Established in June 2013, the Youth Guarantee scheme is targeted at 7.5 million young Europeans not in employment, education or training. It will receive €12.7bn from the EU between 2014 and 2020, with member states providing additional funding.
But an examination of the initiative by the European Court of Auditors, published today, found the amount of national funding available to the Youth Guarantee scheme was not yet clear. Nine countries have not yet given the European Commission any information about their planned funding support, while information that has been submitted varies in detail.
The auditors also found that the commission did not carry out an impact assessment specifying the costs and benefits of the Youth Guarantee – going against its own standard procedure. The ECA said that, as there was no information on the potential global cost of implementing the scheme, there was a risk total funding may not be adequate.
Latest commission estimates put the funding requirement at €16.7bn over the 2014-2020 period. However, the International Labour Organisation has estimated costs could potentially reach €21bn per annum.
The ECA also raised concern about the quality of the job offers participating young people would receive, saying this also risked undermining the scheme’s effectiveness.
Iliana Ivanova, the ECA member responsible for today’s report, said the Youth Guarantee programme was an ‘important tool’ giving the high levels of youth unemployment in some member states. More than one fifth of Europeans under the age of 24 and eligible to work are unemployed, while in some countries as many as half are out of work.
‘While this is a financially expensive scheme to implement, the alternative is to continue incurring huge socio-economic costs through unemployment benefits and foregone earnings and taxes, which, according to EU agency Eurofound estimates, amount to €153bn a year – over 1% of EU gross domestic product,’ she said.
‘Yet the Youth Guarantee’s future cannot be taken for granted while serious questions remain unanswered. We have identified as potential risks the adequacy of the scheme’s funding, the “good quality” nature of the offer it proposes to young jobless people, and the way in which the commission monitors and reports on the results of the scheme. Addressing these risks early is key for the effectiveness of the Youth Guarantee.’
