On the implementation of the Council Recommendation of 30 October 2020 on A Bridge to Jobs – Reinforcing the Youth Guarantee and replacing the… Council Recommendation of 22 April 2013 on establishing a Youth Guarantee

This implementation report has a clear ambition: to make active support for youth employment a political priority at the heart of the EU agenda and national policies. The Youth Guarantee represents a strong political commitment, a promise to offer every young person under the age of 30 a good quality employment, continued education, apprenticeship or traineeship opportunity within four months of becoming unemployed or leaving education. This commitment, made in 2013 and renewed in 2020, underpins the European Union’s credibility towards its young people.

The results are tangible. Although these figures cannot be attributed solely to the implementation of the Youth Guarantee, youth unemployment in the EU has fallen by almost ten percentage points in a decade. More than 60 million young people have benefited from Youth Guarantee schemes, and the strengthening of this instrument has led to institutional reforms in Member States. The appeal of this policy also extends beyond our borders, with Youth Guarantee schemes already being developed in neighbouring countries, particularly in the Western Balkans. However, these achievements should not overshadow the fact that youth unemployment remains nearly three times higher than that of the population as a whole, and the downward trend has stagnated over the past three years. The situation remains urgent for some.

The number of young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) remains alarming in several Member States. This phenomenon affects women, Roma, young persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups more severely. It highlights the inadequacy of a one-size-fits-all approach and underlines the need for targeted, territorialised and inclusive implementation of the Youth Guarantee. Getting these young people into work is not only a social imperative, but also a strategic response to the labour and skills shortages that are holding back our economies.

In order to act effectively, it is necessary to have a precise understanding of the target groups. The lack of detailed data on NEET profiles is a major obstacle. In-depth mapping of NEET subgroups and their characteristics is essential in order to develop appropriate responses. The young people concerned must also be involved in the design of the measures intended for them. No inclusion policy can succeed without the active participation of its beneficiaries.

The evaluation of the implementation of the reinforced Youth Guarantee highlights an undeniable political ambition and strong national ownership, but also the limitations encountered in its operationalisation. There is no single model, but a plurality of models, reflecting the institutional traditions and labour market realities of Member States. Some have integrated the Youth Guarantee into their existing systems, while others have created dedicated models. Some have centralised governance at national level, while others have devolved it to local levels. Some favour an “employment first” approach, while others focus on training.

This diversity is a valuable asset. However, it cannot justify excessive performance gaps in the implementation of the Youth Guarantee. Direct monitoring indicators at EU level show a contrasting reality. Too many young people do not receive an offer within four months, and too few of them find sustainable employment. Follow-up indicators, meanwhile, are seriously lacking in terms of the quantity and quality of the data collected. The administrative or legal inability of certain services to share information and monitor progress is a structural obstacle that must be overcome. Improving monitoring and evaluation systems in Member States must become a political priority.

Even more worryingly, the majority of NEETs, particularly those furthest from the labour market, remain outside the Youth Guarantee schemes. Young people who are inactive, living in rural or marginalised areas, and not registered with public employment services, fall outside of the institutional radar. The authorities responsible for implementation often lack the human and financial resources to reach out to these groups. As a result, those who need support the most are precisely those who receive the least. This situation is politically unacceptable. There is an urgent need to strengthen the administrative and human resources specialised in supporting youth employment commensurate with the challenges to face.

Awareness is generally low. In several Member States, the Youth Guarantee is embedded into broader schemes targeting more generally young people or the employment of the whole population, to the point where it becomes invisible. Some beneficiaries are not even aware that they are participating in a Youth Guarantee scheme. Yet a policy that is neither identified nor understood loses its effectiveness and legitimacy.

Prevention must become a central pillar. The Youth Guarantee cannot function as an isolated policy that only intervenes at the end of the chain. Combating school dropout, supporting pupils in difficulty and providing post-placement support are essential to avoid repeated returns to NEET status. Sustainable inclusion requires a continuous, integrated and consistent approach.

The preparatory phase is equally crucial. Many vulnerable young people are not immediately ready to enter the labour market. They need individualised guidance, psychosocial support and basic skills training. This support must address the root causes of social exclusion before these NEETs can be reintegrated. The active inclusion of the most marginalised young people must become the top priority of the reinforced Youth Guarantee.

In this context, the validation of skills acquired in informal or non-formal settings is a strategic lever. Many young people have skills developed in their family, community or social settings, but these are not officially recognised. Validating these skills can remove barriers to employment and promote local talent.

Preparation also concerns institutions. Public employment services and partner organisations often lack qualified staff to deal with the most complex situations. This brings us to the extension of the Youth Guarantee to 25–29-year-olds, which is politically relevant because transitions to employment are longer and more unstable. But without additional resources, this expansion dilutes efforts and does not provide adequate support for this new age group. A truly individualised approach requires increased resources. Otherwise, the standardised generalisation of services will ultimately cost more because of its limited effectiveness in reducing inequalities and integrating NEETs in the long term.

A careful consideration on the rebalancing of the offers proposed must be conducted. While the priority given to employment is understandable given the financial urgency faced by young people, subsidised jobs do not always guarantee long-term integration. The frequent return to precariousness is clear evidence. Choosing the most suitable offer for each individual profile, or a combination of education, apprenticeships, internships and employment, could deliver more robust and sustainable results.

Volunteering opportunities deserve to be included as a new category of Youth Guarantee scheme offers. For some young people, volunteering can provide a flexible framework for developing skills, rebuilding social ties and preparing for employment. However, these new options must be accompanied by additional funding so as not to undermine existing schemes.

The question of the quality of offers remains central. Aligning the reinforced Youth Guarantee with European quality frameworks and the European Pillar of Social Rights has not been enough to make a real difference for beneficiaries. An Open Method of Coordination at EU level could enable a structured exchange of good practices, as well as harmonisation of evaluation criteria and more rigorous monitoring of the quality of placements.

The success of the Youth Guarantee also relies on strong partnerships between ministries, public employment services, education services, training providers, social partners, national youth councils, NGOs and local authorities. A collaborative approach enables the creation of an integrated support network and helps to rebuild trust with young people who are furthest from the labour market.

Synergies must also be strengthened with the European Child Guarantee in order to ensure continuity of support for the 15-18 age group and to prevent vulnerabilities from becoming entrenched. A more comprehensive approach with other EU inclusion strategies, such as the EU Roma Strategic Framework or the EU Union of Equality Strategies, would strengthen action in favour of young people regardless of their situation.

No political ambition can be realised without adequate financial resources. The direct link with the ESF+ and the dedicated allocation of 12.5% in the 2021–2027 Multiannual Financial Framework have enabled significant progress. However, difficulties in absorbing funds in some Member States and the removal of earmarked funding in the proposed Multiannual Financial Framework for 2028–2034 pose a real risk to the sustainability and effectiveness of Youth Guarantee funding.

Given the still uneven implementation results and persistent disparities between Member States, a political push to support young people’s transition to the labour market is needed. Where youth unemployment and NEET rates exceed the EU average, the Commission must adopt binding decisions. The aim is not to penalise the Member States in question, but to require clear improvement plans for strengthening administrative capacity, improving coverage of target groups, particularly those that are hardest to reach, developing ambitious awareness-raising strategies, improving the quality of offers and establishing reliable data collection systems. The ultimate goal is to improve upward social convergence in the European Union and deliver practical solutions for our young people.

The Youth Guarantee must become what it aspires to be: a credible promise of inclusion, autonomy and dignity for all young people.

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he included in his report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the draft report, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.