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?