This section presents the results of the mid-term evaluation of the Youth Guarantee Plus Plan 2021‑27 for decent work for young people (YG+P). The results presented link to the evaluation criteria and questions. Section 3.1 focuses on the overall relevance of the YG+P, while section 3.2 analyses coverage and relevance for the programme’s six lines of action. Section 3.3 evaluates programme co‑ordination and section 3.4 discusses its effectiveness.
Mid‑Term Evaluation of Spain’s Youth Guarantee Plus Plan 2021‑2027
Over the last decade, employment in Spain has risen steadily. The steady decline in unemployment since 2013 was interrupted only by the COVID‑19 crisis (OECD, 2023[1]). However, despite this positive trend, challenges persist in the labour market. First, the unemployment rate remains high. It is the highest among OECD member countries and more than double the OECD average (11.4% in 2024, compared with an average of 5.7%). Second, entering the labour market remains particularly difficult for women and young people; unemployment rates for these groups are significantly higher than for the general population.
In the case of young people, in 2024, only 43.2% of 15‑29 year‑olds in Spain were employed, compared with an OECD average of 54% and an EU average of 50%. Similarly, this group had the highest unemployment rate among OECD member countries at 20.2%, compared to an OECD average of 10.7% (Figure 3.1). This proportion reached 26.5% among 15‑24 year‑olds, which is 12 percentage points above the OECD average (14.3%).
Proportion of unemployed youth, by age group, 2024
Note: The OECD average is the unweighted average of all countries.
Source: OECD calculations based on Labour Force Surveys (LFS).
Moreover, in 2024 the proportion of under‑30‑year‑olds not in education, employment or training (NEET) reached 16.1% in Spain, considerably above the OECD average (12.6%) and almost double the EU target of 9% (Eurostat, 2024[2]). The proportion of NEETs in Spain is especially high among 25‑29 year‑olds, at 21.7%, the second-highest rate in the EU (Figure 3.2).
Proportion of young NEETs, by age group, 2024 or latest available
Note: The OECD average is the unweighted average of all countries. 2024 data are preliminary and available for all countries except Australia, Israel, New Zealand, and the United States (2023). Age group breakdowns are not available for Chile, Costa Rica, Greece, and Türkiye.
Source: OECD calculations based on LFS.
The NEET population can be broken down into those who are outside of the labour market but looking for a job (unemployed NEETs) and those who are outside of the labour market and not looking for a job (inactive NEETs).1 While in most OECD countries, inactive NEETs are in the majority, the proportion of unemployed NEETs is higher in those countries that were most affected by the 2008 financial crisis. Spain, for example, has the second-highest proportion of unemployed NEETs of the OECD countries (behind Greece), at 7.7%. The OECD average is 4.2% (Figure 3.3).
Share of young NEETs aged 15‑29, by employment status, 2024 or latest available
Note: The OECD average is the unweighted average of all countries. 2024 data are preliminary and available for all countries except Australia, Israel, New Zealand, and the United States (2023).
Source: OECD calculations based on LFS.
Given this context, the main objective of the YG+P is highly relevant, as it responds to the country’s specific needs in terms of youth employment. It aims to “improve the socio‑economic integration, as well as the personal and social development of young people between 16 and 29 years of age, especially the most vulnerable, by improving labour-market insertion”.2
Likewise, the target population chosen for the YG+P is relevant. “Target population” refers to the group of people that the intervention is intended to serve, and who meet the established eligibility criteria, as set out in the Youth Guarantee registration requirements (Box 3.1). This target population overlaps with the NEET population that the EU’s reinforced Youth Guarantee seeks to support (Council of the European Union, 2020[3]).
The Youth Guarantee is aimed at young job seekers who are not studying or training, who are not employed or self-employed, and who want to enter the labour market.
Young people may apply to register if they meet the following requirements:
They are one of the following: a Spanish national; a citizen of an EU member state, of a party to the European Economic Area Agreement, or of Switzerland; a foreigner holding a residence permit for Spain that authorises them to work; or an unaccompanied minor holding a certificate issued by the child protection services of the relevant autonomous community that gives them the right to enrol in education or training activities or programmes that benefit them.
They are registered with the local authorities in any locality in the Spanish territory.
They are aged between 16 and 29 years at the time of application.
They have not worked on the calendar day prior to the date of filing the application.
They were not participating in any formal education programme on the calendar day prior to the date of filing the application.
They were not participating in any training activities on the calendar day prior to the date of filing the application.
They submit an explicit declaration of their interest in participating in the national Youth Guarantee system, in which they commit to participating in the activities offered within the framework of the Youth Guarantee. In the case of young people who are already registered as job seekers, proof of this registration with the PES will suffice.
Source: SEPE (2024[4]), Plan de Garantía Juvenil Plus 2021‑27 de trabajo digno para las personas jóvenes, https://sepe.es/HomeSepe/Personas/encontrar-trabajo/Garantia-Juvenil/plan-garantia-juvenil-plus.html
Another issue to consider when assessing the overall relevance of the YG+P is that young NEET are a diverse group who face a range of challenges relating to finding employment. For example, while some young people may find it difficult to get a job because they left school early and have a lower level of education, others – particularly women – may be constrained by their caregiving obligations (OECD, 2016[5]). It is therefore important to identify the characteristics of young NEET in Spain and to assess whether the various profiles are correctly represented among the Youth Guarantee participants.
First, the data were disaggregated by gender. At the national level, the proportion of young NEET is almost the same among males (16%) as females (17%). However, these proportions change when the gender groups are disaggregated by age (Figure 3.4). In the younger age groups, the proportion of NEETs remains the same or similar: 8% for both groups among the 15‑19 year‑olds, and 19% and 18% respectively for men and women aged 20‑24 years. However, this parity disappears in the older age group (25‑29 years), where NEET rates among women reach 24%, compared with 21% for men. This difference may be due primarily to the traditional gender-related allocation of roles in Spain, which results in women doing most of the unpaid housework and childcare within a family unit (Eurostat, 2024[2]; OECD, 2022[6]).
Second, educational attainment was considered. At the national level, the proportion of young NEET is highest in the group educated only up to lower secondary level (ISCED 2), at 19%, compared to 13% among young people with an upper secondary education (ISCED 4), and 16% among young people with tertiary education. This distribution demonstrates that low levels of education and skills increase young people’s risk of being NEET, because as the labour market demands increasingly higher levels of educational attainment and skills, a low level of education becomes a decisive risk factor. Nonetheless, in Spain, gender appears to be a more influential variable in this sense than education. In the group of young people with the lowest educational attainment (ISCED 2), the proportion of females who are NEET (20%) is slightly higher than that of males (19%). A more pronounced disparity exists in the group with tertiary education (post-ISCED 4): the proportion of women who are NEET is 18% (compared to 16% of men), an almost identical than the men in the lower-attainment group.
Proportion of young NEETs aged 15‑29 years in Spain, by gender, age group and educational level, 2024
Note: ISCED levels 0‑2 refer to a basic level of education, including up to lower secondary education. ISCED Levels 3‑4 are intermediate levels of education. They refer to upper secondary education and post-secondary non-tertiary education, respectively. ISCED level >4 encompasses several levels of higher, or tertiary, education.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Labour Force Survey.
A comparison of these national-level data with data from the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry shows that the Youth Guarantee participants during the evaluation period were representative, in terms of gender, age and educational attainment, of NEETs at the national level.
For example, the gender parity at the national level in the proportion of NEETs is reflected in the profile of Youth Guarantee participants during the evaluation period, of whom 51% are male and 49% are female (Figure 3.5). Moreover, an analysis incorporating age ranges shows that, from the age of 20 onwards, there are more female than male NEETs at both the national level and registered in the Youth Guarantee.
However, in terms of educational attainment, data on the Youth Guarantee participants only partially reflect data on NEETs at the national level. On the one hand, 37% of female Youth Guarantee participants have an educational level higher than ISCED 4 (tertiary education), compared with 25% of male participants. This disparity reflects the higher risk of being NEET for this population group. On the other hand, in the group of participants with a basic level of education (ISCED 0‑2), the relative sizes of the female and male groups do not correspond to national-level data. Of all female participants, 42% fall into this category, compared with 58% of male participants, while at the national level the proportion of females is higher than that of males.
Proportion of young people under 30 years of age enrolled in the Youth Guarantee during the evaluation period (2021‑24), by gender, age group and educational level
Note: ISCED levels 0‑2 refer to a basic level of education, including up to lower secondary education. ISCED Levels 3‑4 are intermediate levels of education. They refer to upper secondary education and post-secondary non-tertiary education, respectively. ISCED level >4 encompasses several levels of higher, or tertiary, education.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Labour Force Survey.
Both the fundamental objective of the YG+P and the definition of its target population respond to the current needs and priorities in Spain regarding youth employment.
In 2024, the unemployment rate among people aged under 30 in Spain stood at 20.2%, compared with an average of 10.7% in the OECD member countries. This proportion reached 26.5% among 15‑24 year‑olds, 12 percentage points above the OECD average (14.3%). In addition, the share of NEETs in Spain reached 16.1% of the total number of 15‑29 year‑olds, considerably above the OECD average of 12.6%.
The aim of the YG+P – to improve the socio‑economic integration of 16‑29 year‑olds through labour-market insertion, with a focus on NEETs – is considered relevant.
The characteristics of the Youth Guarantee participants during the evaluation period, in terms of gender, age and educational attainment, largely reflect those of NEETs at the national level, showing that the design of the YG+P is suited to its objectives.
The similar proportions of male and female NEET at the national level (16% and 17% respectively) are reflected in the share of male and female programme participants (51% and 49% respectively). Moreover, among 20‑29 year‑old participants, women outnumber men, reflecting the higher risk of being NEET for this population group at the national level.
In terms of educational attainment, 37% of all female participants fall into the highest attainment category (above ISCED 4), compared with 25% of men, again reflecting the higher risk of being NEET for this group at the national level. Conversely, 58% of male participants in the Youth Guarantee fall into the lowest attainment category (ISCED 2), compared with 42% of female participants, although at the national level females account for a larger share of NEETs in this group than males.
This section deals with the coverage and relevance of the six YG+P lines of action, offering answers to the evaluation questions linked to these evaluation criteria. It seeks to answer the following general questions: i) is the YG+P target population receiving the services and benefits intended by the plan?; and ii) to what extent are these services and benefits of good quality and adapted to the needs of the target population?
These questions were used to analyse four of the six YG+P lines of action. They were not used for Line 4 (equal opportunities in access to employment) and Line 6 (improvement of the institutional framework) since these do not focus on providing services to programme participants but have cross-cutting rationales and objectives. As the evaluation matrix (Annex B) shows, the evaluation questions concerning Line 4 are integrated into Line 1 (career guidance), Line 2 (training), Line 3 (employment opportunities), and Line 5 (entrepreneurship). The questions for Line 6 are dealt with in section 0 of this document.
For lines 1, 2, 3 and 5, the answers to the evaluation questions are based on various sources of information, so that the data could be triangulated to provide robust and coherent answers (Section 2.5). The first source was the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry, from which data about the services provided were extracted. These data are supplemented with the information gathered through the surveys administered to the regional PES, the IBs and Youth Guarantee participants.
3.2.1. Career guidance
Coverage
The Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry shows that during the evaluation period, almost half (49%) of the Youth Guarantee participants used at least one career guidance service. This proportion remains stable when the participants are disaggregated by gender and age group (Figure 3.6). However, the share of female participants that received at least one career guidance service was slightly higher in the oldest age group (25‑29 year‑olds) than in the youngest (16‑19 year‑olds), at 51% and 46% respectively.3
It should be highlighted that these career guidance services also reached the most vulnerable groups to a similar extent. In fact, for both genders and in all age groups, career guidance coverage for vulnerable youth was slightly higher than for young people overall. On average, just over half (52%) of vulnerable young people enrolled in the Youth Guarantee used at least one career guidance service during the evaluation period. This level of coverage remained stable when the group was disaggregated by gender and age group, as it had for the wider youth population. Finally, among vulnerable female participants, the proportion who received at least one career guidance service was also slightly higher among 25‑29 year‑olds (56%) than among 16‑19 year‑olds (50%).
Proportion of young people enrolled in the Youth Guarantee in the evaluation period (2021‑24) who have received at least one career guidance service, by vulnerability status, gender and age group
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry.
However, career guidance coverage varies considerably across the different autonomous communities (Figure 3.7). Coverage is highest for young people living in Aragon, Cantabria and the Balearic Islands, regardless of their level of vulnerability (65%, 70% and 80% respectively for the group as a whole, and 66%, 78% and 82% for vulnerable young people). For the group as a whole, career guidance coverage is below the national average in nine autonomous communities. The lowest coverage is in Castile‑La Mancha (34%) and the autonomous cities of Ceuta (38%) and Melilla (25%). The situation is similar for vulnerable young people: coverage in eight autonomous communities is below the national average, with the lowest rates found in the Canary Islands (38%) and the autonomous cities of Ceuta (39%) and Melilla (28%).
Proportion of young people enrolled in the Youth Guarantee in the evaluation period (2021‑24) who used at least one career guidance service, by autonomous community of residence and vulnerability status
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry.
Knowing whether career guidance services are reaching the young people registered with the Youth Guarantee is important, but it is also essential to assess whether the career guidance received is relevant (in that it is timely, of high quality and tailored to the needs of the target population).
Relevance
In terms of timeliness, almost four out of five of the young people (77%) who received career guidance services did so within four months of registering. This time frame of four months is important as, under the Council of the EU’s Recommendation on establishing a Youth Guarantee, Member States should ensure that young people receive an offer of decent work, education or training within four months of leaving school or losing a job. (Council of the European Union, 2013[7]). Although this provision does not cover actions related to career guidance, the OECD evaluation team considers it a relevant indicator of the quality of the career guidance services, which are a key line of action of the YG+P.
This figure of 77% remained stable when participant data were disaggregated by gender, age group and vulnerability status (Figure 3.8).
Proportion of young people receiving a career guidance service who did so within four months of registering, during the evaluation period (2021‑24), by vulnerability status, gender and age group
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry.
The proportion of participants receiving career guidance services within four months of registering was around 70% or above in all the autonomous communities except La Rioja (64%) and the city of Melilla (54%). The results were very similar for vulnerable young people, with the lowest proportions observed in La Rioja (63%), the Basque Country (62%) and Melilla (61%).
Proportion of young people receiving a career guidance service who did so within four months of registration, during the evaluation period (2021‑24), by autonomous community of residence and vulnerability status
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry.
The survey of regional PES and IBs provides more‑detailed information on the relevance of career guidance services, especially in terms of their quality and inclusiveness. To assess quality, the survey asks whether the staff offering the career guidance services have qualifications in career guidance, whether they have received training in gender equality and whether mechanisms are in place to ensure they keep up with relevant developments and receive ongoing training. Then, to analyse the service’s inclusiveness, the survey examines the mechanisms implemented to ensure services are adapted to vulnerable young people.
First, almost 90% of the surveyed entities reported that the majority of their career guidance staff have a qualification in career guidance. This percentage varies slightly according to the type of organisation surveyed: the share in the regional PES is 83% (15 out of 18), while in the IBs it is 90% (9 out of the 10 IBs that responded to the survey).
Regarding the type of training received, several entities offer their career guidance staff courses in career guidance. Course duration ranges from 20 to 250 hours, depending on the training mode. Training may be in-person or remote and covers a wide variety of topics, including disability services, job-search, digital tools and some basic coaching. Some entities have begun using innovative methodologies in their training that are worth noting. For example, the Madrid PES has incorporated drama-based techniques and artificial intelligence, while the Employment Institute of Aragon (INAEM) has introduced gamification into the career guidance process.
However, a far smaller proportion of career guidance staff have received specific training in gender equality (39%). Such training is essential to ensure that career guidance staff avoid gender-biased recommendations and do not exacerbate inequalities in young people’s transition to the labour market (OECD, 2024[8]). Of the 18 PES, only 6 (33%) report that most of their career guidance staff have been trained in this area. The figure rises slightly to 50%, for the IBs. Where this type of training is available, it tends to be a course lasting around 20 hours. Some PES work with specialised organisations to provide this training, such as the Canarian Institute of Public Administration (ICAP), the Adolfo Posada Institute in Asturias, the School for Training and Innovation in Public Administration (EFIAP) in Murcia, or the Aragonese Women’s Institute.
In several PES and IBs, this type of training is linked to services for victims of gender-based violence. However, some courses also include material on diversity and LGBTIQ+ inclusion, new masculinities, and gender mainstreaming in active employment policies. In several entities, this training is optional or is provided at the request of the career guidance staff; only a few, such as the PES of Navarra, make it mandatory for staff who have not yet completed it. In the Basque Country, the PES has developed a bilingual programme on non-sexist communication that includes practical tools, accessible resources and self-assessment modules. It also makes awareness-raising videos and updates its staff on legal developments in the field.
Moreover, the survey results show that 90% of the surveyed entities have mechanisms in place to improve opportunities for career guidance staff to update their skills and knowledge and to access ongoing training. All but one of the autonomous communities report having these mechanisms in place in their PES.
A striking example of an updating mechanism is the integrated human resources management model that the Andalusian Employment Service has implemented since 2021. The strategy involves building a personalised competency map, where the first step is to identify the key skills required for each position within the service. Next, staff self-assess so that customised training plans can be designed. Professional development opportunities are adapted to the specific needs of each counsellor, to ensure skills improvement is targeted and ongoing.
Regarding the inclusiveness of the career guidance services, 60% of the surveyed entities say they have established mechanisms or support processes specifically designed to assist vulnerable young people.
The qualitative analysis reveals that two main strategies are used to improve the service for vulnerable young people: assigning specialised staff to work with young people at risk of exclusion and putting in place comprehensive programmes with pathways that are adapted to each young person. Certain initiatives stand out. For example, the Fundación Secretariado Gitano has programmes for young people with disabilities and early school leavers. These offer a personalised assessment of potential opportunities as well as ongoing support, including skills development and psycho‑emotional care. Finally, participants receive financial aid and job-matching services to help them enter the labour market.
Figure 3.10 shows the indicators related to career guidance quality and inclusiveness.
Proportion of entities that apply effective quality and inclusiveness measures in relation to career guidance, by indicator and type of entity, 2024
Note: Results based on responses from 18 regional PES and 10 IBs. See section 2.5.2 for more information.
Source: OECD calculations based on the survey of regional PES and IBs.
These generally positive results about the quality and inclusiveness of the career guidance provided coincide with the perceptions of Youth Guarantee participants. The results of the survey conducted with these young people show that around three out of four participants consider that the person who guided them was suitably qualified to help with their professional development (Figure 3.11). In addition, almost three out of four participants consider that the career guidance received was largely or fully adapted to their personal characteristics, and 77% report that the career guidance staff largely or fully understood their personal needs and objectives. These proportions remain virtually stable, regardless of the respondent’s vulnerability status.
Proportion of participants in the Youth Guarantee with a positive view of the career guidance received, by indicator and vulnerability status, 2024
Note: Results based on the responses of 6 153 Youth Guarantee participants. See section 2.5.1 for more information. A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the survey of Youth Guarantee participants.
The survey of regional PES and IBs, in addition to assessing the quality and inclusiveness of career guidance services, also looks at how adapted these services are to the labour market and to young people’s characteristics and needs.
The results show that the regional PES work closely with the business community in this regard: all of them, except Castile‑La Mancha, have established some type of collaboration with the business community in relation to career guidance. The most common forms of collaboration include career guidance staff participating in job and training fairs, joint analyses to identify career guidance and training needs in the labour market, and advice to companies on state subsidies offered in return for hiring unemployed people from certain groups. The YMCA’s career guidance model stands out. It takes a comprehensive approach combining group visits to companies, individual mentoring sessions, and its YMCA Speed Job Dating programme – a networking space where young people can introduce themselves, emphasising their strengths, to companies and recruiters through a brief presentation prepared in advance with their career counsellor.
The survey results also show that 83% of PES and 90% of IBs research and analyse labour-market needs in order to adapt their career guidance services accordingly. These results suggest a widespread commitment to aligning career guidance services with the current labour-market demands. The qualitative analysis reveals common approaches among the PES and IBs to adapting their services: direct, recurrent contact with employers and business associations; joint analysis of employment data; company surveys; and the use of networks of job scouts who regularly visit companies. Several entities also use employment observatories to access regular information on labour-market trends. Panel A of Figure 3.12 shows the indicators related to adaptation of career guidance services to the labour market, for the regional PES and IBs.
The majority of participants in the Youth Guarantee have a positive view of this adaptation to labour-market demands, but this perception is less widespread among participants than among the regional PES and IBs themselves. Approximately two‑thirds of participants consider that the career guidance they received provided them with a lot or a fair amount of up-to-date information about the labour market (Panel B of Figure 3.12). These results remain the same when participant data are broken down by gender or vulnerability status.
Proportion of entities (Panel A) and participants in the Youth Guarantee (Panel B) who agree with different statements about the adaptation of career guidance services to labour-market needs, 2024
Note: Panel A: results based on responses from 18 regional PES and 10 IBs. See section 2.5.2 for more information. Panel B: results based on the responses of 6 153 Youth Guarantee participants. See section 2.5.1 for more information. A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the survey of regional PES and IBs and the survey of Youth Guarantee participants.
3.2.2. Training
Coverage
The Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry shows that only 16% of the young people registered in the Youth Guarantee during the evaluation period received one or more education or training service. This proportion is similar for both genders but varies more significantly by age group (Figure 3.13). For both men and women, the proportion is higher the younger the person is, reaching almost 20% for males aged 16‑19 years. This higher incidence of training activities in the younger age groups is logical, since the younger they are, the more likely it is that they have not completed the minimum levels of education or training that employers require.
Training coverage rates for the most vulnerable population and for young people as a whole are very similar, as they were for career guidance. In fact, in all age groups except the oldest, the share of vulnerable young people who have received some form of training or education is slightly higher than in the general youth population.
Proportion of Youth Guarantee participants who have received at least one education or training service during the evaluation period (2021‑24), by vulnerability status, gender and age group
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry.
In regional terms, as shown in Figure 3.14, the highest percentage of training coverage (almost double the national average) is in Ceuta (31%), followed by Castile‑León (25%) and the Canary Islands (24%). Training coverage is below the national average in five autonomous communities, with the lowest scores in Andalusia (8%) and the Community of Madrid (12%).
In most of the autonomous communities, as at the national level, the proportion of vulnerable young people who received an education or training service is slightly higher than in the group as a whole. The highest percentages are again in Ceuta (33%) and Castile‑León (27%), followed by Catalonia (25%). Likewise, the lowest values are again in Andalusia (8%) and the Community of Madrid (12%).
Proportion of young people enrolled in the Youth Guarantee during the evaluation period (2021‑24) who have received at least one training service, by autonomous community of residence and vulnerability status
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry.
Relevance
The Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry shows that, on average, 62% of the young people who received at least one training service did so within the recommended period of under four months. This figure remained stable when participant data were disaggregated by gender, age group (Figure 3.15) and vulnerability status.
Proportion of young people receiving a training or education service during the evaluation period (2021‑24) who did so within four months of registration, by vulnerability status, gender and age group
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry.
The opportunity to access this training or education was very similar in all the autonomous communities, falling below 60% only in Galicia (52%), the Canary Islands (54%) and Melilla (53%). For vulnerable young people, the results were very similar, with the lowest coverage found in Melilla (50%), the Canary Islands (53%) and Navarra (55%).
Proportion of young people receiving a training service who did so within four months of registration, by autonomous community of residence and vulnerability status
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry.
The survey administered to the regional PES and IBs provides more detailed information on the relevance of training services and, in particular, on their quality and inclusiveness. In terms of quality, the survey shows whether the training staff have specific training in the subjects they teach, whether they have received training in gender equality, and whether there are mechanisms in place to ensure they can continually update and improve their skills and knowledge. Then, to show the extent to which the training is inclusive, the survey examines the mechanisms implemented to ensure services are adapted to vulnerable young people.
First, the results show that more than 90% of the surveyed entities reported that most of their training staff have specific training in the subjects they teach. In the regional PES, the proportion is 83% (15 of the 18 services that responded to the questionnaire), while for IBs it rises to 90%.
However, only three of the PES surveyed (Catalonia, Navarra and La Rioja) reported that most of the training staff have received training in gender equality. This is similar to the results for the career guidance staff. In IBs, though, this proportion increased to 70%.
The survey questioned the PES and IBs about this lack of gender equality training. The most common reasons given were their dependence on external training initiatives and the absence of regulatory requirements to offer this kind of training. However, some PES, including those of Catalonia and Valencia, have added modules on gender equality to the training activities already in place for their training staff. These modules lasted between 5 and 12 hours, and the topics covered included gender awareness and the principle of non-discrimination. The Basque Country PES offers a ten‑hour online programme on gender equality issues, while Ayuda en Acción offers a wide range of training on the subject, from 40‑hour courses to a master’s degree in equal opportunities. It stresses the importance of equipping both its technical staff and service users with the appropriate tools to address gender equality issues.
The survey also found a lack of systems to ensure training staff receive ongoing training to keep their skills and knowledge up to date: only about half of the entities surveyed reported having these in place. Those that do describe a variety of mechanisms, but a clear difference emerges between training for internal staff (in-house trainers) and external staff (from collaborating or subcontracted entities). Most of these mechanisms are designed for internal staff. One of the best examples is the specialised digital platform “Forma’t per Formar” run by the Catalonian PES for tutors, officials who provide employment-focused vocational training, and other training staff. Similarly, IBs such as Fundación Secretariado Gitano and the Red Cross have structured systems based on their own online training platforms and customised plans for training staff that reflect their evolving training needs.
The survey results are more broadly positive in terms of the inclusiveness of the training provided. A remarkable 82% of all the entities have mechanisms in place to ensure that training reaches the most vulnerable young people. In the case of the regional PES, only three do not have these mechanisms: the Canary Islands, Cantabria and Melilla.
The strategies described to ensure that training reaches vulnerable groups include giving them priority access when new training opportunities are announced and creating training programmes specifically designed for the particular needs of these groups. One example of these programmes is vocational training leading to a qualification in an emerging sector, such as the green and digital economies. Another reported strategy is scholarships or financial aid to enable these young people to participate in training activities. The YMCA’s Recalculando Ruta programme is particularly noteworthy in this field. It is aimed at young people aged 16‑29 who have not completed compulsory secondary education and are currently neither studying nor working. It offers them a choice of three types of pathways – educational, professional or training-based – which are then adapted to their individual objectives and take into account their particular vulnerable situation.
Figure 3.17 shows the indicators related to training quality and inclusiveness, for the regional PES and IBs.
Proportion of entities surveyed that apply effective measures to ensure training is high quality and inclusive, by indicator and type of entity, 2024
Note: Results based on responses from 18 regional PES and 10 IBs. See section 2.5.2 for more information.
Source: OECD calculations based on the survey of regional PES and IBs.
The survey put similar questions to Youth Guarantee participants. Results show that 85% of the young people surveyed consider that the trainers who worked with them had been adequately prepared and were sufficiently knowledgeable about the subjects taught in lessons or covered in training courses (Figure 3.18). In addition, participants largely consider that the training was well adapted to their needs. Almost all respondents (91%) consider that the training content was adequately adapted to their level of prior knowledge, while 74% report that the training was adequately adapted to their personal interests and objectives.
Proportion of Youth Guarantee participants who positively evaluate the training received, by indicator and vulnerability status, 2024
Note: Results based on the responses of 6 153 Youth Guarantee participants. See section 2.5.1 for more information. A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the survey of Youth Guarantee participants.
In addition to assessing the quality and inclusiveness of the training, the survey of regional PES and IBs also provides information on the extent to which these services are adapted to the needs of the labour market and the programme participants.
The survey results confirm that there is widespread collaboration with the business community in regard to training, with all the regional PES and 80% of the IBs reporting affirmatively on this measure. Moreover, this collaboration is not a token gesture: more than half of the surveyed entities report designing at least 50% of their training programmes with representatives of the business community.
These collaborations work mainly through regular consultations with business and social partners, at vocational training councils and advisory committees. The most common activities include carrying out studies to identify needs and designing programmes aligned with current job market requirements. In addition, several entities have developed digital platforms and job portals to facilitate contact between employers and trainees, and to help job seekers enter the labour market through internships or “dual learning” programmes – a form of apprenticeship in which participants combine classes with on-the‑job learning.
A notable example of this type of collaboration comes from the PES of Galicia, which organises visits to companies for people participating in its training programmes. Employees of those companies also mentor the trainees. Similarly, the YMCA’s “Recalculando Ruta” programme connects young participants with the local business community through mentoring and networking activities. Finally, Fundación Secretariado Gitano has established a comprehensive collaboration model: companies they work with deliver certain training modules, host interns and help design training plans that are fully adapted to the labour market. Fundación Secretariado Gitano and the companies work together to identify the knowledge and skills required for specific jobs. They then design ad hoc training courses that respond directly to these specific needs, maximising participants’ chances of finding a suitable job.
A large majority (86%) of the entities surveyed report adapting their training programmes to the needs of the labour market. To identify labour-market training needs, they study statistics, survey companies, analyse hiring data and consult with business associations, among other methods. In addition, many regional PES have their own employment observatories or prepare periodic reports on the outlook for training. Another notable initiative is collaboration forums and working groups involving the business community and social stakeholders. These bodies regularly identify labour-market needs and emerging sectors. Several of the entities surveyed also analyse participants’ labour-market insertion post-training, which helps them continuously evaluate and adjust their training provision.
Catalonia’s PES stands out in regard to analysis and adaptation. It has developed its own methodology for identifying training priorities by county and produces medium-term foresight reports. The Andalusian PES also takes a comprehensive approach to adaptation. Its system has four phases: i) massive consultation of companies (more than 100 000 companies and self-employed workers) through specific questionnaires for each economic sector; ii) double validation of results (internally by the technical team and externally through working groups with industry experts); iii) contextual analysis of each province to identify emerging and strategic sectors; and finally, iv) development of conclusions that link the needs identified with specific, specialised training products. Figure 3.19 shows the indicators related to adaptation of training to labour-market needs, for the regional PES and IBs.
Youth Guarantee participants’ perception of training adaptation to the labour market is largely positive, although slightly less so than that of the regional PES and the IBs. Around two out of three participants (69%) consider that the training they received matches what companies are looking for. These results are very similar to those obtained for career guidance services. Overall, participants’ perception of the services they receive is similar, in terms of the labour-market relevance of those services.
Proportion of entities (Panel A) and participants in the Youth Guarantee (Panel B) who agree with different statements about the adaptation of training services to labour-market needs, 2024
Note: Panel A: results based on responses from 18 regional PES and 10 IBs. See section 2.5.2 for more information. Panel B: results based on the responses of 6 153 Youth Guarantee participants. See section 2.5.1 for more information. A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the survey of regional PES and IBs and the survey of Youth Guarantee participants.
3.2.3. Employment and entrepreneurship opportunities
Coverage
Almost 68% of the people registered in the Youth Guarantee received at least one employment or entrepreneurship opportunity (Figure 3.20) during the evaluation period, according to data from the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry. This proportion barely changed when participant data were disaggregated by gender. It changed more across different age groups. Coverage was highest among 20‑24 year‑olds (72%) and lowest among 16‑19 year‑olds, at 62% for men and 59% for women.
It is important to highlight that the employment opportunities generated by the YG+P also reached the most vulnerable young people, with coverage levels close to those for the youth population as a whole. On average, 66% of vulnerable young people enrolled in the Youth Guarantee received at least one employment or entrepreneurship service during the evaluation period. However, in the two older groups of women, employment service coverage was slightly lower for vulnerable women (68% among 20‑24 year‑olds and 66% among 25‑29 year‑olds) than for all young women (71% and 68% respectively).
Proportion of Youth Guarantee participants who have received at least one employment or entrepreneurship service in the evaluation period (2021‑24), by vulnerability status, gender and age group
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry.
Employment coverage does, however, vary by autonomous community of residence (Figure 3.21). For participants in general, the highest coverage percentages are in Galicia, Navarra and Extremadura (82%, 78% and 75%). Employment services coverage is below the national average in eight autonomous communities, with the lowest rates observed in Ceuta (43%) and Melilla (50%). Rates are similar for vulnerable young people, although the results from Galicia are worth mentioning: almost 90% of vulnerable young people have accessed at least one employment or entrepreneurship service.
Proportion of Youth Guarantee participants who have received at least one employment or entrepreneurship opportunity during the evaluation period (2021‑24), by autonomous community of residence and vulnerability status
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry.
Relevance
With respect to the timeliness of employment opportunities, data from the registry show that two out of three (66%) of the young people who received an employment or entrepreneurship opportunity did so within the recommended period of less than four months. This figure remained stable when participant data were disaggregated by gender and vulnerability status but varied according to age group (Figure 3.22). Again, the lowest figure was for the youngest age group: 57% of 16‑19 year‑olds, compared with 70% of 24‑29 year‑olds.
Proportion of young people receiving an employment or entrepreneurship service during the evaluation period (2021‑24) who did so within four months, by vulnerability status, gender and age group
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry.
Coverage varies widely across the autonomous communities. The proportion of young people who received at least one employment opportunity within four months of registration was around or above 60% in most autonomous communities, but in Ceuta and Melilla this percentage dropped to 41% and 43%, respectively. Very similar results were observed for vulnerable young people as a group.
Proportion of participants receiving an employment or entrepreneurship opportunity during the evaluation period (2021‑24) who did so within four months of registration, by autonomous community of residence and vulnerability status
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry.
The survey of regional PES and IBs also reveals that three‑quarters of the entities surveyed establish agreements with companies to offer young people their first professional experience. This share is similar for both types of entity: 78% of the regional PES (14 out of 18) and 70% of the IBs report having this type of agreement.
They use a wide range of mechanisms to arrange these placements, for example, internship programmes, formal agreements with companies to offer this type of opportunity, and subsidies for employers in return for hiring young people without professional experience. With regard to subsidies, some autonomous communities, such as the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands and Galicia, put out periodic calls to local organisations, universities, trade associations, business associations, etc. to fund these first-experience contracts for young people.
The survey results also confirm that the autonomous communities have an extensive network of incentives and grants to encourage businesses to hire young people and to support young people’s entrepreneurship initiatives. All the regional PES except that of Aragon disburse annual incentives and grants within the national Youth Guarantee system (SNGJ), with the goal of boosting the recruitment of young people. Most of the regional PES offer incentives and grants to promote entrepreneurship among young people; the exceptions are those of Aragon, Asturias and Valencia.
However, according to many staff in the regional PES, these incentives and grants could better target the most vulnerable groups of young people. Only half of the PES surveyed consider that grants and incentives for hiring are largely directed towards the most vulnerable groups of young people. This share drops to just a third (6 out of 18) in regard to incentives and grants for entrepreneurship. These data suggest that, despite the widespread implementation of financial support instruments, there is considerable room for improvement in terms of ensuring they reach the target population, i.e. those who face the biggest obstacles to entering the labour market.
Finally, incentives and grants also exist to promote equal opportunities, in terms of entering the job market and being able to keep a job. However, less than half of the regional PES (7 out of 18) report having implemented this type of incentive. Those that do so use various mechanisms, for example, higher subsidies in return for hiring young women or higher rates for projects offering employment opportunities for young women in sectors where they are underrepresented. As a specific example, in 2022, the Andalusian PES designed a system to support entrepreneurship through financial assistance, with payments adjusted according to the sex and age of the applicant. This scheme offered higher payments to applicants aged under 30, or under 35 in the case of female applicants. As young women are underrepresented among entrepreneurs, this measure sought to redress that imbalance by increasing their access to these subsidies.
Young people’s perception of the quality of employment and entrepreneurship opportunities generated by the Youth Guarantee is generally positive. The survey shows that three‑quarters of Youth Guarantee participants rate positively at least one aspect of the job they found through the scheme. The survey asked about the following aspects of the job: i) alignment with their interests and training; ii) remuneration; iii) contract length; and iv) working hours. This proportion is slightly higher in the female group (78% compared with 72% of males) and among non-vulnerable youth (78% compared with 72% of vulnerable youth).
However, when this general assessment is broken down by those four criteria, the results are less encouraging. Less than half of the young people (44%) consider that the opportunity received was in line with their personal interests and previous training, and only 32% consider that they were paid enough. Just 27% of respondents agree that their working hours were suitable and, finally, only 20% positively rated the length of the contracts offered.
Career guidance‑services coverage is moderate, reaching almost half of the young people enrolled in the Youth Guarantee. The career guidance is perceived as relevant by the regional PES, the IBs and the young people participating in the programme.
Barely half (49%) of the Youth Guarantee participants received at least one career guidance service. This proportion remains stable across gender and age groups but varies considerably across the autonomous communities. A positive finding was that coverage was slightly higher (52%) in the group of vulnerable young people.
Career guidance was often timely: on average, 77% of the participants who accessed this service did so within four months of registering in the programme. This proportion was around or above 70% in most of the autonomous communities.
Career guidance services are of good quality. Almost 90% of the regional PES and IBs report having staff with relevant training and participants report positively on this measure, with around three‑quarters expressing positive views about guidance counsellors’ skills and how the service is adapted to their personal characteristics and needs. However, training for guidance counsellors on gender equality could be improved: only 39% of the surveyed entities consider that their career guidance staff are properly trained in this area.
Furthermore, 60% of the regional PES and IBs confirm that they have specific mechanisms to attend to vulnerable young programme participants. This partial inclusiveness is reflected in the survey results: although the majority of young people consider that the guidance is adapted to their personal characteristics and needs, those in vulnerable situations, especially women, report slightly lower levels of satisfaction.
Career guidance services are adapted to the needs of the labour market. All but one regional PES report collaborating with the business community on career guidance, while 83% of the surveyed entities research and analyse labour-market needs in order to adapt their services accordingly. Youth Guarantee participants confirm this result: approximately two‑thirds consider that the career guidance they received provided them with a lot or a fair amount of up-to-date information about the labour market. This proportion remains similar when participant data are disaggregated by gender and vulnerability status.
Training has the lowest coverage (16% of participants) of any service provided by the Youth Guarantee. Where it is provided, however, it is well rated, both in terms of the quality of the training staff and its adaptation to the needs of the participants and the labour market.
Only 16% of the young people registered in the Youth Guarantee used at least one education or training service. This proportion remains stable across gender groups but varies considerably across autonomous communities and age groups. Coverage is highest among 16‑19 year‑olds. Coverage among vulnerable young people is comparable to, or slightly higher than, coverage among all participants, except in the oldest age group (25‑29 years).
In addition, 62% of the participants who accessed these services did so within four months of registering; this proportion remains stable regardless of gender, age group or vulnerability status. Results for this measure were similar across most of the autonomous communities.
Training services are of good quality, with over 90% of the regional PES and IBs employing staff who are specialised in the subjects they teach. This high rate of specialisation is reflected in participants’ perception of the quality of the training received: 85% of the young people who used these services consider that their trainers were suitably prepared. There is, however, a gap in the provision of training for this workforce on gender equality (only three regional PES report that the majority of their staff are trained in this area). Moreover, less than half of the entities have systems to ensure trainers keep their skills and knowledge up to date through ongoing training.
Training is broadly inclusive: 82% of the regional PES and IBs report having mechanisms to reach the most vulnerable young people. In addition, 91% of the participants who undertook training consider that the course contents were well chosen to build on their level of prior knowledge, while 74% consider that the training was adapted to their personal interests. These positive ratings were slightly more common among vulnerable young people than among the cohort as a whole, and among females than among males.
Training services are well adapted to the needs of the labour market. All of the regional PES and 80% of the IBs report that they collaborate with the business community, and 86% that they adapt their programmes to current labour-market requirements. Around two‑thirds (69%) of the training service users consider that the course content is well matched to companies’ requirements. This positive view is slightly more common among vulnerable young people and among female participants.
Employment and entrepreneurship opportunities have the highest coverage of any Youth Guarantee service, reaching 68% of registered young people. However, indicators on the relevance of these opportunities are mixed.
68% of the Youth Guarantee participants accessed at least one employment opportunity. This proportion remained stable across gender groups, but it was lower in the youngest age group. The proportion of vulnerable young people who accessed these services was very similar, at 66%.
For two out of three service users, access was timely, i.e. within four months of registration. This figure remains stable when participant data are disaggregated by gender and vulnerability status, but it is lower for the youngest age group. The proportion was around 60% or higher in almost all the autonomous communities.
Three‑quarters of the entities surveyed report establishing agreements with the business community to provide first professional experiences for programme participants. In addition, almost all the regional PES disburse annual incentives and grants to promote the hiring of young people and youth entrepreneurship.
However, only 50% of the regional PES consider that these incentives and grants are sufficiently focused on vulnerable groups in regard to boosting hiring, and that proportion drops to 33% in regard to programmes to promote entrepreneurship. Finally, less than half of the regional PES have implemented specific incentives to promote effective equality in terms of enabling young people to start and stay in work.
Three‑quarters of the participants who found a job through the programme rate at least one aspect of the employment opportunity positively; this proportion is slightly higher among females and non-vulnerable young people (78% in both cases). Participants were asked to report on four aspects of their job: 44% considered that their job aligned with their previous interests and training; 32% considered the pay to be sufficient; and 27% were satisfied with their working hours. Only 20% were satisfied with the length of their contract.
This section examines the operation, organisation and co‑ordination of the YG+P. It evaluates the extent to which these factors contribute to the achievement of the plan’s objectives. This line of action is cross-cutting and instrumental, i.e. it facilitates or limits the effectiveness of the other lines of action. This characteristic is reflected in the programme’s ToC.
To answer the evaluation questions for this line of action, the OECD team relied mostly on data from the surveys administered to the regional PES and IBs and to Youth Guarantee participants. These survey data were rounded out with information from SEPE, and the Youth Guarantee technical support team.
3.3.1. Dissemination and awareness of the YG+P
The survey administered to the regional PES and IBs provides information about how they disseminate and raise awareness of the YG+P. It found that all the IBs and almost 80% of the regional PES (14 out of 18) run YG+P dissemination and awareness campaigns. In terms of dissemination channels, almost all the entities (92%) used their institutional website, 83% used social networks and 62% used face‑to-face events. Only half of the entities surveyed mentioned using traditional means of communication.
Despite these dissemination efforts, 14% of the participants surveyed stated that they were not aware of the Youth Guarantee. An additional 13% stated that they were aware of the programme but had never participated in it. In total, over a quarter of participants are unaware that they are taking part in the Youth Guarantee scheme. It is therefore necessary to improve programme dissemination and communication on how to access it, how it works and the services available.
Meanwhile, the young people who did know about the Youth Guarantee reported finding out about it through channels other than those mentioned by the regional PES and the IBs. More than half (55%) said they heard about the programme in job centres. Only 12% mentioned institutional websites, social networks or participant word-of-mouth (Figure 3.24).
Proportion of Youth Guarantee participants who know about the programme, by source of information, 2024
Note: Results based on the responses of 6 153 Youth Guarantee participants. See section 2.5.1 for more information.
Source: OECD calculations based on the survey of Youth Guarantee participants.
Accessing details about the programme was also a problem. Barely half the participants who knew about the Youth Guarantee considered that it was easy or very easy to find out about the opportunities and support on offer. These results remained fairly stable regardless of participant gender and vulnerability status.
Only two‑thirds of participants reported having used any of the digital tools specific to the Youth Guarantee (see Box 3.2). Just over half of participants said they had used the job vacancy search engine, while only 11% had used the programme’s Boletín de Garantía Juvenil, an online weekly newsletter.
Institutional website
SEPE’s website has a section dedicated to the Youth Guarantee programme. These pages provide detailed information on what the Youth Guarantee is, participation requirements and how to register, among other topics. They also contain a registration link and links to the job vacancy search engine and the Youth Guarantee newsletter.
Job vacancy search engine
The Youth Guarantee search engine for jobs and training courses is a digital tool that allows young people enrolled in the programme to view and filter job offers specifically aimed at young people. It lets users search for jobs according to their profile, location and professional sector. It is updated regularly to reflect the active vacancies in each province and detailed information on those positions. It also publishes the latest hiring data, including the roles for which the most contracts have been signed.
Boletín de Garantía Juvenil
SEPE publishes a weekly Youth Guarantee newsletter, with up-to-date information on calls for applications, job and training offers, as well as events and announcements for young people enrolled in the programme. It informs readers of opportunities to move for work, and the internships, courses and grants available at the national level and by autonomous community.
Source: SEPE (2024[9]), Boletín de Noticias de Garantía Juvenil, www.sepe.es/HomeSepe/encontrar-trabajo/Garantia-Juvenil.
Finally, of the participants who report knowing that they are, or were, enrolled in the Youth Guarantee, almost half (47%) say that they registered through job centres. Another 44% say they registered through the programme’s website, and the remaining 10% report registering through other organisations.
Proportion of Youth Guarantee participants using each registration channel, 2024
Note: Results based on the responses of 6 153 Youth Guarantee participants. See section 2.5.1 for more information. Other organisations refer to the Intermediary Bodies responsible for the implementation of Youth Guarantee (e.g. Red Cross, Fundación Secretariado Gitano, INSERTA – Fundación ONCE, and YMCA). Other sources is an alternative category given to survey respondents who do not identify themselves with the previous ones.
Source: OECD calculations based on the survey of Youth Guarantee participants.
3.3.2. Internal and external co‑ordination systems
The survey of the regional PES and IBs also provides valuable information on the co‑ordination mechanisms implemented to improve how the plan works, both internally and in partnership with external actors.
A key finding in regard to internal co‑ordination is that less than half of the regional PES (8 out of 18) have a team of professionals dedicated exclusively to working with Youth Guarantee participants (Figure 3.26). This figure rises to 80% for the IBs. The presence of specialised, trained teams is a key indicator of internal programme co‑ordination, as they can improve the quality and inclusiveness of interventions significantly. Creating dedicated teams allows the professionals to develop specialist knowledge about the profiles and needs of the target population. It also facilitates the adaptation of services to the target population’s needs, leading to more‑personalised and more‑effective responses.
Only half of the surveyed entities (54%) report having co‑ordination mechanisms in place between professionals working in different lines of action of the programme (i.e. career guidance counsellors, trainers, etc.). The most common internal co‑ordination mechanisms reported are periodic meetings between professionals from the different lines of action, the establishment of joint commissions, the creation of specific protocols, and the exchange of best practices and lessons learned among professionals.
Better results emerged in regard to co‑ordination mechanisms with external actors: almost 80% of the entities have co‑ordination mechanisms with the business community, training centres and other organisations.
The Servicio de Ocupación de Cataluña (the Catalan PES) sets a good example in terms of both internal and external co‑ordination. Its Support for Youth Employment programme, which is funded under the YG+P and offers career guidance and support to Youth Guarantee participants, holds regular meetings with both the Catalan Employment Service network of teams and the Youth Department. In addition, the service has established a collaboration protocol with the Catalan Department of Education and Vocational Training and mechanisms that allow it to work closely with the unit responsible for foster youth and the department responsible for migration.
Proportion of entities with effective co‑ordination measures in place, by indicator and type of entity, 2024
Note: Results based on responses from 18 regional PES and 10 IBs. See section 2.5.2 for more information.
Source: OECD calculations based on the survey of regional PES and IBs.
The data show external co‑ordination occurs most commonly with SEPE (61% of the entities) and with training centres (36%) (Figure 3.27). Only 33% of the entities have co‑ordination mechanisms in place with employers, non-governmental organisations and other associations related to the business community.
Proportion of entities with effective external co‑ordination measures in place, by type of actor, 2024
Note: Results based on responses from 18 regional PES and 10 IBs. See section 2.5.2 for more information.
Source: OECD calculations based on the survey of regional PES and IBs.
Qualitative data show that the main types of co‑ordination with external actors are periodic meetings, workshops and working groups, and monitoring commissions. Catalonia sets a good example in this respect. Its PES has integrated co‑ordination with external actors into its formal structure by bringing representatives of employers and training centres onto its Board of Directors, and it systematically schedules quarterly meetings with external partners in relation to its training service.
Around 60% of the entities that have external co‑ordination mechanisms state that they are satisfied with their implementation. Although this is an encouraging result, there are still opportunities to strengthen co‑ordination with external actors. Almost a third of the entities consider that the main challenges of this co‑ordination are a lack of knowledge about other actors’ actions, the absence of regular communication with them, and initiatives overlapping between institutions. In addition, a quarter of the entities highlight the lack of interoperable systems for sharing data as a key barrier to effective co‑operation. These challenges can limit access to key information, hinder strategy alignment and lead to duplicated efforts. This resultant lack of synergy reduces the effectiveness of the YG+P.
More than a quarter of the young people surveyed are unaware that they have participated in the Youth Guarantee, even though an overwhelming majority (80%) of the regional PES and IBs run dissemination and awareness campaigns about the programme.
The main channels used are institutional websites (92%), social networks (83%) and face‑to-face events (62%). Despite these dissemination measures, 14% of the young people surveyed stated that they were not aware of the Youth Guarantee. An additional 13% stated that they were aware of the programme but did not think that they had participated in it. It is therefore necessary to improve programme dissemination and communication on how to access it, how it works and the services available.
Youth Guarantee participants make limited use of the digital tools offered by the programme.
The majority (55%) of participants who knew about the Youth Guarantee said they had heard about it through job centres. Only 12% had heard about it through the institutional website, social networks and participant word-of-mouth. In addition, less than half of the participants (44%) had registered through the official Youth Guarantee website. Finally, just over half of the young people mentioned having used the job vacancy search engine, while only 11% mentioned using the Youth Guarantee online newsletter.
There is much room to improve YG+P internal co‑ordination systems.
Less than half of the regional PES have teams dedicated exclusively to working with Youth Guarantee participants; this figure rises to 80% for the IBs. Moreover, barely half of the entities surveyed have established formal co‑ordination mechanisms between professionals from the different lines of action.
Results for YG+P external co‑ordination mechanisms are better.
External co‑ordination is more widespread: almost 80% of entities have collaboration mechanisms in place with external actors, especially with SEPE and training centres. Furthermore, 60% of the entities report being satisfied with these mechanisms, although challenges remain, including a lack of knowledge about what other actors are doing, irregular communication, overlapping initiatives and a shortfall of interoperable systems for sharing data.
This section evaluates, on a preliminary basis, the extent to which the YG+P is achieving the expected outcomes. It considers whether there is a significant correlation between programme participation on the one hand and greater employability and access to decent and inclusive employment opportunities on the other.
The answers to the evaluation questions relating to the effectiveness of the YG+P are based mainly on an econometric analysis of panel data (a subset of longitudinal data) extracted from the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry (Box 2.5 in section 2.5). It is important to emphasise that this analysis attempts to describe the relationship between the services provided by the YG+P and the programme’s expected outcomes, without establishing causal relationships between the variables. However, the regression analysis minimises the influence of other variables by controlling for factors such as the young person’s gender, age, vulnerability status and autonomous community of residence, as well as other latent variables that are constant over time. Whenever possible, the results of this analysis are rounded out with information from the surveys conducted with Youth Guarantee participants.
The regression analysis shows, first, that young people receiving at least one service through the Youth Guarantee programme are more likely to find employment than those that do not. The probability increases by about 12 percentage points (Panel A. Figure 3.28). This result is statistically significant and is found for both the male and female groups. Although the effect is slightly greater for the male group, the difference is too small to be statistically significant.
However, the analysis also shows that this result is not consistent when participant data are disaggregated by vulnerability status. It finds that Youth Guarantee services only have a significant effect on vulnerable young people, not on the group as a whole (Panel B. Figure 3.28). Vulnerable young people who have received at least one Youth Guarantee service are more likely, by 27 percentage points on average, to find employment than young people who have not been reached by any services. In contrast, for young people who are not in a vulnerable situation, receipt of YG+P services does not seem to generate a statistically significant effect on the probability of finding employment.
The results show, therefore, that the Youth Guarantee has a significant and positive effect only on the group of vulnerable young people. One the one hand, this finding suggests that the interventions designed by the Youth Guarantee adequately address the specific needs of those young people who face the greatest difficulties in accessing the labour market. On the other hand, the absence of a statistically significant effect on non-vulnerable youth raises critical questions about resource allocation and overall programme efficiency, as resources devoted to non-vulnerable youth do not seem to generate the intended employment outcomes. The existing offer of services may not be optimally structured to address the specific needs of non-vulnerable young people. A lack of effect for this group suggests that the resources invested in their participation may not be yielding a commensurate return on investment.
Estimated increase in the probability of starting a job (in percentage points, p.p.) after receiving at least one Youth Guarantee service, by gender and vulnerability status, 2024
Note: The graphs show the coefficients of a panel data regression analysis in which the independent variable is a binary variable, and the value assigned is 1 if the young person has received at least one Youth Guarantee service. The dependent variable is the probability of being hired. Observable control variables include gender, vulnerability status, autonomous community of residence and age. A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the longitudinal database organised by “service pathways”, extracted from the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry (Box 2.5).
The regression analysis also shows that the employment services increase the likelihood of finding employment to a greater extent than the training services. For vulnerable youth, Youth Guarantee employment services increase the probability of finding a job by around 16 percentage points, compared with 5 percentage points for training services (Figure 3.29). For non-vulnerable youth, neither training nor employment services appear to have a statistically significant effect on the likelihood of finding a job.
There is no statistically significant link between career guidance services and an increased probability of finding a job, but they do have a multiplier effect when combined with training or employment services. For example, for vulnerable young people who had received at least one employment service, the likelihood of finding a job increased by 1.3 percentage points, on average, if they had also received a career guidance service. In the case of training services, the increase was 1.6 percentage points.
The results of the survey administered to Youth Guarantee participants are consistent with these findings, as almost 86% of respondents consider that the career guidance that they received facilitated their access to training or employment opportunities.
Estimated increase in the probability of finding a job (in percentage points, p.p.) after receiving at least one Youth Guarantee service, for vulnerable young people, by type of service, 2024
Note: The graphs show the coefficients of a panel data regression analysis in which the independent variables are binary variables that take value 1 according to the type of service received by the Youth Guarantee participant. The dependent variable is the probability of being hired. Observable control variables include gender, vulnerability status, autonomous community of residence and age. A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the longitudinal database organised by “service pathways”, extracted from the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry (Box 2.5).
Finally, the regression analysis yields mixed results in relation to the quality and sustainability of the jobs accessed by the programme participants. It found that the probability of securing a permanent contract was 13 percentage points higher for young people who had used a Youth Guarantee service compared with those who had not. This result is statistically significant and is true for both the male and female groups.
However, when the analysis disaggregated participant data by vulnerability status, it found that this effect was significant only for vulnerable youth. For vulnerable youth, the probability of obtaining a permanent contract was, on average, 25 percentage points higher among those who had used at least one service, compared with those who had not. In contrast, among non-vulnerable youth, participation in the programme did not have a statistically significant impact on the probability of finding permanent employment. A potential contributory factor to this differentiated effect between vulnerable and non-vulnerable young people is the set of incentives offered to employers by the first additional provision of Royal Decree‑Law 1/2023, which, during its first year of validity, granted a contribution bonus of EUR 275 per month for three years to permanent contracts signed with young people under 30 years of age with low qualifications who were beneficiaries of Youth Guarantee.
Employment services increased the likelihood of finding a permanent contract more than training did. Among vulnerable young people, employment services increased the probability of obtaining a permanent contract by an average of 15 percentage points, compared with only 3 percentage points in the case of training services. Among non-vulnerable youth, none of the interventions had statistically significant effects.
Although there is a positive impact for vulnerable young people in regard to finding permanent contracts, the analysis results indicate that participation in the Youth Guarantee did not generate substantial improvements in the duration of employment. The analysis does not find a statistically significant relationship between access to programme services and variables such as the total number of contributory days in employment or contributory days under a permanent contract. This suggests that, although the programme facilitates access to employment, its influence on certain key contractual conditions is limited.
These results are consistent with the largely negative views expressed by Youth Guarantee participants in response to survey questions about the quality of the jobs they obtained through the programme. Only 32% of those surveyed considered that they were paid enough and only 27% thought that their working hours were appropriate. Contract duration was the worst-rated aspect: only 20% of respondents reported being satisfied with this aspect of their job.
For vulnerable young people, receiving at least one Youth Guarantee service increases the probability of finding employment.
The results of the regression analysis show that receiving any kind of service from the Youth Guarantee increases the probability of finding employment. These effects are statistically significant and consistent for the male and female groups, but they appear only for the group of vulnerable youth. The analysis estimates that, for vulnerable young people who have received at least one service, the average likelihood of finding employment is 27 percentage points higher than for young people in the same group who have not received any service.
This finding suggests that the interventions adequately address the specific needs of those young people who face the greatest difficulties in accessing the labour market. Nonetheless, the absence of a statistically significant effect on non-vulnerable youth raises critical questions about resource allocation and overall programme efficiency, as resources devoted to non-vulnerable young people do not seem to generate the intended employment outcomes.
Employment services have a greater impact than training services on the probability of finding employment.
Receiving an employment service under the Youth Guarantee is associated with an average increase in the probability of finding employment of 16 percentage points, compared with an increase of 5 percentage points for training services.
Career guidance services alone do not significantly increase the probability of finding a job, but when combined with employment or training services, they enhance their impact.
Personalised career guidance generates an additional increase in the probability of finding work of 1.3 percentage points when combined with employment services, and of 1.6 percentage points when combined with training.
The analysis yields mixed results with respect to the quality of the jobs accessed by programme participants.
Vulnerable young people who participate in the Youth Guarantee have a higher probability of obtaining permanent contracts than those who do not. However, participation in the programme does not lead to substantial improvements in the duration of employment, measured as the total number of contributory days or contributory days under a permanent contract.
These results are consistent with the largely negative views expressed by Youth Guarantee participants in response to survey questions about the quality of the jobs they obtained through the programme.
References
[3] Council of the European Union (2020), 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, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=oj:JOC_2020_372_R_0001 (accessed on 16 October 2025).
[7] Council of the European Union (2013), Council Recomendation of 22 April 2013 on establishing a Youth Guarantee, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2013:120:0001:0006:EN:PDF (accessed on 17 June 2024).
[2] Eurostat (2024), Statistics on young people neither in employment nor in education or training, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Statistics_on_young_people_neither_in_employment_nor_in_education_or_training#Highlights (accessed on 28 November 2024).
[10] INE (2024), Trabajo. Notas metodológicas y explicativas, https://www.ine.es/daco/daco42/bme/texto2.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2024).
[8] OECD (2024), Challenging Social Inequality Through Career Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/challenging-social-inequality-through-career-guidance_619667e2-en.html (accessed on 6 December 2024).
[1] OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Spain 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/10/oecd-economic-surveys-spain-2023_0bc32856.html (accessed on 5 May 2025).
[6] OECD (2022), Evolving Family Models in Spain: A New National Framework for Improved Support and Protection for Families, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c27e63ab-en.
[5] OECD (2016), Society at a Glance 2016: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2016/10/society-at-a-glance-2016_g1g6c2d1.html (accessed on 25 June 2024).
[9] SEPE (2024), Boletín de Noticias de Garantía Juvenil, https://www.sepe.es/HomeSepe/encontrar-trabajo/Garantia-Juvenil (accessed on 4 April 2025).
[4] SEPE (2024), Plan de Garantía Juvenil Plus 2021-2027 de trabajo digno para las personas jóvenes, https://sepe.es/HomeSepe/Personas/encontrar-trabajo/Garantia-Juvenil/plan-garantia-juvenil-plus.html (accessed on 18 June 2024).
← 1. Young people with NEET status may be “unemployed” or “inactive”. The International Labour Organization uses the term “unemployed” to refer to people of working age who are not working but are available for work and looking for work. The term also covers people who are not working, available for work and waiting to start a new job that they have already found (INE, 2024[10]).
← 2. The minimum age for accessing the Youth Guarantee is 16 years; not 15 years, which is the lower age limit used in the OECD definition of a young person. This is because, in Spain, young people must be 16 years old before they can legally leave the compulsory education system and start work or vocational training.
← 3. These differences are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. The same applies to all the differences mentioned in the report.