

126 Supervision is considered a relevant principle particularly  by  national authorities and PES (e.g. in IE, 
IT,  MT,  PL,  RO).  The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  trainee  survey  indicated  that  guidance  and 
support  from  a  supervisor  would  have  been  helpful  in  finding  a  job  after  the  completion  of  their 
traineeships (76% or 1,395 out of 1,836). 

127  Employer organisations, national authorities, PES in BE, IE, LU, LT and IT. 

128 Youth organisations, trade unions, PES in BE, EL, IT and ES. 

43 

 
                                                           
(from different stakeholder groups in BE, EL, FI, IE, IT, LT, LV, PT, RO) consider that 
the  impact  of  a  discontinuation  would  be  limited  given  the  level  of  integration  of  QFT 
principles  in  their  national  legislation129,  other  stakeholders  (also  from  various 
stakeholder groups in AT, BG, DE, EL, IT, MT, PL) have underlined the importance of 
the  existence  of  a  common  policy  guidance  at  EU  level  which  continues  to  give  an 
impetus for the development of national policies on traineeships.  

Employer organisations and national authorities generally called for retaining the QFT 
in  its  current  form,  while  introducing  flanking  measures  to  support  a  better 
implementation  on  the  ground,  such  as  greater  awareness  raising  and  mutual  learning, 
robust and comparable data on traineeships across the EU, more quantitative monitoring 
of  implementation  and  a  better  coordination  amongst  different  actors.  The  potential 
added  value  of  such  measures  was  also  highlighted  in  the  European  Parliamentary 
Research Service (EPRS) study.130  

Trade unions and  youth organisations, however, call for a more significant  alteration 
of  the  nature  and  content  of  the  QFT,  notably  by  making  its  implementation  binding, 
expanding its scope and adding additional quality elements131. 

The  2023  study  supporting  this  evaluation  shows  that  the  non-binding  nature  of  the 
QFT  has  made  it  possible  to  take  into  account  the  diversity  of  national  education  and 
training and labour market environments and strike a balance between the need to ensure 
minimum  standards  and  preserve  a  degree  of  flexibility  –  a  view  largely  supported  by 
national authorities and employer organisations132. At the same time, it has also allowed 
different regulatory approaches at the national level to continue, resulting e.g. in different 
levels of quality standards for traineeships, as highlighted by trade unions133.  

National  employer organisations  highlight  that having a set  of binding principles that 
are  applicable  to  all  Member  States  would  not  be  appropriate  for  fostering  the  stable 
labour market integration of young people because of the important diversity in national 
regulation on traineeships, in labour law and in the degree of social partner involvement 
in defining traineeship standards134. 

129 It should however be noted that the analysis in section 4.1 gives a mixed picture for these countries in 

terms of conformity. 

130 European Parliamentary Research Service - 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2022)699459 

131 Expert meeting (April 2022), dedicated Social Partners’ consultation (June 2022), validation workshop 

(September 2022).  

132 Idem 

133 Idem 

134 Targeted consultations, validation workshop (September 2022) - Study supporting the evaluation of the 

Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

44 

 
                                                           
Employer  organisations  and  trade  unions  (AT,  DE,  DK,  FI)  point  out  that  the 
relevance of the QFT also  depends  on the level  of general  social protection and labour 
standards applied in individual Member States. In Member States where these standards 
are  generally  high  (such  as  AT,  DE,  DK,  FI),  the  QFT  is  considered  less  relevant. 
Against  this  background,  the  flexibility  and  adaptability  of  the  QFT  in  function  of 
varying labour market needs were considered important. 

In  addition,  national  authorities,  employer  organisations,  education  and  training 
organisations and trade unions considered135 that the scope of the QFT, limited to OMTs 
and  ALMP  traineeships,  was  a  factor  reducing  its  relevance  for  fostering  stable  labour 
market  integration.  Extending  the  scope  to  traineeships  which  are  part  of  formal 
education  or  training  programmes,  could  increase  the  relevance  of  the  framework,  as 
such traineeships also aim to increase young people’s employability.  

The 2023 study supporting this evaluation136 also  indicated quality principles which are 
considered to be missing from the QFT. Stakeholders from youth organisations as well as 
trade  union  representatives  and  some  national  authorities  highlighted  that  the  QFT 
currently  does  not  sufficiently  take  into  account  that  youth  is  not  a  homogeneous 
group. As a result, the QFT may thus be less relevant in addressing the specific needs of 
young people and to the broader Union aim of social cohesion and inclusion. Therefore, a 
possible  additional  quality  element  could  concern  ensuring  a  greater  recognition  of  the 
diversity of situations of young people, in particular when it comes to the outreach to and 
accessibility of traineeship opportunities for vulnerable groups. 

Remuneration has the potential to increase the quality of traineeships, which has been 
demonstrated also by previous research. For example, a study done by the International 
Labour  Organization137  illustrates  the  tendency  of  remunerated  traineeships  to  be  more 
structured  and  formalised,  thereby  increasing  the  likelihood  that  young  trainees  gain 
relevant  skills  and  competences.  While  trade  unions,  youth  and  civil  society 
organisations  as  well  as  EU  and  international  agencies  consider  remuneration  an 
important  aspect,  not  all  employers  consider  it  as  an  element  increasing  the  quality  of 
traineeships.  Some  employers  argue  that  there  are  also  negative  consequences  of 
remuneration,  such  as  additional  costs  for  the  employer  and  a  reduced  numbers  of 
traineeship offers, but also a lack of clarity on the legal status of trainees.  

The  current  QFT  only  recommends  transparency  on  whether  an  allowance  or 
compensation is applicable, and if applicable, its amount. In the trainee survey, 220 out 

135  Based  on  interviews  and  expert  meetings  held  in  the  targeted  consultations  -  Study  supporting  the 

evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

136 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

137 ILO. Interns and outcomes – Just how effective are internships. 2018. This publication stated that “paid 

internships produce – on average – better labour market outcomes than unpaid internships do”. 

45 

 
                                                           
of 449138 (49%) of the trainee survey respondents  would like to  find information  in  the 
vacancy  notice  about  entitlement  to  compensation  or  allowance  and  193  of  449  (43%) 
information  about  its  amount.  As  for  being  paid  (not  a  QFT  principle),  1,597  of  1,836 
(87%) of trainees surveyed reported that being paid for their traineeship was essential or 
important for them. 1,542 of 1,836 (84%) of trainees surveyed reported that being paid at 
least the minimum wage was important or essential.  

Remuneration  is  an  incentive  for  trainees  to  remain  in  and  complete  a  traineeship,  and 
could contribute to guaranteeing equal access to traineeships and to the labour market. 
However,  legislation  on  remuneration,  if  set  at  a  low  level,  may  prolong  the  labour 
market  transition  for  young  people  and  drive  labour  standards  down.  For  example,  in 
Croatia, a 2018 evaluation139 of a traineeship scheme found that the low wages of trainees 
in the scheme increased the probability of inactivity, and thus delayed their entry into the 
labour market. The reason for this has been linked to low wages of trainees (at the time 
between  29%  and  43%  of  the  average  net  wage)  which  disincentivised  young  people 
from taking part in the programme. The impact on wage standards was also noted, with 
stakeholders highlighting that the scheme lowered labour costs of young people and other 
workers. This potential adverse effect was also underlined in the case study on Italy140, in 
which interviewed stakeholders expressed concerns about the COVID-19 crisis resulting 
in a further increase in the number of traineeships (as opposed to entry level jobs). These 
stakeholders  cautioned  that  an  increased  use  of  unpaid  or  low-paid  traineeships  might 
have a negative effect on entry-level wages for youth.  

Young  people’s  access  to  social  protection  varies  between  Member  States141,  and  the 
entitlements for trainees are not always clear. Research142 highlights that, currently, in the 
context of OMTs, employers do not have an obligation to contribute to social security for 
trainees  in  10 out  of 27 Member States143.  For the  remaining 17 Member States, social 
security  coverage  is  either  at  the  same  level  as  any  employee  or  only  includes  specific 
types of coverage.144 Against this background, many stakeholders, in particular youth and 
civil society organisations, consider that guaranteeing trainees’ access to social protection 

138  Smaller  number  of  respondents,  as  only  some  respondents  were  (depending  on  responses  given  to 

previous questions) routed to this question. 

139  Tomić,  Iva  &  Zilic,  Ivan.  (2018).  Working  for  200  euro?  The  effects  of  traineeship  reform  on  labor 

market outcomes in Croatia. EIZ-WP-1804. 

140 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

141 See also the ESPN Thematic Report Access to Social Protection for Young People.  2021. 

142 European Network of Public Employment Services (2021), Remuneration of Open-Market Traineeships 

in EU-27. 

143 AT, CY, DK, EE, FI, HR, LT, MT, PL, SE. 

144 Ibid. 

46 

 
                                                           
coverage  would  increase  the  relevance  of  the  QFT.  The  trainee  survey  highlighted  in 
particular the importance of the following aspects of social security: 

   access to benefits related to accidents at work and occupational diseases (3,295 out of 

3,787145 (87%) of trainee respondents considered this essential or important) 

   being  covered  by  health  and  sickness  benefits  (3,181  out  of  3,787  (84%)  of 

respondents);  

   having access to paid sick leave (2,991 out of 3,787 (79%) of respondents);  

   access to minimum income support ((2,954 out of 3,787 (78%) of respondents);  

   accumulating pension rights (2,613 out of 3,787 (69%) of respondents);  

   having access to unemployment benefits (2,535 out of 3,787 (67%) of respondents). 

The public consultation carried out by the Commission confirmed these views.  

Although  the  COVID-19  pandemic  encouraged  innovative  approaches  to  traineeship 
supply  and  delivery,  it  has  evidenced  young  people’s  vulnerability  to  crises.  It  has 
moreover highlighted that the QFT might not sufficiently address changes in the labour 
market, including the increasing role of remote working and digital skills. Provisions 
on  telework  and  online  guidance  are  currently  not  included  in  the  QFT  and  could 
increase its relevance.  

Traineeships  can  be  an  opportunity  for  employers  to  address  increasing  skills 
mismatches due to megatrends, such as the digital transformation of the economy. Some 
employer  organisations  have  suggested146  an  increased  focus  on  the  learning 
component of traineeships. They notably argued that a mapping of traineeship providers’ 
skills  needs  and  an  assessment  of  trainees’  competences  before  and  after  their 
traineeships  could  strengthen  the  learning  element  in  traineeships.  As  regards  the 
acquisition of relevant skills, trainees themselves emphasised the importance of access to 
training activities during their traineeship.147 

Another  important  element  is  the  provision  of  adequate  mentorship,  even  more  so  in 
the  context  of  digital  traineeships148.  However,  some  employer  representatives  and 
national authorities warn about additional costs, especially for SMEs149.  

145  Larger  number  of  respondents,  as  this  question  was  not  only  routed  to  former,  current,  or  potential 

trainees, but to all respondents. 

146  In  targeted  consultations  and  the  validation  workshop  (September  2022)  held  as  part  of  the  Study 

supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

147 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

148 This  point  of  view  arose  from  the  study  consultations  with  EU  level  stakeholders  and  representatives 
from national authorities, trade unions, and PES from a number of countries (FI, IT, MT, SK, CY, PL). 

149 Validation workshop (September 2022) - Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for 

Traineeships (2023) 

47 

 
                                                           
Consultations  with  EU  and  national  stakeholders  (in  interviews  as  part  of  the  targeted 
consultations)150  gave  indications  that  the  QFT  may  be  lacking  practical  guidance  for 
employers  /  traineeship  providers  on  the  overall  implementation  of  the  QFT. 
Conditions  for  employers  to  receive  financial  support  for  traineeships,  for  example  by 
establishing trainee quotas, or by ensuring that the provision of EU and national funding 
and/or tax exemptions is subject to conformity with the QFT principles could, according 
to  EU  and  national  stakeholders  consulted151,  strengthen  the  relevance  of  the  QFT. 
Finally,  the  QFT  could  also  encourage  companies  to  employ  trainees  after  the 
traineeship, or help them find a job after the traineeship (i.e. post-placement support). 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 

5.1 Conclusions 

Traineeships continue to be an important  pathway  for  young people to  enter the labour 
market, whilst learning “on the job”. Quality traineeships, which reflect the principles of 
the  QFT,  contribute  to  increasing  young  people’s  employability  in  terms  of  their  skills 
and  their  access  to  professional  networks,  as  highlighted  in  particular  by  the  views  of 
trainees through the trainee survey. Quality traineeships also bring distinct opportunities 
and  benefits  for  employers  to  attract,  train  and  retain  young  talent.  This  is  particularly 
relevant in the context of the pronounced skills  mismatches and skills shortages, which 
especially affect some sectors in the EU labour markets. 

It needs to be reiterated that a key challenge in assessing the impact of traineeships and 
the  QFT  relates  to  the  lack  of  systematic  data  collection  at  EU  level  and  in  Member 
States. Moreover, it is difficult to disentangle the impact the QFT may have had on the 
quality of traineeships and on youth employment from the impact of other factors (such 
as the economic situation, national contexts, existing national legislation and/or policies).  

In terms of effectiveness, the provisions of the QFT that are perceived as most impactful 
on  young  people’s  labour  market  integration  seem  to  be  those  outlining  the  need  to 
determine the learning and educational objectives of the traineeship and the written 
agreement. 

The  QFT  provided  added  value  as  a  reference  point  at  EU  level  for  Member  States’ 
regulatory action on the quality of traineeships, in particular in Member States with less 
developed traineeship systems, where it helped to foster policy and legislative changes at 
national  level.  Since  2014,  14  Member  States  introduced  legislative  changes  to  cover 
traineeships152, which in some cases may be linked to the existence of the QFT though the 

150 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

151 Idem 

152 Five  Member States (BG, ES, LT, LU and RO) adopted legislation on OMTs, and 12 Member States 
(BE,  BG,  DK,  EE,  EL,  HR,  IE,  IT,  LT,  PT,  RO,  and  SK)  adopted  legislation  covering  ALMP 
traineeships. 

48 

 
                                                           
analysis does not allow to establish a systematic causal link given that it is a non-binding 
instrument. The prevalence of specific legislative provisions as well as their conformity 
with the principles of the QFT were found to be higher for ALMP traineeships than for 
OMTs. Overall, a slight improvement in terms of conformity can be observed for OMTs 
with  four  Member  States  fully/mostly  aligned  in  2016  versus  seven  Member  States  in 
2021. A larger improvement is observed for ALMP traineeships, with 18 Member States 
fully/mostly in conformity in 2021 versus 15 in 2016. 

In  addition,  irrespective  of  the  degree  of  implementation  of  the  QFT  principles  in 
national  legislation,  there  is  a  general  room  for  improvement  when  it  comes  to  the 
application  of  the  QFT  principles  on  the  ground,  as  well  as  their  monitoring  and 
enforcement.  

As  for  the  QFT  facilitating  the  cross-border  mobility  of  trainees  in  the  EU,  there  are 
indications that the number of transnational traineeships has increased, but young people 
still face difficulties due to a lack of financial means and the unavailability of relevant 
and sufficient information. 

The evaluation lacked quantitative evidence on costs and benefits. Based on the views 
expressed  by  the  consulted  stakeholders,  the  costs  appear  to  be  low,  while  the  benefits 
are  considered  relatively  high.  Overall,  the  cost  for  employers  related  to  the 
implementation of the QFT is generally perceived as proportionate to the benefits, such 
as  a  better  understanding  of  the  determinants  of  traineeship  quality,  reputational 
advantages,  an  increased  attractiveness  to  young  talent,  and  a  more  affordable  way  to 
invest in potential future workers. However, the implementation of the QFT can be less 
cost  effective  for  small  and  micro  enterprises  than  for  larger  firms.  Financial 
incentives, such as those supporting job offers after the completion of a traineeship, can 
help  increase  the  benefits  to  traineeship  providers  compared  to  the  costs  involved. 
Benefits of the QFT for trainees include improved working conditions, as well as better 
training  and  learning  content,  which  increase  their  chances  of  entering  stable 
employment.  

The  QFT  was  found  to  be  coherent  with  the  objectives  and  actions  of  other  EU  level 
initiatives,  strategies,  programmes  and  funding  instruments.  As  for  coherence  with 
national and regional policies, the evaluation found a mixed picture, with a higher level 
of  coherence  with  measures  on  ALMP  traineeships  than  with  those  on  OMTs,  where 
coherence was found to be more limited. Also, a higher degree of coherence was found 
with  national  and  regional  policies  in  the  field  of  employment,  compared  to  the  policy 
fields of education, training and social policy. 

Despite  the  many  similarities  in  quality  principles,  the  European  framework  for 
quality and effective apprenticeships (EFQEA)153 was perceived as leading to a greater 
involvement  of  stakeholders,  and  having  a  clearer  scope,  a  higher  and  more  specific 
quality ambition and benefits.  These perceptions are to  be seen in  light  of fundamental 

153 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018H0502%2801%29 

49 

 
                                                           
differences between apprenticeships and traineeships, where apprenticeships are required 
to  attain  full  qualification  of  professional  or  vocational  education  and  training,  while 
traineeships covered by the QFT are, at most, complimentary to education and training. 
In  addition,  apprenticeships  are  highly  regulated,  often  on  a  tripartite  basis,  whereas 
traineeships (in particular OMTs) are either unregulated or partially regulated.  

Although  the  QFT  is  deemed  still  relevant  and  of  added  value,  various  stakeholder 
groups considered that it could be further strengthened, in particular when it comes to 
remuneration and social protection for trainees. However, not all employers consider 
remuneration an important aspect; they highlight also the negative consequences, such as 
additional costs for employers. Furthermore, outreach to as well as access for vulnerable 
groups  was  deemed  important.  Young  people  from  rural  areas,  from  a  lower  socio-
economic  and/or  migrant  background  and  with  lower  educational  attainment  were 
identified  as  groups  that  may  face  obstacles  in  accessing  traineeship  opportunities.  In 
addition, there may be a need to update the QFT to the reality of today, notably when it 
comes  to  the  increased  practice  of  telework  and  the  need  to  ensure  guidance  and 
mentorship in that context. Adding traineeships which are part of formal education and 
training  is  also  a  consideration  to  be  made  when  it  comes  to  increasing  both  the 
relevance  and  coherence  of  the  QFT.  However,  not  all  stakeholders  support  this  view. 
Some  point  to  potential  discrepancies  with  existing  legislation  on  compulsory 
traineeships and mention that this could further complicate ongoing discussions on issues 
such as remuneration. Furthermore, to ease the transition to a stable job, the QFT could 
place  more  emphasis  on  post-placement  support  to  be  provided  by  traineeship 
providers.  

As for the non-binding nature of the QFT, views diverge on whether this is appropriate 
for  the  purposes  of  the  framework.  While  some  (notably  youth  organisations  and  trade 
unions) consider the non-binding character as having led to a fragmented implementation 
of the QFT across the EU, others (notably employers and national authorities) argue that 
because of the diversity of national situations and limitations of the different instruments 
available  at  EU  level,  the  QFT’s  non-binding  nature  offers  an  adequate  and  flexible 
reference framework for national regulations.  

5.2 Lessons learned 

The collection of comparable data on the prevalence, quality and nature of traineeships 
across  Member  States,  as  well  as  their  impact  on  youth  employment,  needs  to  be 
significantly  improved.  With  such  robust  and  comparable  data,  based  on  a  common 
definition, the effectiveness of the QFT could be more accurately monitored at EU level. 
On the  ground, the effectiveness  of the QFT  could be improved  by national  authorities 
through  stronger  monitoring  and  enforcement  in  conjunction  with  an  increased 
awareness amongst various key stakeholders, in particular young people and employers. 
Drawing inspiration from the EFQEA, implementation of the QFT could benefit from a 
through  dedicated  networks)  and  by 
higher 
encouraging  a  higher  degree  of  national  legislation  on  OMTs  (e.g.  through  stronger 

involvement  of  stakeholders  (e.g. 

50 

 
wording of the principles in the Recommendation). Employers  could be better assisted 
in  accessing  financial  support  by  providing  practical  guidance  as  well  as  by  linking 
such  financial  incentives  to  the  application  of  the  QFT  quality  principles.  Awareness-
raising  of  the  benefits  of  offering  quality  traineeships  amongst  employers  would  also 
help the application of the QFT. There is a need to provide more concrete and practical 
information  to  young  people  who  may  be  interested  in  doing  a  cross-border 
traineeship. Raising awareness on EURES could be helpful.   

The coherence of the QFT with national policies on employment, education and training 
and  social  policies  could  be  further  improved  through  a  strengthened  horizontal 
coordination across these policy areas. There is also a need to reflect on the scope of the 
QFT, in  particular on extending it to  traineeships which are part of curricula of formal 
education and training.  

Regarding  the  relevance  of  the  QFT,  various  stakeholders  have  recently  argued  in 
favour  of  quality  standards  that  go  beyond  the  QFT  principles,  condemning  in 
particular  the  practice  of  unpaid  traineeships  and  demanding  social  protection  for 
trainees.  For  example,  the  European  Parliament154,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee155,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions156,  the  ETUC157,  the  European  Youth 
Forum158  and  the  Conference  on  the  future  of  Europe  have  supported  a  ban  on  unpaid 
traineeships159. On the other hand, employers160 and national authorities161 have called for 
flexibility  for  Member  States  on  these  issues  because  of  the  important  diversity  in 
national regulation on traineeships, in labour law and in the degree of the involvement of 
social partners in defining traineeship standards.  

These views underline the findings of the evaluation as regards the question on how the 
including  fair 
QFT  could  be  complemented  by  additional  quality  elements, 

154 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0045_EN.html 

155  https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/how-guarantee-decent-
work-young-people-and-ensure-inclusion-neets-through-proper-elaboration-national-recovery-plans-
own 

156 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020IR3454&from=EN 

157https://www.etuc.org/sites/default/files/press-release/file/2022-

02/ETUC%20Open%20Letter_Ban%20Unpaid%20Internships.pdf 

158 https://www.youthforum.org/topics/no-more-unpaid-internships  

159 Report on the final outcome of the Conference on the future of Europe (May 2022)  

160 Written contributions of BusinessEurope and SMEUnited to the consultation carried out as part of the 
evaluation 
published.  
See also  https://www.businesseurope.eu/publications/businesseurope-headlines-no-2022-37 as well as 
the Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

Traineeships. 

Framework 

Quality 

Not 

the 

for 

of 

161 Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

51 

 
                                                           
 
remuneration and access to  social protection for  trainees,  but  also  the  adaptation  of the 
QFT to the needs of vulnerable groups, its update in light of recent developments such as 
telework and the increased demand for digital skills, conditions for employers to receive 
financial  support  for  traineeships  and  a  strengthened  support  to  trainees  during  the 
traineeship (e.g. through mentorship) as well as after.  

Any revision of the scope or content of the QFT will need to duly take into account the 
possibilities  and  limitations,  including  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  of  the  different 
instruments  available  at  EU  level.  In  addition,  changes  would  need  to  be  carefully 
assessed  in  the  light  of  potential  additional  costs,  in  particular  for  small  and  micro 
enterprises.  

52 

 
ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Organisation and timing  

DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL) is the lead DG for the evaluation 
of the Council Recommendation on a Quality Framework for Traineeships of 10 March 2014 
(2014/C 88/01). 

The evaluation started with the publication of the Evaluation Roadmap162 on 27 July 2021 and 
has  been  carried  out  with  the  support  of  the  Inter  Service  Group  chaired  by  DG  EMPL  to 
which the following DGs were invited: CNECT, COMM, EAC, GROW, JRC, JUST, REGIO, 
SG, and SJ. The group met five times: 

 

 

 

 

 

06/09/2021  –  roadmap,  consultation  strategy  and  technical  specifications  for  the 

external study 

24/01/2022 - inception meeting for the external study and public consultation survey 

19/05/2022 - draft interim report of the external study 

18/10/2022 – draft final report of the external study  

21/10/2022 – draft evaluation report and way forward  

Use of evidence  

Both  internal  and  external  expertise  was  used  to  ensure  good  quality  of  the  evaluation  and 
related Staff Working Document. The main sources include: 

 

 

 

 

External study carried out by Ecorys consortium163. The study has been conducted in 
line  with  the  Request  for  Services  and  the  agreed  inception.  It  includes  all  agreed 
components  and  is  based  on  relevant  qualitative  and  quantitative  data  although  less 
quantitative information  and evidence on efficiency was included than expected. The 
analysis  and  conclusions  are  sound  while  methodology  and  limitations  are  clearly 
outlined. The lessons learnt are relevant.  

The 2022 consultations carried out as part of the evaluation Public Consultation  

The  2021  study  ‘Remuneration  of  Open-market  traineeships  in  EU-27’  by  the 
European Network of Public Employment Services, requested by the Commission 

The 2021 European Social Policy Network (ESPN) Thematic Report: Access to social 
protection for young people   

162 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13118-Quality-Framework-for-

Traineeships-review-evaluation-_en  

163Study supporting the evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (2023) 

53 

 
 
 
                                                           
 

 

 

 

 

 

The EMCO multilateral surveillance biennial review on the Youth Guarantee in 2019, 
which had a dedicated part on the quality of traineeships  

The 2016 Commission Communication ‘The Youth Guarantee and Youth Employment 
Initiative  –  three  years  on’  and  its  the  accompanying  Staff  Working  Document 
'Applying the Quality Framework for Traineeships' 

European  Commission  (2013),  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a 
Council Recommendation on a Quality Framework for traineeships (SWD(2013)495) 

European Commission, Flash Eurobarometer 378: the experience of traineeships in the 
EU, 2013 

European Commission (2012), Study on a comprehensive overview of traineeship 
arrangements in Member States. 

The 2012 Analytical document accompanying the Communication Towards a Quality 
Framework  on  Traineeships  –  Second-stage  consultation  of  the  social  partners  at 
European level under Article 154 TFEU (SWD(2012)407) 

54 

 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

1.  Approach to the evaluation and analytical models 

The evaluation was supported by an external study using mixed-method data collection approaches, combining qualitative and quantitative research methods within an 
overall  analytical  approach  guided  by  a  comprehensive  evaluation  framework.  The  objectives  and  purpose  of  the  study,  along  with  the  key  issues  it  focused  on, 
indicated the necessity of an approach able to explore processes linked to the implementation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships, as well as their effects and 
outcomes. 

(a)  Intervention logic 

During the inception phase, the intervention logic was developed by the contractor in cooperation with the Commission (DG EMPL and other services as part of the 
Interservice Group (ISG). Specifically, the intervention logic set out a high-level understanding of the rationale, inputs, activities, outputs, results and impacts of the 
QFT  and  provided  a  framework  for  a  standardised  approach  to  the  evaluation  whilst  allowing  for  flexibility  to  explore  the  individual  provisions  called  for  in  the 
QFT.  The intervention logic provides an articulation of activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts alongside paying greater attention to the causal links between them. 
This latter aspect is central to our analytical approach to the study particularly in terms of providing the basis to fully test the intervention logic and explore causality to 
determine the extent to which the QFT led to, and is responsible for, the outcomes and impacts anticipated.  

(b)  Assessing process and outcomes  

Using the intervention logics as an analytical basis for the evaluation, combined with the evaluation criteria specified in the tender specifications, provided an important 
underpinning to the required consideration of process-related themes as well as those more concerned with outcomes.  

Exploration  of  processes  linked  to  the  earlier  parts  of  the  intervention  logic,  for  example  in  exploring  the  degree  to  which  inputs  supported  the  implementation  of 
principles of the QFT in national legislation. Assessment of outcomes and impacts focused on the later stages of the intervention logic, exploring how and the extent to 
which the actions undertaken through the implementation of the QFT led to the intended immediate outputs, longer term results, and broader impacts articulated in the 
model.   

The different methodological approaches including secondary data analysis (Mapping), the consultation activities (Targeted consultations, Public consultation survey, 
Social Partners’ consultation) and the case studies provided a range of evidence that was triangulated to assess the degree to which process and outcome causal chains 
detailed in the intervention logic are supported.  

55 

 
 
 
However, as far as possible, this analytical approach needed to be complemented by an assessment of causality – i.e., the degree to which the activities implemented in 
response to the QFT have in reality led to the immediate and longer-term results they intend to generate. A range of other factors (external to the QFT) have influenced 
the results and impacts of the implementation of the QFT, including the economic context (e.g. levels of youth (un)employment, demand for skilled labour), and other 
factors, such as the Covid-19 pandemic.  

The  contractor  thus  also  adopted  a  contribution  analysis  approach  and  operationalised  the  contribution  analysis  approach  through  collating  and  assessing,  in  a 
structured way, the range of evidence gathered from the range of methodologies deployed for the key evaluation tasks.  Contribution analysis aims to build a credible 
‘performance  story’  ,  drawing  upon  the  available  sources  of  evidence  to  consider  the  extent  to  which  the  QFT,  alongside  other  factors,  contributed  towards  the 
observed outcomes. Situated within a wider theory-based evaluation approach, this is ideal for the evaluation, as it provides a way of explicitly defining and assessing 
the causal relationships and mechanisms within the intervention logic. 

(c)  Modelling and assessing costs and benefits 

As reflected in the evaluation questions (see Annex III) relating to efficiency, it was essential that the study ensured the collection and analysis of available data on 
costs and benefits of the actions associated with the implementation of the QFT. This data was captured to the extent possible through the research tools developed for 
the  different  data  collection  tasks.  The  case  studies  provided  the  opportunity  for  more  in-depth  analysis  of  costs  and  benefits  of  the  implementation  of  the 
Recommendation in selected Member States, using both qualitative and quantitative data where available. 

Conceptually and practically, it is difficult to reliably assess the potential benefits and costs associated with QFT implementation in Member States, for several reasons: 

  Benefits/costs that actors (employers, trainees, authorities) are typically aware of are those of introducing and implementing traineeships per se, rather than any 
additional  or  different  benefits/costs  due to  adapting traineeships  to  QFT  principles.  Many  stakeholders  reported that costs and  benefits  associated  with the 
QFT overlap with those of traineships in general and the QFT has not led to the emergence of new types of costs or benefits. 

  Awareness of QFT among relevant actors is low. Thus even where benefits/costs can be  identified, actors are unlikely to attribute them appropriately to the 
QFT. This is particularly true in countries, where the traineeship concept is long-established and no concrete changes have been associated with the QFT.  

  Member  States  had  traineeships  in  place  prior  to  the  QFT,  sometimes  closely  resembling  what  is  called  for  in  the  QFT.  Even  where  specific  traineeship 
developments are in line with the QFT Recommendation, most stakeholders noted that they have not monitored their effect. Hence it is not usually possible to 
identify which, if any, elements of these developments and their benefits/costs would occur anyway and which can be attributed to the QFT.  

  Moreover,  even  where  the  QFT  has  impacted  on  the  trainee  landscape,  and  specific  developments  can  be  accurately  attributed  to  the  QFT,  their  often 
qualitative  nature  (e.g.  improved  clarity  of  contractual  terms,  educational  objectives,  rights  and  obligations)  makes  it  very  difficult  for  actors  to  quantify 
associated benefits/costs. The best that can be achieved in most cases is that they can name the benefits/costs and perhaps give some qualitative assessment of 
their importance.  

A  robust estimate  of  benefits/costs  associated  with  QFT implementation requires  a study  with a  different methodology  than that  used  for  this  study.  Specifically  it 
would require (representative) quantitative data collected from the relevant actors, with a counterfactual aspect (e.g. a ‘before and after’ study of QFT implementation 

56 

 
over time). The evidence from the stakeholder consultations, trainee survey and case-studies are largely qualitative in nature. Where stakeholders stated that costs or 
benefits arose directly due to the QFT, this is stated in the text.  

(d)  Evaluation framework 

An overarching evaluation framework which guided the evaluation was developed (see Annex III).    

(e)  Evaluation criteria 

The evaluation assessed the implementation of the QFT against the five key evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value. 
An overview of these criteria in the context of this evaluation are set out in Table 1 below.  

Table 1 Overview of evaluation criteria 

57 

 
 
 
Evaluation criteria 

Overview of key issues 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

EU added value 

The assessment of effectiveness has been multi-faceted, covering the extent to which the principles of the QFT were effectively implemented (i.e. to meet 
objectives and expected results), but also how they were implemented and for which sub-groups and sectors they have been most/least beneficial. The analysis 
has examined the extent to which the QFT principles have been enshrined in and/or influenced national legislation/quality frameworks since 2014, the scope of 
such national provisions, as well as considering whether they already existed. In parallel, we have explored the existence and effectiveness of enforcement 
and/or monitoring mechanisms in ensuring adherence to the QFT/national frameworks, considering also any potential adverse effects. In addition, the evaluation 
explored the impact of QFT implementation on trainees, including their perceptions about the effectiveness of EU and/or national provisions to support quality 
traineeships in fostering sustainable labour market integration and tackling youth unemployment, and considering again any potential adverse effects. The 
effectiveness of the implementation of the QFT principles for different sub-groups and sectors within Member States was also assessed where data has allowed. 
The effectiveness and coherence (see below for the latter) of the implementation of the QFT with that of the EFQEA was compared, taking into account the 
differences in objectives and target groups. Evidence generated under all study tasks has contributed to the examination of the QFT’s effectiveness. 

The examination of efficiency has explored the degree to which the objectives of the QFT have been achieved at optimal cost for different relevant stakeholders, 
and the factors which have contributed to this, including a consideration of the use of different sources of EU and national funding. Addressing the efficiency 
has involved limited quantitative data, but has been mainly supported by qualitative data from the case studies, existing (national/regional) evaluation reports 
and data generated from the study’s targeted and public consultations. The analysis includes an assessment of the administrative burden of the implementation 
and enforcement of the QFT for different stakeholders and at different levels. It has also examined the extent to which financial incentives have been used by 
Member States to increase the prevalence of quality traineeships, and whether any such incentives included contribution from relevant EU programmes. We 
have as far as possible based on data availability identified and carried out an estimation of the benefits – and potential benefits – for young people and explored 
the existence of any further benefits for wider society. The evaluation also explored the main obstacles preventing employers from offering traineeships, and the 
type of support which would be necessary to overcome them. Bringing together the results of the different analyses, we have provided an assessment of the 
degree to which the administrative costs of the implementation of the QFT are proportionate to the identified benefits, as well its overall cost-effectiveness, and 
an assessment of the factors which influenced efficiency. Finally, the study has explored whether the identified benefits could have been achieved at lower cost, 
by reducing administrative burden without compromising benefits.  

Examining coherence implies the need to assess linkages, synergies, complementarities and potential duplication with related EU, national and regional policies, 
instruments, initiatives, and recommendations (policy and programme coherence). In the context of this study, we have explored the coherence of the objectives, 
target groups and measures to implement the QFT within ALMP traineeships and OMTs with both (a) education, training, employment and social policies, at 
national and regional level and (b) relevant EU initiatives (including the EFQEA as mentioned under effectiveness. Evidence to address the coherence criterion 
has been drawn principally from desk-based analysis of relevant texts, but also from other sources, notably the detailed Member State level case studies, as 
appropriate.   

As specified in the Better Regulations Toolbox (tool #47), assessing EU added value involves looking for changes which can reasonably be argued are due to the 
EU intervention, over and above what could have been expected from national actions by the Member States. Building on the evidence gathered and analysis 
carried out to assess the other criteria, the study team has assessed the added value of the QFT compared to what could reasonably have been expected by 
Member States acting solely at national and/or regional levels. We have also examined the likely consequences of both (a) discontinuing the QFT at EU level 
and (b) continuing the QFT as it stands (no policy change scenario). Detailed evidence from the case studies have been key for assessing the added value at 

58 

 
national level, alongside evidence available from results of the public and targeted consultations, as well as the mapping exercise. 

Relevance 

Assessment under this criterion has focused on examining the relevance of the QFT in relation to needs at several levels and from several perspectives. Firstly, 
we have assessed the degree to which the QFT principles are appropriate for fostering sustainable labour market integration, and which of the principles are most 
and least relevant in this regard. Secondly, the evaluation has explored the degree to which the QFT principles are still relevant to the main needs within the EU, 
taking into account a range of developments including the evolution of the concept of quality in traineeships over time, the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, 
the changing labour market and the current perspectives of key stakeholders. Thirdly, the assessment has considered whether any further dimensions were 
missing in the principles, and the likely impact of their inclusion on the quality of traineeships and their contribution to stable integration into the labour market. 
Finally, the study has examined the degree to which the status of the QFT as a non-binding Council Recommendation corresponded and continues to correspond 
to the needs and issues which it seeks to address. Evidence to assess relevance has been gathered through all study tasks, with a particular focus within the 
targeted consultation, mapping and case study tasks. 

2.  Detailed methodology  

In this section, we set out in detail the methodological approach used in undertaking the study supporting the evaluation. We begin with an overview of the 
methodology, followed by a detailed presentation of the methods and tools implemented for each Task. The figure below provides an overview of the study 
methodology, including the main deliverables.   

59 

 
 
Figure 1 Overview of the study methodology 

(a)  Inception phase 

(i)  Preliminary literature review 

During the inception phase, the contractor built on the review of relevant documentation carried out for the tender to undertake a wider preliminary literature review on 
the Quality Framework for Traineeships. This has laid the foundations for the subsequent Tasks of the study, with the following specific purposes:  

  To gather further evidence to substantiate the evaluation questions and support in finetuning the evaluation framework; 

  To  become  more  familiar  with  data  sources  which  will  be  used  in  the  mapping  of  the  state  of  play  of  implementation  of  the  QFT  against  the  point  of 

comparison in 2014; 

  To gather any further data from DG EMPL that is not in the public domain and that will aid the research, in particular the mapping task; 

  To support the final selection of the case study countries; 

60 

 
 
  To fine-tune the research tools, including the interview topic guides (Task 1.1), the survey trainees (Task 1.2), and the open public consultation questionnaire 

(Task 4); 

  To identify further potential consultees for the targeted consultations. 

The contractor reviewed over 100 documents in this step of the inception phase. An overview of relevant resources served as a living document throughout the study 
and was shared with national experts as a starting point for their research. ‘High’ relevance sources were used as a key input into the mapping task.  

(ii)  Scoping interviews 

The contractor conducted two scoping interviews in the inception phase as well as two consultation meetings with the High-level Advisors.  

(iii)  Estimation of prevalence of traineeships 

Comparable EU-wide statistical data on the prevalence of OMTs is lacking, which could be linked to the fact that regulatory approaches to traineeships in Member 
States vary, entailing different categorisations, rights and obligations. As part of the estimation of the prevalence of traineeships in the EU27 for the study, a scoping 
activity was undertaken to assess the advantages and disadvantages of different ways of estimating traineeship prevalence. The scoping activity focused on Eurostat 
databases due to their geographical completeness in the area of employment, unemployment, and education. The scoping resulted in the following proposed proxy.  

To provide an estimate of the number of traineeships, we used the number of students enrolled in tertiary education164 for multiplied by the activity rate165 to estimate 
the number of young people that may have completed a traineeship. This calculation was completed for the years 2014-2020; for clarity of presentation and given the 
period of time which the evaluation covers, we chose to display the timepoints in 2014 and 2020, and the evolution over that period. The number of young people 
estimated to be undertaking a traineeship was then calculated as a share of the total youth population166. 

  Rationale: Based on the study findings, the majority of trainees either are in the process of attaining or have attained tertiary education qualifications. We can 
then estimate the number of students that may do a traineeship by using the number of students in tertiary education multiplied by the activity rate for that age 
group  (i.e.  If  there  are  100,000  enrolled  students  in  tertiary  education  and  activity  rate  is  70%  we  can  assume  that  70,000  of  them  would  go  on  to  do  a 

164 

Data 

on 

the 

number 

of 

students 

enrolled 

in 

tertiary 

education[educ_uoe_enrt01] 

was 

sourced 

from: 

https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=educ_uoe_enrt01&lang=en 

165 Data on the activity rate [tepsr_wc160] was sourced from: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=tepsr_wc160&lang=en 

166 

Data 

of 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/DEMO_R_PJANGROUP__custom_2807666/default/table?lang=en 

number 

people 

20-34 

aged 

the 

on 

[DEMO_R_PJANGROUP] 

was 

sourced 

from: 

61 

 
                                                           
traineeship).  Using  data  on  the  number  of  people  aged  20-34  in  Member  State,  the  number  of  estimated  number  of  traineeships  can  be  expressed  as  a 
percentage share of the number of 20–34 year-olds to allow for comparison between Member States167.  

  Advantages: Data is largely available for EU27 and for the evaluation period. This variable corresponds well with the study preliminary findings (graduates 

from 20 to 29 years undertaking traineeships) and is straightforward to calculate. 

  Caveats  The  main  methodological  limitation  of  this  proxy  is  the  fact  that  not  all  young  people  who  undertake  open  market  traineeships  have  a  tertiary 

education meaning that the proxy does not capture traineeships of those with lower qualifications.  

(b)  Targeted consultations 

The aim of the targeted consultations was to undertake a set of interlinked targeted consultation activities to help gather the views and opinions of a wide range of 
relevant stakeholders.  

(i) 

Interview programme  

The interview programme provided one of the main sources of qualitative data for the study. The findings of the interviews were included in the triangulation of data to 
provide  answers  to  all  the  evaluation  questions  relating  to  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  QFT.  Specifically,  the 
interviews helped to examine: 

  National approaches to quality frameworks and legislation for traineeships, following the principles of the QFT; 

  The impact of implementation of the QFT on the quality of traineeships, as well as on trainees, including any adverse effects, and on youth employment; 

  The  QFT’s  relevance  to  socio-economic  policy  needs  in  the  EU,  and  coherence  with  other  EU  and  national/regional  policies  and  initiatives  on  youth 

employment, education and training, and social policies; 

  The costs and benefits associated with the implementation of the QFT for the main stakeholders involved 

  The QFT’s EU added value, and any future needs for EU level support. 

167 The choice to present the results as a percentage of the youth population is so that you can compare trends more easily between MS, as requested by the ISSG at the interim meeting. 
Comparing the raw numbers between countries is not very useful when they have such different population sizes e.g one MS might have a much higher number of traineeships 
compared to another MS, but this may be because they just have a higher population. Presenting the number as a share of the population allows you to  make better comparisons 
between countries. 

62 

 
                                                           
The interview programme also informed several other tasks of the study. It provided input to the mapping and the labour market review of traineeship offers (vacancy 
analysis). The interview programme also provided a source of evidence for the selection of and drafting of the case studies. The interview programme focused on two 
key groups of stakeholders: 

  Main  national  stakeholders  in  charge  of  designing,  implementing,  monitoring,  or  ensuring  compliance  with  legislative  and/or  quality  frameworks  in  each 
Member  State:  e.g.  (sub)-national  authorities,  public  employment  services,  social  partners,  education  and  training  providers.  This  also  includes  relevant 
stakeholders such as youth organisations and other organisations representing trainees.   

  Relevant EU level stakeholders involved in youth employment policies and funding, with a focus on traineeships. This  group included EU institutions, social 

partners, civil society organisations and other relevant organisations. 

The contractor undertook a total of 124 interviews. Of these, 18 were conducted with EU-level stakeholders (including two scoping interviews) as outlined in the table 
below. 

63 

 
Table 2  

Overview of EU level stakeholder interviews 

Organisation 

Eurochambers 

SPRINT project 

Eurofound 

Interns Go Pro 

ETUC 

ILO 

CESI Youth 

European Youth Forum 

Eurofound 

Fair Internship Initiative 

BussinesEurope 

CEDEFOP 

DG EAC 

Category  

EU level social partners 

EU-level 
people/workers rights 

organisations 

Research and academia 

EU-level 
people/workers rights 

organisations 

EU level social partners 

Research and academia 

EU level social partners 

EU-level 
people/workers rights 

organisations 

Research and academia 

EU-level 
people/workers rights 

organisations 

EU level social partners 

representing 

young 

trainees/young 

representing 

young 

trainees/young 

representing 

young 

trainees/young 

representing 

young 

trainees/young 

EU level institutions and policymakers 

EU level institutions and policymakers 

IndustrialAll European Trade Union 

MEP Semedo's office 

EU-level 
people/workers rights 

organisations 

Europan Parliament MEP 

representing 

young 

trainees/young 

DG EMPL, Directorate B 

EU level institutions and policymakers 

DG EMPL, Unit B1 

DG EMPL, Unit B3 

Source: Ecorys 2022 

EU level institutions and policymakers 

EU level institutions and policymakers 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
107  national-level  interviews  were  conducted.  National  experts  were  asked  to  conduct  up  to  five  interviews  per  Member  States.  The  following  interviews  were 
undertaken: 

Table 3 Interviews conducted on the national level 

National level 

Type of stakeholder 

Countries covered 

Number of interviews 
conducted 

National and regional ministries and government bodies 
responsible for employment or education policies 

Public Employment Services (PES) 

Employer organisations 

Trade unions 

Civil society/youth organisations 

AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, 
DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, IE, 
IT, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SI, 
SK 

BE, BG, EE, ES, HR, IT, LT, 
LU, LV, MT, RO, SE, SI, SK 

AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, 
EE, EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, IE, 
IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL 

AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EL, 
ES, FI, FR, HR, LU, LV, NL, 
PL, SI 

AT, BE, CY, EL, ES, FI, HR, 
HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, 
NL, PL, RO, SI 

Other stakeholders (e.g. research institutes; education and 
training organisations, etc.) 

AT, BG, HU, IE, LV, NL, PL, 
PT, RO 

26 

16 

22 

16 

17 

10 

Total of national level interviews 

107 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
National experts conducted the interviews on the basis of an interview guide which included questions covering all evaluation criteria, including on quantifiable costs 
and  benefits  of  implementation  of  the  QFT  for  different  stakeholders.  A  detailed  and  clear  summary  of  the  data  collected  during  the  interviews  was  gathered  in  a 
central interview grid to aid analysis. Overall, the national experts often reported difficulties in scheduling the interviews, particularly due to lack of knowledge of the 
QFT from national level stakeholders.  

(ii)  Trainee survey  

To gather a comprehensive understanding of the prevalence and quality of traineeship experiences in each Member State,  the contractor carried out an internet-based 
survey targeting the following types of respondents:    

  Current trainees: trainees that are currently completing traineeships in one of the Member States. 

  Former trainees: trainees that completed a traineeship in one of the Member States in 2014 or after.  

  Potential future trainees: young people who have not done any traineeships yet. 

The  survey  questionnaire was  translated into  all  EU official languages. The  survey  ran  from  1  March  2022  to  25  March  2022 and a  total of  3,814 responses were 
collected, out of which 3,787 answers were from EU Member States. Out of these, 1,836 were from respondents belonging to the core target group (i.e. 18-30 year olds 
with traineeship experience in EU Member States from 2014 onwards). The analysis of survey results was carried out using both quantitative (for closed answers) and 
qualitative  methods  (for  the  open  questions).  The  responses  to  the  open-ended  questions  provided  by  the  respondents  in  their  native  language  were  translated  into 
English for better interpretation.  

(iii)  Ex-ante online expert meeting 

The ex-ante online expert meeting was held on 26 April 2022 and was attended by 36 participants from the national and EU level (see Table below) to discuss national 
approaches to the implementation of the QFT as well as possible next steps for the future. The outcomes of the ex-ante online expert meeting were triangulated with 
data and information gathered through the other research activities for this study to come to the final findings. 

Table 4 Participants at the online expert meeting 

Country 

Organisation 

Role/Job title 

Austria 

Arbeiterkammer Wien 

Advisor for internships and political education 

Croatia 

Ministry of Labour, Pension System, 
Family and Social Policy 

Senior Expert Advisor in Service for EU Policies 
and Implementation of LM related Projects 

66 

 
Estonia 

Ministry of Social Affairs 

Adviser at Work and Pension Policy Department 

Finland 
Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Hungary 

Ireland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Italy 

Latvia 
Lithuania 

Lithuania 

Lithuania 

Malta 
Malta 
Malta 

Malta 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 

Confederation of Finnish Industries 
The Central Organisation of Finnish 
Trade Unions SAK 
UNML 

Senior Advisor 
Education and Labour Policy Specialist 

Chargée de mission politiques publiques jeunesse  

Ministerial Officer 

Head Of Vet Department 

Planning officer 

Work Based Learning Manager  
N/A 
Researcher 
Head of the European affairs 

Assistant 

Federal Ministry of Labour and 
Social Affairs (Germany) 
Ministry Of Labour And Social 
Affairs 
Federation of the Chemical, Energy 
and General Workers’ Unions 
Ministry for Innovation and 
Technology of Hungary 
ETBI  
Ministry of Employment 
ANPAL 
CGIL - Italian general confederation 
of labour 
Employers' Confederation of Latvia 
Lithuanian Public Employment 
Service 
Ministry of Social Security and 
Labour of the Republic of Lithuania 
Ministry of Social Security and 
Labour ofthe Republic of Lithuania 
Public Employment Service 
General Workers' Union 
Ministry for Finance and 
Employment  
Jobsplus 
Jobsplus 
SBB 
Ministry of Family and Social Policy  Chief expert 

Sub-project manager 
Head of Measures Implementation Organization 
Division 
Adviser at Labour market group unit 

Advisor of Labour Market Group 

Head of Division 
Secretary General  
Director Policy Development and Programme 
Implementation 
Department Manager Training Services 
Head of Division 
Policy Advisor 

67 

 
Romania 
Romania 
Romania 

Slovak 
Republic 
Slovenia 
Spain 

Spain 

Spain 

EU level 

EU level 

EU level 

National Agency for Employment 
CNSLR Fratia 
Ministry of Labour and Social 
Solidarity 
Confederation of trade unions in 
Slovakia (KOZ SR) 
Sindikat Mladi plus (trade union) 
Spanish Confederation of 
Employers´Organizations 
CCOO 

SEPE - Employement Services 
Ministry Of Labour-Spain 
European Youth Forum 

Inspector 
Youth President 
Head of Employment Unit 

International Secretary 

president 
Senior Advisor 

International And Youth Secretariats On FSS-
CCOO 
Head of Unit at Employment Services 

Policy and Advocacy Manager 

ETUC - European Trade Union 
Confederation  
European Youth Forum 

Policy adviser  

Policy Officer 

EU level 

Eurochambres 

Senior Policy Advisor 

(iv)  Online validation workshop 

The online validation workshop was held on 20 September 2022 and attended by 36 experts, the Commission (DG EMPL) and Ecorys research team (see table below). 
Participants were sent an input paper in advance outlining the key findings and lessons learned of the study. During the workshop participants provided feedback on the 
findings which was used as evidence to finalise the study’s findings and the lessons learned. Following the workshop, written inputs were received from two 
participants, SME United and Business Europe.  

Table 5 Participants at the validation workshop 

Country 

Organisation 

Role/Job Title 

Austria 

Federal Chamber of Labor / 

Education Policy Advisor 

68 

 
 
Belgium 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Estonia 

Arbeiterkammer 
Ministry of Education, Netherlands 
VDAB 
Confederation of Danish Employers 
Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund 

education attach'e 
Expert work based learning 
Senior Advisor  
Service Manager (Employer Services) 

Estonia 

Eesti Tööandjate Keskliit /Estonian 
Employers´Confederation 

haridusnõunik/ education adviser 

Estonia 

Ministry of Social Affairs 

Head of ALMPs 

Greece 
Hungary 

Ministry of Labour and Social affairs 
Ministry for Technology and Industry 

Head of vet department  
planning officer 

Hungary 

Hungary 
Italy 

Ifjúsági Paktum Egyesület (Pact for Youth 
Association) 
Pact for Youth Association 
Confindustria 

Project assistant 

president  
Education Adviser 

Italy 

Confartigianato Imprese 

Policy Advisor 

Lithuania 

The Ministry of Social Security and 
Labour of the Republic of Lithuania 

Lithuania 
Malta 

Ministry of Social Security and Labour 
Ministry for Finance and Employment 

Malta 

Ministry for Finance and Employment 

Advisor ogf the Labour Market 
Group/National Youth Guarantee 
Coordinator  
Adviser 
Director, Policy Development and 
Programme Implementation 
Manager I 

Malta 
Malta 

Jobsplus 
MTRM  

Head of Division 
CEO 

69 

 
Netherlands  UWV/NCO EURES 

Business Adviser 

Netherlands 
Portugal 

Romania 

SBB 
 Employment and Vocacional Training 
Institute (Public Employment Service) 
CNSLR Fratia 

Romania 

Ministry of Labour and Social Solidarity 

Romania 

Public Employment Service 

Spain 

Spain 

Spain 
Spain 
Spain 

Spain 

Spain 

EU 
EU 
EU 
EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

SPANISH CONFEDERATION OF 
EMPLOYERS ORGANIZATIONS 

Ministry of Universities 

UGT Spain 
Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal 
Inspección de Trabajo y Seguridad Social 
(Labour and Social Security Inspectorate) 

ANECA - National Agency for Quality 
Assessment and Accreditation 
ANECA - National Agency for Quality 
Assessment and Accreditation 
SMEunited 
Eurofound 
BusinessEurope 
ETUC, European Trade Union 
Confederation 
European Youth Forum 

European Youth Forum 

Eurochambres 

Adviser 
Jurist 

President Youth Commission 

Head of Employment Policies and Social 
Economy Unit, Employment Policies, 
Competences and Professional Mobility 
Directorate 
Deputy Director 

Senior Advisor 

Deputy Director General for Students' 
support and Institutional Relations 
Project Manager 
Spanish Youth Guarantee Coordinator 
Inspector 

N/A 

Project officer 

Policy Adviser 
Research manager 
Senior Adviser 
Adviser 

Policy and Advocacy Manager | Youth 
Rights 
Policy Officer | Social and Economic 
Inclusion 
Director 

70 

 
EU 

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung 

Policy Officer 

(c)  Mapping  

The mapping aimed to:  

  Present the situation in each of the 27 EU Member States since 2014 as regards traineeship quality and QFT implementation  

  Present a clustering/grouping of Member States as regards traineeship quality and QFT implementation 

In order to achieve this, the research team developed an analytical framework covering two aspects of QFT implementation: 1) implementation of specific principles of 
the QFT in national legislation/frameworks for traineeships; and 2) implementation of the QFT on the ground as detailed below. 

1.  Implementation  of  specific  principles  of  the  QFT  in  national  legislation/frameworks  for  traineeships.  To  assess  the  degree  to  which  the  QFT  has  been 
implemented  in  national  legislation  and  frameworks,  the  team  compiled  a  standardised  list  of  the  QFT  principles  which  can  be  directly  implemented  into  national 
legislation/frameworks on traineeships in Member States. These are the principles that refer to standards and rights of  trainees and/or the obligations of traineeship 
providers, that can be ‘transposed’ into legislative and regulatory frameworks on the national and regional level. The list consists of 12 principles as follows:  

1.  Traineeships are based on a written agreement 

2.  Written agreements indicate educational objectives, working conditions, whether an allowance or compensation is provided and  how much, rights/obligations 

of all parties, duration  

3.  Tasks allow the trainee to work towards their learning and training objectives 

4.  Traineeship providers assign a supervisor for the trainee 

5.  Trainees'  rights  and  working  conditions  under  applicable  law  are  respected  including  limits  to  max  weekly  working  time,  weekly  rest  periods,  minimum 

holiday entitlements 

6.  Traineeship providers clarify if they provide trainees with health and accident insurance and sick leave 

7.  The written agreement clarifies if the trainee is entitled to an allowance or compensation, and the amount. 

8.  Traineeship providers include in their vacancies information on the conditions of the traineeship 

9.  The duration of the traineeship does not exceed six months, except when justified 

10.  The conditions for an extension or renewal of the traineeship are clarified 

11.  The written agreement includes information on how the trainee/ traineeship provider can terminate the traineeship  

71 

 
 
 
12.  The knowledge, skills and competences acquired by the trainee are recognised by the traineeship provider through an assessment and a certificate 

2. Implementation of the QFT on the ground: this refers to the degree to which the QFT principles – regardless of whether or not they are adequately implemented 
in legislation – are actually applied to traineeships taking place in practice.  

On the basis of this analytical framework, the mapping was then conducted in four stages which are further detailed in the sections that follow. 

(i)  Desk research at the national level  

This subtask was designed to provide a foundation of evidence on both implementation of the QFT in national legislation and implementation of the QFT on the 
ground, which was then triangulated with findings from the consultation tasks outlined above.  

National experts identified and analysed national sources, mainly relevant statistics and indicators; relevant legislation; national traineeship quality frameworks and 
monitoring mechanisms; evaluation reports, impact assessments, experts’ opinions, and other relevant academic and grey literature. The national experts gathered 
secondary data available at the national level, expanding on the evidence available at the EU level. Two briefing sessions were organised for the national experts in 
February 2021. During these sessions, the Ecorys team outlined the research aims and methodology, and presented the template to be used for national mapping, 
structured.  

(ii)  Labour market review of traineeship vacancies 

The main goal was to contribute to the evidence base for assessing the implementation of the QFT on the ground by checking the current quality of traineeship 
vacancies in each Member State through primary data collection.  

The contractor analysed the alignment of current traineeship vacancies with the principles of the QFT which can be implemented through national legislation and/or 
quality  frameworks  governing  traineeships  (see  Table  6  below).  The  analysis  of  traineeship  vacancies  thus  focused  on  three  main  areas:  the  transparency  of  the 
vacancy, the duration of the traineeship and the working conditions set out in the vacancy.  

72 

 
Table 6.  The labour market review: overview of the QFT principles which can be implemented through national legislation and/or quality frameworks governing traineeships 

implemented 

Areas of alignment with the 
QFT  principles  which  can 
be 
through 
national  legislation  and/or 
frameworks 
quality 
governing traineeships 

The  principles  of  the  QFT 
  which 
Recommendation 
implemented 
be 
can 
through  national  legislation 
and/or  quality  frameworks 
governing traineeships  

TRANSPARENCY 

DURATION 

of the traineeship vacancy 

of the traineeship  

Written agreement 

Duration of the traineeship 

Conditions for an extension 
the 
or 
traineeship 

renewal 

of 

Insurance: 
accident and sick leave 

health, 

for 

or 
Allowance 
compensation 
the 
work;  and  the  amount  of 
or 
allowance 
the 
compensation 

about 
Information 
recruitment 
policies, 
including  the  share  of  the 
trainees in recent years 

WORKING CONDITIONS 

described  in  the  traineeship 
vacancy 

Range  of  responsibilities  of 
the trainee 

Working time limits 

Minimum 
entitlements 

holiday 

Assigned  supervisor  for  the 
trainee 

Learning 
objectives of the trainee 

and 

training 

provider  will 
Traineeship 
provide  a  certificate  upon 
completion of the traineeship 

Source: Ecorys, 2022 
The initial aim was to review up to 2700  traineeship vacancies. However, a number of obstacles eventually made the achievement of this impossible. The biggest 
challenge has been the collection of ALMP traineeship offers. The research team faced problems with the availability of data, and data sources in Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Spain. In response, during the data collection phase, we implemented 
three additional steps to collect the missing data, following consultation and support from DG EMPL. The research showed that a number of countries (BG, HR, CY, 
CZ, DE, EE, HU, LV, LT, MT, RO, ES) either do not have a dedicated portal with ALMP traineeship offers or such vacancies are not publicly available because 
traineeships are internally managed by regional and national PES. These circumstances translated into an overall lower number of analysed vacancies in several 
countries. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Despite  these  challenges,  we  collected  and  analysed  1,972  traineeship  offers  in  27  EU  Member  States:  1,272  open  market  traineeship  vacancies  and  700  ALMP 
traineeship  vacancies.  In  the  final  phase  of  this  sub-task,  after  triangulation  by  the  core  research  team  and  final  review  by  the  national  experts,  a  total  of  1,696 
vacancies offers were included in the final analysis: 996 open market and 700 ALMP traineeships.  

Each principle was assessed separately with a percentage scoring indicating the share of vacancies that addressed the principle. An average across all scores was then 
calculated to obtain an overall assessment of the degree of implementation of the QFT principles in traineeship vacancies. Based on this, each country was scored as 
follows:  

  High: If a country obtains more than 88% average score in review criteria  

  Moderate: If a country obtains 65 – 87% average score in review criteria  

  Low: If a country obtains 31 – 64% average score in review criteria 

  Very low: If a country obtains 0 – 30% average score in review criteria 

The number of analysed vacancies were deemed sufficient to investigate to what extent vacancies are aligned with the QFT.  

(iii)  Analysis of QFT implementation and traineeship quality at the national level 

In order to bring together the findings of the research on degree of implementation of the QFT in national legislation and degree of implementation of the QFT on the 
ground, Ecorys prepared an assessment template consisting of three sections. The template was presented, discussed and approved by the High-Level Advisors during 
several consultations and completed by national experts throughout the research process from February to May 2022. The Ecorys team provided guidance and support 
in solving methodological and other research problems.  

The assessment template consisted of the following sections, each of which contributed to the overall assessment of the degree of implementation of the QFT in each 
Member State.  

Section A: Overview of the country situation in terms of traineeships, including information on the overall regulatory framework of both ALMP and open market 
traineeships in the country, an assessment of the evolution of the prevalence of traineeships in the country since 2014. 

Section  B:  Implementation  of  the  QFT  in  national  legislation:  this  was  structured  by  principle  and  covered  each  of  the  12  principles  of  the  QFT  that  can  be 
implemented  in  national  legislation.  A  separate  asessment  grid  was  included  for  ALMP  and  open  market  traineeships.  National  experts  had  to  assess  degree  of 
implementation in national legislation of each principle and assign a score: Fully/mostly implemened; Partially implemented; Not implemented; Not applicable. 

On the basis of the scores for each principle, national experts assigned an overall score on degree of implementation of the QFT in national legislation as follows:  

  Fully/mostly implemented: 10 or more  principles out of 12 implemented in national legislation 

  Partially implemented: 6 to 9 principles out of 12 fully or partally implemented in national legislation 

  Modestly implemented: 3 to 5 principles out of 12 fully or partally implemented in national legislation 

74 

 
  Not implemented: 2 or fewer principles out of 12  fully or partally mplemented in national legislation 

  Not applicable: if none of the QFT's principles are  implemented because this type of traineeship does not exist in the country.  

Section C: Implementation of the QFT on the ground. The third section of the assessment framework included three assessment areas as follows: 

1.  Results of the labour market review of traineeship vacancies: National experts were asked to and validate the findings of the labour market. They were able 
to revise the scoring for their country based on evidence found during other research tasks (national interviews, desk research) but had to justify this revision 
with the relevant evidence.  

2.  Obstacles to implementation of the QFT principles in traineeships on the ground: National experts were asked to identify any obstacles to implementing 

quality traineeships on the ground faced particularly by traineeship providers.  

3.  Degree of impact of the the QFT on the ground: National experts were asked to assess the degree of impact of the QFT on trainees, based on the interview 

findings, desk research and any relevant results from the trainee survey. Specifically they were asked to assess: 

o  Whether there are sectors or subgroups for which the QFT is less effective 

o  Whether there is evidence of the QFT/quality traineeships increasing stable labour market integration since 2014 

On the basis of these three assessment areas, national experts made an overall assessment of the degree of implementation of the QFT on the ground:  

  High:  There  is  a  high  quality  of  vacancies,  lack  of  obstacles  to  QFT  implementation  on  the  ground,  and  evidence  of  positive  QFT/traineeship  impact  on 

trainees and society  

  Moderate: There is a moderate or low quality of vacancies, some obstacles to QFT implementation on the ground, but evidence of positive QFT/traineeship 

impact on trainees and society  

  Low There is a moderate or low quality of vacancies, some obstacles to QFT implementation on the ground, and weak evidence of positive QFT/traineeship 

impact on trainees and society 

  Very  low:  There  is  a  weak  quality  of  vacancies,  major  obstacles  to  QFT  implementation  on  the  ground,  and  evidence  of  low  or  negative  QFT  impact  on 

trainees and society 

The scores from sections B and C of the assessment template therefore present a final assessment of the implementation of the QFT which was used to establish how 
the situation on traineeships has evolved since 2014.   

(iv)  Comparative analysis and clustering of 27 EU Member States 

The contractor conducted a comparative analysis of the implementation of the QFT in national legislation and the implementation of the QFT on the ground in EU 
Member States. The contractor then clustered EU countries according to this comparison into five distinct groups with similar trends and approaches to QFT 
implementation.  

75 

 
(d)  Case studies 

Seven case studies were undertaken, examining in-depth the implementation of the QFT in the following countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, 
Spain. The methodological approach for developing the seven case studies was based on the triangulation of evidence using: 

  Available  quantitative  data  (including  proxies)  at  national/regional  level  on  traineeship  uptake,  including  country-specific  contexts  and  detailed  2014-21 

trends. The analysis of quantitative data also considered the information collected from the targeted consultations (Task 1) and the mapping (Task 2); 

  A  complete  analysis of  available  qualitative  data  through  desk  research,  providing  insight  into  ongoing  debates  on the quality  framework  for  traineeships 

within Member States and further contextual data and information, building on from the research conducted during the mapping (Task 2). 

  Qualitative  data  based  on  four  to  five  individual  in-depth  interviews  with  relevant  stakeholders  depending  on  the  country  context  (e.g.  implementing 

organisations and social partners, such as trade unions, employer organisations, PES, etc.); 

  Focus groups to explore the experience of trainees participating in specific programmes. These were undertaken in Bulgaria, Ireland and Spain.  

The case study template was drafted by the core research team at inception phase and revised following the interim report meeting. Revisions to the case study template 
were focused on gathering evidence on aspects of the study where data gaps remained, in particular:  

  Quantitative evidence on the costs and benefits of implementing the QFT/quality traineeships. For the purposes of this, our high level economist was consulted 

and additional guidance was provided to the national experts on how to gather quantitative information on costs and benefits.  

  Evidence on cross-border traineeships and their prevalence in the Member State 

  Evidence on the extent to which traineeships are/are considered to replace regular entry-level jobs for young people 

The final case study reports were drafted on the basis of all evidence gathered on implementation of the QFT in each country throughout the whole study. The case 
studies provided key evidence to underpin and validate the study findings.  

(e)  Public consultation 

The European Commission published a public consultation on the Council Recommendation on a Quality Framework for Traineeships (QFT) on 23 March 2022 on its 
website Have your say. The consultation remained open until 13 June 2022. The consultation targeted all citizens, and in particular young people who have already 
done a traineeship or who are interested in doing one, and traineeship providers, as well as organisations representing young people, social partners, PES, public 
administration, civil society, businesses, academia, and researchers, along with organisations offering traineeships.  

76 

 
The survey included closed and open-ended questions that were filtered and routed, where necessary, to tailor the relevance of the survey to each stakeholder group. 
The survey was available in the 24 official languages of the EU. 

(i)  Methodology for analysing the results  

The research team analysed the results of the public consultation. Respondents’ views were examined through a combination of closed questions and open-ended 
questions. Closed questions provided respondents with either different pre-set categorical answers from which to choose (e.g. the extent to which the principles of the 
QFT have been implemented in their country or at the EU level, the contribution of the QFT to specific benefits at the national and EU level), or asked them to rate the 
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and relevance of the QFT and/or actions implemented in response to it. 

The analysis of results was carried out using both quantitative (to analyse the frequencies of the closed answers) and qualitative methods (for the open questions, in 
order to analyse complex concepts as well as to substantiate and interpret the quantitative data with relevant insights). In addition, the research team categorised the 
responses through a range of relevant typologies (type of respondent, types of organisations).  

(ii)  Quantitative analysis (closed questions) 

The quantitative data analysis included an analysis of frequency distribution for each of the variables related to the closed-ended questions. Depending on the particular 
variable, all of the data values were represented. Frequency distributions were also depicted as graphs (histograms) as applicable. Cross-tabulations between specific 
variables and characteristics of respondents (e.g. type of stakeholder categories, type of respondent) were also conducted, where possible, though the low number of 
responses has limited the possibilities for this. The responses to the closed questions of the questionnaire were analysed using Excel and R. The statistical significance 
of the differences observed could not be further tested due to the low number of responses received.  

(iii)  Qualitative analysis (open questions) 

As a first step, the answers related to open-ended questions were translated by the research team. With respect to qualitative data analysis, information was classified by 
related variable (number of question) and analysed to identify additional relevant information and trends. The information was used to enrich the analysis carried out on 
quantitative data. Such information is reflected in the report through the inclusion of examples which help to illustrate key issues or trends at EU and national level 
identified in the quantitative analysis. 

(iv)  Interpretation of results 

77 

 
The questionnaire was structured in a way that all the respondents had to fill in the descriptive section covering background information related to themselves, while 
the questions in the main sections differed according to the stakeholder category to which the respondent belongs. Each question was analysed separately in order to 
ensure a consistent analysis of the responses. The factual summary of the results was published on Have Your Say168. 

(v)  Respondents to the public consultation 

The  public  consultation  received  259  contributions,  with  the  majority  coming  from  Poland  (37%)  and  Spain  (20%).  There  is  a  big  discrepancy  in  national 
representation, with only one response registered for at least a third of Member States which could decrease the quality of findings.  

3.  Summary of limitations and mitigation measures 

There  were  a  number  of  specific  limitations  associated  with  the  scope  and  coverage  of  the  research,  the  quality  of  available  data  and  the  methodology  that  was 
developed, given the constraints of the available resources for the study. These limitations were taken into account in the design and implementation of the study as 
outlined in the Table below. 

Table 7 -  Key limitations of the research 

Limitation/challenge 

Explanation 

Mitigation measures taken 

Lack  of  existing  solid  secondary  evidence 
on 
traineeship  prevalence,  quality  and 
impact  on  young  people’s  transition  to  the 
labour market 

Due in part to the diversity of definitions of traineeships, as well as the range – 
and sometimes absence – of regulatory approaches to traineeships in Member 
States, there is a lack of solid evidence on traineeships in Europe. Firstly, there 
is no comparable EU-wide statistical data on the prevalence of open market 
traineeships. Data is not collected at the EU level on participation in open 
market traineeships, meaning that it is hard to reliably quantify the prevalence 
of traineeships in Member States, and understand which target groups are 
undertaking them. Several EU studies have used proxy indicators, but these do 
not provide a thorough scientific understanding. Data on ALMP traineeships is 
more readily available through ALMP participation data from Public 
Employment Services, yet this is not necessarily specific to traineeships, as the 
types of action defined do not include a separate ‘traineeship’ category, but 
rather a ‘training’ one.  

research 

This  challenge  was  addressed  in  several  ways.  Firstly,  the 
preliminary  literature  review  during  the  inception  phase 
allowed to identify relevant cross-country research on which 
efforts  were  built  with 
relevant 
further 
documentation  on 
level. 
traineeships  at 
However,  given  that  this  data  is  not  available  for  each 
Member State and is not comparable across Member States, 
the contractor undertook a quantitative analysis using a proxy 
variable  to  provide  an  estimate  of  traineeship  prevalence 
across  EU  Member  States  and  how  this  has  evolved  since 
2014.   

the  national 

168 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13118-Quality-Framework-for-Traineeships-review-evaluation-/public-consultation_en 

78 

 
 
 
                                                           
Diversity 
traineeships across Member States 

regulatory  approaches 

in 

to 

Linked  to  the  challenge  on  data  availability  is  the  fact  that  regulatory 
approaches  to  traineeships  in  Member  States  hugely  vary.  This  makes  it 
challenging to compare the degree to which regulation in response to the QFT 
Recommendation has been implemented, as well as to assess compliance and 
enforcement. 

involved 
Diversity  of 
implementing traineeships and the QFT 

stakeholders 

in 

for 

implementation  of 

its 
Responsibility 
implementation into national law, enforcement and monitoring - can lie with a 
range of national authorities depending on the existing regulatory framework, 
and  the  structure  and  roles  of  the  labour  market  institutions  in  different 
Member States. This means that it is not easy to identify the main interlocutor 
at the national level for the implementation of the Recommendation. 

in  particular, 

the  QFT 

- 

To address this, the mapping included a specifc legal review 
and analysis on the degree to which the QFT principles have 
been  integrated  into  national  legislation/frameworks  and 
examine the enforcement/monitoring measures in place. This 
was  undertaken  by  national  experts  and  reviewed  by  legal 
experts  in  each  Member  State,  and  was  triangulated  with 
findings  from  the  consultation  tasks  undertaken  on  the 
national level to ensure a precise and reliable understanding 
of the regulatory frameworks and degree of integration of the 
QFT  in  these  frameworks  for  analysis  of  the  effectiveness, 
relevance and efficiency of the QFT.  

The  contractor  addressed  this  challenge  through  a  extensive 
consultation  programme 
  in  which  the  research  team 
interviewed  a  diversity  of  actors,  as  relevant  to  the  specific 
institutional  and  legal  setup  in  that  country.  The  contractor 
also  utilised  any  EU-level  entry  points  into  identifying 
relevant  national  stakeholders,  with  the  support  of  DG 
EMPL, in particular reaching out to the PES Network and the 
Youth Guarantee Coordinators in each Member State.  

Gathering the views of traineeship providers 

Implementation  of  the  QFT  also  relies  on  traineeship  providers  themselves 
who  are  ultimately  responsible  for offering  quality  traineeships  that  abide by 
the  principles  of  any  QFT-related  legislation  in place  in  each  Member  State. 
Traineeships  are  provided  by  a  wide  range  of  employers  and  organisations– 
from public and private to third sector organisations. 

The contractor engaged with the PES on ALMP traineeships 
during our consultation activities.  

79 

 
 
 
Lack  of  quantifiable  evidence  on  costs  and 
benefits of QFT implementation 

Analysis  of  the  efficiency  of  the  QFT  is  hampered  by  a  lack  of  quantifiable 
data on benefits and costs, and an absence of monitoring of the effects of its 
implementation.  Conceptually  and  practically,  it  is  very  difficult  to  reliably 
assess the potential benefits and costs associated with QFT implementation in 
Member States, for several reasons: 

  Benefits/costs  that  actors  (employers,  trainees,  authorities)  are 
typically  aware  of  are  those  of  introducing  and  implementing 
traineeships  per  se,  rather 
than  any  additional  or  different 
benefits/costs due to adapting traineeships to QFT principles. Many 
stakeholders  reported  that  costs  and  benefits  associated  with  the 
QFT  overlap  with  those  of  traineships  in  general  and  the  QFT  has 
not led to the emergence of new types of costs or benefits. 

  Awareness of QFT  among relevant actors is low. Thus even  where 
benefits/costs can be identified, actors are unlikely to attribute them 
appropriately  to  the  QFT.  This  is  particularly  true  in  countries, 
where  the  traineeship  concept  is  long-established  and  no  concrete 
changes have been associated with the QFT, as in the Austrian case-
study, for example: “Given that the QFT has not led to any directly 
attributable implementation measures, no data on benefits or costs is 
available.”  

  Member  States  had  traineeships  in  place  prior  to  the  QFT,  often 
closely  resembling  what  is  called  for  in  the  QFT.  Even  where 
specific  traineeship  developments  are  in  line  with  the  QFT 
Recommendation,  most  stakeholders  noted  that  they  have  not 
monitored  their  effect.  Hence  it  is  not  usually  possible  to  identify 
which, 
their 
benefits/costs  would  occur  anyway  and  which  can  be  attributed  to 
the QFT.  

these  developments  and 

if  any,  elements  of 

  Moreover,  even  where  the  QFT  has  impacted  on  the  trainee 
landscape, and specific developments can be accurately attributed to 
the  QFT,  their  often  qualitative  nature  (e.g.  improved  clarity  of 
contractual  terms,  educational  objectives,  rights  and  obligations) 
to  quantify  associated 
for  actors 
makes 
benefits/costs.  The  best  that  can  be  achieved  in  most  cases  is  that 
they can name the benefits/costs and perhaps give some qualitative 
assessment of their importance.  

it  very  difficult 

80 

The contractor addressed this challenge throughout the study 
research tasks through the following actions: 

  By adapting the case study templates and the case 
study  interview  guides  to  add  additional  questions 
on  quantifying  costs  and  benefits  following  the 
feedback received at interim phase. 

  The  contractor  drafted  and  provided  additional 
guidance  to  the  national  experts  conducting  the 
interviews  and  the  case  study  research  on  how  to 
gather costs and benefits data, in consultation with 
our labour economist.  

  The contractor consulted regularly with our labour 
economist  to  explore  all  possible  options  for 
quantifying  costs  and  benefits  and  ensure  that  the 
research  tools  were  asking  the  right  questions  to 
gather this data.  

  Targeted    questions  on  costs  and  benefits  were 
asked  at  the  expert  meeting  and  at  the  validation 
workshop. 

  The  contractor  followed  up  with  EU  employer 
organisations  encouraging  them  to  submit  written 
input  to  the  evaluation  study,  which  they  did  and 
were  used  in  the  analysis  of  costs  and  benefits  to 
the extent possible and useful.  

Despite  the  challenges,  analysed  the  evidence  from  the 
stakeholder  consultations,  trainee  survey  and  case-studies 
which, taken together, provide a picture of benefits and costs, 
though largely qualitative in nature.  

 
 
Low level of  awarenss of the QFT amongst 
stakeholders 

Throughout the consultation tasks, it became clear that there is a low level of 
awareness of the QFT amongst different relevant stakeholders, including PES, 
representatives from Ministries of Labour/Education, employer representatives 
on  the  national  level,  trade  union  representatives  on  the  national  level  and 
individual  traineeship providers.  

The  contractor  developed  an  information  sheet  on  the  QFT, 
explaining the objectives of the QFT, outlining the principles 
and the main actors involved in its implementation. This was 
shared  with  every  stakeholder  consulted  on  the  EU  and  the 
national level throughout all consultation tasks.  

81 

 
 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX  

Evaluation 
criteria 

Main research questions (as 
specified in the tender 
specifications) 

Sub-questions 

Potential judgement criteria / indicators 

Current 
situation and 
developments 
2014 - 2021  

1.  What are the most common 
characteristics of trainees 
across the 27 Member States 
(e.g. sex, age, education 
background, socioeconomic 
background, migrant 
background, ethnic minority 
status)? How have these 
developed since the baseline 
of 2014?  

2.  What is the current 

prevalence of traineeships 
across the 27 Member States? 
In which sectors are they most 
prevalent and what are the 
typical working conditions 
(e.g. ALMP versus open 
market, duration, 
remuneration, social 
protection coverage)? How 
has all of this developed since 
the baseline of 2014?  

How have the characteristics of trainees evolved across 
the 27 Member States? since 2014? How can this be 
explained? 

What is the state of play of the  legislative implementation 
of the QFT Recommendation overall and, as far as 
possible, by MS and sector? How has it evolved since 
2014? 

What is the state of play of the practical implementation of 
the QFT Recommendation overall and, as far as possible, 
by MS and sector? How has it evolved since 2014? 

What is the prevalence of traineeships across the 27 EU 
Member States and how has this evolved since 2014?? 
What proportions of young people take up this 
opportunity? 

In which sectors/occupations/types of employers (e.g. 
SMEs vs. large companies) are traineeships most and least 

82 

Numbers of trainees across all EU27 Member States: 

a) 

b) 

disaggregated  by  sex,  age,  educational  background,  socioeconomic  status,  migrant background  and  ethnic 
minority status, where possible 
broken down by year (2014-2021) 

Comparison of numbers of trainees with the characteristics of the overall population of young people (e.g. proportions 
of male/female trainees or those with migrant background compared to those in the overall population) 

Qualitative evidence (stakeholder consultations, desk research) on the evolution of the profile of trainees over time and 
the reasons for the evolution  

Comparison of trainee characteristics across Member States 

Numbers of trainees across the EU27, currently and over time (since 2014) 

Shares of young people taking up traineeship opportunities, currently and over time (since 2014) 

Estimates on the prevalence of traineeships in different sectors, currently and over time (since 2014),  

Evidence from the mapping and case studies on types of employers offering traineeships. 

Prevalence of types of working conditions of traineeships, currently and over time (since 2014) 

Qualitative evidence (stakeholder consultations, desk research) on the underlying reasons for the evolutions in the 
numbers and types of traineeships over time (since 2014) 

Comparative analysis across Member States 

 
 
 
  
 
prevalent and how has this evolved since 2014? Why?   

What are the typical working and learning conditions of 
traineeships? To what extent is remuneration offered? 
How have the conditions evolved since 2014? 

3.  What is the public debate 

across the 27 Member States, 
if any, about the role of 
traineeships and the 
importance of their quality for 
young people (political, civil 
society, representations of 
young people)? How has it 
developed since the baseline 
of 2014?  

To what degree is there public debate on the quality of 
traineeships and how has this evolved since 2014?? 

Which stakeholders are expressing opinions on the quality 
of traineeships (civil society, politicians, policymakers, 
representatives of young people, employers/business, 
training providers or their representatives, social 
partners)? To what degree do views differ according to 
different types of stakeholders? 

4.  To what extent are the 

principles appropriate for 
fostering stable labour 
market integration? Which 
principles are likely to be the 
most and the least important? 

To what degree are the QFT principles appropriate for 
fostering stable labour market integration?  Which 
principles make the most/least important contribution to 
fostering sustainable labour market integration? Why? 

Existence/non-existence of public debate on the role and quality of traineeships and nature of differences across 
Member States 

Analysis of the sentiment expressed (positive/negative views) in the public debate on the role and quality of 
traineeships 

Overview of the key stakeholders engaged in public debate (e.g. civil society, politicians, policymakers, representatives 
of young people, employers/business, training providers or their representatives, social partners) and any marked 
differences of opinion  

Overview of the key topics, views and focus of public debate in the 27 Member States 

Nature of the evolution in public debate over time (overall increase/decrease, increase in positive/negative views, etc.) 

Qualitative evidence (stakeholder consultations, desk research) on the reasons for the evolution of over time 

Positive/negative views from stakeholders and literature on the appropriateness of the principles for fostering stable 
labour market integration 

Positive/negative views from stakeholders and literature on the most/least important principles for fostering stable 
labour market integration 

Analysis of concrete evidence and examples (where available) from the case studies (and/or existing evaluations) of the 
implementation of specific principles having a particularly important role in stable labour market integration of trainees 

Evaluative judgement based on evidence collated on the alignment of the principles, and the most/least important 
principles, for fostering stable labour market integration 

Relevance 

5.  Has the understanding of 

traineeship quality evolved 
over time? How well do the 
principles of the QFT still 
correspond to the needs 
within the EU? How well 
adapted is the QFT to a post-
COVID-19 world, a changing 
labour market and the latest 
perspectives of stakeholders 
and citizens?  

Has the understanding of the importance and nature of 
quality in traineeships evolved over time? If so, how and 
why? What differences exist between Member States or 
groups of Member States? Why? 

Existence/non-existence of changes in the understanding in traineeship quality over time 

Existence/non-existence and types of differences between Member States 

To what degree do the QFT principles still correspond to 
needs within the EU? Why? 

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders and literature) on the degree to which the QFT principles correspond to 
existing EU needs and concerns of stakeholders, and are adapted to recent developments 

To what extent do the QFT principles respond to the 
concern that traineeships may be used to replace regular 
employment for young people?  

To what extent and how is the QFT adapting to 

83 

Evaluative judgement based on evidence collated and expert opinion on the evolution of the understanding of 
traineeships, the degree to which the principles have corresponded to needs and continue to evolve to meet new needs 
in the light of key contextual changes (Covid-19, evolving labour market, new perspectives of stakeholders). 

 
 
 
 
developments including the impact of the Covid-19 
pandemic and the changing labour market? 

To what degree is the QFT aligned with the current 
perspectives of stakeholders and individual citizens?  

6.  Are there any additional 

dimensions that should have 
been added to the principles 
from the start or have in the 
interim proven to be lacking? 
How – and how likely – would 
such additions add to quality 
traineeships, and, in turn, their 
contribution to a stable labour 
market integration?  

Are there any dimensions or elements that should have 
been added to the QFT principles from the start or have 
since been shown to be lacking? If so which and why? 

To what extent would a principle related to remuneration 
of trainees improve the quality of traineeships? Would 
there be any adverse effects of such a principle? 

What contributions would such new elements be likely to 
make to improving the quality of traineeships and stable 
labour market integration?  

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders and literature) on elements missing from the principles and views on potential 
new additions 

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders and literature) on contributions of new elements of the principles to improving 
the quality of traineeships and subsequent stable labour market integration 

Evaluative judgement based on evidence collated and expert opinion on dimensions missing from the current 
principles, potential new additions, and the potential impact of any changes to the principles 

7.  With due respect to the 

principle of subsidiarity, how 
well does the nature of the 
QFT as a (non-binding) 
Council Recommendation 
correspond to the needs and 
the socio-economic problems 
to be solved? Has this changed 
over time, and are their 
significant differences 
between Member States?  

8.  To what extent have the 

principles of the QFT been 
enshrined in national 
legislation and/or national 
quality frameworks since 
2014? To what extent did they 
already exist? What is the 
scope of current national 
legislative frameworks and 
national quality frameworks? 

Effectiveness 

To what extent does the QFT’s status as a non-binding 
framework correspond to the needs and socio-economic 
problems to be tackled? 

Has this changed over time and in light of any evolutions 
in needs or changes in the socio-economic context? 

What differences exist between Member States and why?  

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders and literature) on the appropriateness of the non-binding status of the QFT for 
meeting needs and resolving problems 

Analysis of the nature of the evolution of perspectives over time 

Analytical overview of differences between Member States 

Evaluative judgement based on evidence collated and expert opinion (including legal expertise) on the suitability of the 
non-binding nature of the QFT to meet needs 

To what extent have the principles of the QFT been 
enshrined in and/or influenced national legislation/quality 
frameworks since 2014? Which principles in particular 
and why? 

What types of  legislative implementation tools/regulatory 
approaches have been used by Member States to enshrine 
the principles of the QFT? 

Legal analysis of the transposition (or non-transposition) of the QFT principles into national legislation since 2014 

Legal analysis of the transposition (or non-transposition) of the QFT principles into national quality frameworks since 
2014 

Evidence of the existence of quality frameworks corresponding to the QFT before 2014 

Analytical overview of the scope of current national legislative frameworks and quality frameworks on both ALMP and 
open market traineeships 

To what extent and which principles were already 
enshrined in national legislation/frameworks before 2014?  

Evaluative judgement based on evidence collated and expert opinion (including legal expertise) on the degree to which 
the QFT has been enshrined in national legislation and frameworks 

To what extent are traineeships defined in current national 
legislation/frameworks?   

Evidence from interviews and meetings of the types of obstacles faced by Member States in transposing QFT 
principles.  

What is the scope and content of current national 
legislative frameworks and national quality frameworks in 

84 

 
relation to traineeships? To what degree to they cover all 
the principles? Which principles are most covered and 
which least? Why? 

What have been the obstacles to the full transposition and 
implementation of the QFT in Member States? 

Have enforcement and/or regular monitoring mechanisms 
been put in place to facilitate compliance with national 
legislation/quality frameworks and/or the QFT?  

What types of mechanisms can be found, and how do they 
differ across the Member States? 

Where they exist, how effective have they been in 
ensuring compliance? Which mechanisms have been 
most/least effective, and why? 

Is there any evidence of any adverse effects of 
enforcement/monitoring? If so which and why? 

What has been the impact of the implementation of the 
QFT on trainees?  

Which specific elements of QFT implementation (specific 
principles, enforcement/follow-up measures, etc.) have 
had the most positive impacts on trainees and their stable 
labour market integration? Why? 

To what degree do trainees (or ex-trainees) consider that 
the frameworks and principles governing traineeships (e.g. 
specific national legislation or quality frameworks and/or 
specific aspects of them) can be in facilitating stable 
labour market integration and fostering youth 
employment? Which elements/principles are of particular 
importance from their perspective? Why? 

9.  To what extent do 

enforcement and/or regular 
follow-up monitoring exist 
and to what extent do they 
confirm an adherence to 
national legislation and/or 
national quality frameworks 
and/or the overarching QFT? 
Is there evidence of adverse 
effects too? 

10.  What is the impact on 

trainees? How effective do 
(ex-)trainees perceive 
traineeships (and/or specific 
legislative frameworks and/or 
specific national quality 
frameworks) to be in terms of 
facilitating a stable labour 
market integration for young 
people, and contributing to 
youth employment? Is there 
evidence of adverse effects 
too? 

Legal analysis of the existence/non-existence and nature of enforcement measures to ensure compliance to national 
legislation/quality frameworks and/or the overall QFT 

Legal analysis of the existence/non-existence and nature of regular follow-up/monitoring mechanisms to ensure 
compliance to national legislation/quality frameworks and/or the overall QFT 

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders and desk research) on the effectiveness of such mechanisms in ensuring 
compliance 

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders and desk research) on any adverse effects 

Evaluative judgement based on evidence collated and expert opinion (including legal expertise) on the effectiveness of 
enforcement, follow-up and monitoring arrangements 

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders, case studies, surveys and literature) on the degree and nature of impacts (e.g. 
employability, skills development, development of transversal competences, development of social networks, etc.) of 
QFT implementation on trainees  

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders, case studies, surveys and literature) on the degree and nature of impacts on 
trainees of specific aspects of QFT implementation (e.g. specific principles, enforcement/follow-up measures, etc.) 

Any quantitative evidence (e.g. from case studies) on the impacts of QFT implementation on young people e.g. access 
to stable employment, further education and training, etc. 

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders, surveys and literature) on any adverse effects of the implementation of the 
QFT principles 

Views of trainees (and ex-trainees) (and/or their representatives) on the effectiveness of QFT implementation in 
facilitating stable labour market integration and fostering youth employment (particularly via the survey of trainees, but 
also the public consultation) 

Are there additional principles that would enhance the 
quality of traineeships?  

Views of trainees (and ex-trainees) on any adverse effects of QFT implementation (particularly via the survey of 
trainees, but also the public consultation) 

Has the way in which the QFT been implemented (e.g. 
specific principles or measures) had any adverse/negative 
effects on trainees? If so which and why? 

Evaluative judgement based on evidence collated and expert opinion regarding the impact of the different aspects of 
QFT implementation (e.g. specific principles, enforcement/follow-up measures, etc.) on trainees 

11.  How equally are the effects of 

the QFT, by way of national 

To what degree are the effects of the implementation of 

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders and literature) on the equal distribution of effects of the QFT within Member 

85 

 
 
legislative frameworks and/or 
national quality frameworks, 
distributed within Member 
States? Are there sectors or 
(social) sub-groups for which 
the QFT has proven to be 
particularly successful or 
unsuccessful? 

the QFT principles (by way of national legislative 
frameworks and/or national quality frameworks) 
distributed equally within Member States? 

Is the QFT particularly successful or unsuccessful for 
specific economic sectors or target groups? If so, which 
and why? 

What has been the impact of QFT implementation on 
traineeship providers/employers? Have specific elements 
of QFT implementation had particularly positive or 
negative impacts and why?  

States 

Quantitative evidence (where available) on the existence of traineeships in different sectors and for different target 
groups 

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders, literature and surveys) on sectors and sub-groups in which the QFT has been 
particularly successful/unsuccessful 

Views of employer representatives on the impact of QFT implementation on employers/traineeship providers (from 
interviews and case studies) 

Evaluative judgement based on evidence collated and expert opinion on the impact and effectiveness of QFT 
implementation across sectors and sub-groups  

12.  How do observed 

developments since the 
baseline of 2014 compare 
against the developments 
that were expected to be 
achieved when the QFT was 
developed/proposed?  

13.  While taking into account the 
differences in objectives and 
target groups, has one of the 
two quality frameworks, the 
QFT or the EFQEA, been 
more effective in improving 
the quality of traineeships and 
apprenticeships respectively, 
as well as the employability of 
trainees and apprentices, and 
why? 

14.  What was the quantifiable 
administrative burden 
associated with the adequate 
implementation of the QFT for 
the different stakeholders at 
various levels (national, 
regional, local), in terms of 

To what degree do the developments since 2014 
correspond to the expectations for the QFT when it was 
developed? How and in what ways?  

Desk-based analysis on the degree to which the identified developments regarding the implementation and impacts of 
the QFT correspond to original expectations (based on key documents including the Council Recommendation and the 
underpinning impact assessment169) 

Which expectations of the QFT have not been met and 
why? 

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders and literature) on the degree to which the identified developments correspond 
to original expectations, as well as the expectations that have not been met and why 

Evaluative judgement based on evidence collated and expert opinion on the degree to which QFT implementation has 
met the original expectations 

Accounting for the differences in target groups and 
objectives, has the QFT been more or less effective than 
the EFQEA in terms of improving the quality of 
traineeships/apprenticeships respectively? In what ways 
and why? 

Has the QFT been more or less effective than the EFQEA 
in terms of improving the employability of 
trainees/apprentices respectively? In what ways and why? 

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders and literature) on the effectiveness of the QFT and the EFQEA in improving 
the quality of traineeships/apprenticeships (respectively) 

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholders and literature) on the effectiveness of the QFT and the EFQEA in improving 
the employability of trainees/apprentices (respectively) 

Review of any comparative quantitative evidence on the employability of trainees/apprentices (respectively) 

Evaluative judgement based on the qualitative and quantitative evidence collated and expert opinion (including our 
experts working on the Apprenticeship Support Services), taking into account the differences in objectives and target 
groups, on the relative effectiveness of the QFT and EFQEA 

What was the nature of the administrative burden 
associated with the adequate implementation of the QFT 
(e.g. transposition of QFT principles, enforcement/follow-
up monitoring and other compliance checks)? 

What was the quantifiable administrative burden (i.e. 
administrative costs generated by the EU intervention, in 

Quantitative (or quantifiable) evidence from stakeholders at national, regional and local stakeholders on the 
administrative burden associated with QFT implementation (e.g. additional staff time and training for implementation, 
enforcement and monitoring, etc.) 

Administration expenditure data on ALMPs that offer traineeships within the scope of the QFT from public 
employment services, as available 

Efficiency 

169 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0495&qid=1622466549066&from=EN  

86 

 
                                                           
 
e.g. transposition of QFT 
principles, 
enforcement/follow-up 
monitoring and other 
compliance checks? 

addition to the already existing administrative costs) for 
different stakeholders at various levels (national, regional, 
local) in implementing the QFT? 

What  types of adjustment costs (e.g. staff costs for 
supporting trainees, setting learning objectives ,etc.) were 
there in implementing the QFT? Can any of these 
adjustment costs be quantified? Which stakeholders 
incurred these costs?  

Qualitative evidence from stakeholders at national, regional and local stakeholders on the nature of the administrative 
burden associated with QFT implementation 

Evidence from stakeholders on the relative size and nature of the adjustment costs incurred to implement the QFT.  

Economic analysis and evaluative judgement based on the data collected to ascertain the quantifiable administrative 
burden of the implementation and enforcement of the QFT 

15.  To what extent have Member 
States encouraged or enabled 
traineeship prevalence and 
improved quality through 
financial incentives? Have 
any EU programmes (such as 
the YEI and ESF) contributed 
directly or indirectly to 
financial incentives? 

What type of financial incentives have been put in place 
by Member States to increase the prevalence of 
traineeships and improve their quality?  

Evidence (from the desk research/stakeholder consultations/case studies) on the existence, nature, and monetary value 
of financial incentives in different Member States (e.g for case study countries, the estimated total amount spent on 
financial incentives that aimed to increase prevalence or quality.) 

To what extent are financial incentives in place across the 
EU27? 

Evidence (from the desk research/stakeholder consultations/case studies) on the contribution of EU programmes to 
financial incentives  

Have any EU programmes (such as the YEI or ESF) 
contributed to these financial incentives, either directly or 
indirectly? 

Evaluative judgement based on the evidence collated and expert opinion on the existence and nature of financial 
incentives in different Member States, and the contributions of EU programmes to such incentives 

16.  What can be approximated in 

terms of quantifiable benefits 
for young people? Are there 
other quantifiable benefits 
for society at large that could 
be linked back to the QFT? 

What approximation can be made of  the quantifiable 
benefits that can be linked to QFT implementation for 
young people? 

What approximation can be made of the quantifiable 
benefits for employers? 

Are there other quantifiable benefits which can be 
approximated linked to the QFT for wider society? If so, 
which? 

Evidence (from the desk research/stakeholder consultations (in particular trainee survey/case studies) on the 
quantifiable benefits of QFT implementation for young people e.g. the increase in the proportion of 
traineeships/traineeship providers offering traineeships that give clear and improved educational objectives and 
working conditions, such as meeting minimum holiday entitlements and certification of skills 

Evidence (from the desk research/stakeholder consultations/case studies) on the quantifiable benefits of QFT 
implementation for employers (e.g. by improving their reputation as quality traineeship providers/providing them with 
a more diverse, young workforce/resulting in tax exemptions/reductions and/or access to subsidies? 

Evidence (from the desk research/stakeholder consultations/case studies) on the quantifiable benefits of QFT 
implementation for society at large e.g., a fall in youth unemployment/inactivity and associated reductions in welfare 
payments and increases in tax revenue). 

Economic estimation (where possible) of the value of quantifiable benefits of QFT implementation 

17.  What are the main obstacles 
preventing employers from 
offering traineeships? What 
kind of support would be 
necessary to overcome these 
obstacles? 

What are the main obstacles preventing employers from 
offering quality traineeships? 

Qualitative evidence (from desk research/stakeholder consultations/case studies) on the main obstacles for employers 
and the degree to which they are addressed by the QFT 

What are the main reasons that employers offer quality 
traineeships?  

Qualitative evidence (from desk research/stakeholder consultations/case studies) on the support needed to overcome the 
obstacles for employers 

To what degree are the obstacles to offering quality 
traineeships addressed by the QFT? Are there any 

Evaluative judgement based on the evidence collected and expert opinion on the main obstacles stopping employers 

87 

 
 
 
additional principles that if added to the QFT would 
increase or reduce these obstacles? 

What kind of further support would help overcome these 
obstacles? 

from offering traineeships, and the support need to overcome these obstacles 

18.  To what extent are the 
administrative costs 
proportionate to the assessed 
benefits of QFT 
implementation? What has 
been the cost-effectiveness 
and how/why does it vary 
across the 27 Member States? 
What factors influenced the 
efficiency and how did they do 
so? 

19. 

Is there scope for reducing 
administrative burden without 
undermining the assessed 
benefits of QFT 
implementation? In other 
words, could benefits have 
been achieved at lower cost? 

20.  To what extent have the 

objectives, target groups and 
measures to implement the 
QFT within the context of 
ALMPs been coherent with 
education and training, 
employment and social 
policies at national and 
regional level? How about 
open market traineeships? 

To what extent are the administrative costs proportionate 
to the benefits of QFT implementation?  

Assessment of the proportionality of costs to benefits, based on the evidence collated on administrative burden (costs) 
and benefits 

What has been the cost-effectiveness of QFT 
implementation? 

To what degree does cost-effectiveness vary across the 27 
Member States? In what ways and why? 

What factors influenced the efficiency of QFT 
implementation? In what ways and why? 

Assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of the QFT  

Identification and analysis of any differences in cost-effectiveness across the 27 Member States 

Qualitative evidence (from desk research/stakeholder consultations/case studies) on the factors which influenced the 
efficiency of QFT implementation 

Could the observed benefits have been achieved at a lower 
cost? In what ways? 

Qualitative evidence (from desk research/stakeholder consultations/case studies) on the scope to reduce administrative 
burden without diminishing the returns (benefits) 

Is there scope to reduce the administrative burden without 
reducing the benefits of QFT implementation?  

Evaluative and economic judgement based on the evidence collated and expert opinion on the scope for reducing costs 
while maintaining the benefits 

To what degree has implementation of the QFT within 
ALMPs been coherent with national and regional 
education, training, employment and social policies in 
terms of (a) objectives, (b) target groups and (c) 
measures?  

To what degree has implementation of the QFT within 
open market traineeships been coherent with national and 
regional education, training, employment and social 
policies in terms of (a) objectives, (b) target groups and (c) 
measures?  

Are there differences across Member States? If so, why? 

Text-based analysis on the extent of external coherence between QFT implementation (objectives, target groups, 
measures) and relevant national and regional education, training, employment and social policies, targeting young 
people (e.g. Youth Guarantee, activation measures for young people, etc.) 

Qualitative evidence (from national/regional stakeholder consultations/case studies/public consultation) on the extent of 
external coherence between QFT implementation (objectives, target groups, measures) and relevant national and 
regional education, training, employment and social policies 

Qualitative evidence (from desk-research/stakeholder consultations/case studies) on the extent of coherence with open 
market traineeships 

Evaluative judgement on the basis of evidence collated, including assessment of (level of) complementarities, 
synergies, overlaps and contradictions 

21.  Linked to the former, to what 

extent do the QFT support 
and usefully complement 
other policies (in particular 
those pursued at national 

To what degree does the QFT support and complement 
other policies, particularly at national level? In what 
ways? Are there any conflicts? 

What is the level of complementarity or duplication?  

Text-based analysis on the extent of external coherence between QFT implementation (objectives, target groups, 
measures) and relevant national and regional education, training, employment and social policies 

Qualitative evidence (from national/regional stakeholder consultations/case studies) on the extent of external coherence 
between QFT implementation (objectives, target groups, measures) and relevant national and regional education, 

Coherence 

88 

 
 
level)? What is the level of 
complementarity or 
duplication?  

22.  To what extent have the 

objectives, target groups and 
measures to implement the 
QFT within the context of 
ALMPs been coherent with 
the relevant EU initiatives 
listed in section 2.3? How 
about open market 
traineeships?  

23.  What is the additional value 
resulting from the QFT 
compared to what could 
reasonably have been 
expected from Member 
States acting at national 
and/or regional levels?  

EU added value 

Are there differences across Member States? If so, why? 

training, employment and social policies 

Evaluative judgement on the basis of evidence collated, including assessment of (level of) complementarities, 
synergies, overlaps/duplication and contradictions 

Text-based analysis (based on legal texts) on the extent of external coherence between QFT implementation 
(objectives, target groups, measures) and relevant EU initiatives 

Qualitative evidence (from stakeholder and public consultations) on the extent of external coherence between QFT 
implementation (objectives, target groups, measures) and relevant EU initiatives 

Evaluative judgement on the basis of evidence collated, including assessment of (level of) complementarities, 
synergies, overlaps/duplication and contradictions 

Qualitative evidence (from desk research/stakeholder and public consultations/case studies) on added value 

Quantitative evidence (where available) on added value 

Evaluative judgement and expert opinion on the basis of evidence collated 

Expert opinion based on evidence collected on degree of convergence of Member States’ regulatory approaches to 
traineeships since 2014. 

To what degree has the implementation of the QFT 
(objectives, target groups and measures) been coherent 
with relevant EU initiatives including relevant 
Commission Communications (e.g. Youth Employment 
Support: a Bridge to Jobs for the Next Generation170) or 
Recommendations (e.g. Effective Active Support to 
Employment (EASE)171 or strategies (e.g. European Youth 
Strategy172), funding instruments (e.g. ESF, YEI, 
Erasmus+), other programmes/measures (e.g. EURES, 
European Solidarity Corps, the reinforced Youth 
Guarantee), etc.? 

Are there differences across Member States in the degree 
of complementarity with EU initiatives? If so, why? 

What additional value has been generated from the QFT at 
the European level compared to what could reasonably be 
expected by Member States acting alone at 
national/regional levels? 

To what degree is/was work already being done at national 
level to improve the quality and prevalence of traineeships 
(outside the scope/influence of the QFT)? 

What type of added value has been generated? For 
example: 

 

 

being 

traineeships 

To  what  degree  has  the  QFT  led  to  more 
quality 
implemented 
(volume effects)? 
To  what  degree  has  the  QFT  broadened  the 
focus of existing national/regional measures to 
include new areas or new target groups (scope 
effects)? 

170 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1594047420340&uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0276 

171 https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&furtherNews=yes&newsId=9939#navItem-3 

172 https://europa.eu/youth/strategy_en 

89 

 
                                                           
 

 

in 

To  what  degree  has  the  QFT  led  to  structural 
changes 
employment/education/training 
policy  or  frameworks  at  national  level  (role 
effects)? 
Is  there  evidence  of  benefits  to  organisations 
implementing 
delivering 
frameworks 
traineeships  (training  providers,  employers, 
PES,  monitoring  bodies)  from  being  involved 
in QFT implementation (process effects)? 

or 

24.  What would be the most likely 

consequences of 
discontinuing the QFT at EU 
level, and what would be the 
most likely prognosis for a no-
policy-change scenario of 
continuing the QFT as it 
stands?  

To what degree has the Recommendation contributed to 
creating a ‘level playing field’ amongst Member States 
(upward convergence)? 

What would be the most likely consequences of: 

(a) Discontinuing the QFT at EU level?  
(b) Continuing QFT implementation as under current 
policy 

Which stakeholders would be likely to be affected, in what 
ways and why?  

What would be the probable impact on the quality and 
offer of traineeships? Why? 

What would be the likely negative and positive effects? 

Qualitative evidence (from desk research/stakeholder and public consultations/case studies) on the consequences of the 
two policy choices in terms of stakeholders affected and impact on traineeships and their quality 

Evaluative judgement and expert opinion on the basis of evidence collated 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS   

91 

 
Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation173 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Implementation costs associated with  implementing new legislation in line with the QFT 

Costs: 

Direct compliance costs  

Not available  Not applicable to this 

Not available 

stakeholder. 

Adjustment costs  

one-off  

Implementation costs incurred by 
businesses likely to be low one-off 
costs of familiarisation with any 
new legislation in place. 

Not available 

For policy makers, these costs are 
estimated to be low (no monetary 
estimates provided) in part because 
some regulatory framework in line 
with the QFT was already in place. 

Costs: 

Direct compliance costs  

Adjustment costs  

Costs: 

Direct compliance costs  

Adjustment costs  

Direct labour costs associated with designing quality traineeship schemes, drafting learning objectives, and supervising trainees 

one-off 

Not available  Not applicable to this 

stakeholder. 

Not available  These costs are generally higher for 
small and medium sized enterprises 
than for large companies. 

Not available  Costs mainly associated to ALMP 
traineeships, such as designing the 
relevant schemes/programmes. 

Costs of external services for advertising traineeship opportunities 

Not available  Not applicable to this 

stakeholder. 

recurrent 

Not available  Advertising/marketing costs to 
raise awareness of open market 
traineeships. No monetary 
estimates provided. 

Not available  Advertising/marketing costs to 

raise awareness of ALMP 
traineeships. No monetary 
estimates provided. 

Direct labour costs of investing in public services and labour inspectorates to monitor compliance. 

Not available  Not applicable to this 

Not available  Not applicable to this stakeholder.  Not available  No monetary estimates provided. 

Costs: 
 Enforcement costs  

recurrent 

stakeholder. 

Enforcement of traineeship 
regulations is normally undertaken 
by the national labour inspectorate 
or equivalent, and any costs are 
incurred by the relevant national 

173 Where there is a prior impact assessment, the table should contain as a minimum the costs/benefits identified in the IA with  the information gathered on the actual cost/benefit. As available, the table 
should  include  the  monetisation  (€)  of  the  costs/benefits  based  on  any  quantitative  translation  of  the  data  (time  taken,  person  days,  number  of  records/equipment/staff  etc.  affected  or  involved 
represented in monetary value  – see Standard cost model, for example). For all information presented, it should be included in the comments section whether it relates to all Member States or is drawn 
from a subset. An indication of the robustness of the data should be provided in Annex II on Methodology and analytical models used. 

92 

 
                                                           
                        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
authorities. Such inspection, 
however, normally focuses on the 
enforcement of the relevant 
national legislation, and even 
where that legislation has been 
influenced to some extent by the 
QFT it is not possible to separately 
identify enforcement costs due to 
the QFT 

Administrative costs the costs incurred for providing a written agreement (collecting the information that should be included in the written agreement and putting it down in the 
written agreement), costs of managing cooperation with PES, certifying trainees’ skills 

Not available  Not applicable to this 

Not available  Evidence shows that these costs are 

Costs: 

Direct compliance costs  

Administrative 

recurrent 

stakeholder. 

higher for businessess offering 
ALMP traineeships than those 
offering open market traineeships 
in part due to the need to manage 
cooperation arrangements with 
PES which may include reporting 
obligations 

Not available  Administrative costs for PES to 
offer ALMP traineeships in line 
with QFT are likely to be business 
as usual costs which are incurred 
for all ALMP offers. 

Costs of financial incentives/subsidies to encourage uptake of traineeships aimed at both trainees and employers, including traineeship grants and reimbursing travel expenses for 
unemployed individuals 

Costs: 

Direct compliance costs  

Not available  Not applicable to this 

stakeholder. 

Costs of financial 
incentives/subsidies 

recurrent 

Not available  Administrative costs of applying 
for and managing these subsidies 
were also reported by businesses 
receiving them.  

Not available 

Growth in number of quality traineeships 

Direct benefits 

Improved market efficiency 

recurrent 

Not available 

More opportunities 
for young people to 
undertake quality 
traineeships; No 
monetary estimates 
provided. 

Not available 

Improvement in skills and 
knowledge of employees and job 
applicants. No monetary estimates 
provided. 

Not available 

Increase in the share of the 
population with the skills needed 
for the labour market. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Direct benefits 

Not available  No monetary 

Not available  No monetary estimates provided.  Not available  No monetary estimates provided. 

recurrent 

estimates provided. 

Traineeships more aligned with labour market needs 

Improved market efficiency 

Enhanced skills and certification of skills 

Direct benefits 

Improved welfare 

recurrent 

Not available  More qualified future 

workforce. No 
monetary estimates 
provided. 

Not available  More qualified future workforce. 
No monetary estimates provided. 

Not available 

Increase in the share of the 
population with the skills needed 
for the labour market.  No 
monetary estimates provided. 

Not available  More qualified future workforce, 

Not available 

fewer skills mismatches. No 
monetary estimates provided. 

Increase in the share of the 
population with the skills needed 
for the labour market.  No 
monetary estimates provided. 

Improved access and transition to labour market 

Not available 

Direct benefits 

Improved welfare 

recurrent 

"62% of respondents 
to the trainee survey  
agreed that 
traineeships made 
transitioning from 
school to work easier.  
In Ireland, 98% of 
trainees moved into 
employment 
following the Career 
Traineeship 
programme of which 
72% with employers 
that had originally 
hosted the trainees. 
No monetary 
estimates provided. " 

Reduced exploitation and greater awareness of rights 

Direct benefits 

Improved welfare 

recurrent 

Not available  Trainees in particular 
cited this as a benefit. 
No monetary 
estimates provided. 

Not available 

Increased in employee 
productivity. No monetary 
estimates provided. 

Not available  No monetary estimates provided. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
Reduced welfare payments and increased tax revenue 

Not available  Reduced welfare 

Not available  Reduced welfare payments and 

Not available  Reduced welfare payments and 

Indirect benefits 

Wider macroeconomic 
benefits 

recurrent 

payments and 
increased tax revenue 
following on from 
supporting young 
people into 
employment. No 
monetary estimates 
provided. 

increased tax revenue following on 
from supporting young people into 
employment. No monetary 
estimates provided. 

increased tax revenue following on 
from supporting young people into 
employment. No monetary 
estimates provided. 

Improved individuals’ participation in society 

Indirect benefits 
Wider welfare benefits 

recurrent 

Not available 

Individuals more 
integrated into society 
(through work). 
Increased social 
cohesion. No 
monetary estimates 
provided. 

Not available  No monetary estimates provided.  Not available 

Individuals more integrated into 
society (through work). Increased 
social cohesion. No monetary 
estimates provided. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

Introduction  

This  document  provides  a  synopsis  of  the  stakeholder  consultations  conducted  for  the 
evaluation of the Quality Framework for Traineeships (QFT). The  consultations followed 
the consultation strategy and the Evaluation Roadmap174, published on the Commission’s 
Better Regulation website “Have Your Say”.  

The aim of the consultation activities was to “gather information and views on the current 
state of play of both the quality of traineeships and the implementation of the QFT, as well 
as  to  assess  whether  the  QFT  is  fit  for  purpose,  in  particular  considering  the  evolving 
labour markets and stakeholders’ needs as well as the COVID-19 pandemic.” In addition, 
the  consultation  activities  were  “to  contribute  to  a  better  understanding  on  whether 
traineeships  and  the  QFT  implementation  have  had  an  impact  on  youth  employment,  as 
well as on young people and the society at large”. 

Overview of consultation activities 

The Commission consulted a wide range of stakeholders, in order to ensure that the views 
of  the  relevant  stakeholder  groups  are  taken  into  account.  The  evaluation  of  the  QFT 
included  targeted  consultations  of  national  and  regional  authorities  responsible  for 
education, training and employment policies, social and economic partners, education and 
training  providers,  academic  experts  working  on  labour  market  issues,  organisations 
representing young people, young (former, current and potential future) trainees, as well as 
other relevant stakeholders at European, national and regional level. A public consultation 
was open to all stakeholders as well as a wider public. 

To adequately reach these stakeholders, different consultation activities and methods were 
used, such as interviews, targeted consultation meetings and case studies. A more detailed 
description of these activities can be found below in this chapter. Table 1 below presents 
the type of consultation tools used for each stakeholder category. 

174  European  Commission,  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13118-
Quality-Framework-for-Traineeships-review-evaluation-_en  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 1 Overview of stakeholders consulted through various consultation activities  

Public 
consultation 

Evaluation roadmap 

Targeted interviews   Trainee 

Case studies 

Expert meeting 

survey 

Validation 
workshop 

Consultation 
meeting  

Ministries  and  institutions  responsible  for 
education and training policy 

Ministries  and  institutions  responsible  for 
employment policies 

Public Employment Services (PES) 

Social  and  economic  partners  at  national 
and EU level 

Education and training providers 

EU level institutions/ policymakers 

Organisations  representing  young  people 
and/or young trainees 

Current, former, and potential trainees 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Research 
international organisations 

/academia 

and 

other 

X 

EU citizen 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

97 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1 Evaluation Roadmap 

The evaluation roadmap was open for consultation for four weeks between 28 July and 25 
August 2021. It aimed at gathering the views of relevant stakeholders on the Commission's 
understanding of the problem and possible solutions and to share any relevant information 
that they may have on the implementation of the QFT and on traineeships. 

Two contributions were received, representing academic and research institutions.175 In the 
course  of  the  consultation  activities,  ad-hoc  position  papers  were  also  received  from  one 
civil society organisation and one Member State.  

2.2 Consultation of European social partner organisations 

A dedicated consultation meeting was held with the European social partner organisations 
on 20 June 2022. Employers were represented by BusinessEurope, CEEMET and national 
employer representatives from HU, FR, and DK. Trade Unions were represented by ETUC 
and national trade union representatives from  IT,  LU, ES, SI, NO, TR,  ES,  LT, BE, HU 
and FI.  

On  the  basis  of  a  background  document,  the  social  partners  presented  their  views  on  the 
current QFT principles as well as how the QFT could be improved in the future.   

2.3 Public consultation 

The  aim  of  the  public  consultation176  was  to  provide  a  channel  for  all  interested 
stakeholders  to  express  their  views  on  the  QFT  and  traineeships  in  general.  The 
consultation  took  the  form  of  an  e-survey  (via  the  EUSurvey  tool)  with  closed  and  open 
questions,  addressing  the  key  evaluation  criteria  (effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance, 
coherence,  and  EU  added  value)  and  tailored  to  the  different  stakeholder  groups.  The 
response period was 12 weeks from 21 March to 13 June 2022. 

The public consultation had 259 respondents. This included 169 organisations belonging to 
the  categories  indicated  in  the  survey  (65%),  70  individuals  (27%),  and  20  respondents 

175  European  Commission,  Have  Your  Say,  Quality  Framework  for  Traineeships  review  (evaluation): 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13118-Quality-Framework-for-
Traineeships-review-evaluation-/feedback_en?p_id=26017674  

176  The  full  report  of  the  public  consultation  results  can  be  found  on  the  Commission’s  Have  Your  Say 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13118-Quality-

portal: 
Framework-for-Traineeships-review-evaluation-/public-consultation_en 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
representing  other  groups.  Respondents  were  from  24  EU  Member  States  and  4  non-EU 
countries. 89% (230 out of 259) of responses were received from seven of the 28 countries 
represented, showing a somewhat unbalanced geographic distribution of responses. Figure 
1  shows  the  number  of  responses  from  each  country  represented  in  the  public 
consultation.   

Figure 1 Breakdown of respondents by Member State 

 Source : QFT Public consultation 2022, N=259  

The  largest  group  of  respondents  was  public  authorities  (85  out  of  259,  33%),  with  the 
majority of the authorities representing employment services (64 out of 85, 75%), and the 
remainder representing national, regional and local public authorities (12 out of 85, 14%), 
government bodies or ministries (7 out of 85, 8%), and training or education institutions (2 
out of 85, 2%). The second largest group of respondents was EU citizens (69 out of 259, 
27%),  followed  by  academic/research  institutions  (56  out  of  259,  22%)  and  those  who 
indicated they belonged to a group not listed in the questionnaire (20 out of 259, 8%). The 
remaining  respondents  represented  NGOs  (11  out  of  259,  4%),  companies/business 
organisations (8 out of 259, 3%), trade unions (6 out of 259, 2%), business associations (3 
out of 259, 1%) and a non-EU citizen (1 out of 259, 0.4%). Figure 2 provides a breakdown 
of respondents by main stakeholder groups.   

99 

 
 
 
Figure 2 Breakdown of respondents by main stakeholder groups 

Source: QFT Public consultation 2022, N=259  

2.4 Targeted interviews with EU and national stakeholders 

Targeted  interviews  with  EU  and  national  level  stakeholders  focused  on  two  key 
stakeholder  groups:  national  level  stakeholders  responsible  for  education  and  training, 
skills,  and  employment  policies177  and  EU  level  stakeholders  directly  and  indirectly 
involved  in  education,  training,  and  employment  policies.  The  targeted  semi-structured 
interviews were conducted from February to June 2022.   

The  targeted  interviews  included  questions  covering  the  evaluation  criteria,  as  well  as 
overarching  questions  to  investigate  the  current  prevalence  of  traineeships,  main 
characteristics  of  trainees,  the  public  debate  around  the  topic,  as  well  as  any  relevant 
change since the adoption of the QFT.  

A  total  of  124  interviews  of  relevant  stakeholders  were  undertaken  as  part  of  the 
evaluation. Of these, 17 were interviews with EU level stakeholders and 107 with national 
level stakeholders in all Member States. 

Table 2 Targeted interviews completed 

EU level 

Stakeholder 

DG EMPL  

DG EAC 

Number of interviews conducted 

3 

1 

177  These include primarily Ministries of Employment and/or Social Affairs and Ministries of Education, as 
well  as  other  stakeholders  such  as  national-level  socio-economic  partners  and  youth  or  civil  society 
organisations representing young trainees. 

100 

 
 
 
                                                           
Eurofound 

Cedefop 

Association of European Chambers and Industry 
(EUROCHAMBERS) 

Business Europe 

European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) 

European  Confederation  of  Independent  Trade 
Unions (CESI) 

IndustrialAll Europe 

European Youth Forum 

Fair Internship Initiative 

Interns Go Pro 

SPRINT project 

International Labour Organization (ILO) 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Total EU level interviews 

17 

National level 

Type of stakeholder 

Countries covered 

Number  of  interviews 
conducted 

National and regional ministries and government 
bodies responsible for employment or education 
policies 

AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, 
FI,  FR,  HU,  IE,  IT,  LT,  LV,  MT,  PL, 
RO, SI, SK 

Public Employment Services (PES) 

Employer organisations 

Trade unions 

Civil society/youth organisations 

BE, BG, EE, ES, HR, IT, LT, LU, LV, 
MT, RO, SE, SI, SK 

AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, 
FI,  HR,  HU,  IE,  IT,  LT,  LU,  MT,  NL, 
PL 

AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, 
HR, LU, LV, NL, PL, SI 

AT,  BE,  CY,  EL,  ES,  FI,  HR,  HU,  IE, 
IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO, SI 

26 

16 

22 

16 

17 

Other  stakeholders  (e.g.,  research  institutes; 
education and training organisations, etc.) 

AT, BG, HU, IE, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO 

10 

Total of national level interviews 

107 

Source: Ecorys, 2022 

101 

 
 
2.5 Case studies 

Seven case studies were conducted as part of the consultations. As part of the case studies, 
additional  in-depth  interviews  were  conducted  with  representatives  involved  in  the 
implementation  and  monitoring  of  the  QFT,  as  well  as  three  focus  groups  with  young 
people/trainees. The case study interviews and focus groups were conducted from March 
to July 2022. 

A total of 48 interviews and three focus groups (Bulgaria, Ireland, Spain) were conducted 
for the case studies, with stakeholders from the following categories:  

  Ministries, governmental departments,  and other public authorities responsible for 

employment and/or education and training policies 

  Public Employment Services (hereafter ‘PES’); 
  Social  partners  (trade  unions,  employer  organisations,  chambers  of  commerce, 

chambers of employees); 

  Civil 

society  organisations, 

including  youth  organisations 

and  youth 

representatives; 
  Research institutions 

2.6  Internet-based survey of former, current and potential trainees 

The  trainee  survey  investigated  the  target  groups’  experience  and/or  expectations  with 
traineeships,  their  interest  in  and  perceived  challenges  of  undertaking  traineeships, 
including cross border opportunities. For current and former trainees, the survey included 
questions on their background, their experience with finding a traineeship opportunity, as 
well as their working conditions, and the outcomes of their traineeship. 

The trainee survey ran from 1 March to 25 March 2022 and a total of 3,814 responses were 
collected.  Out  of  these,  1,836  (48%)  were  from  respondents  belonging  to  the  core  target 
group  (i.e.  18-30  year  olds  with  traineeship  experience  in  EU  Member  States  from  2014 
onwards). The breakdown of all survey respondents is presented in table 3 below.  

 Table 3 Breakdown of survey respondents 

Category 

Total respondents 

Within the core target group  

People with no traineeship experience 

Respondents with only mandatory traineeship experience 

People with traineeship experience before 2014  

Respondents with traineeship experience from non-EU 
countries 
Respondents with traineeship experience in multiple EU 
countries 
People with traineeship experience in the EU institutions  

Source: QFT online survey 2022 

102 

Number of respondents 

Share 

3,814 

1,836 

702 

962 

65 

75 

84 

90 

100% 

48% 

18% 

25% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

 
2.7 Expert meeting 

An ex-ante expert meeting investigated key evaluation criteria, with a particular focus on 
national approaches to the implementation of the QFT. It was held online on 26 April 2022 
to gather the views of selected consultees on preliminary findings on all evaluation criteria, 
identify  examples  of  good  and  bad  practices,  and  discuss  ways  forward  to  foster  the 
implementation of the QFT, and quality traineeships more broadly, across the EU.  

The  expert  meeting  was  attended  by  a  total  of  48  participants,  30  of  whom  were 
representatives of various stakeholders from 18 Member States (Austria, Croatia, Estonia, 
Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  the 
Netherlands,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovenia  and  Spain).  The 
remaining  18  were 
representatives  from  EU-level  organisations  (4),  the  European  Commission  (5)  and  the 
contractor research team (8), and one non-EU participant. 

2.8 Validation workshop 

A validation workshop was held on 20 September 2022 as a final consultation activity to 
validate the findings  and for selected participants to  share their views on  lessons learned 
and  next  steps.  Participants  included  representatives  of  national  authorities  in  charge  of 
traineeships (i.e., Ministries of employment, social affairs and/or education), PES, as well 
as  representatives  of  social  partners  at  EU  and  national  level,  and  EU  level  civil  society 
organisations. 

The  online  validation  workshop  was  attended  by  a  total  of  49  participants,  29  of  whom 
were  representatives  of  various  stakeholders  from  15  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium, 
Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Malta,  the  Netherlands, 
Portugal,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Spain).  The  remaining  20  were  representatives  from  EU-
level organisations (7), the European Commission (5) and the contractor research team (8). 
As  a  follow  up  to  the  validation  workshop,  three  additional  written  contributions  were 
received from EU level trade union (1) and EU level employer organisations (2). 

2.9 Challenges linked to the consultations  

Implementation  of  the  consultation  strategy  took  place  as  planned.  One  of  the  main 
challenges  was  the  low  response  rate  for  the  pulic  consultation.  However,  the  extensive 
interview  programme,  and  the  dedicated  survey  targeting  former,  current,  and  potential 
future  trainees  allowed  to  collect  the  opinions  of  an  important  number  of  stakeholders, 
including young people.  

Another  challenge  was  the  unresponsiveness  of  a  number  of  national  level  stakeholders. 
Some  of  them  felt  that  they  did  not  have  the  relevant  expertise  to  contribute  to  the 

103 

 
 
 
 
evaluation  in  the  context  of  the  targeted  interviews.  However,  the  impact  of  this  on  the 
consultations  was  minimal,  as  the  other  targeted  consultations  conducted  allowed  to  still 
gather in-depth views of a range of stakeholders across the EU27.  

3 Methodology for data processing 

The  feedback  on  the  evaluation  roadmap  went  through  a  qualitative  analysis  to  identify 
common trends and relevant insights. 

The  analysis  of  results  of  the  public  consultation  was  carried  out  using  both  quantitative 
and  qualitative  methods.  The  quantitative  data  analysis  included  analysis  of  frequency 
distribution  for  each  of  the  variables  related  to  the  closed-ended  questions,  and  cross-
tabulations  between  specific  variables  and  characteristics  of  respondents  and  between 
specific variables, though the low number of responses has limited the possibilities for this. 
For the qualitative data analysis, information was classified by related variable (number of 
question) and analysed to identify additional information and trends.  

For the targeted interviews with EU and national level stakeholders, the write-ups from the 
interviews were exported into analytical grids, broken down by the different questions and 
by  the  respective  evaluation  criteria.  Analytical  grids  were  used  to  carry  out  an  in-depth 
analysis of the data. 

Information  gathered  from  the  case  study  interviews  and  focus  groups  was  used  in  the 
analysis of each country case study report. The case study reports were used to inform the 
research analysis. 

The trainee survey was analysed using both quantitative (to analyse the frequencies of the 
closed  answers)  and  qualitative  methods  (for  the  open  questions,  to  analyse  complex 
concepts  and  substantiate  and  interpret  the  quantitative  data  with  relevant  insights), 
informing  thus  all  parts  of  the  research.  The  responses  to  the  open-ended  questions 
provided by the respondents in their native language were translated into English for better 
interpretation.  

For  the  expert  meeting,  validation  workshop  and  the  consultation  meeting  of  European 
social  partner  organisations,  the  outcomes  of  the  discussions  were  collected  in  meeting 
reports, and they informed the whole analysis.  

4 Overview of results of consultation activities 

4.1  Effectiveness 

National  authorities  responsible  for  education  and  training  and  employment  policies, 
PES, social and economic partners at national and EU level (trade unions and employer 

104 

 
 
 
organisations),  EU  and  national  level  organisations  representing  young  people  and/or 
young  trainees,  and  research  /academia  and  other  international  organisations  were  all 
consulted on questions related to the effectiveness of the QFT, through the interviews, 
the  public  consultation,  the  case  studies,  the  expert  meeting  and  the  validation 
workshop.  While  trainees  were  not  directly  asked  about  the  effectiveness  of  the  QFT, 
their feedback on their traineeship experience has been triangulated with the outcomes 
of the other consultation activities to assess the impact of the QFT.  

The  consultations  showed  that  the  QFT  principles  have  been  implemented  to  varying 
degrees  in  national  legislation  since  2014.  This  was  confirmed  by  interviews  with 
national  authorities,  trade  unions  and  civil  society  organisations  in  particular,  and  by  the 
legal  review  undertaken  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation.  With  regards  to  the 
implementation  of  the  QFT  on  the  ground,  the  majority  (74%,  132  out  of  178)  of 
organisations  responding  to  the  public  consultation  indicated  that  the  traineeships  they 
offer  comply  with  the  QFT  to  either  a  large  or  moderate  extent.  Among  these,  100%  of 
respondents from public enterprises (5 out of 5) reported that their organisation complied 
to  a  large  degree  with  QFT  principles,  followed  by  the  majority  of  civil  society 
representatives  (67%,  4  out  of  6),  65%  (40  out  of  62)  of  respondents  from  employment 
services,  and  33%  (3  out  9)  of  social  partners.  National  authorities,  youth  organisations, 
and trade unions consulted during the interviews, the case studies, the expert meeting, and 
the  validation  workshop,  however,  highlighted  several  elements 
the 
implementation  of  the  QFT  on  the  ground.  These  include  lack  of  capacity  of  labour 
inspectorates or the PES to adequately monitor both open market and ALMP traineeships, 
lack  of  clarity  with  regards  to  the  legislative  framework  on  and/or  definition  of  open 
market  traineeships  leading  to  unclear  roles  and  responsibility  in  relation  to  monitoring, 
and  different  approaches  to  the  involvement  of  trainees  themselves  in  monitoring 
processes.  On  the  other  hand,  interviewed  employer  representatives  noted  that  excessive 
monitoring  might  discourage  businesses  from  taking  on  trainees  due  to  burdensome 
administrative  and/or  legal  requirements  or  fear  of  sanctions  (e.g.  having  to  return 
subsidies received to offer traineeships).  

that  affect 

The responses to the trainee survey show a positive impact of the QFT on trainees. 85% 
(1.561 out of 1.836) of trainees surveyed either strongly agreed or agreed that through their 
traineeship  they  learnt  things  that  are  useful  professionally,  whilst  83%  (1.524  out  of 
1.836) noted that they acquired real-life work experience. In the public consultation, half of 
all  respondents  (50%,  154  out  of  259)  reported  that  the  QFT  helped  young  people  move 
into  stable  employment  either  to  a  large  or  moderate  extent,  with  public  authorities 
standing  out  as  the  respondent  group  more  likely  to  report  that  the  QFT  helped  young 
people to  secure employment to  a large  extent (31%, 26 respondents  out of 85) and to a 
(48%,  41).  Furthermore,  national  authorities,  PES,  employer 
moderate  extent 
  representatives  from  other 
organisations,  trade  unions,  youth  organisations,  and 
international organisations participating in the interviews and the case studies reported that, 
besides  job-specific  competencies,  traineeships  allow  for  the  development  of  transversal 
skills (e.g. time management, organisational skills, team work, communication skills, self-
confidence)  required  at  the  labour  market.  However,  despite  seeing  a  positive  impact  on 

105 

 
employability,  these  stakeholders  overall  agreed  across  all  consultation  activities  that 
traineeships do not guarantee access to the labour market. This is further confirmed by the 
results of the trainee survey, with  the majority (58%, 1.065 out  of 1.836) of  respondents 
reporting they did not receive a job offer after their traineeships.  

Evidence from the consultations points to learning objectives and written agreements as the 
QFT principles that have a particularly positive impact on fostering young people’s stable 
labour market integration. This was in particular highlighted by the EU and national level 
employer organisations and trade unions participating in the interviews, expert group, and 
validation  workshop.  Interviewed  youth  organisations,  trade  unions,  and  national 
authorities  recognised  the  key  role  played  by  the  written  agreement  in  both  ensuring 
transparency  on  rights  and  obligations  and  setting  out  learning  objectives.  In  the  public 
consultation,  concluding  a  written  agreement  at  the  beginning  of  the  traineeship  was 
deemed as very important by the vast majority of respondents (77%, 200 out of 259).  

With  regards  to  the  impact  of  the  QFT  on  sectors,  consulted  stakeholders  across  all 
categories had limited views and/or knowledge on sectoral differences in relation to quality 
traineeships. For example, in the public consultation, 39% of respondents (69 out of 178) 
representing  organisations  responded  that  they  did  not  know  if  the  QFT  had  a  positive 
impact in their sector.  

In  terms  of  the  impact  of  the  QFT  across  social  subgroups,  national  authorities,  youth 
organisations,  trade  unions,  employer  organisations  consulted  during  the  interviews,  case 
studies,  and  the  expert  group  reported  that  the  QFT  principles  are  less  effective  for 
vulnerable  groups  as  they  do  not  directly  address  the  obstacles  they  face  in  accessing 
traineeship  opportunities  and  that  marginalised  youth  are  less  able  to  benefit  from 
traineeships  due  to  financial  barriers  to  accessing  traineeships  (i.e.,  lack  of  financial 
compensation),  or  address  the  challenges  faced  by  specific  groups  (e.g.  young  people  in 
rural  areas,  young people with  disabilities,  young people belonging to  ethnic minorities). 
The trainee survey, moreover, revealed that trainees’ own networks often play a key role in 
accessing traineeship opportunities, with 33% (606 out of 1.836) of respondents indicating 
that they had found their traineeship through their friend circle, acquaintances, or families.  

Lastly,  regarding  the  extent  to  which  the  QFT  has  been  effective  in  improving 
traineeship  quality  compared  to  the  European  Framework  of  Quality  and  Effective 
Apprenticeships  (EFQEA)  on  apprenticeship  opportunities,  EU  and  national  level  trade 
unions,  youth  organisations  and  employer  organisations  consulted  through  the  interviews 
and the expert group considered that the EFQEA has had greater impact on quality. This is 
due to several factors, including a more collaborative approach to apprenticeships, a higher 
degree  of  regulation  in  apprenticeships  and  the  use  of  employment  contracts.  Lastly,  the 
establishment  of  the  European  Alliance  for  Apprenticeships  (EAfA)  was  identified  by 
interviewed  EU  level  employer  organisations,  trade  unions,  and  youth  organisations  as  a 
success factor in promoting quality apprenticeships. 

106 

 
 
4.2 Efficiency 

National  authorities  responsible  for  education  and  training  and  employment  policies, 
Public  Employment  Services,  social  and  economic  partners  at  national  and  EU  level 
(trade  unions  and  employer  organisations)  and  research 
/academia  and  other 
international  organisations  were  all  consulted  on  questions  related  to  the  efficiency  of 
the  QFT,  through  the  interviews,  the  public  consultation,  the  expert  meeting  and  the 
validation workshop. Trainees were not asked about the costs of implementation of the 
QFT  in  the  survey  of  trainees,  given  the  fact  that  they  are  unlikely  to  have  such 
knowledge.  However,  trainees  and  potential  trainees  were  consulted  on  the  benefits  of 
traineeships  and  of  QFT  implementation  through  the  survey  of  trainees  and  the  case 
study focus groups.  

Consultation  activities  undertaken  for  the  evaluation  provided  limited  evidence  on  the 
costs  and  benefits  associated  with  the  implementation  of  the  QFT  or  quality 
traineeships. The following costs were identified: 

  The  majority  of  employer  organisations  and  employers  (7  out  of  10,  70%) 
consulted  in  the  public  consultation  agreed  that  there  were  administrative  costs 
for  employers  involved  in  implementing  the  QFT.  48%  of  all  organisations 
responding  to  the  public  consultation  (89  out  of  184)  pointed  to  such  costs  (i.e. 
paperwork,  submission  of  reports).  EU  and  national  level  employer  organisations 
consulted through the interviews, public consultation, case studies, expert meeting 
and  validation  workshop  highlighted  some  specific  costs,  such  as  direct  labour 
costs of identifying and training supervisors and certifying trainees’ skills, related 
to  implementing  the  principles  of  the  QFT.  National  authorities  consulted  during 
the  interviews  and  case  studies  and  employer  organisations  and  employers 
consulted during the interviews, case studies, and validation workshop noted that, 
while these costs are often subsidised or reimbursed, applying for financial support 
is costly in itself, and may represent a burden. 

  Adjustment costs for national authorities: Interviewees from national authorities 
mentioned costs incurred to adapt to the requirements of the QFT, including labour 
traineeship  programmes, 
costs  associated  with  designing  and  monitoring 
implementing  new  legislation  in  line  with  the  QFT,  investing  in  PES  to  monitor 
compliance, as well as costs associated with the provision of subsidies and grants.  

  Furthermore,  employer  organisations  and  employers  consulted  during 

the 
interviews and case studies highlighted  other  costs associated with  implementing 
traineeships  in  general,  not  specifically  linked  with  the  QFT.  These  include  the 
costs  of  advertising  traineeship  opportunities,  the  costs  of  covering  trainees  with 
insurance  against  work  accidents,  and  costs  to  cover  a  monthly  allowance  for 
trainees.  

All types of stakeholders consulted across all consultation activities reported that measures 
introduced since the adoption of the QFT in 2014, and quality traineeships more generally, 
contribute to a range of benefits for young people, employers, and society. More than 
half  of  the  organisations  responding  to  the  public  consultation  rated  the  benefits  of 
implementing  the  QFT  as  quite  high  (44%,  77  out  of  177)  or  very  high  (14%,  25  out  of 

107 

 
 
 
 
177),  with  47%  of  public  authorities  (37  out  of  79)  and  58%  of  academic/research 
institutions (32 out of 55) agreeing with this.  

In terms of benefits for young people, during the interviews, and in responses to the trainee 
survey  and  to  the  public  consultation,  trainees,  national  authorities,  and  trade  unions 
mentioned  reduced  exploitation  of  trainees  and,  in  turn,  an  increase  in  the  number  of 
quality  traineeships.  Employer  organisations  and  individual  employers  consulted  during 
the  interviews,  the  case  studies,  the  validation  workshop  and  the  public  consultation 
identified  also  improved  skills  levels  and  skills  recognition  as  a  benefit.  Lastly,  62%  of 
trainees surveyed through the trainee survey agreed that traineeships made their school-to-
work transition easier. Similarly, EU level organisations interviewed and consulted during 
the expert meeting and validation workshop mentioned improved certification of skills as a 
benefit resulting in increased employability. 

Turning  to  benefits  for  employers,  national  authorities  consulted  during  the  interviews 
argued that an improved understanding of the key features of quality traineeships is a direct 
benefit of the QFT as it allows businesses and the PES to better structure their traineeship 
programmes. Employer representatives interviewed highlighted the reputational benefits of 
offering  quality  traineeships,  which  can  result  in  higher  number  of  skilled  young 
professionals  applying to work for them. In addition, quality traineeships give employers 
the  opportunity  to  assess  the  abilities  of  potential  recruits  without  incurring  in  major 
financial  risk.  Views  of  employer  organisations  and  employers  responding  to  the  public 
consultation were also relatively positive, with 6 out 10 (60%) reporting that the benefits of 
QFT were quite high and 2 out of 10 (20%) very high.  

At  societal  level,  all  types  of  stakeholders  consulted  through  all  consultation  activities, 
both  at  EU  and  national  level,  mentioned  the  potential  of  quality  traineeships  to  have  a 
positive  impact  in  the  medium  and  long  term,  by  reducing  youth  unemployment  and 
improving  school-to-work  transitions  through  fostering  young  people’s  employability. 
However,  national  authorities  interviewed  stressed  that  the  difficulties  with  isolating  the 
specific effect  of the QFT principles on traineeships make it harder to  build  a direct  link 
between the QFT and broader societal impact.  

The overall view of employer organisations and national authorities was that costs linked 
with  the  QFT  and/or  quality  traineeships  are  generally  low  whereas  benefits, 
especially  those  expected  to  occur  in  the  future,  are  potentially  large.  However, 
national authorities in particular pointed out in the interviews that several factors can affect 
the  cost-benefit  ratio,  including  the  fact  that  efficiency  can  only  be  achieved  if  the  QFT 
results in quality traineeships, as low-quality opportunities would result in higher personal 
costs for trainees and lower benefit to employers. 

4.3 Coherence 

National  authorities  responsible  for  education  and  training  and  employment  policies, 
Public Employment Services, and social and economic partners at national and EU level 

108 

 
 
(trade  unions  and  employer  organisations)  were  consulted  on  questions  related  to  the 
coherence of the QFT, through the interviews, the case studies, the expert meeting and 
the validation workshop. Given the specific national policy knowledge required to assess 
policy coherence of the QFT with national and EU policy, questions on coherence were 
not asked in the public consultation nor in the trainee survey. This was a methodological 
choice  to  ensure  both  surveys  remained  short  and  relevant  to  the  stakeholder  groups 
concerned, so as to increase response rates, and in view of the fact that other consultation 
activities were able to gather sufficient evidence on this evaluation criterion.  

National  authorities,  employer  organisations,  trade  unions  and  youth  organisations 
consulted through the interviews, the case studies, the public consultation, the expert group 
and  the  validation  workshop  overall  agreed  that  there  is  a  good  level  of  coherence 
between the QFT and relevant policies and strategies at national  and regional  level. 
This  overall  coherence  was  considered  to  be  largely  due  to  a  shared  policy  goal  of 
providing young people with relevant, high-quality work experience and appropriate skills 
within a safe environment in which their rights are protected. However, stakeholders from 
national authorities highlighted in the interviews and case studies that there was generally a 
greater degree of coherence with national and regional policy for ALMP traineeships than 
for open market traineeships. 

Moreover, factors contributing to good coherence include the following: 

 

 

Implementation  of  the  QFT  principles  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  QFT,  as 
mentioned some national authorities consulted in the interviews and case studies.  

Introduction  of  new  policies  increase  alignment,  as  pointed  out  by  youth 
representatives and some national authorities interviewed and consulted in the case 
studies. 

  National  and  EU  funding  for  traineeships  (e.g.  European  Social  Fund;  Youth 
Employment  Initiative)  has  been  a  driver  for  promoting  coherence  with  the  QFT, 
by  supporting  the  implementation  of  QFT  principles  and  bringing  national  and 
regional  actors  together  to  develop  education  and  training,  or  employment 
measures,  as  stressed  by  interviewed  national  authorities,  PES  and  youth 
organisations. 

Despite  the  overall  positive  feedback,  a  wide  range  of  stakeholder  groups  consulted 
(national  authorities,  employer  organisations,  trade  unions,  youth  organisations)  also 
identified  some  factors  hampering  or  limiting  coherence  with  national  and  regional 
polices,  including:  lack  of  horizontal  coordination  mechanisms  between  policies  and 
policy  makers  across  relevant  sectors  (i.e.,  Ministries  of  education  and  employment),  the 
relatively  narrow  scope  of  the  QFT,  which  does  not  allow  for  cooperation  between 
policymakers from different relevant fields,  lack of harmonised vocational education and 
training  systems  which  result  in  different  quality  criteria,  monitoring  procedures  and 
approaches  to  work-based  learning,  as  well  as  lack  of  ambition  of  the  QFT  compared  to 
other EU level instruments (e.g. European Pillar of Social Rights) or national and regional 
policies, which limits coherence as national and regional measures may be more advanced.  

109 

 
 
 
 
Finally, national authorities, EU and national level social partners and youth organisations 
consulted in the interviews, case studies and expert meeting shared the view that the QFT 
has a  good degree of coherence and complementarity with other related EU policies 
and funding mechanisms (e.g. Youth Guarantee, Youth Employment Initiative, European 
Social Fund) and that there is no duplication or overlap.  

4.4 EU added value 

National  authorities  responsible  for  education  and  training  and  employment  policies, 
PES, social and economic partners at national and EU level (trade unions and  employer 
organisations),  EU  and  national  level  organisations  representing  young  people  and/or 
young  trainees,  research  /academia  and  other  international  organisations  were  all 
consulted on questions related to the EU added value of the QFT, through the interviews, 
the public consultation, the case studies, the expert meeting and the validation workshop. 
Trainees were not asked about the EU added value of the QFT in the trainee survey given 
the  fact  that  they  are  unlikely  to  have  such  knowledge  and  the  priority  given  to 
simplifying the trainee survey in order to maximise response rates from this stakeholder 
group. 

The perception of EU added value resulting from the implementation of the QFT was 
overall  positive,  as  evidenced  in  the  consultations  with  national  authorities,  PES,  youth 
organisations, trade unions, and employer organisations through the interviews, the public 
consultation, the case studies, the expert meeting and the validation workshop.  

Interviewed  national  authorities,  civil  society,  youth  organisations,  and  trade  unions 
recognised  the  value  of  the  QFT  in  setting  out  common  guidelines.  National  authorities 
from Member States with less developed systems stressed the added value brought by the 
QFT in fostering policy and legislative changes at national level. Employer organisations 
participating  in  the  interviews  and  the  validation  workshop  praised  the  flexibility  of  the 
QFT  in  allowing  Member  States  to  decide  how  and  to  what  extent  to  implement  its 
principles.  The  public  consultation  confirmed  this  positive  view,  with  most  respondents 
stating  that  the  implementation  of  the  QFT  produced  added  value  to  a  large  extent  or 
moderate  extent by increasing the number of quality traineeships (71%, 119 out  of 169), 
with public authorities standing out as the respondent group expressing the highest support 
for the QFT in this area, and encouraging young people to take up traineeships (71%, 119 
out of 169), strongly supported by respondents from academic/research institutions. 

However,  despite  recognising  the  important  role  of  the  QFT  in  providing  overarching 
standards, a number of consultees questioned the extent to which the QFT had direct 
impact  on  legislation  and  on  traineeships  on  the  ground.  These  views  were  held  by 
interviewed national authorities from Member States where legislation and frameworks on 
traineeships  existed  prior  to  2014.  According  to  them,  the  added  value  of  the  QFT  lies 
mostly in  fostering dialogue and increasing  the debate  around quality traineeships. Some 
employer  organisations  consulted  in  the  interviews  and  the  case  studies  also  argued  that 
existing  differences  between  labour  markets  across  the  EU  mean  that  overarching 

110 

 
 
instruments such as the QFT bring little added value in practice. Views from respondents 
to  the public  consultation  seem  to align with  these concerns as only  22% of  respondents 
(32  out  of  169)  indicated  that  the  QFT  has  prompted  structural  policy  changes  at  the 
national level. 

Lastly,  stakeholder  views  at  the  EU  level  on  discontinuing  the  QFT  were  mixed  both 
across and within consulted groups.  A number of social partners, national authorities, and 
youth  organisations  consulted  through  the  interviews,  case  studies,  and  validation 
workshop commented that discontinuing the QFT or continuing as it stands would have no 
impact  as  its  principles  have  been  embedded  into  national  legislation  in  most  Member 
States. Other consultees from the same stakeholder categories and participating in the same 
consultation activities, however, thought that discontinuing the QFT would likely result in 
a  loss  of  guidance  and  impetus  for  the  further  development  of  national  frameworks,  and 
called  for  the  QFT  to  be  strengthened.  Some  employer  organisations  and  national 
authorities highlighted the need to invest in supporting actions (e.g. promoting awareness 
raising  and  mutual  learning)  and  youth  organisations  and  trade  unions  stressed  the 
importance  of  adding  new  principles  to  the  QFT  and  of  reconsidering  its  non-binding 
nature. 

4.5 Relevance 

National  authorities  responsible  for  education  and  training  and  employment  policies, 
PES, social and economic partners at national and EU level (trade unions and employer 
organisations)  and  research  /academia  and  other  international  organisations  were  all 
consulted on questions related to the relevance of the QFT, through the interviews, the 
public  consultation,  the  case  studies,  the  expert  meeting  and  the  validation  workshop. 
While  trainees  were  not  directly  asked  about  the  relevance  of  the  QFT  in  the  trainee 
survey,  their  feedback  on  their  traineeship  experience  through  the  trainee  survey  has 
been  triangulated  with  the  outcomes  of  the  other  consultation  activities  to  assess  the 
relevance of the QFT. 

There  is  strong  agreement  across  stakeholders  consulted  that  the  QFT  continues  to  be 
highly appropriate to fostering the labour market integration of young people, with the 
learning content and the written agreements standing out as the QFT principles considered 
to  be  the  most  relevant  in  the  context  of  a  changing  labour  market.  There  is  agreement 
across all stakeholder groups that establishing the learning objectives is key in increasing 
young  peoples’  employability,  with  98%  (254  out  of  259)  of  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation identified them as either very important or important to ensure the quality of 
traineeships.  Trade  unions  and  employer  organisations  agree  on  the  importance  of  the 
learning component, with 88% (7 out of 8) of companies/business organisations and 100% 
(6  out  of  6)  of  trade  union  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  identifying  it  as 
particularly important.  

PES  and  national  authorities  interviewed  in  particular  highlighted  that  the  written 
agreement, reflecting the transparency on the rights and obligations, is a “bedrock” of the 

111 

 
 
traineeship. The public consultation further supports this: concluding a written agreement 
was identified as a key element increasing traineeship quality by 77% (200 out of 259) of 
respondents, with 71% (24 out of 34) of former or current trainees identifying the existence 
of a written agreement as very important for quality traineeships.  

During  the  interviews,  a  number  of  representatives  from  national  authorities,  PES,  youth 
organisations, and trade unions highlighted that the QFT’s exclusive focus on open market 
and ALMP traineeships, and the exclusion of traineeships that are part of formal education 
or  training  programmes,  might  limit  its  relevance.  Trade  unions  highlighted  this  also 
during the social  partner consultation.  However, both  the employer organisations and the 
national  authorities  at  the  validation  workshop  stressed  that  broadening  the  scope  of  the 
QFT  would  result  in  clashes  with  existing  legislation  regulating  compulsory  traineeships 
and/or traineeships that are part of education.  

All  types  of  stakeholders  agree  that  the  QFT  is  still  very  relevant  to  respond  to  needs 
within the EU in terms of supporting  young people to enter the labour market. However, 
adjustments to ensure that the QFT can respond to new challenges may be warranted. For 
example:  

  Employer organisations at EU and national level participating in the interviews and 
validation  workshop  stressed  that  there  is  room  to  increase  the  relevance  of  the 
QFT  in  tackling  skills  mismatches  through  an  increased  focus  on  the  learning 
component  of  the  QFT.  According  to  these  stakeholders,  this  could  entail 
increased  efforts  by  traineeship  providers  to  map  their  own  skills  needs  to  offer 
more targeted opportunities; greater focus on skills recognition; and greater support 
and  guidance  for  employers  to  carry  out  skills  assessments  and  provide  adequate 
supervision. Employer organisations also mentioned the labour and skills shortages 
at the social partner consultation. 

  Consulted stakeholders also noted that the push towards remote and hybrid work 
brought  about  by  the  pandemic  may  require  adjustments  for  the  QFT  to  remain 
relevant.  EU  level  stakeholders  and  national  authorities,  trade  unions,  and  PES 
taking  part  in  the  interviews,  the  case  studies,  and  the  expert  group  feared  that 
remote/hybrid  traineeships  present  risks  (e.g.  digital  learning  not  suiting  all 
individual learning styles, lack of socialisation negatively affecting motivation and 
engagement,  and, 
trainees’  wellbeing,  further  marginalisation  of 
disadvantaged  groups  lacking  digital  skills  and/or  access  to  adequate  ICT 
equipment  and  increased  costs  for  traineeship  providers)  which  the  QFT  should 
address. However, EU level employer organisations participating in the validation 
workshop  mentioned  that  the  current  lack  of  data  on  the  prevalence  remote 
traineeships across sectors means that no additional  principles on remote working 
should be included in the QFT to increase its relevance. 

turn, 

in 

  Employer organisations at the social partner consultation also highlighted the need 

for the QFT to focus more on digital and green transitions. 

However, at the social partner consultation both employer representatives and trade unions 
regretted the lack of data on traineeships across the EU, making it difficult to understand 
the actual situation of traineeships.  Trade unions  also  suggested that  labour inspectorates 

112 

 
 
 
are  tasked  to  monitor  traineeships,  e.g.  whether  regular  jobs  are  being  replaced  by 
traineeships. 

Stakeholders’  views  on 
the  non-binding  nature  of  the  QFT  as  a  Council 
Recommendation  remain  polarised.  Youth  organisations,  trade  union  representatives,  as 
well as  a minority  of national  authorities consulted through the interviews, expert group, 
validation  workshop  and  social  partner  consultation  held  the  view  that  the  non-binding 
nature of the QFT leaves excessive room for Member States to decide whether and how to 
implement  the  QFT,  undermining  its  relevance  and  not  leading  to  concrete  legislative 
changes. EU and national level employer organisations as well as the majority of national 
authorities participating in the same consultation activities, on the other hand, stressed that 
a non-binding tool allows Member States to retain sufficient flexibility to take into account 
existing national industrial relations and education and training practices. 

Lastly,  the  consultations  showed  differences  in  views  on  the  need  to  include  additional 
principles  to  increase  the  relevance  of  the  QFT,  with  stakeholder  groups  clearly  split 
around the issue of trainee remuneration and access to social protection as follows: 

  Trade  unions,  civil  society  and  youth  organisations  and  EU  and  international 
agencies  participating  in  the  interviews,  the  case  studies,  the  expert  group,  social 
partner consultation and the validation workshop agreed that a requirement to pay 
and/or  reimburse  trainees  would  increase  the  relevance  of  the  QFT,  as  paid 
traineeships  would  result  e.g.  in  higher  productivity  and  better  reputation  of 
employers,  and  ensure  increased  accessibility  for  all  groups  of  young  people, 
including  young people with disabilities. In the trainee survey, 87% (1.597 out of 
1.836)  of  trainee  respondents  reported  that  being  paid  for  their  traineeship  was 
essential  or  important  for  them.  Trainees  who  received  an  allowance  during  their 
traineeships indicated that their compensation was either sufficient to a small extent 
(40%,  734  out  of  1.836)  or  not  sufficient  at  all  (22%,  404  out  of  1.836)  to  cover 
basic living costs. 76% (198 out of 259) of respondents to the public consultation 
stated that ensuring trainees are paid would increase the quality of traineeships to a 
large extent, including the majority of public authorities (91%, 77 out of 85), trade 
unions (100%, 6 out of 6), and current/former trainees (74%, 25 out of 34). 

  Employer  organisations  at  national  and  EU  level  consulted  through  the  interview 
programme,  the  case  studies,  social  partner  consultation  and  the  validation 
workshop, however, cautioned against the potentially negative consequences and/or 
the challenges of trainee pay. These include further blurring the distinction between 
trainees  and  workers,  interfering  with  national  labour  law,  as  well  as  additional 
costs  for  traineeship  providers  (e.g.  HR  and  administrative  costs),  potentially 
discouraging employers from offering traineeship opportunities at all. Costs could 
disproportionately  impact  SMEs,  which  tend  to  be  the  majority  of  traineeship 
providers; the trainee survey found that the vast majority of trainees undertook their 
traineeship  in  medium  (50%, 478 out  of 956) or small  size companies (24%, 229 
out  of  956),  as  opposed  to  large  employers  (17%,  162  out  of  956).  However,  a 
minority  of  employer  organisations  participating  in  the  interviews  recognised  the 
benefits  that  paid  traineeships  can  bring  to  traineeship  providers,  including 
avoiding reputational damage from offering unpaid opportunities and cultivating a 
greater  sense  of  ownership  from  trainees,  leading  to  higher  productivity. 

113 

 
 
Furthermore,  the  responses  to  the  public  consultation  show  that  the  majority  of 
enterprises  offering  traineeships  (60%,  3  out  of  5)  consider  that  ensuring  trainees 
are paid would increase the quality of traineeships to a large extent. 

Consultees  from  trade  unions,  youth  and  civil  organisations  at  the  national  and  EU  level 
participating in the interviews, social partner consultation and the expert group highlighted 
that  a  new  principle  on  access  to  social  protection  would  increase  the  relevance  of  the 
QFT by setting trainees  on a positive trajectory in the world of work. The trainee survey 
confirmed  this,  with  84%  (3.181  out  of  3.787)  of  respondents  considering  that  being 
covered by health and sickness  benefits  as essential or important,  and 78% (2.954 out  of 
3.787)  of  trainees  surveyed  indicating  that  having  access  to  minimum  income  support  is 
either  essential  or  important.  In  the  public  consultation,  ensuring  access  to  a  variety  of 
additional benefits received broad support from  respondents: health and sickness benefits 
(84%, 217 out of 259), minimum income (78%, 202 out of 250), and pension rights (76%, 
197 out of 259). However, as with trainee pay, employer organisations, particularly at EU 
level,  consulted  through  the  interview  programme  and  participating  in  the  validation 
workshop and the social partner consultation, stressed that a principle on social protection 
would  affect  the  flexibility  that  the  QFT  warrant,  and  result  in  increased  costs  and 
administrative burden, discouraging businesses from offering traineeships. When it comes 
to  access  to  specific  benefits,  the  public  consultation  showed  that  respondents  from 
enterprises offering traineeships were the group most frequently held the view that access 
to unemployment benefits would increase the quality of traineeships only to a small extent 
(40%, 2 out of 5).  

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI. RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE EVALUATION STUDY  

Current situation and developments 2014 - 2021 

1.  What  are  the  most  common  characteristics  of  trainees  across  the  27  Member  States  (e.g.  sex,  age,  education  background, 
socioeconomic  background,  migrant  background,  ethnic  minority  status)?  How  have  these  developed  since  the  baseline  of 
2014? 

2.  What is  the  current  prevalence  of  traineeships across the 27 Member  States?  In  which  sectors  are they  most  prevalent  and 
what are the typical working conditions (e.g. ALMP versus open market, duration, remuneration, social protection coverage)? 
How has all of this developed since the baseline of 2014? 

3.  What  is  the  public  debate  across  the  27  Member  States,  if  any,  about  the  role  of  traineeships  and  the  importance  of  their 
quality for young people (political, civil society, representations of young people)? How has it developed since the baseline of 
2014? 

Relevance 

4. 

5. 

6. 

To what extent are the principles appropriate for fostering stable labour market integration? Which principles are likely to be 
the most and the least important? 

Has the understanding of traineeship quality evolved over time? How well do the principles of the QFT still correspond to the 
needs  within  the  EU?  How  well  adapted  is  the  QFT  to  a  post-COVID-19  world,  a  changing  labour  market  and  the  latest 
perspectives of stakeholders and citizens? 

Are there any additional dimensions that should have been added to the principles from the start or have in the interim proven 
to be lacking? How – and how likely – would such additions add to quality traineeships, and, in turn, their contribution to a 
stable labour market integration? 

7.  With  due  respect  to  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  how  well  does  the  nature  of  the  QFT  as  a  (non-binding)  Council 
Recommendation correspond to the needs and the socio-economic problems to be solved? Has this changed over time, and are 
their significant differences between Member States? 

Effectiveness 

8. 

9. 

To what extent have the principles of the QFT been enshrined in national legislation and/or national quality frameworks since 
2014? To what extent did they already exist? What is the scope of current national legislative frameworks and national quality 
frameworks? 

To what extent do enforcement and/or regular follow-up monitoring exist and to what extent do they confirm an adherence to 
national legislation and/or national quality frameworks and/or the overarching QFT? Is there evidence of adverse effects too? 

10.  What is the impact on trainees? How effective do (ex-)trainees perceive traineeships (and/or specific legislative frameworks 
and/or specific national quality frameworks) to be in terms of facilitating a stable labour market integration for young people, 
and contributing to youth employment? Is there evidence of adverse effects too? 

11.  How  equally  are  the  effects  of  the  QFT,  by  way  of  national  legislative  frameworks  and/or  national  quality  frameworks, 
distributed within Member States? Are there sectors or (social) sub-groups for which the QFT has proven to be particularly 
successful or unsuccessful? 

12.  How  do  observed  developments  since  the  baseline  of  2014  compare  against  the  developments  that  were  expected  to  be 

achieved when the QFT was developed/proposed178? 

178   A  useful  source  in  this  context  may  be  the  Impact  Assessment  that  underpinned  the  Commission  proposal  upon  which  the 
(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

Council 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0495&qid=1622466549066&from=EN). 

Recommendation 

based 

was 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
13. 

While taking into account the differences in objectives and target groups, has one of the two quality frameworks, the QFT or 
the  EFQEA,  been  more  effective  in  improving  the  quality  of  traineeships  and  apprenticeships  respectively,  as  well  as  the 
employability of trainees and apprentices, and why? 

Efficiency 

14.  What  was  the  quantifiable  administrative burden associated  with the  adequate implementation  of  the  QFT  for  the  different 
stakeholders at various levels (national, regional, local), in terms of e.g. transposition of QFT principles, enforcement/follow-
up monitoring and other compliance checks? 

15.  To  what  extent  have  Member  States  encouraged  or  enabled  traineeship  prevalence  and  improved  quality  through  financial 

incentives? Have any EU programmes (such as the YEI and ESF) contributed directly or indirectly to financial incentives? 

16.  What can be approximated in terms of quantifiable benefits for young people? Are there other quantifiable benefits for society 

at large that could be linked back to the QFT? 

17.  What are the main obstacles preventing employers from offering traineeships? What kind of support would be necessary to 

overcome these obstacles? 

18.  To what extent are the administrative costs proportionate to the assessed benefits of QFT implementation? What has been the 
cost-effectiveness and how/why does it vary across the 27 Member States? What factors influenced the efficiency and how 
did they do so?  

19. 

Is there scope for reducing administrative burden without undermining the assessed benefits of QFT implementation? In other 
words, could benefits have been achieved at lower cost? 

Coherence 

20.  To  what  extent have  the  objectives, target  groups  and  measures  to  implement the  QFT  within the context  of ALMPs  been 
coherent with education and training, employment and social policies at national and regional level? How about open market 
traineeships? 

21.  Linked to the former, to what extent do the QFT support and usefully complement other policies (in particular those pursued 

at national level)? What is the level of complementarity or duplication? 

22.  To  what  extent have  the  objectives, target  groups  and  measures  to  implement the  QFT  within the context  of ALMPs  been 

coherent with the relevant EU initiatives listed in section 2.3? How about open market traineeships? 

EU added value 

23.  What is the additional value resulting from the QFT compared to what could reasonably have been expected from Member 

States acting at national and/or regional levels?  

24.  What  would  be  the  most  likely  consequences  of  discontinuing  the  QFT  at  EU  level,  and  what  would  be  the  most  likely 

prognosis for a no-policy-change scenario of continuing the QFT as it stands? 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE 2014 QUALITY FRAMEWORK FOR TRAINEESHIPS 
(QFT)  

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

The 2014 Council Recommendation asks Member States to: 

Improve  the  quality  of  traineeships, in particular as  regards  learning  and  training  content  and  working conditions,  with  the 
aim  of  easing  the  transition  from  education,  unemployment  or  inactivity  to  work  by  putting  in  practice  the  following 
principles for a Quality Framework for Traineeships: 

Conclusion of a written traineeship agreement 

Require that traineeships are based on a written agreement concluded at the beginning of the traineeship between the trainee 
and the traineeship provider; 

Require  that  traineeship  agreements  indicate  the  educational  objectives,  the  working  conditions,  whether  an  allowance  or 
compensation  is  provided  to  the  trainee  by  the  traineeship  provider,  and  the  rights  and  obligations  of  the  parties  under 
applicable EU and national law, as well as the duration of the traineeship […]; 

Learning and training objectives 

Promote best practices as regards learning and training objectives in order to help trainees acquire practical experience and 
relevant skills; the tasks assigned to the trainee should enable these objectives to be attained; 

Encourage  traineeship  providers  to  designate  a  supervisor  for  trainees  guiding  the  trainee  through  the  assigned  tasks, 
monitoring and assessing his/her progress; 

Working conditions applicable to trainees 

Ensure that the rights and working conditions of trainees under applicable EU and national law, including limits to maximum 
weekly  working  time,  minimum  daily  and  weekly  rest  periods  and,  where  applicable,  minimum  holiday  entitlements,  are 
respected; 

Encourage traineeship providers to clarify whether they provide coverage in terms of health and accident insurance as well as 
sick leave; 

Require  that  the  traineeship  agreement  clarifies  whether  an  allowance  or  compensation  is  applicable,  and  if  applicable,  its 
amount; 

Rights and obligations 

Encourage the concerned parties to ensure that the traineeship agreement lays down the rights and obligations of the trainee 
and  the  traineeship  provider,  including,  where  relevant,  the  traineeship  provider's  policies  on  confidentiality  and  the 
ownership of intellectual property rights; 

Reasonable duration 

10.  Ensure  a  reasonable  duration  of traineeships that,  in principle,  does not  exceed  six  months,  except  in  cases  where  a  longer 

duration is justified, taking into account national practices; 

11.  Clarify the circumstances and conditions under which a traineeship may be extended or renewed after the initial traineeship 

agreement expired; 

12.  Encourage  the  practice  of  specifying  in  the  traineeship  agreement  that  either  the  trainee  or  the  traineeship  provider  may 
terminate  it  by  written  communication,  providing  advance  notice  of  an  appropriate  duration  in  view  of  the  length  of  the 
traineeship and relevant national practice; 

Proper recognition of traineeships 

13.  Promote the recognition and validation of the knowledge, skills and competences acquired during traineeships and encourage 

traineeship providers to attest them, on the basis of an assessment, through a certificate; 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Transparency requirements 

14.  Encourage  traineeship  providers  to  include  in  their  vacancy  notices  and  advertisements  information  on  the  terms  and 
conditions of the traineeship, in particular on whether an allowance and/or compensation and health and accident insurance 
are  applicable;  encourage  traineeship  providers  to  give  information  on  recruitment  policies,  including  the  share  of  trainees 
recruited in recent years; 

15.  Encourage  employment  services  and  other  providers  of  career  guidance, if  providing  information  on  traineeships,  to  apply 

transparency requirements; 

Cross-border traineeships 

16.  Facilitate the cross-border mobility of trainees in the European Union inter alia, by clarifying the national legal framework for 
traineeships and establishing clear rules on hosting trainees from, and the sending of trainees to, other Member States and by 
reducing administrative formalities; 

17.  Examine  the  possibility  to  make  use  of  the  extended  EURES  network  and  to  exchange  information  on  paid  traineeships 

through the EURES portal; 

Use of European Structural and Investment Funds 

18.  Make use of the European Structural and  Investment Funds, namely the  European Social Fund and the European Regional 
Development  Fund,  in  the  programming  period  2014-2020,  and  the  Youth  Employment  Initiative,  where  applicable,  for 
increasing the number and quality of traineeships, including through effective partnerships with all relevant stakeholders; 

Applying the Quality Framework for Traineeships 

19.  Take appropriate measures to apply the Quality Framework for Traineeships as soon as possible; 

20.  Provide information to the Commission by the end of 2015 on the measures taken in accordance with this Recommendation; 

21.  Promote the active involvement of social partners in applying the Quality Framework for Traineeships; 

22.  Promote  the  active  involvement  of  employment  services,  educational  institutions  and  training  providers  in  applying  the 

Quality Framework for Traineeships. 

118