Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

AddedK. whereas the labour market integration of NEETs has become increasingly complex, driven by factors such as the increase in non-standard forms of employment, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and digitalisation, and the cost of living crisis, including rising housing costs; whereas these developments create structural barriers to sustainable employment and labour market integration, require more flexibility and mobility from young people and exacerbate inequalities that leave vulnerable NEETs behind; whereas the increasing barriers to labour market integration for young people undermine social cohesion and institutional trust; whereas the implementation of the RYG must be reformed and strengthened to effectively respond to these challenges and prioritise NEETs furthest from the labour market;

AddedL. whereas youth underemployment remains a persistent challenge, with young people disproportionately represented among low-wage earners and in precarious work and part-time employment; whereas they frequently lack access to adequate employment protection and social benefits; whereas young people are also at higher risk of job displacement due to automation and AI; whereas many young people, despite being highly educated and skilled, struggle to translate their qualifications into stable employment; whereas the employment rate for recent graduates is declining; whereas such conditions provide limited financial security and undermine pathways to sustainable labour market integration; whereas this particularly affects vulnerable NEETs who are disproportionately concentrated in low-skilled and low-quality employment;

AddedM. whereas Member States have generally maintained a strong political commitment to implementing the YG and their national implementation plans; whereas particular efforts have been made to strengthen support capacities for NEETs and mutual learning exercises through meetings of national coordinators at EU level or beyond;

AddedN. whereas there are almost as many models for implementing the YG as there are Member States; whereas the institutional arrangements for its implementation range from integrating the YG into existing national systems to creating a separate national model; whereas governance arrangements also vary between centralised models coordinated at national level and fully decentralised models at local level;

AddedO. whereas it is difficult to establish a direct causal link between the implementation of the RYG and the observed results in terms of reduction in the NEET rate and youth unemployment, particularly where RYG schemes are embedded in broader national policies; whereas this highlights the strong need for focus to be placed on tangible outcomes for young people, improved alignment with national labour market needs and closer synergies with EU programmes in the implementation of the RYG;

AddedP. whereas a clear majority of Member States rely on an employment-first strategy, while others prioritise a training-focused approach; whereas in 2024, 35.2 % of positive and timely exits from the YG preparatory phase led to employment, 6.5 % to education, 2.5 % to a traineeship and 1.6 % to an apprenticeship; whereas education and training play a dual role in equipping young people with relevant skills and qualifications while, at the same time, encouraging personal development, autonomy, creativity, civic engagement and the capacity to actively participate in society; whereas these dimensions are mutually reinforcing and contribute to sustainable labour market integration, social cohesion and democratic participation;

AddedQ. whereas European data shows that initial VET pathways that feature a strong work-based learning component are the most effective instrument for preventing people from ending up in NEET situations, inasmuch as young people who complete work-based learning pathways of at least seven months boast employment rates of up to 90.5 %, as opposed to 69.7 % for those who do not have access to these pathways; whereas dual VET systems use a structured alternation between school and work to generate marketable skills and significantly reduce the gap between job demand and supply; whereas the Member States that have robust dual VET systems have the lowest youth unemployment rates in the EU;

AddedR. whereas active citizenship, civic education, volunteering and participatory initiatives empower young people to become well-informed, responsible and engaged members of society, and can complement employment and training measures by supporting the development of transversal competences, as well as a sense of agency, solidarity and belonging;

AddedS. whereas the validation of non-formal and informal learning, in line with the Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012, enables young people furthest from the labour market to build on skills and competences acquired through youth work, volunteering, and cultural community and heritage-related activities;

AddedT. whereas youth work is recognised at EU level, including under the European youth work agenda, as a distinct practice supporting young people’s personal development and social inclusion; whereas approaches to the recognition of youth work, and the qualifications and professional standards required by the sector, vary significantly across Member States, resulting in uneven visibility and portability of competences acquired through youth work;

AddedU. whereas the effective implementation of the RYG requires targeted and integrated measures, combining employment support with access to education and training, as well as basic enabling conditions such as social services, youth work, childcare and care, mental health and well-being support, cultural activities, housing, transport, social protection, and, where appropriate, adequate income support; whereas this holistic approach should ensure lasting labour market integration, prevent long-term exclusion and disengagement, in particular for young and single parents, promote gender equality, support sustainable work-life balance and rebuild trust among marginalised young people; whereas low-threshold, community-based outreach centred on culture, sports and civic engagement, through actors such as public libraries, museums, youth centres and youth organisations, is critical in reaching those furthest from public services in order to boost RYG participation;

AddedV. whereas institutional and structural barriers to the effective operationalisation of the YG and its practical implementation still remain at both national and local level, such as limited public employment services (PES) capacity, obstacles to the sharing of data between services, the mismatch between education and training provision and the labour market, as well as the poor outreach and support to vulnerable NEETs facing socio-economic disadvantages; whereas inactive and vulnerable NEETs are often left out of RYG initiatives to the benefit of young people closer to the labour market;

AddedW. whereas the RYG goals reflect the shared political priorities of Parliament, the Commission and the Member States under the current multiannual financial framework (MFF), notably through the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), contributing to the EU’s objective of sustainable economic growth and the creation of high-quality jobs in line with the European Pillar of Social Rights; whereas stronger synergies between the Youth Guarantee, Erasmus+, the ESF and the EU Youth Strategy could enhance young people’s opportunities for participation, mobility, skills development and social inclusion across Europe;

AddedX. whereas the effectiveness of the RYG depends on the transparent and efficient use of EU and national funds; whereas to address the persistent problems and new rapidly evolving challenges to labour market integration for young people, these priorities must be maintained beyond the current programming period and be complemented by an improvement in managing authorities’ absorption capacities; whereas Eurofound estimates that the failure to integrate NEETs into the labour market amounts to an economic loss of nearly EUR 100 billion per year across Member States;

AddedY. whereas the effectiveness of the RYG should be measured not only by the immediate entry of young people into employment, education or training, but also by the quality, sustainability and long-term career prospects of such opportunities; whereas stronger monitoring, disaggregated data collection and evaluation systems capable of measuring long-term impacts are essential to fully capture its outcomes, particularly for vulnerable and marginalised groups;

AddedZ. whereas retaining young talent and better anticipation of skills and training needs, including through regional mapping of skills mismatches, can help bridge the skills gap between educational outcomes and labour market needs, especially in strategic sectors with the potential to boost the EU’s long-term competitiveness, in line with the Council Recommendation of 9 March 2026 on human capital;

AddedAA. whereas the YG is based on a principle of mutual obligation, under which young people not only have the right to a high-quality offer but also the duty to actively participate and accept reasonable employment, training, or educational opportunities;

AddedAB. whereas Member States must therefore ensure that, in cases of repeated and unjustified refusal of reasonable offers, appropriate measures can be applied in accordance with national law to prevent passivity and promote the personal responsibility of young people;

Trends in the implementation of the Youth Guarantee

Change 3

Changed1. Welcomes the strong performance of labour markets in the EU and the historically low unemployment rates; regrets, however, that this trend is not having a greater impact on young people, whose unemployment rate across the EU hovers at around 15 %, still almost three times higher than the rate for the general population;population, and who are not seeing improvements in the quality of their employment; notes that the unemployment situation among certain groups of young people is particularly worrying and that the RYG has the potential to reduce youth unemployment and act as a preventive measure;

Change 4

Changed2. Welcomes the downward trend in the rate of young people neither in employment nor in education or training (NEET)NEETs in the EU since the introduction of the Youth Guarantee,YG, which fell from 16.1 % in 2013 to 11.111 % in 2024;2025; notes, however, a disparity between the Member States, with some having already achieved the 2030European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan target andof decreasing the NEET rate to 9 % by 2030, while others still havinghave alarmingly high numbers of NEETs;

Change 5

Changed3. Emphasises that direct monitoring indicators for the Youth GuaranteeYG suggest significant and persistent challenges in the bringing into operation and delivery of Youth GuaranteeYG schemes; highlights, in particular, that in 2024 more than half of participants (54 %) remained in the preparatory phase for more than four months, and that positive and timely exits from the preparatory phase represented less than half of cases (45.1 %);%) and that the coverage rate stood at less than 50 % of the NEET population in many Member States; deplores the fact that these figures indicate that YG schemes are not meeting their core objectives in terms of outreach, timeliness and effectiveness;

Change 6

Removed4. Stresses that follow-up indicators suffer from a lack of data and methodological weaknesses in several Member States;

Added4. Stresses that follow-up indicators are undermined by a lack of data and methodological weaknesses in several Member States, notably for the 25-29 age group, and the high share of unknown outcomes, which prevent a comprehensive assessment of the sustainability of RYG schemes by type of offers and their long-term effects, as well as comparisons between Member States based on disaggregated data such as by gender, age, disability, location and socio-economic status; notes that some Member States group together education and training data into one category, and employment and apprenticeship data into another; highlights in this context that the available data indicates that a majority of young people were in a positive situation six months after leaving RYG schemes in 2024 (58.3 %), but that this proportion decreased after 12 (53.1 %) and 18 months (30.3 %);

Removed5. Underlines that certain young people are in a particularly vulnerable social situation and face a higher risk of unemployment, as well as structural barriers to accessing training and skills development;

Added5. Emphasises that the implementation of YG schemes is hindered by persisting long-term challenges, such as outreach to and support for the hard-to-reach NEETs, the low coverage rate of these schemes, the low quality of offers, the limited capacity and coordinating role of RYG providers, in particular PES, and incomplete monitoring frameworks; takes note of the latest EMCO reviews and the emphasis placed on the persistent difficulties in overcoming structural and institutional barriers that prevent the sustainable labour market integration of young people, in reaching inactive and vulnerable NEETs, in mobilising national budgets to ensure the sustainability of schemes, and in monitoring and collecting data;

Removed6. Emphasises that the integration of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) into the ESF+ has led to an obligation to allocate 12.5 % of the ESF+ to actions and reforms promoting youth employment, VET and the transition from school to work for Member States with a NEET rate above the EU average; deeply regrets that this earmarking, a legacy of the YEI, is not included in the Commission’s proposal for the 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework (MFF);

Added6. Underlines that NEETs are a heterogenous group and that a large number of young people are in a particularly vulnerable socio-economic situation, such as young women, young carers, young parents, early school leavers, young persons with disabilities, young Roma and Traveller communities, young people facing discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, race, ethnic or socio-economic background, or sexual orientation, those leaving institutions or alternative care arrangements, those with migrant backgrounds and residence status, those who have exited custodial systems and those struggling with addiction or chronic diseases, those coming from rural, remote, mountainous or insular areas, and those affected by housing insecurity and homelessness; stresses that these groups face a higher risk of unemployment, social exclusion and becoming NEETs, as well as structural barriers to accessing education, training and skills development and quality jobs; highlights that poverty, health conditions, stigmatisation, institutional distrust and lack of social support can act as barriers to RYG participation and generate economic and social costs, and therefore require targeted and inclusive measures to address disparities and ensure equal opportunities for all; is concerned that RYG schemes often prioritise young people who are already closer to the labour market and recalls the importance of providing support to inactive NEETs, as well as to hard-to-reach NEETs, on an equal footing with the support provided to NEETs who are registered as unemployed;

Added7. Observes a notable imbalance in the opportunities offered under RYG schemes in favour of employment-first approaches over training-focused systems; underlines that limited visibility of education and training opportunities under RYG schemes risks undervaluing alternative pathways and may incentivise short-term labour market offers; stresses that the RYG has not actively tackled the issue of precarious work, leaving vulnerable young people at risk of in-work poverty through low wages and inadequate social protection and employment security; stresses that the choice of offers must be based on the NEETs’ individual situations and the objective of their sustainable integration into the labour market; notes in this regard the potential of subsidised offers to promote upskilling and empower young people to progress in their careers;

Added8. Underlines that currently not all eligible young people receive offers of quality employment, education, apprenticeships or training within four months of leaving education or becoming unemployed; acknowledges that job quality remains a major challenge in youth employment and that YG offers should promote fair working conditions, sustainable education and labour market integration as well as contribute to combating precarious forms of work; recognises the slowdown in graduate jobs and highlights the mismatch between the qualifications of certain younger workers and their roles, which can negatively impact long-term earning and career potential; notes that the current indicator framework for the RYG focuses primarily on quantitative performance metrics such as NEET rates, youth unemployment and timely exits from the preparatory phase, without monitoring the quality of offers or the sustainable integration of beneficiaries;

Added9. Emphasises the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on young people and the important stabilising role played by the YG in preventing a new youth unemployment crisis in this context; considers that, with the effects of this period now behind us, the RYG should have as its new objective the reduction of unemployment and inactivity among the hardest-to-reach young people;

Added10. Highlights the generally positive feedback from managing authorities on the merger of the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) financial instrument into the ESF+; emphasises that this has led to an obligation to allocate 12.5 % of the ESF+ budget to actions and reforms promoting youth employment, VET and the transition from school to work for Member States with a NEET rate above the EU average; deplores the fact that this earmarking, a legacy of the YEI, is not included in the Commission’s proposal for the 2028-2034 MFF;

Added11. Highlights that the absence of specific earmarking for youth employment in the next MFF risks undermining the results achieved and leading to inadequate funding, as highlighted by the European Court of Auditors prior to its introduction; highlights the absence of requirements for Member States to report national funding for measures implementing the RYG, which limits EU-wide comparability and evaluation; recognises that, in a challenging budgetary context, RYG funding should prioritise the labour market integration of vulnerable and inactive NEETs;

Added12. Stresses that young people face multidimensional challenges that cannot be addressed solely through employment-activation measures and that the sustainable labour market integration of NEETs requires a holistic approach; highlights that the YG operates within a broader framework of EU and national policies and that achieving its core objectives depends on enabling policies and preventive measures in other areas such as social protection, social inclusion, housing, in-work poverty, family, care and childcare, transport, mental health and anti-discrimination; recognises, in particular, the housing crisis and the disproportionate impact it has on young people;

Added13. Notes that the focus placed on the YG in the European Semester has diminished in recent years, particularly with regard to the country-specific recommendations, which have not mentioned the instrument since the years when the recommendations were published and there was political momentum surrounding them; highlights, given the labour market situation in some Member States, that a discrepancy is apparent between these situations and the formulation of country-specific recommendations; regrets the decision taken in the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure to downgrade the youth unemployment rate to an auxiliary indicator, even though this remains a worrying problem in many Member States;

Added14. Welcomes the establishment of validation systems for non-formal and informal learning in most Member States; regrets, nevertheless, that the implementation of the Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 remains uneven, especially in terms of the fragmentation of qualification frameworks, complex validation procedures, insufficient guidance and a lack of dedicated financial and human resources;

Added15. Recognises individuals who are underemployed and the long-term implications this can have on their earning potential and eventual pension outcomes; calls, in this regard, for the Youth Strategy to work towards ensuring that underemployed young people are offered full-time employment wherever possible;

Added16. Welcomes the 2021 Western Balkans Declaration and the adoption by these countries of national youth guarantee strategies, demonstrating the attractiveness of this instrument; stresses that these efforts are important in promoting the EU accession process, but recognises difficulties similar to those faced by Member States in terms of reaching vulnerable groups, the capacity of PES and the quality of offers; stresses the important role of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance in supporting the implementation of the YG in the Western Balkans;

Impact of the reinforced Youth Guarantee

Change 7

Changed7.17. Recognises that the RYG has acted as a catalyst for institutional reforms and policy innovations across the Member States, and has also prompted reflection on the reorganisation of active labour market policies for young people; notes with concern, however, that half of the Member States’ implementation plans have not been updated over the past decade and thus no longer reflect the current labour market realities, including its trends and transitions, such as the increase in precarious work, the twin transitions and growing underemployment;

Change 8

Removed8. Stresses that the impact of the RYG is uneven across the Member States in terms of its implementation and regarding the specific elements of the reinforcement;

Added18. Stresses that the impact of the RYG is uneven both across and within Member States in terms of its implementation and regarding the specific elements of the reinforcement, while noting that the RYG is not binding on Member States; notes in this context the diversity of approaches to the RYG with regard to its delivery and the scope of the offers provided; underlines that Member States have differing levels of socio-economic development, demographic challenges, local labour market conditions and access to services, resulting in strong regional and local disparities in youth unemployment and inactivity, therefore requiring some flexibility in the design of measures under the RYG;

Removed9. Regrets that awareness of the RYG schemes remains low among young people and, to a certain extent, among authorities, other than those directly responsible for the schemes or employment issues;

Added19. Welcomes the extension of the age group covered by the RYG to include young people aged 25 to 29, considering that transitions from education to the labour market have become longer and less linear, with many young people moving between employment, unemployment and inactivity; notes that this extension has increased participation in RYG schemes, with this age group accounting for around one third of the total number of participants in 2024; emphasises that this increased participation has not always been accompanied by an increase in the capacity of PES, which are faced with a greater number of cases, some of which are more complex; regrets that some Member States have decided not to implement this extension of the age range for the RYG;

Removed10. Notes that outreach remains one of the main obstacles to the implementation of the RYG; regrets that measures are mainly passive and based only on NEETs registered with public employment services (PES);

Added20. Stresses that intergenerational solidarity is a cornerstone of the EU’s welfare model and is essential for preserving social cohesion in the context of demographic change and economic transformation;

Removed11. Expresses concern about the equity of RYG schemes in terms of their ability to reach vulnerable and inactive groups, particularly in remote areas, such as the Roma communities;

Added21. Regrets that awareness of the RYG schemes remains low among young people, employers and, to a certain extent, public authorities, education and training providers and relevant stakeholders not directly involved in the implementation of the schemes or employment issues; stresses that integrating the RYG schemes into broader national programmes risks overshadowing the opportunities offered to NEETs; notes that the NEETs who are hardest to reach remain those who are least aware of RYG schemes and the services available to support them; considers this low awareness, partly attributable to the absence of effective information campaigns, in particular those targeted at young people with fewer opportunities, a significant barrier to the uptake and effectiveness of the RYG;

Removed12. Is concerned about the observed trend within RYG schemes of a shift away from personalised to generalised services;

Added22. Emphasises that poor horizontal and vertical coordination between EU, national, regional and local levels has proved a persistent challenge to the effective delivery of the RYG; notes that the fragmented approach between the actors and services responsible for implementing the RYG is often attributed to data protection issues, outdated registers, or unclear responsibilities among authorities, which prevent the sharing of personal data;

Removed13. Notes that despite an emphasis on aligning quality criteria on EU frameworks, the quality of offers has seen very limited material improvement since the introduction of the RYG;

Added23. Highlights the persistent gaps in data sharing and interinstitutional communication, particularly between schools, education and training providers, alternative care services, social services and PES; regrets that many public authorities did not sufficiently involve social partners, school and universities, civil society organisations and youth organisations in the design, implementation and evaluation of the RYG at national level, undermining its effectiveness; underlines that community-based engagement and a collaborative approach are essential for increasing awareness of RYG opportunities, preventing early school leaving, enabling early intervention at key transition points and supporting the transition from school to employment;

Removed14. Considers that the RYG has not fully achieved its objectives and needs further improvement to bridge the gap between the ambition of this instrument and its practical implementation;

Added24. Notes with strong concern that outreach remains one of the main obstacles to the effective implementation of the RYG; regrets that outreach measures are mainly passive and based only on NEETs registered with PES and that the latter do not have the capacity to take a proactive approach to outreach within communities; notes that this creates systemic barriers for those who face practical challenges, social or digital exclusion, or who do not trust institutions, and who require personalised guidance and support measures; emphasises that effective outreach must reflect local realities and involve trusted local services and organisations working directly with young people and hard-to-reach NEETs;

Added25. Expresses deep concern regarding the equity of RYG schemes and their ability to reach vulnerable and inactive groups; stresses that RYG implementation remains insufficiently integrated with other policies supporting the sustainable labour market integration of vulnerable NEETs, such as care, social protection, health policies and housing; recalls that a lack of evidence-based outreach hinders the development of more refined strategies; stresses that the focus on vulnerable groups in reinforcing the YG has yet to materialise through effective outreach and support mechanisms and increased capacity across Member States; is concerned that a number of young people re-enter the NEET category some time after leaving the RYG schemes;

Added26. Highlights that young women and, in particular, single mothers remain over-represented in the NEET population, despite the strengthened gender dimension of the RYG; stresses that RYG implementation must reach all target beneficiaries equally and better reflect gender-specific patterns, whereby women are more likely to become inactive NEETs and to be outside the labour force, while men are more likely to be registered as unemployed NEETs;

Added27. Emphasises that insufficient capacity and resources within PES remain a critical and persistent barrier to the effective implementation of the RYG; is concerned that PES staff are frequently not provided with the adequate training or resources required to effectively identify, reach and provide tailored support to NEETs, especially the most vulnerable and hardest to reach;

Added28. Is strongly concerned about the observed trend within RYG schemes of a shift away from personalised towards increasingly generalised services; stresses that one-size-fits-all approaches have contributed to the prevalence of RYG offers that mismatch the skills and individual profiles of beneficiaries; stresses that the personalised approach is necessary to address the diversity of NEETs’ needs and the variation in regional and local labour market conditions; recalls that tailored actions tend to be more effective and cost-efficient, as the low costs of delivering general services do not compensate for the low effectiveness of this approach in addressing the multilayered difficulties faced by young people; welcomes efforts made by some Member States to strengthen the personalised approach of their RYG schemes, in particular by including an individual action plan based on the beneficiaries’ profiles;

Added29. Highlights the efforts made in some Member States to analyse the digital skills of NEETs by PES or through self-assessment; stresses that many young people suffer from basic skills gaps as well as digital illiteracy, preventing them from contributing to innovation, prosperity and sustainable economic growth, despite using digital tools; underlines, in this regard, the need to improve digital infrastructure to provide better access to education and training opportunities; regrets that, in most cases, the emphasis placed on skills in reinforcing the YG is not reflected more clearly in the results analysed and that skills development initiatives under these schemes are not more closely integrated into other EU and national skills initiatives, including those related to innovation and competitiveness; emphasises that competencies gained by young people through formal, non-formal and informal learning should be fully recognised and valued for career and professional development;

Added30. Stresses the absolute necessity of rapid and continuous intervention for NEETs in order to prevent them from being trapped in vulnerable situations; regrets, in this context, the generally excessive waiting times for RYG offers, and that the proportion of timely and positive exits has slightly decreased since the YG was reinforced; notes, however, that the effectiveness of placements is primarily measured by the positive outcomes they yield, which have been shown to decline slightly after six months, indicating a lack of sufficient post-placement support;