THE LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

YOUTH GUARANTEE:

LESSONS FROM PRACTICE

OECD Forum on Partnerships and Local Development 10th Annual Meeting, 23-25 April 2014Stockholm, Sweden

Overview

1. Context and rationale for the study

2. Methodology

3. Main findings

4. Questions for discussion

Context: Youth hit hard by the crisis

Source: Eurostat, LFS

Youth unemployment: 23.4% in January 2014

Significant cross-national disparities

Youth Unemployment, December 2013

Source: Eurostat, LFS

6,17,8

9,6 10,1 10,6 11,313,5 13,6 13,9

1617,4

18,7 19,1 19,7 19,9 20 20,522,6 23 23,5 23,7 23,8 23,8 24,1 24,4

25,627

28,2

33,3 34,3

40,5 41,7

48,8

54,2

58,3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

As well as regional…

Source:EuropeanCommission

NEET rates

2011: 12.9% in the EU, 15.8% in the OECD

Source: Eurostat, LFS

Council Recommendation on establishing the Youth

Guarantee, 22 April 2013:

“[Member States should] ensure that all young people

under the age of 25 years receive a good-quality offer of

employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a

traineeship within a period of four months of becoming

unemployed or leaving formal education”.

EU funding: Youth Employment Initiative (€6 billion over 2014-2015 + ESF 2014-2020 - €71 billion), targeted on regions where youth unemployment exceeds 25%.

The European Youth Guarantee

The six implementation axes

Building-up partnership

based approaches

Swift implementation of the scheme

Assessment and continuous

improvement of the scheme

Use of EU Structural Funds

Early intervention and

activation measures

Supportive measures for labour market

integration

• Reviews experience in 7 EU countries which have recently implemented measures akin to the Youth Guarantees.

• Focuses on instruments that depart from traditional placement services such as labour market information, career’s guidance, counselling and job search assistance.

LEED Study on the Local Implementation of Youth Guarantees

Questions•Under what framework conditions (both national and local) are youth guarantees effective? •Do certain local areas perform better than others? And if so, why? •What factors can explain local variations?

Methodology•Mapping of national policy framework through review of literature•Interviews with national policy makers responsible for youth guarantee •Semi-structured telephone interviews with local PES representatives (one interview per local case study area).

LEED Study on the Local Implementation of Youth Guarantees

Shaping local Youth Guarantees – a framework for analysis

The offer Full range of options available (individual counselling, career advice, vocational guidance, training, apprenticeships, continued education, internships, work trials, job subsidies). Possibility to combine measures

Entitlements and target groups

Universality principle: open to a wide diversity of groups (including NEETs, potential school drop-outs, graduates - even up to the age of 30).

Conditionality YP free to refuse an offer they don’t want without being sanctioned

Temporal dimension/Time scale

Focused on “path” as opposed to “entry”. Hence early to follow up interventions are implemented.The guarantee is activated within a very short time (a few weeks) following registration with the PES.

Geographical coverage

Full territorial coverage (no just in selected localities)

Funding Significant levels of national funding (irrespective of ESF entitlements)

Delivery actors Broad-based partnerships beyond the PES (including youth groups and representatives)

Other institutional and operational features

Attempts to embed the YG in national legislation and to develop effective monitoring tools.

A strong Youth Guarantee: “an ideal type” of design and delivery features

Relevant YG instruments

Country Scheme/Instrument(s)

Denmark Youth Employment and Education Programmes (focus on education)

Finland Youth Guarantee (revised version of the 2005 “Social Guarantee”)

Flanders IBO (individual in-company training) + Loopbaanakkoord

Germany Guidance and placement

Norway Combination of work experience and training

Poland “Your Career Your Choice”

Sweden Job Guarantee (revised in 2011)

•

Case study localities

Large conurbations Remote areas

Name Population Name Population

Berlin Brandenburg(Germany)

6 million leper (Flanders) 35,000

Copenhagen (Denmark)

559,500 Ljusdal (Sweden) 19,500

Ghent(Flanders)

248,200 Ostrów Mazowiecka (Poland)

23,500

Kristiansand(Norway)

89,770 Rosenheim (Germany)

60,700

Poznan (Poland) 552,735 Skive (Denmark) 20,500

Stockholm (Sweden) 851,150 Sotkamo (Finland) 10,700

Vantaa(Finland)

206,960 Tvedestrand (Norway)

6,000

Main findings

• Strengths and weaknesses arising from local labour market conditions:

geographical spread (e.g. Berlin, Vantaa) or remoteness reduce mobility and sometimes lead to specific actions (e.g. Sotkamo)

opportunities in rising sectors (e.g. tourism in some remote localities such as Skive (but also threat because of seasonality)

Dependency on major local employer(s) or employment sector(s) (e.g. leper with Picanol)

• Early interventions: an increasingly important approach in many localities but variable degree of cooperation between PES and schools.

• Engaging employers: remaining difficulty, lack of resources – need for innovative projects (Petra: ESF-funded project in Vantaa).

• Outreach activities: more common in remote and well performing labour markets but can create duplication/tensions with social work.

• The relationship between partnership models and the nature of the local labour market: broad platforms in large cities (e.g. Ghent at Work).

Main findings

• Guarantee of opportunity or guarantee of outcome?

• Lack of flexibility at the local level• The provision of mobility grants• The timing of intervention• The involvement of young people• Broadening local partnerships• Ongoing lack of indicators• The right scale for policy transfer

Issues for attention

Questions for today’s discussion

1) What can the local level achieve in the delivery of Youth Guarantees? 

2) What are the most appropriate approaches for those who need it the most (early school leavers, NEETs, etc.)?

3) How to ensure sustainable labour market outcomes?