EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 15.9.2015

SWD(2015) 169 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Situation of young people in the EU

Accompanying the document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

Draft 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the renewed framework for European Cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018)

{COM(2015) 429 final}
{SWD(2015) 168 final}

1. Introduction3

2. Demography6

2.1. Introduction7

2.2. Trends in the European youth population7

2.3. Mobility among young Europeans12

3. Education and Training14

3.1. Introduction15

3.2. Formal education15

3.3. Non-formal education and youth work22

3.4. Learning mobility24

3.5. Transition from education to employment28

4. Youth Employment and Entrepreneurship30

4.1. Introduction31

4.2. Economically active young people31

4.3. Young people in the labour market33

4.4. Support for the transition to employment49

5. Social Inclusion55

5.1. Introduction56

5.2. Moving towards independence: young people leaving the parental home56

5.3. Levels of poverty and social exclusion58

5.4. Other aspects of poverty and social inclusion65

5.5. Groups at risk of social exclusion71

6. Health and Well-being77

6.1. Introduction78

6.2. Young people’s state of health78

6.3. Health risks79

6.4. Mental well-being91

7. Participation in democratic life95

7.1. Introduction96

7.2. Young people's interest in politics and their perception of EU citizenship96

7.3. Young people's participation in representative democracy: voting and joining a political

party……………….97

7.4. Other ways young people participate101

7.5. Engaging hard-to-reach young people in political and civic life105

8. Voluntary Activities107

8.1. Introduction108

8.2. Youth participation in voluntary activities108

8.3. Encouraging youth participation in voluntary activities112

9. Culture and Creativity114

9.1. Introduction115

9.2. Cultural participation115

9.3. Young people and their use of ICT120

9.4. Creativity123

10. Youth and the World125

10.1. Introduction126

10.2. Young people's engagement with global issues126

10.3. Cooperation among young people from different continents130

References132

Abbreviations141

1. INTRODUCTION

In 2009, the Council endorsed a renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018), also known as the EU Youth Strategy ( 1 ). The period covered by the framework is divided into three-year work cycles. At the end of each cycle, a European Union (EU) Youth Report should be drawn up by the Commission. The Council specified that the report 'shall consist of two parts: A joint Council-Commission report (political part), and supporting documents (statistical and analytical part). The EU Youth Report will evaluate progress made towards the overall objectives of the framework, as well as progress regarding the priorities defined for the most recent work cycle and identify good practices'. At the same time, the report should serve as a basis for establishing priorities for the following work cycle.

The statistical part of the report presents data and information on the current situation of young people in Europe. Following an introductory chapter on demography, which presents the main trends in the youth population over the last few years, separate chapters are dedicated to the eight 'fields of action' identified in the Council Resolution on the EU Youth Strategy (2010-2018): Education and Training, Employment and Entrepreneurship, Social Inclusion, Health and Well-being, Participation, Voluntary Activities, Creativity and Culture, and Youth and the World.

This report builds on the dashboard of EU youth indicators ( 2 ), a selection of 41 indicators which measure the most crucial aspects of young people's lives in Europe. Wherever the report uses these indicators, this is highlighted in the text and in the layout of the relevant Figures.

The period when a person is considered to be 'young' differs across Europe according to the national context, the socio-economic development of society and time. Common to all countries is that the period of youth - the transition from being a child to being an adult - is marked by important life changes: from being in education to having a full-time job, from living in the family home to setting up one's own household, and from being financially dependent to managing one's own money.

Relying on Eurostat data, Eurobarometer surveys and other available sources, the population targeted in this report is primarily young people between 15 and 29 years of age. Where possible, the analysis distinguishes between subgroups aged 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 to 29. In other cases, a more limited age range is used, either because of the specifications of survey data, or because the issue in question affects a particular age group (e.g. early school leaving). In addition, children (under 16 years of age) are also included when analysing indicators on poverty or social exclusion.

In line with the analytical part of the EU Youth Report ( 3 ), the information and analysis cover the EU Member States and, where the available data allows, the EU candidate countries (Albania, Montenegro, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, and Turkey) and EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway).

The report focuses on the most recent years for which data are available and illustrates trends which have emerged since the publication of the previous Youth Report in 2012.

European youth: cross-cutting trends

Across the different topics covered in detail by each chapter, some general trends affecting young Europeans in these transition stages emerge.

In general, positive trends are registered in the field of education, where all the main indicators showed improvements for the EU as a whole. The proportion of young people with at least upper secondary level attainment and with tertiary degrees has risen, while the percentage of low achievers and early school leavers has declined. Evidence indicates that higher levels of education are associated with more positive conditions in other spheres of life. First of all, the positive relationship between higher levels of education and employment is confirmed. In the EU as a whole, the unemployment rate is much lower for young graduates from tertiary education than for those with the lowest levels of education. Data also illustrate that highly educated youth tend to be more motivated to participate in political elections and cast their vote.

However, challenges do exist for those who do not benefit from the improvements in terms of education. Many young people face difficulties in completing school education and acquiring necessary skills. Indeed, progress is mixed regarding reducing the share of 'low achievers' among 15 year olds. This compounds their socio-economic disadvantages and reduces their opportunities to participate more broadly in society.

The economic crisis which started in 2008 continues to limit young people's chances of success. Employment has become more difficult to find and retain, and, when a job is secured, the risk of being overqualified is high for many young graduates. Unemployment, including long-term unemployment, has continued to rise amongst the young, particularly in countries facing economic hurdles. Here, insecure work conditions linked to temporary contracts and involuntary part-time work continue to be widespread and, in some regions, have even deteriorated. Some signs of improvement in the situation for young people in the labour market emerged between 2013 and 2014, raising the hope that the negative trends provoked by the economic crisis have started to turn around.

However, the consequences of several years of great adversity in the labour market have significantly jeopardised the chances of social inclusion for vast numbers of young Europeans. The proportion of young employees unable to make ends meet and living in poverty despite having a job is particularly high in some European countries. Inability to find employment and gain appropriate remuneration clearly affects the possibility for significant numbers of young people to afford the costs of basic goods and services such as food, healthcare, and proper housing. Material deprivation rates for youth have increased in Europe, especially in countries where youth unemployment is high. It has become increasingly difficult for many young people to meet their housing costs (such as rent and utility bills), and, as a consequence, the rate of overcrowding has risen in many EU Member States. Also the possibility for many young people to look after their health and maintain their well-being has reduced: in countries where unemployment and social exclusion are particularly high, increasing proportions of young people report not being able to afford medical care when needed.

Over the last three years, deterioration in the working and living conditions of many young people in Europe has gone hand in hand with a growing detachment from political life and waning engagement in traditional civic activities. Electoral turn-out amongst young voters has declined since 2011 in the vast majority of countries, suggesting a widespread dissatisfaction with traditional modes of political engagement. At the same time, the propensity to dedicate time and energy to the activities of non-governmental organisations has weakened, especially in countries where unemployment and social exclusion are the highest.

Youth participation in cultural activities is also suffering from decreasing trends. Possibly because of reduced financial resources, some are unable to afford to attend cultural events or develop their artistic interests; many young people have refrained from visiting museums, going to the theatre, concerts and movies, and from pursuing their artistic vocations. Attendance at sports and youth clubs has also declined, indicating a withdrawal of many young people from socially inclusive activities.

All in all, despite improvements in the level of competencies, skills and educational achievements, many young Europeans are facing multiple challenges which increase the risk of economic and social exclusion. Marginalisation in the labour market, deterioration in living conditions, and challenges to social integration and political participation are serious threats to young people with fewer opportunities in Europe today.

2. DEMOGRAPHY

2.1. Introduction

Understanding the demographic trends at play in the European youth population is conducive to appreciating the characteristics and behaviours of young people today, which will be described in detail in the other chapters of the report. The size, geographical distribution and demographic features of youth in Europe are related to the quality of life they enjoy, the opportunities at their disposal and their individual and social behaviours.

This chapter therefore introduces the subject matter of the current report. It illustrates the key demographic indicators for European youth, including its proportion in the general population, its projected development, its composition, and the patterns of youth mobility across the continent.

2.2. Trends in the European youth population

On 1 January 2014, almost 90 million young people aged between 15 and 29 years lived in the European Union ( 4 ). This represents around 18% of the total population of EU-28 (Figure 2-A).

Figure 2-A: EU youth indicator: Share of young people (aged 15-29) in the total population on 1 January, by age group and by country, 2014

Notes: The population corresponds to the number of persons having their usual residence in the country on 1st January. When 'usual residence' cannot be established, the countries can report of the legal or registered residence.

Source: Eurostat [demo_pjanind]

The proportion of young people in the total population varies across countries. While it is comparatively smaller in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Slovenia, it reaches the highest levels in Cyprus, Malta, and Slovakia. Albania and Turkey report the highest figures outside of the EU.

In line with the long term trend over the last three decades (see the previous edition of the Youth Report ( 5 )), the proportion of young people continued to decline between 2010 and 2014 (Figure 2-B). 

On average, the 15-19 age group is the most affected by the decline: it registered a 7% decrease over the three years considered. Over a period of only 4 years, it is evident that the proportion of teenagers who entered the 15-19 age group did not fully replace the proportion that moved out of the 25-29 group. This decline in the total numbers of young people in the European Union affects countries to a different extent (Figure 2-C).

Figure 2-C: Share of young people (aged 15-29) in the total population, by country, 2010 and 2014

Source: Eurostat [demo_pjanind]

Central, eastern and southern European countries have seen comparatively larger drops in their youth populations than northern ones. However, Ireland is the country recording the highest fall in percentage points since 2010 (-4 pp.). On the other hand, a few countries (Denmark, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) have witnessed slight increases in the proportion of young people in their population.

There are several reasons behind the decline in the youth population in the vast majority of European countries. While fertility rates rose modestly during the first decade of the century, they remained below what is considered to be the replacement level ( 6 ). Since 2008, they have recorded a further decline, perhaps partly due to the effects of the economic crisis where it impacted on the level of unemployment and family income, at least in those countries most severely hit by the economic downturn ( 7 ). In addition, a tendency for women to give birth to fewer children and at a later age in life is observed, which further reduces the proportion of children being born ( 8 ). These trends are expected to continue in the coming decades, leading to further reductions in the size of the EU youth population (Figure 2-D).

Figure 2-E: Projected young-age and old-age dependency ratios, EU-28 average, 1990-2080

According to population projections developed by Eurostat (Europop2013), while the total EU population is expected to grow through 2050 reaching approximately 525 million in that year, the proportion of young people will decrease from almost 18% in 2013 to below 16% in 2050, equal to over 7 million individuals ( 9 ). The progressive decline in the share of young people, in a context of gradual growth in the total population and of ever-increasing life expectancy rates, indicates that the EU population is progressively ageing. This is expected to substantially boost the old-age dependency ratio, a measure of the extent to which the working-age segment of the population has to support older age groups through, for example, sustaining public healthcare and pension schemes (Figure 2-E) ( 10 ). As a result, younger generations will face an increased burden in supporting the remainder of the population as they move into work.

The steady decrease in the youth population living in the EU over the last decades and the related augmentation of the old-age dependency ratio has been subdued by the growth of immigration from non-EU ( 11 ). This has occurred in two main ways. On the one hand, the influx of immigration from third countries ( 12 ) compensated for the overall natural change in the general population and reversed an otherwise declining trend in the total population. This phenomenon has occurred during the last two decades and has continued over most recent years (Figure 2-F). Data illustrated in the chart show how the crude rate of total population change rose owing to the growth in the crude rate of net migration plus adjustment, especially since 2012.

Figure 2-F: Crude rates of population change, EU-28 average, 2010-2013

On the other hand, young people aged between 20 and 29 are over-represented in the age structure of immigrants coming into EU countries from outside the Union (Figure 2-G).  

Figure 2-G: Young people (aged 15-29) as a proportion of total EU citizens and non-EU citizens living in the EU, by age group, EU-27 average, 2013

As it appears from the trend illustrated in the first part of the chapter, the contribution of non-EU immigration is not enough to reverse the general decline in the youth population living in the EU, but has nonetheless made it less sharp. The proportion of young people from non-EU countries residing in EU Member States varies across countries (Figure 2-H).

Figure 2-H: Share of young immigrants (aged 15-29) from non-European countries, by country, 2012

%    %

Notes: Immigration denotes the action by which a person establishes his or her usual residence in the territory of a Member State for a period that is, or is expected to be, of at least 12 months, having previously been usually resident in another Member State or a third country.

Source: Eurostat [yth_demo_070]

Most recent data available indicate that in some EU Member States young non-EU residents account for at least one fifth of the total youth population (Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Spain, Croatia, Italy, Hungary Malta, Slovenia and Sweden). In the United Kingdom the proportion reaches 40%. On the contrary, in Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland and Romania, the share of non-EU young people is below 10%.

2.3. Mobility among young Europeans

Thanks to the increasing opportunities for EU citizens to travel and set up residence across EU Member States, young Europeans have become increasingly mobile and likely to go work or study in another European country ( 13 ). Crossing geographical and cultural borders and gaining life and work experience in a different context is a great opportunity for a young person to acquire personal skills, learn new languages and appreciate the diversity of European culture.

With over 20% of the immigrants (aged 15-29) coming from another EU Member State, Ireland, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Austria stand out as the countries whose youth population receives in 2012 the highest proportion of young immigrants from other EU countries (Figure 2-I-a). In most of the countries, the share of young immigrants coming from another EU Member State has not changed radically compared to 2010.

However, some exceptions exist. The most significant increase has occurred in Greece, where the percentage of young European immigrants from other EU countries has doubled, although the overall level is relatively low (6%). In contrast, in Estonia and Romania the resident youth population from other EU States has significantly decreased.

Figure 2-I: Share of young (aged 15-29) EU immigrants and emigrants, by country, 2010 and 2012

a) EU immigrants from another EU Member State

%    %

b) EU emigrants to another EU Member State

%    %

Notes: According to the definitions provided by Eurostat, 'Immigration' denotes the action by which a person establishes his or her usual residence in the territory of a Member State for a period that is, or is expected to be, of at least 12 months, having previously been usually resident in another Member State or a third country; 'Emigration' denotes the action by which a person, having previously been usually resident in the territory of a Member State, ceases to have his or her usual residence in that Member State for a period that is, or is expected to be, of at least 12 months. Source: Eurostat [yth_demo_070] [yth_demo_080]

The largest proportions of young EU citizens leaving their own country of residence to settle in another EU Member State in 2012 are recorded in Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia (where one in four young people have emigrated) and remarkably in Lithuania (where the share reaches 45%) (Figure 2-I-b). The biggest increase in the proportion of young people emigrating over the two years in question is observed in Slovenia. Lichtenstein and Iceland have also seen increases in the share of young people choosing to live in another EU Member State. The opposite trend is illustrated in Ireland, where the proportion of young residents leaving the country to settle in another EU country has declined by almost one third.

Overall, looking at the countries for which data are available for both EU immigrants and emigrants, some are clearly shown to be either countries from which many young Europeans go abroad (for example, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Hungary) or countries which receive large numbers of young people (in particular Denmark, Germany, Spain, Luxembourg and Austria).

3. EDUCATION AND TRAINING

3.1. Introduction

The importance of education is unquestioned in today's world. Throughout the years spent in formal education and by means of the opportunities made available through the non-formal and informal sector and through youth work, children and young people have the chance to develop their personal potential, acquire basic skills and qualifications, and become integrated into society at large. Indeed, high-quality and inclusive education for all is one of the most effective defences against the risks of social marginalisation, poverty and exclusion, especially at times of crisis ( 14 ).

Moreover, education is not only a fundamental determinant of individual life chances, but also of economic development ( 15 ). Accordingly, obtaining a high-quality education gives the opportunity for young people to succeed in the labour market and find meaningful employment, while spurring long-term economic growth.

This chapter discusses the provision of learning opportunities for young people in Europe in both formal and non-formal settings. Taking a brief look first at the average number of years young Europeans spend in formal education, the chapter then goes on to examine attainment in terms of the educational level completed and student achievement in reading, mathematics and science. The chapter then gives an insight into the participation of young people in non-formal education, including youth work activities, and then turns to analysing how many young Europeans have had the opportunity to widen their learning experiences by going abroad during their studies. Finally, the last section examines the transition of young people to the world of work.

3.2. Formal education

Formal education refers to the structured system of education from pre-primary to tertiary level. This section considers some of the aspects most relevant to young people: the qualifications they attain – or fail to attain if they leave school prematurely – and the skills they acquire in the education system.

3.2.1. Participation and attainment

European children and young people on average spend more than 17 years in formal education, and this period has been increasing in recent years ( 16 ). Variations between countries are, however, quite significant, with the expected time spent in education ranging from 14 years in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and around 15 years in Cyprus and Luxembourg, to more than 20 years in Finland and Iceland ( 17 ). As was explained in the 2012 EU Youth Report ( 18 ), this is partly due to countries bringing forward the starting age of compulsory education; nevertheless, young people also stay longer in education beyond the compulsory school years (see also Section 3.5).

Young people are also more highly-qualified than older generations. In 2013 ( 19 ) in the EU-28, 81.1 % of young people aged 20-24 had completed at least upper secondary education; whereas only 66 % of people aged 55 to 64 had similar qualification levels ( 20 ).

The proportion of young people aged 20 to 24 with upper secondary or higher educational attainment increased between 2011 and 2014 in the EU-28 and in almost every country except Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Sweden (Figure 3-A-a). The Czech Republic and Slovakia are nevertheless still among the countries with a very high share of at least medium-educated young people: together with Ireland, Croatia, Cyprus, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia, these are the countries where 90 % or more of young people aged 20-24 completed at least upper secondary education. Conversely, the percentage of young people with upper secondary or tertiary attainment levels is less than 70 % in Spain, Iceland and Turkey. However, it has to be noted that a high share of young people with at least upper secondary education does not mean that tertiary attainment is also high in a country (see for example the cases of the Czech Republic, Croatia and Slovakia on Figure 3-B-a).

Women generally have higher educational attainment levels than men. As Figure 3-A-b shows, in the EU-28, on average 84.7 % of women completed at least upper secondary education, while the percentage of men with the same attainment level is 79.9 %. This pattern holds true for all countries with available data, with the exception of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey, where the share of young men with at least upper secondary educational attainment is 3.9 and 4.4 percentage points higher than that of women, respectively. Gender differences are the largest in Estonia, Spain, Cyprus, and Iceland, with differences of more than 10 percentage points.

Figure 3-A: EU youth indicator: young people (aged 20-24) who have completed at least upper secondary education, by country

a) 2011 and 2014

b) by sex, 2014

Notes: For data on educational attainment based on the EU Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS) the International Standard Classification of Education 2011 (ISCED 2011) is applied as from 2014. Up to 2013 ISCED 1997 is used. Nevertheless, data are comparable over time for all available countries except Austria due to the reclassification of higher technical and vocational colleges. However, in the case of this particular indicator, which includes both upper secondary and tertiary levels, data for Austria are also comparable.

Source: Eurostat LFS [edat_lfse_08]

Among higher qualifications, the attainment of tertiary education degrees helps young people the most in securing a job in a high-skilled labour market (as illustrated in the chapter on Employment and Entrepreneurship) ( 21 ). Indeed, according to recent skills forecasts, the demand for high-skilled labour will continue to grow until 2020, when about 31 % of jobs in Europe will require high-level qualifications ( 22 ).

On average, over a third of Europeans between 30 and 34 years of age have achieved a tertiary degree
(Figure 3-B-a) ( 23 ). Several countries reveal percentages much lower than the EU average, in particular the Czech Republic, Italy, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, and, outside the EU, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey, where around one in four 30-34 year-olds has a tertiary qualification.

Figure 3-B: EU youth indicator: Tertiary education attainment of people aged 30-34, by country and by sex, a) 2011 and 2014

b) by sex, 2014

Notes: For data on educational attainment based on the EU Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS) the International Standard Classification of Education 2011 (ISCED 2011) is applied as from 2014. Up to 2013 ISCED 1997 is used. Nevertheless, data are comparable over time for all available countries except Austria due to the reclassification of higher technical and vocational colleges.

Source: Eurostat LFS [edat_lfse_07]

In line with the gradual increase since 2000 ( 24 ), the proportion of people aged 30-34 with tertiary level education attainment has grown over the last three years, although at a different pace across European countries (Figure 3-B-a). The most significant relative increases have taken place in Greece and Croatia, with an increase of more than 8 percentage points.

In accordance with the general educational attainment trends described above, women attain tertiary degrees in higher percentages than men (Figure 3-B-b). Men are furthest behind in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Norway, while the gender gap is narrowest in Germany and Austria. In Germany, together with Turkey, fewer women than men complete tertiary degrees.

Despite this positive trend in educational attainment, a significant share of young Europeans still face significant difficulties in the education system and feel compelled to leave prematurely without having gained relevant qualifications or a school certificate. This is the case with early leavers from education and training (also referred to as 'early school leavers') – people aged 18-24 with at most lower secondary education and who were not in further education or training during the last four weeks preceding the survey. Amongst the factors contributing to young people leaving education early, their socio-economic status and that of their families proves to have significant weight ( 25 ). Indeed, early leavers are much more likely to come from families with a low socio-economic status (i.e. where parents are unemployed, have low income and low levels of education), or from vulnerable social groups such as migrants ( 26 ). Early school leavers are exposed to a particularly high risk of deprivation and social exclusion. In addition, not only does leaving school early result in longer and more frequent spells of unemployment, it also engenders considerable public and social costs ( 27 ).

On average, about 11 % of Europeans aged 18-24 in 2014 left education having completed lower secondary education at most (Figure 3-C-a) ( 28 ). Several countries report much higher percentages (especially Spain, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Iceland and Turkey), while the lowest shares are registered in the Czech Republic, Croatia, Poland, and Slovenia.

Since 2000, there has been a general decline in the proportion of young people leaving school early in Europe. In line with this long-term trend, fewer people left education prematurely in the majority of European countries between 2011 and 2014 (Figure 3-C-a). Spain, Cyprus, Portugal and Norway are the countries where the decrease has been most significant. Among the countries with the highest proportions of early school leavers, Italy and Malta have also shown improvement. However, there are still more than 5 million early school leavers in Europe, and an increase in their share has taken place in Bulgaria and Estonia, and there has been a stagnation in Hungary and Romania, where percentages still higher than the EU benchmark of 10 %.

Figure 3-C: EU youth indicator: Early leavers from education and training (population aged 18-24 with lower secondary education at most and not in further education or training), by country

a) 2011 and 2014

b) by sex, 2014

Notes: For data on educational attainment based on the EU Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS) the International Standard Classification of Education 2011 (ISCED 2011) is applied as from 2014. Up to 2013 ISCED 1997 is used. Nevertheless, data are comparable over time for all available countries except Austria due to the reclassification of higher technical and vocational colleges.

Source: Eurostat LFS [edat_lfse_14]

The risk of leaving education prematurely and with low qualification levels is higher amongst men than women (Figure 3-C-b). This gender gap applies to most European countries, and is widest in Estonia, Spain, Cyprus and Iceland. On the other hand, some countries show similar percentages for men and women (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Slovakia). Only in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and in Turkey, and to much a lesser extent in Bulgaria, there are more young women leaving early from education and training.

Young people who have left school prematurely are typically those students who perform poorly in the classroom and on standardised tests, and can be helped to re-enter mainstream education and subsequently to gain higher qualifications through the recognition and validation of learning outcomes achieved by means of non-formal education (discussed in Section 3.3).

3.2.2.    Skills

During the years spent in formal education, young people can acquire the skills that are essential if they are to achieve their full potential and be successful in their personal and social lives as well as in their career. Indeed, good levels of basic skills represent the foundation for professional development and social inclusion ( 29 ). Specifically, reading, mathematics, and science have been recognised as the core competencies to be developed in schools ( 30 ).

On average, about one in five young people aged 15 demonstrates low levels of proficiency in the three core competencies (Figure 3-D). Figures clearly indicate that pupil performance in these three skills correlate strongly with each other. Countries that show a certain level of performance in one of these basic skills tend to perform similarly in the others. For example, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania, Albania, Montenegro and Turkey, show higher proportions of low-achievers in all three areas.

Since 2009, the share of low-achievers has declined in the majority of European countries, with the exception of Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, Norway and Iceland where the opposite trend is recorded. However, Europe still counts a worrying number of pupils with very low basic skills and progress is lacking behind, particularly in mathematics.

Figure 3-D: Low-achieving 15 year-old students in reading (a), mathematics (b) and science (c), by country, 2009 and 2012

a) Reading

%    %

b) Mathematics

%    %

c) Science

%    %

Notes: 'UK' stands for United Kingdom – England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland is not included.

Source: OECD, PISA

In addition to basic skills, knowledge of foreign languages is a significant advantage for young people. It enables them to discover and understand different cultures, and expand their educational and professional prospects by opening up opportunities to study and work abroad.

One in two young students enrolled in general secondary education learns two or more foreign languages in the European Union (Figure 3-E). In some countries, the proportion is much higher, reaching 100 % or nearly 100% in the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Lichtenstein. Conversely, Ireland, the United Kingdom and some southern European Member States show particularly low proportions of young people learning at least two foreign languages.

Figure 3-E: EU Youth indicator: Share of young people in upper general secondary education (ISCED 3gen) learning two or more foreign languages, by country, 2010 and 2012

Notes: EU-28 totals are calculated on the basis of the countries for which data are available. Where possible the previous/following year data have been used to compute the EU aggregates.

Germany: data are not available due to a derogation.

Source: Eurostat UOE [educ_ilang]

Over the two years for which data are available, the noticeable variations that have occurred have been decreases in Greece, Malta and Sweden.

The level of skills in foreign languages acquired by young Europeans is not yet being systematically measured across all EU countries. However, the first round of the European Survey on Language Competencies (ESLC) conducted in 2011 in 13 Member States shows wide variations exist across participating countries in the levels of proficiency demonstrated by 15-year-old students in reading, listening and writing in foreign languages ( 31 ).

3.3. Non-formal education and youth work

Non-formal education and training covers any organised and sustained learning activities that do not take place within the framework of the formal education system ( 32 ). Non-formal learning is undertaken intentionally but participation in the courses or activities is voluntary ( 33 ). This type of learning experience usually addresses the needs of specific target groups such as adults wishing to re-enter education, employed or employment-seeking individuals active in the labour market in need of further qualifications, and young people trying to improve specific skills in parallel or as an alternative to formal education.

As acknowledged by the Council of the European Union, non-formal learning can greatly contribute to increasing the motivation of young Europeans to undertake lifelong learning as well as improving their employability and job mobility, provided that mechanisms for recognising the skills acquired are widely available ( 34 ).

Indeed, non-formal learning can help release the potential of many young people by uncovering and developing their knowledge, skills and competencies and by encouraging the acquisition of new kinds of capacities. While these opportunities are important for all young people, they can be particularly beneficial to those who are at an educational disadvantage ( 35 ).

Countries differ greatly in terms of the share of young people involved in non-formal education (Figure 3-F). While at least one in five young individuals participate in non-formal education activities in Denmark, France, Cyprus, Sweden and the United Kingdom, other countries register much lower percentages; in particular, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Slovakia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Overall, in individual European countries between 2011 and 2014 only minor variations occurred in the proportions of young people undertaking non-formal learning.

Figure 3-F: Share of young people (aged 15-29) participating in non-formal education and training, by country, 2011 and 2014

a) 2011 and 2014

%    %

Notes: the Czech Republic, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Poland and Turkey: breaks in time series in 2013 (2014 for Spain and Turkey) make data not comparable with those from 2011.

EU average: data are not shown due to a break in series in data collection (2013).

b) by sex, 2014

%    %

Notes: Data are not reliable for Bulgaria (men) and Croatia (both men and women). 

Source: Eurostat LFS [trng_lfs_09]

As illustrated by Figure 3-F-b, the average share of young women and young men engaging in non-formal learning are very similar. Yet, in most countries, women tend to report somewhat higher rates of participation, with gender differences being the largest (more than 30 %) in Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland and Finland.

Non-formal learning might take place in the context of youth work. According to the Resolution of the Council of the EU on youth work from 2010, youth work encompasses activities for and by young people, taking place in the extracurricular and leisure areas, and based on voluntary participation. Such activities see the cooperation of professional and voluntary youth workers, youth leaders, and the active engagement and contribution of young participants ( 36 ).

Youth work has been shown to exert positive influence on student achievements in education by fostering non-cognitive skills such as persistence, motivation, and self-efficacy ( 37 ). In particular, young people at risk of dropping out prematurely from education and training may obtain support from youth workers, gaining access to learning resources and individualised assistance and becoming motivated to learn again through participation in the various activities organised for them ( 38 ). Some youth work programmes have also proven effective in bringing young people who have left school early back into education by, for example, offering preparatory courses for re-insertion into mainstream education or second chance programmes ( 39 ).

Providing information, advice and guidance to support young people in their decision making during their education and training is another important aspect of youth work ( 40 ). Indeed, in some European countries, central authorities place guidance services for students under the auspices of youth work organisations, delivered by nation-wide networks independent from schools ( 41 ).

Because youth work is such a wide field encompassing voluntary leisure-time as well as extra-curricular activities, its contribution goes well beyond supporting young people in their educational experiences. Studies which have investigated the effects of young people's participation in youth work activities show that young people can acquire and reinforce personal skills such as conflict resolution, decision making, goal setting and interpersonal communication that can prove useful in all spheres of life ( 42 ). Although data on young people's participation in activities organised by youth workers is limited, Chapter 8 of this report provides some insight into the level of participation in organised voluntary activities (Figure 8-A) while Chapter 9 examines their involvement in youth organisations, cultural organisations and sports clubs (Figure 9-C).

3.4. Learning mobility

Learning mobility is generally seen as contributing to the development of a wide range of skills and competences among young people. Most importantly, transversal skills such as language competences, communication, problem-solving, and intercultural understanding are found to be improved by study periods abroad ( 43 ). According to the Erasmus Impact Study, students participating in the Erasmus mobility programme improve their employability skills more than non-mobile students ( 44 ). In addition, student mobility programmes also have the potential to contribute to the overall quality of education ( 45 ).

However, while mobility contributes to the skills development and labour market prospects of individuals, many do not have the possibility to experience learning mobility. First of all, most learning mobility occurs during higher education studies. While data on mobility outside higher education settings are scarce, young people not entering tertiary education clearly have fewer opportunities for learning mobility. In addition, even among higher education students, disadvantaged students participate less in mobility programmes ( 46 ).

Figure 3-G depicts the proportion of people who, in a recent Eurobarometer survey, declared they had spent time abroad studying. The figure covers all respondents, thus not only young people, but nevertheless gives a useful overview on learning mobility in the different European countries across different age groups.

Figure 3-G: Proportion of people who have spent time abroad (in another EU Member State or outside the EU) studying, by country, 2014

%    %

Notes: The question was: 'Have you ever spent time in another EU Member State or outside of the EU…? Studying'.

Base: all respondents, % by country

Source: Special Eurobarometer 417, European area of Skills and Qualifications, 2014

According to the Eurobarometer survey, in the EU-28 in general, the age group with the highest share of people who have studied abroad is the 25-39 age group (12 %), followed by the 40-54 year-olds (9 %) ( 47 ). In contrast, only 5 % of respondents over the age of 55 had experienced learning abroad ( 48 ). This indicates that learning mobility is increasing in Europe with each generation. This trend would appear to be contradicted by the figures for the youngest age group (those aged 15-24), where only 9 % of respondents have studied abroad. However, since most young people undertake a period of learning abroad during their higher education studies, many respondents in this age group may not yet have had the opportunity to do so.

The country with the largest proportion of respondents that has spent time abroad studying is Luxembourg, where until 2003, when the first and only university was founded, everyone went abroad for higher education studies, and even today all higher education students have some experience of learning mobility. Luxembourg is followed by Cyprus, where the proportion of higher education graduates receiving their degrees abroad is also relatively high (see Figure 3-H). Besides these two countries, learning mobility is most widespread in northern European countries: Sweden, Denmark, Estonia and Finland, with 18 %, 16 %, 14 % and 13 % respectively. On the other hand, the survey indicates that people are the least mobile in Bulgaria, with only 2 % of respondents declaring they had spent time abroad studying.

Given that most learning mobility occurs during higher education studies, more specific data are available on the mobility of higher education students. There are two main types of learning mobility in higher education: credit mobility, which refers to a short period of study in another country when a student may earn credits towards their home-based degree programme; and degree mobility, where a student moves to an institution abroad to take their entire degree course ( 49 ).

Figure 3-H depicts the latest Eurostudent survey data on temporary enrolments abroad (credit mobility) by higher education students. Among the countries with available data, the Nordic countries – Finland (18 %), Norway (16 %), Sweden (13 %) and Denmark (12 %) – as well as Slovenia (12 %) stand out with the highest credit mobility rates in 2013/14. Conversely, credit mobility rates were the lowest (around 2 %) in Croatia, Slovakia and Serbia.

Figure 3-H: Proportion of higher education students who have been temporarily enrolled abroad (credit mobility), 2013/14

%    %

Notes: EUROSTUDENT Question: 4.1 Have you been enrolled abroad as a student in higher education?

Data relate only to temporary international student mobility and therefore only take into account students who resume their studies in the country from which they came prior to their study period abroad.

Deviations from EUROSTUDENT survey conventions: Austria, Switzerland, Finland and France. Deviations from EUROSTUDENT standard target group: Germany and Italy.

Source: EUROSTUDENT V, K.1, K.16.

These data also illustrate that despite the benefits of learning mobility, the majority of higher education students did not report having spent time abroad. This is partly due to a selection bias, since the sample of the survey includes all higher education students, some of whom might not have reached the point in their study course when the opportunity to study abroad had arisen. Nevertheless, when asking about the intention to go abroad, data still show that in the majority of European countries, more than half of students do not even plan to study abroad, especially those from a lower socio-economic background ( 50 ). The most important obstacles to credit mobility, as indicated by the students not planning a study period abroad, are the additional financial burden (63 %), and the separation from partners, children and friends (47 %) ( 51 ).

Public funding for learning mobility can reduce the additional financial burden students have to face when going abroad to study. In Europe, the most important source of funding is the Erasmus Student Mobility programme. In fact, most of the European students undertaking short-term periods abroad to earn credits towards a home-based degree (credit mobility) do so through the Erasmus programme, especially in countries where national sources are less available ( 52 ). In the academic year 2012/13, 212 522 students participated in the programme, and the numbers have been growing each year ( 53 ). The largest numbers of participating students are from Spain, Germany, France, Italy and Turkey, though the relative share of students participating is the highest in Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Lithuania and Latvia ( 54 ). Interestingly, whilst credit mobility is highest in the Nordic countries, the relative proportion of Erasmus students in Denmark, Sweden and Norway is among the lowest ( 55 ), pointing towards the availability of other sources of funding for these students.

Students who move to another country to take an entire degree programme (degree mobility), as depicted in Figure 3-I ( 56 ), mostly stay within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) ( 57 ). The majority of students from Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Cyprus study outside their country, but almost all of them within the EHEA. Besides these three small countries, degree mobility is the highest in Slovakia, Iceland and Malta, with more than 10 % of students studying abroad. At the other end of the scale, the proportion of students leaving their country to get a higher education degree is lowest (below 2 %) in Turkey, the United Kingdom and Spain.

Figure 3-I: Proportion of tertiary education students enrolled abroad (degree mobility), by country of origin, 2011/12

Notes: Destinations outside of the EHEA considered are Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco (reference year 2010), Oman (reference year 2011), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, China – Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China – Macao Special Administrative Region (reference year 2011), Malaysia, Thailand, Israel, India, Ghana, Brazil, Chile, Korea, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States.

Japan: data refer to foreign students instead of mobile students.

Czech Republic, Greece, France, Italy, Finland, Norway, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, and Serbia: data refer to foreign students instead of mobile students.

Source: European Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice 2015, p. 236.

Among the countries with comparable data, the countries with the highest relative share of mobile students studying outside the EHEA are the United Kingdom, where around half of all mobile students leave the EHEA; and Denmark and Sweden, where around one third do so. Looking at the share of mobile students going outside the EHEA within all (including non-mobile) students, more than 1 % of all students go abroad to study outside the EHEA in Cyprus, Sweden, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Iceland.

3.5. Transition from education to employment

Completing education and entering the labour market represents an important step in young people's lives. It is the time when the knowledge and skills learnt and aspirations developed during the years spent in education are put to the test, with the objective of gaining meaningful employment and financial independence. This transition has become increasingly complex and individualised for today's young people, as many of them move regularly in and out of work, often having part-time or temporary jobs, or even returning to education after a period of employment ( 58 ) (see also the chapter on Employment and Entrepreneurship) .

For most young Europeans, the passage from education to employment occurs between the ages of 20 and 24 (Figure 3-J). During these ages, the share of young individuals in formal education is overtaken by the share in employment.

This transition occurs later for women than for men. The gender gap in this particular regard is a consequence of the higher percentage of women in the age group 20-24 who continue their studies and postpone joining the labour force without continuing their education.

Figure 3-J: Share of young people (aged 15-29) either in formal education or in employment (but not in both), by age group, EU-28 average, 2013

Source: Eurostat [edat_lfse_19]

The rates of participation in formal education amongst young people in the age of transition (20-24) have gradually increased since 2000, with a significant surge after the start of the economic crisis in 2008 ( 59 ). Alongside this, the rate of employment for the same age group has progressively declined. These trends are confirmed between 2011 and 2014. As an increasing share of young Europeans aged 20 to 24 remains in education, a smaller portion enters the labour market without continuing their education (Figure 3-K).

Data presented in the chart indicate that the decrease in the proportion of young people solely in employment has been greater than the increase in the percentage of those solely in formal education. There is therefore a segment of the youth population aged 20-24 that appears to have left education without having been integrated into the labour force. The challenges encountered by young people experiencing unemployment, and by those who are not in employment, education or training (NEETs) will be illustrated in the chapters on Employment and Social Inclusion respectively.

(1) ()Council resolution of 27 November 2009 on a renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018), OJ C 311, 19.12.2009, p. 1-11.

(2) ()Commission Staff Working Document on EU indicators in the field of youth, SEC(2011) 401 final.

(3) ()All EU Member States, EU candidate countries and EEA EFTA States were invited to submit National Youth Reports.

(4) () Eurostat collects information on the population living in each European country on the 1st of January of each year. Data on young people are available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/youth/data/database .

(5) ()European Commission, 2012.

(6) ()Eurostat, 2015a. The replacement level is the level of the fertility rate which is necessary to compensate for the mortality rate. Its value should be 2.1.

(7) ()Ibid.

(8) ()Ibid.

(9) ()Ibid.

(10) ()Bloom et al., 2008.

(11) ()Bloom et al., 2008; Lanzieri, 2013.

(12) ()'Non-EU country' and 'third country' are used interchangeably to indicate any country outside the current 28 EU Member States.

(13) ()European Commission, 2012a and 2014d.

(14) () European Commission 2014a.

(15) () EENEE, 2014.

(16) () In the EU-28, while school expectancy was 17 years in 2003, it increased to 17.6 by 2012. Source: Eurostat, online data code: educ_igen (School expectancy of pupils and students (ISCED 0-6)).

(17) () Ibid.

(18) () European Commission, 2012a.

(19) () In Section 3.2.1, given the application of the new ISCED 2011 categories by Eurostat from 2014, we rely on data from 2013 for being able to make comparisons over time.

(20) () Eurostat, online data code: edat_lfse_08. Data extracted on 16/03/2015.

(21) () European Commission/EACEA, 2013.

(22) () European Commission 2014a.

(23) () The Europe 2020 Strategy includes a target set by the European Council to raise the level of tertiary attainment amongst 30-34 year-olds to 40 % by 2020.

(24) () European Commission, 2012a.

(25) () European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Cedefop, 2014.

(26) () Ibid.

(27) () European Commission, 2014a.

(28) () The ET 2020 Strategic framework includes a target set by the European Council of reducing the share of early school leavers to below 10 % by 2020.

(29) () European Commission 2014a.

(30) () The Europe 2020 Strategy includes a target set by the European Council to reduce the share of low achievers in reading, mathematics and science amongst 15 year-olds to below 15 % by 2020.

(31) () European Commission, 2012b. The European Survey on Language Competences (ESLC) was conducted for the first time in 2011 in Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden. In accordance with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), the survey tests 15-year-old students' abilities in their first and second foreign languages.

(32) () This definition is provided by Eurostat in the context of its lifelong learning statistics and is also applied in the EU LFS which collects data on participation in non-formal education and training during the four weeks preceding the survey.

(33) () Salto, 2005.

(34) () European Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning (2012/C 398/01).

(35) () Council of Europe, 2005.

(36) () Resolution of the Council and of the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council on youth work, Brussels, 18 and 19 November 2010.

(37) () Shernoff and Lowe Vandell, 2007.

(38) () European Commission, 2014h. The study offers a detailed and comprehensive assessment of the various traditions and developments of youth work in Europe. It presents both secondary analysis of previous literature and data on the topic, and first-hand evidence collected through interviews. Most of the information presented in this section draws from this study's findings.

(39) () Ibid.

(40) () Ibid.

(41) () Ibid.

(42) () Ibid.

(43) () European Commission, 2014c.

(44) () Ibid, p.14.

(45) () Council of the European Union, 2011.

(46) () Hauschildt et al., 2015.

(47) () European Commission, 2014f.

(48) () Ibid.

(49) () European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2013b.

(50) () Hauschildt et al. 2015, p. 193. Lower socio-economic background here refers to having parents with no higher education qualifications.

(51) () Ibid., p. 194.

(52) () Ibid., p. 198.

(53) () European Commission 2014c, p.8.

(54) () Ibid.

(55) () Hauschildt et al. 2015, p. 198.

(56) () Data presented here need to be treated with caution due to two main limitations. First, the list of destinations outside the EHEA is limited. Second, mobility data may rely on different criteria (i.e. citizenship, prior/permanent residence, prior education), which do not measure exactly the same phenomenon. For example, where data refers to foreign students instead of mobile students, it also includes non-national students who were already living in the country of destination before they began their higher education studies.

(57) () A more detailed analysis on degree mobility can be found in the latest Bologna Implementation Report (European Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice, 2015).

(58) () Buchmann, 2011; Eurofound, 2012.

(59) () European Commission, 2012a.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 15.9.2015

SWD(2015) 169 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Situation of young people in the EU

Accompanying the document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

Draft 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the renewed framework for European Cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018)

{COM(2015) 429 final}
{SWD(2015) 168 final}

4. YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

4.1. Introduction

The economic crisis in the European Union has dramatically changed the youth labour market to a degree that in almost all European countries, several years since the start of the crisis, young people are still facing unprecedented difficulties in finding a job. While youth unemployment was already quite high in 2011, during the following two years the situation deteriorated even further in most countries, with eleven of these registering their highest youth unemployment rate for the 15-24 age group either in 2012 or in 2013 ( 1 ). The crisis has also had an important negative impact on young people aged between 25 and 29.

Analysing the situation of the 15-29 age group as a whole between 2011 and 2014, a significant contraction in employment is evident. Indeed, employment among those aged 15-29 decreased by more than 1.8 million, from 42.2 million in 2011 to 40.4 million in 2014 ( 2 ). In parallel, young people increased their participation in education and training (for more details see Chapter 3), and they are equally more likely to become unemployed. In 2014, more than 8.5 million young people aged 15-29 were unemployed.

Moreover, an increasing percentage of young people in 2014 had only temporary, part-time work or other non-standard form of employment in comparison to 2011.

The aim of this chapter is to describe both the current situation of the youth labour market as well as the changes that took place between 2011 and 2014. The chapter focuses firstly on economically active young people; it then presents a deeper analysis of young people's position in the labour market; and finally it gives a brief overview of the support available to assist young people in making the transition from education to employment.

4.2. Economically active young people

The economically active population is broadly defined as those who are either in employment or unemployed ( 3 ). Figure 4-A shows the proportion of economically active young people in the total population, in 2011 and 2014. During the last three years there has been little change for the older age groups (young people aged 20-24 and 25-29), while the youngest age group (those aged 15-19) recorded a small decrease.

Young people aged 15 to 19 have always been the least active within the broader youth population, as most are still enrolled in education or training programmes. In 2011, just over one in five of those aged between 15 and 19 were economically active. The 2014 value shows a reduction of 4.7 % compared to 2011.

The EU28 average hides some significant differences at country level (Figure 4-B-a). Indeed, in approximately a third of countries the youth population aged 15-19 show activity rates significantly above the EU average. The highest values are recorded in Denmark (51.4 %), the Netherlands (59.6 %) and Iceland (71 %). Moreover, in these three countries the 15-19 age group's activity rates are much closer to those of the other groups in the youth population, suggesting an earlier entry to the labour market than in the other countries.

Figure 4-B: a) Activity rates among young people (aged 15-29), by age group and by country, 2014

Source: Eurostat LFS [lfsa_argan]

Similar variations between countries are observed among young people aged 20-24. In 2014, the highest values are recorded in Iceland (80.9 %) and the Netherlands (76.2 %), while Bulgaria (42.8 %) and Luxembourg (42.5 %) show the lowest activity rates. The EU28 activity rate is equal to 61.1 %.

As for the oldest age group (young people aged 25-29), the EU28 activity rate is higher than that of the previous group at 82.5 %. Cyprus (90.2 %) and Lithuania (88.7 %) are the countries with the highest activity rates. Conversely Italy (67.6 %) and Turkey (66.9 %) are those with the lowest values.

Figure 4-B (b) shows the relative changes in the activity rates over the period 2011-2014. Few countries (Croatia, Luxembourg and Hungary) registered a significant increase in activity rate among young people (particularly those aged 15-19). Other countries, conversely, had a significant decrease (Belgium, Estonia, Spain, and Portugal).

Figure 4-B: b) Change in activity rates among young people (aged 15-29), by age group andby country, 2011 and 2014

Source: Eurostat LFS [lfsa_argan]

4.3. Challenges to young people in the labour market

4.3.1. Unemployment

As illustrated in the previous Youth Report of 2012, since the start of the financial and economic crisis in spring 2008 the increase in youth unemployment (in all the three age groups considered: 15-19, 20-24 and 25-29) has been significantly greater than for the older active population (aged 25-64). This situation is also confirmed for the period 2011-2014.

Unemployment rates among young people

The EU28 unemployment rate among young people ( 4 ) in 2014 was 26.3 % for those aged 15-19, 20.6 % for those aged 20-24 and 13.6 % for the oldest age group (25-29).

It is worth noting that the unemployment rates among young people were already quite high in 2011. The rates then increased (Figure 4-C) during the period 2011-2014 for the two older age groups (aged 20-24 and 25-29), while for the youngest group (15-19 year-olds), the change shows a moderate improvement (-1.9 %). For the two older age groups the change represents an increase of 4.0 % for young people aged 20-24, and of 7.9 % for those aged 25-29.

The high level of unemployment recorded for the 25-29 age group shows an increasing difficulty in entering the labour market for young people who have completed their education (or those who have reached the age where they are expected to have completed it).

As indicated in the Education chapter, the rates of participation in full-time education amongst young people, in the age of transition from education to employment (ages 20-24), have gradually increased since 2000, with a significant surge after the start of the economic crisis in 2008. This change means that there is now greater homogeneity across the two lower age groups comprising young people from age15 through to 24. For this reason, and also to be in line with the indicator on youth unemployment on the EU youth dashboard, the analysis which follows will compare this wider group with the older age group of 25-29 year-olds.

From a gender perspective, over the period 2011-2014 at EU28 level, the unemployment rates of men and women have followed similar trends (Figure 4-D). The unemployment rate for young men aged 15-24 increased by 3.2 % while for young women it increased by 1.9 %. For the older age group (young people aged 25-29) the increase was roughly 7 %. Rates rose for both age groups until 2013 (for men and women alike) and subsequently fell between 2013 and 2014.

The fact that the crisis hit mainly male-dominated economic sectors (such as the construction sector) contributed to the higher youth unemployment rate amongst young men (particularly for the 15-24 age group). Accordingly, in 2014, the unemployment rate for young men aged 15-24 is slightly higher than that for young women in the same age group (22.6 % and 21.2 % respectively).

At country level, the situation differs considerably. Moreover, important differences exist between young people aged 15-24 and those aged 25-29 (Figure 4-E). On average, the unemployment rate for young people aged 25-29 was 9.8 percentage points lower than the value for young people aged 15-24.

Figure 4-E: EU Youth Indicator: Unemployment rates for young people (aged 15-24 and 25-29), by country, 2014

a) 15-24 age group

b) 25-29 age group

The younger age group (those aged 15-24) is more affected by unemployment. For seven countries the unemployment rate for this age group is above 30 %. Among these countries, particularly high values are recorded in Greece and Spain, which in 2014 had youth unemployment rates for those aged 15-24 of 52.4 % and 53.2 % respectively. On the other hand, only three countries (Germany, Iceland, and Norway) had unemployment rates of below 10 % for young people aged 15-24.

As for the 25-29 age group, the unemployment rate exceeds 30 % in only three countries, Greece (40.8 %), Spain (30.3 %), and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (39.3 %). For thirteen countries the unemployment rate is below 10 %.

To better understand how the increases in unemployment rates registered in 2014 came about, it is necessary to examine the changes that occurred in the period immediately before, i.e. from 2011 onwards.

The most significant decrease in the unemployment rate among young people aged 15-24 between 2011 and 2014 is registered in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Iceland. Conversely, for seven countries (Belgium, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Slovenia) the change represented an increase of at least 24 %.

In Greece, Spain, Croatia, Italy, particularly Cyprus, and Portugal, the youth unemployment rate for the 15-24 age group was already very high in 2011. In these countries the situation for young people deteriorated over the three-year period, although at a slower pace.

The trend for young people aged 25-29 indicates changes of a greater magnitude in many countries. In this age group, the greatest reductions occurred in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Hungary, while the highest increases were recorded in Greece, Italy, and Cyprus (+106 %). Large increases were also registered for Luxembourg and the Netherlands, but both countries had a very low unemployment rate in 2011 (and this is still the case in 2014).

Despite the changes shown over the 2011-2014 period, it should be pointed out that 2013 represented a turning point for almost all countries. Indeed, 25 countries in 2014 recorded a lower unemployment rate for young people aged 15-24 than in 2013 (apart from Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Romania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey). Similarly, 23 countries registered a lower unemployment rate in 2014 for the older age group (ages 25-29), in comparison with 2013.

Youth long-term unemployment

The employment situation for young people is further complicated by the phenomenon of long-term unemployment ( 5 ), which applies to an increasing proportion of young men and women.

The youth long-term unemployment rate differs between age groups (15-19, 20-24 and 25-29 years). The EU28 average value for the youngest group (15-19 years) in 2014 was 5.8 %, corresponding to a 3.6 % increase in comparison with 2011 (5.6 %).

For young people aged 20-24, the long-term unemployment rate (EU28 average) increased from 6.5 % in 2011 to 7.7 % in 2014 (+18.5 %). For the 25-29 age group, the increase was from 4.9 % in 2011 to 5.9 % in 2014 (+ 20.4 %). The following analysis of youth long-term unemployment focuses on the older age groups (20-24 and 25-29 years).

In 2011, in both age groups, the proportion of long-term unemployed young men was higher than for young women (see Figure 4-F).

The gender gap further increased over the three years in question. In 2011 the difference between unemployed young men and women was 1.2 percentage points for the 20-24 age group and 0.2 percentage points for the 25-29 age group; in 2014 these values were 1.4 and 0.5 percentage points respectively.

The EU28 average conceals variations across Europe in relation to this indicator (see Figure 4-G). In the 20-24 age group, high rates of long-term unemployment were recorded in Greece, Spain, Croatia, Italy and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

From 2011, a dramatic increase was registered in Cyprus where the long-term youth unemployment rate for those aged 20-24 surged by 172.5 %. Greece, Italy and Portugal registered an increase equal to or higher than 70 %.

Young people aged between 25 and 29 have been particularly affected by long-term unemployment in Greece and in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, with values around 30 %. Since 2011, two-thirds of countries recorded an increase in long-term youth unemployment for this age group. The largest increases were registered in Greece (+86.8 %), Italy (+94.4 %), Cyprus (+313.6 %) and the Netherlands (+144.4 %).

On a positive note, significant reductions have been registered in the long-term unemployment rate of those aged 25-29 in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. The three Baltic countries have markedly improved their labour market situation in the last three years, after several years of negative trends.

Figure 4-G: Long-term unemployment rates among young people (aged 20-24 and 25-29), by country, 2011 and 2014

a) 20-24 age group

b) 25-29 age group

Source: Eurostat LFS [yth_empl_120]

Youth unemployment and educational attainment

The level of educational attainment is a relevant factor in young people's chances of success in finding work. Indeed, Figure 4-H suggests that the higher the education level completed, the lower the youth unemployment rate registered.

In 2014 the EU28 average unemployment rate was 10.5 % among the active population aged 25 to 29 years who had completed tertiary education (ISCED 5-8), and 12.1 % for those with only upper secondary education (ISCED 3-4). For young people aged 20-24, the youth unemployment rates are comparatively higher, but still show a stronger incidence of unemployment amongst those with a lower level of educational attainment.

However, from a comparative perspective, between 2011 and 2014 the EU28 average unemployment rate increased most amongst those young people (aged 25-29) who had completed tertiary education (+12.9 %).

Figure 4-H: Youth unemployment rate by the highest educational level attained, 20-24 and 25-29 age groups, EU28 average, 2011 and 2014

Source: Eurostat LFS [yth_empl_120]

For data on educational attainment based on the EU Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS) the International Standard Classification of Education 2011 (ISCED 2011) is applied as from 2014. Up to 2013 ISCED 1997 is used.

For details see http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/1014465/6636845/EN-Implementation-ISCED2011.pdf  

Indeed, the economic crisis has affected young people attaining higher education too, especially in some European countries. Greece, Spain, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Portugal, and outside the EU, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have the highest youth unemployment rates among 25-29 year-olds with an ISCED 5-8 qualification (from 20.1 % for Portugal to 42.4 % for Greece) (Figure 4-I-a).

Figure 4-I-a: Unemployment rate for the 25-29 age group according to the highest educational level attained, by country, 2014

Source: Eurostat LFS [yth_empl_090]

Moreover, the economic crisis has created a difficult challenge for young graduates in many countries: they often find themselves overqualified for the opportunities available in the labour market ( 6 ). This is grasped by Figure 4-I-b, showing the percentage changes in youth unemployment (young people aged 25-29) by education level. What emerges is that in a third of countries between 2011 and 2014, the youth unemployment rate increased more for those with a higher level of attainment (ISCED 5-8) than for those with a lower level (ISCED 0-2) (see also Section 4.4.1 which is devoted to the skills mismatch).

Figure 4-I-b: Changes in the youth unemployment rate of young people aged 25-29, by education level and by country, 2011 and 2014

Note: For Cyprus end of the bar for ISCED 3-4 is not shown in the graph. The value is equal to 178.6 %.

Source: Eurostat LFS [yth_empl_090]

The largest increase for young people with low educational attainment (ISCED 0-2) is registered in Slovenia (79 %), while Cyprus has seen its youth unemployment rate for young people aged 25-29 increase more than in any other country over the period 2011-2014. The changes account for an increase of 178.6 % for young people with educational attainment at ISCED level 3-4 and 78.9 % for the more highly educated at ISCED level5-8.

Youth unemployment ratio

High youth unemployment rates reflect the difficulties faced by young people in finding jobs. However, many young people – in particular in the 15-24 age group – are still studying full-time and are therefore neither working nor looking for a job. In other words, they are economically inactive and not part of the total labour force figure which is used as the denominator for calculating the unemployment rate. For this reason, the youth unemployment ratio, which is an EU dashboard youth indicator, is used to show the proportion of unemployed youth in relation to the total youth population (employed, unemployed and inactive).

Figure 4-J shows the unemployment ratios for the 15-24 and 25-29 age groups in European countries in 2011 and 2014. Although the youth unemployment ratios are by definition much lower than youth unemployment rates, as they include economically inactive youth, they have, however, also risen since 2008 due to the effects of the crisis on the labour market ( 7 ). A positive sign is, however, represented by the decrease (-8 %) in the EU28 youth unemployment ratio registered between 2013 and 2014. This is the case for 26 countries, while only five countries recorded a further increase. The data analysis reveals how the situation in Europe differs greatly from one country to another.

In a few countries, unemployment affects only a small minority of the 15-24 age group, with ratios below or close to 6 %. This is true for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria, and Norway. The dual education system in some of these countries, which combines courses at school with company apprenticeships, helps to account for the low unemployment ratios among those aged between 15 and 24. At the other end of the spectrum, Spain continues to have the highest proportion of jobless young people in the 15-24 population (19 %), followed by eleven countries in which the unemployment ratio is above the EU28 average of 9.1 %.

Over the period 2011-2014, the situation has considerably worsened in Croatia (+28.6 %), Italy (+46.8 %), Cyprus (+66.7 %), Luxembourg (+42.9 %) and the Netherlands (+45.3 %). However, despite the recent increase, in Luxembourg and the Netherlands, youth unemployment ratios continue to be relatively low (below 7.1 %).

Figure 4-J: EU youth indicator: unemployment ratio of young people (aged 15-29), by age and by country, 2011 and 2014

a) age 15-24

b) age 25-29

Source: Eurostat LFS [yth_empl_140]

The unemployment ratio for young people aged 25-29 (Figure 4-J-b) in 2014 was higher than that recorded for those aged 15-24 in two-thirds of countries. The highest values in 2014 are registered in Greece (34.9 %) and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (31.3 %). Norway (4.7 %) and Germany (5.1 %) are the countries with the lowest youth unemployment ratio for the 25-29 age group.

From a comparative perspective, the situation during the period 2011-2014 worsened particularly in Greece (+39.6 %), Italy (+60.6 %), Cyprus (+101.1 %) and the Netherlands (+50.0 %).

A comparison between unemployment rates and ratios indicates a very difficult situation in Greece, Spain, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus and Portugal. Jobless young people in these countries constitute a relatively high proportion of both the entire labour force and the 15 to 24 age group.

Young people's confidence in finding a job

This difficult youth labour market situation is well known by young people of different age groups and it has an impact on their confidence in finding a job once they have finished their education. A recent Eurobarometer ( 8 ) survey addressed also this issue (Figure 4-K). One respondent in four (24 % of the total participants) expressed concerns about finding a job after finishing their education (18 % 'Not very confident' and 6 % 'Not at all confident').

Figure 4-K: Young people's confidence in finding a job after finishing education, age group 15-29, EU 28 average, 2014

When looking at country variations, those most affected by the current economic crisis have a relatively high percentage of respondents feeling 'not confident' in finding a job after finishing education. This is the case in Greece (67 %), Spain (61 %), Cyprus (48 %), and to a lesser extent, Italy (35 %). The highest percentages of people feeling 'very confident' are recorded in countries with very low youth unemployment rates. High levels of confidence are also registered in Estonia (40 %) and Latvia (40 %), two countries that had a severe crisis in 2010 but which have implemented important measures since ( 9 ).

An additional question in the Eurobarometer ( 10 ) (Figure 4-L) focused on the main concerns young people have when thinking about getting a job. For one respondent in three (31 %), 'not finding a long term contract or a stable job' is not among their main concerns. This response seems justified considering the increasing number of temporary contracts offered to young people in Europe in recent years (see Figure 4-P) as well as the high percentage of young people working on a part-time basis (see Figure 4-M and Figure 4-N).

Only 13 % of respondents considered 'lacking the right knowledge or skills' as an issue, while 16 % saw 'having to move to find a job' as a potential problem.

Figure 4-L: Young people's main concerns when thinking about getting a job, age group 15-29, EU-28 average, 2014

4.3.2. Working patterns of young employees

Young people are more likely to be employed on a temporary contract or on a part-time basis than older workers. Young people in Europe also tend to register higher rates of jobs with atypical and unusual schedules, including shifts and weekend or night-time work ( 11 ).

Working patterns among young people in Europe have been directly affected by the crisis ( 12 ). As a consequence, more young Europeans might begin their employment career with a traineeship or by taking on part-time or temporary employment contracts interrupted by periods of unemployment or further education and training, thereby moving frequently in and out of the labour market.

Part-time employment among young people

One characteristic of part-time contracts is that it allows young people to combine employment and education. The most recent Eurostat data for 2014 confirm the increasing trend registered over recent years in the proportion of the 15-24 age group working on a part-time basis ( 13 ).

In 2014, nearly one in three 15- to 24-year-olds in employment worked part-time (Figure 4-M). Huge differences exist between countries. Denmark, Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Iceland are the countries where part-time employment as a percentage of the total employment for young people is higher than the EU28 average (31.9 %). Conversely, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia and Hungary have the lowest part-time employment rates for this group.

Similar patterns are also recorded for young people aged 25-29. Denmark and the Netherlands register the highest rates, while Bulgaria and Slovakia have the lowest. As a general rule, the part-time employment rate of those aged 25-29, for which the EU28 average is 17.0 %, is between two and three times lower than for younger people aged 15-24 (EU28 average 31.9 %).

Figure 4-M: Part-time employment rates for the 15-24 age group, by country, 2011 and 2014

Source: Eurostat LFS [yth_empl_060]

Between 2011 and 2014, the part-time employment rate among young people aged 15-24 increased almost everywhere. In Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Luxembourg, and Slovakia the increase was higher than 30 %.

In reading these data, it is important to bear in mind that part-time work among young people may imply apprenticeship either in the context of a vocational education programme or directly with an employer. Other reasons for choosing part-time work relate to the possibility of combining work and studies, and to accommodate family needs. In many cases, however, part time work is not a deliberate choice for young people.

Indeed, many young people work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment. Figure 4-N shows the high rates of involuntary part-time employment among the 15-24 and 25-29 age groups in several European countries.

Figure 4-N: Involuntary part-time employment as a percentage of total part-time employment for young people (15-29), by age and by country, 2011 and 2014

a) 15-24 age group

b) 25-29 age group

Source: Eurostat LFS [yth_empl_080]

Notes: For Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovenia, Sweden, Iceland and Norway data have low reliability.

In Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus and Romania, at least one in two young people aged under 25 worked part-time because they had no other choice. In these countries, involuntary part-time work increased by at least 13 % from 2011 to 2014. Significant reductions were, conversely, registered in the Czech Republic, Germany, Malta and Iceland.

Involuntary part-time employment is higher among people aged 25-29 in all countries. The highest values are recorded in Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Spain, where two in three part-time workers aged 25-29 may be considered as being in involuntary part-time work.

By reading together Figure 4-M and Figure 4-N, it is appears evident that for some countries, which record by far the highest share of part-time workers (namely Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway), this it is not really an issue, because working part-time is a choice.

For the first time since 2011, more young men were in involuntary part-time work in 2014 than young women (Figure 4-O). The largest differences between young men and women are registered in Romania, the United Kingdom and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Conversely, in France, the Netherlands and Finland, young women have a higher involuntary part-time work rate than men.

Figure 4-O: Involuntary part-time employment as a percentage of total part-time employment for young people (aged 15-24), by country and by sex, in 2014

Source: Eurostat LFS [yth_empl_080]

Temporary contracts for young people

Another characteristic of the youth labour market is the high percentage of temporary contracts ( 14 ) in comparison to other age categories. Temporary employment can be an important step in the transition from education into the labour market ( 15 ). It gives young people work experience and makes it easier to enter the labour market, and it provides stepping-stones to permanent jobs. Temporary employment also gives employers an opportunity to assess young people's suitability and capacity to perform the tasks required.

However, relatively high rates of temporary employment among young people can also be seen as an indication of career insecurity. Where this is the case, young people may lack the stability needed to allow them to live independently. They can be trapped in a cycle of alternating periods of temporary employment and unemployment, which may adversely affect their status into their thirties and beyond.

After having remained stable over the period 2011 and 2013, the percentage of young people aged 20-29 in temporary employment increased in 2014 (+2.4 % in comparison to 2011). Despite the relatively small change at EU level, at country level, some marked differences exist. Indeed, over the period 2011-2014, Bulgaria (+68.6 %), Cyprus (+48.9 %) and Slovakia (+48.7 %) registered the highest increases. At the other end of the spectrum, Estonia (-18.2 %) and Latvia (-36.5 %) recorded the most significant falls.

In 2014 (Figure 4-P), Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden had a very high percentage of young people aged 20-29 working under temporary contract (more than 30 %).

Figure 4-P: EU Youth Indicator: Young employees aged 20-29 with a temporary contract as a percentage of total number employees, by country, 2011 and 2014

Source : Eurostat LFS [yth_empl_050]

From a gender perspective, the difference at the EU28 level between the rate of young women and young men aged 20-29 with temporary contracts is not large (Figure 4-Q). However, more significant differences exist in some countries, and in the Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, and Norway, young women have a higher percentage of temporary employment than young men.

Figure 4-Q: Young employees aged 20-29 with a temporary contract as a percentage of total number employees, by country and by sex, 2014

Source : Eurostat LFS [yth_empl_050]

Atypical working hours for young people

In 2014, the proportion of employed young people in the 15 to 24 age group which had atypical working hours was much higher than for those aged 25-64. This was particularly true in the case of Saturday working (Figure 4-R).

There are important variations in these trends from one EU country to the next, in particular for shift work and working on public holidays. The countries where the largest proportions of young employees are doing shift work (over 40 %) are recorded in the Czech Republic, Croatia, Romania, Slovakia, and, outside the EU, in Iceland and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Conversely, in Belgium, and Denmark, the corresponding proportion was below 10 %.

As for working on Saturdays, the highest percentages (over 50 %) are recorded in Ireland, Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Conversely, the lowest value is recorded in Portugal, where less than one young employee in ten (9.1 %) worked on Saturday.

4.3.3. Young entrepreneurs

Young people can be confronted with significant barriers in their efforts to turn ideas into projects. Such barriers often comprise social attitudes, lack of skills, inadequate entrepreneurship education, lack of work experience, insufficient capitalisation, lack of networks, and market obstacles ( 16 ).

Furthermore, a recent Eurobarometer survey ( 17 ) notes that for many young Europeans entrepreneurship does not constitute a possible response to the jobs crisis. Indeed (Figure 4-S), more than half of the respondents declared having no wish to start their own business (52 %). Just one in five (22 %) would like to start a business but considered it too difficult.

Only a quarter of young Europeans are more proactive about starting a business (5 % have done so, 17 % intend to do so in the near future and 3 % tried to start a business but gave up because it was too difficult) ( 18 ).

The highest percentage of respondents willing to become entrepreneurs is registered in Lithuania (32 % 'intend to start a business in the coming years') and Romania (33 %). Conversely, the lowest values are recorded in Germany (11 %) and Greece (11 %). The country with the lowest percentage of young people that have started a business is Ireland (only 2 %).

Figure 4-S: EU Youth indicator: Young people (aged 15-29) who would like to set up their own business, EU-28 average, 2014

Regarding the start-up of a business, which of the following is closer to your situation?

Eurostat data on self-employed ( 19 ) young people identify similar patterns. Indeed, as shown in Figure 4-T, the lowest percentages of self-employed young people among the employed population aged 20-24 are recorded in Germany (1.8 %), and Ireland (1.7 %). On the other side of the spectrum, Italy (11.8 %) and Romania (11.6 %) have the highest percentage of self-employed young people among the employed.

Regarding the 25-29 age group, Luxembourg (3.7 %) and Norway (4.2 %) have the lowest values, while Greece (16.3 %) and Italy (17.3 %) show the highest percentage of self-employed young people among those employed.

Figure 4-T: EU Youth Indicator: Self-employed rate of young people (aged 20-29), by age and by country, 2013

Source: Eurydice calculation on Eurostat data on self-employed young people [yth_empl_040]

4.4. Support for the transition to employment

4.4.1. Career guidance and skills forecasting

Young people have not only had to face higher unemployment since the onset of the economic crisis, but those who are in employment are also now more likely to accept jobs for which they are overqualified. 'Vertical mismatch' refers to the situation where there is a discrepancy between young people's education or skills and the level of education or skills required by their job ( 20 ). Such vertical mismatch can occur in terms of qualifications or skills, and over-qualification and over-skilling do not always go together ( 21 ).

Evidence indicates that younger workers, as new entrants into the labour market, tend to experience a higher degree of vertical mismatch ( 22 ); and this vertical mismatch in the EU is increasing. This is apparent in the collapse in the demand for low-skilled workers and in the greater number of highly educated people taking up jobs that are not commensurate with their qualifications. In parallel to this increase in over-qualified young people, recent research also points towards the danger of skill loss between generations, showing that in certain countries – particularly in Denmark, Sweden or the United Kingdom – younger cohorts have lower level of skills than their older peers, despite having to face a more competitive labour market requiring higher level of skills ( 23 ).

Figure 4-U depicts 'vertical mismatch' in terms of a qualification mismatch. The figure shows young people's qualifications in relation to their jobs as classified in the International Classifications of Occupations (ISCO ( 24 )). The over-qualification rate is defined as the percentage of young people (aged 25-34) with tertiary education occupying a post not regarded as necessitating a tertiary qualification (ISCO level 4 to 9).

Figure 4-U: Distribution of people with tertiary education (ISCED 5-6) aged 25-34 and employed in ISCO 1 or 2 (legislators, senior officials, managers and professionals), in ISCO 3 (technicians and associate professionals) and not in ISCO 1, 2 or 3, by country, 2013

Notes: ISCO 0 (armed forces) and ISCO missing excluded.

Source: Eurostat LFS and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.

In the EU28, approximately a quarter of highly qualified young people aged 25-34 are overqualified for their job. In 2013, the countries with the highest over-qualification rates (above 30 %) were Bulgaria, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Cyprus and Turkey. By comparing these data with the unemployment rates discussed in Section 4.3, it emerges that those countries with the highest youth unemployment rates also show the highest over-qualification rates. This implies that when young graduates face difficulties in finding a suitable job matching their qualification levels, they are more likely to accept one with lower-level requirements.

Career guidance is an important service that can support young people facing a difficult transition to employment. Relying on skills forecasting, career guidance can potentially help in directing young people towards professions for which there is greater demand. In addition, career guidance can equip young people with the skills necessary to successfully search for a job.

Career guidance services are available in higher education institutions in almost all European countries ( 25 ). However, evidence from a recent Eurobarometer survey ( 26 ) suggests that a majority of respondents received no guidance during education. Indeed, only around one in four respondents (24 %) reported having used a career guidance service at some point. In many cases the reason behind this is the lack of access to services (45 % of all respondents).

4.4.2. High-quality traineeships

The extensive use of temporary employment contracts described in Section 4.3 goes hand in hand with the increased use of traineeships as a way for employers to assess the capabilities of new recruits before offering them permanent positions ( 27 ).

Traineeships provide important opportunities for young people to acquire the experience needed to find a job in the future. According to the Flash Eurobarometer 'The experience of traineeships in the EU' ( 28 ), around half of the respondents aged 18-35 report having had a traineeship (Figure 4-V) ( 29 ). The highest percentage was registered in Germany, Cyprus and the Netherlands. At the other end of the spectrum, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Slovakia had the lowest percentages of respondents who reported having undertaken a traineeship.

Figure 4-V: Proportion of respondents (aged 18-35) who have completed a traineeship, by country, 2013

Note: The Question was: Have you ever had any of the following experiences…Traineeship? Base: all respondents.

Source: 2013 Flash EB378, ‘The experience of traineeships in the EU’.

Looking at the gender dimension, 49 % of female respondents have had a traineeship compared with 43 % of males. The highest number of respondents undertaking a traineeship belongs to the 25-29 age group (50 %), while only 43 % of respondents aged between 30 and 35 have done so.

Undoubtedly, one of the aims of traineeships is to provide young people with the skills needed to enter the labour market and to facilitate this process. The Eurobarometer asked, among other things, whether young people had learned things that were useful professionally during their most recent traineeship. The vast majority of respondents (89 %) agreed that they had learned useful things.

Furthermore, respondents were asked whether the traineeship had been or would be helpful in order to find a regular job. On average (EU27) the majority of young people (aged 18-35) with traineeship experience (71 %) believed this had been the case. The socio-demographic analysis of this data shows that gender, age, university graduation and education, occupation and time when the traineeship was completed, had no significant impact on the percentages recorded.

Unfortunately, a further Eurobarometer question revealed that the majority of trainees (71 %) were not offered an employment contract when they finished their most recent traineeship. In this case, gender data suggests that more men were offered an employment contract at the end of their traineeship than women (31 % versus 24 %).

Conditions of traineeships

The conditions under which traineeships were offered reveal interesting differences between countries. Over one third of young Europeans did not sign an agreement or contract with the hosting organisation that provided the traineeship (Figure 4-W(a)). A more positive aspect is, however, the percentage of young people covered by a health insurance during their traineeship (Figure 4-W (b)): according to the EU27 average, 76 % of the respondents reported being covered in the event of illness or accident.

Figure 4-W: Share of young people (aged 18-35) who signed a written contract and received health insurance during the traineeship, EU27 average, 2013

Base: respondents who had undertaken at least one traineeship.

Source: 2013 Flash EB378, 'The experience of traineeships in the EU'.

An additional question from the same Eurobarometer investigated whether respondents who had completed more than one traineeship had received financial compensation during one of these. Over two-thirds of respondents (67 %) had not received any compensation, while a third of respondents (32 %) had. Moreover, for 58 % of the respondents, the compensation they received was not sufficient to cover basic living costs such as rent, food, etc. (Figure 4-X). Only slightly more than two in five respondents (41 %) say the financial compensation they received had been sufficient.

Figure 4-X: Share of young people (aged 18-35) who received financial compensation during traineeships and whether it was sufficient to cover basic living costs, EU27 average, 2013

Base: respondents who had at least one traineeship.

Source: 2013 Flash EB378, 'The experience of traineeships in the EU'.

Finally, it is worth noting that not all trainees are awarded a certificate or reference at the end of a training period. Indeed, only 64 % of trainees reported that at the end of the traineeship, the organisation or company gave them a certificate or reference describing what they had done. For 34 % of the respondents, this was not the case
(Figure 4-Y).

4.4.3. Geographical career mobility

Geographical career mobility within the EU is an important dimension of the EU youth labour market. During the period 2009-2013, intra-EU movers were predominantly young people.

Indeed, young people aged 15-34 represented 63 % of all intra-EU movers, even though this age category only accounted for around 34 % of the labour force in the EU (average over 2009-2013). Within this broad age group, the youngest cohort (15-24) is the least represented. The majority of those relocating are young adults between 25 and 34 who move to another EU Member State to work ( 30 ).

Among its many findings, the Flash Eurobarometer survey 'European area of skills and qualifications' from 2014 ( 31 ) contains information on young people's experience of working or studying in another EU country and/or outside the EU.

According to this survey, less than one in ten respondents (8 %) aged 15-24 say they have spent time working in another EU Member State and/or outside the EU. This percentage is relatively low in comparison to older age groups – the highest being in the 25-39 age group at 20 %, with 13 % for the 55+ group.

The percentage of respondents aged 15-24 who have studied in another EU country or outside the EU is slightly higher (9 %) and more in line with figures for the older age groups (12 % for 25-39 year-olds, 9 % for those aged 40-54 and 5 % for the 55+ group).

Another Flash Eurobarometer ( 32 ) addresses the issue of traineeships abroad either in another EU country or elsewhere (Figure 4-Z). Approximately nine in ten of the respondents (89 %) had never undertaken a traineeship abroad.

Figure 4-Z: Proportion of young people (aged 18-35) who have had at least one traineeship abroad, by country, 2013

Note: the question was: Overall, how many traineeships have you had abroad? 0 stage, 1 stage, 2 stages, 3 stages, 4 stages. Base: all respondents.

Source: 2014 Flash EB378, 'The experience of traineeships in the EU'. Base: Those EU respondents who have had at least one traineeship.

Across the EU, respondents in Slovakia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Latvia are most likely to report that they had undertaken at least one traineeship abroad. Respondents are least likely to have had this experience in Greece, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Italy.

(1) () Eurofound 2014a, p. 4-5.

(2) () Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (LFS) data, online code: lfsa_egan and lfsa_ugan. Accessed on 28/04/2015.

(3) ()According to the definition provided by the ILO (International Labour Organisation) and used by Eurostat for collecting data, the economically active population comprises employed and unemployed persons. Inactive persons are those who are classified neither as employed nor unemployed. Those 'not in employment, education or training' (NEET) are not dealt with in this chapter. A full analysis of this very vulnerable group can be found in Chapter 5.

(4) ()The unemployment rate for a given age group expresses unemployed people in that age group as a percentage of the total labour force (both employed and unemployed). An unemployed person is defined by Eurostat, in accordance with ILO guidelines, as someone aged 15 to 74 (or 16 to 74 in Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom, Iceland and Norway) who is a) without work during the reference week; b) available to start work within the following two weeks (or has already found a job to start within the next three months), and c) who has actively sought employment at some time during the preceding four weeks.

(5) ()The long-term unemployment rate is the proportion of persons who have been unemployed for 12 months or more, in the total number of unemployed persons in the labour market.

(6) ()Eurofound 2011b.

(7) () See Eurostat, Unemployment statistics: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/ Unemployment_statistics (accessed on 05/03/2015).

(8) () European Commission, 2015b.

(9) () European Commission, 2013a.

(10) () European Commission, 2015b.

(11) ()Eurofound, 2013a.

(12) () Ibid.

(13) ()As explained when defining full-time employment, the distinction between full- and part-time work is based on a spontaneous response by the respondent (except in the Netherlands, Iceland and Norway where part-time is used if the usual hours are fewer than 35 hours, and full-time if the usual hours are 35 hours or more; and in Sweden where this criterion is applied to the self-employed). It is not possible to establish a more precise distinction between full-time and part-time employment, since working hours differ between Member States and between branches of activity.

(14) ()A temporary contract is a fixed-term contract which will terminate if certain objective criteria are met such as the completion of an assignment or the return of the employee who has been temporarily replaced (Eurostat). 

(15) ()Eurofound, 2013b.

(16) ()OECD, 2012a.

(17) () European Parliament, 2014.

(18) () Ibid.

(19) () Eurostat definition: Self-employed persons are the ones who work in their own business, farm or professional practice. A self-employed person is considered to be working if she/he meets one of the following criteria: works for the purpose of earning profit, spends time on the operation of a business or is in the process of setting up his/her business.

(20) () The literature usually distinguishes between vertical and horizontal mismatch. The former occurs when there is a discrepancy between young people's education or skills and the level of education or skills required by their job. Horizontal mismatch refers to a situation where the worker has an adequate qualification level, but in a different field of study to that required by the job (Cedefop, 2010).

(21) ()See for example Flisi et al, 2014.

(22) () Cedefop, 2010.

(23) () Flisi et al, 2015.

(24) ()International Standard Classification of Occupations.

(25) ()European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2014.

(26) () European Commission, 2014f.

(27) ()Eurofound, 2013b.

(28) () European Commission, 2014g. This survey interviewed EU citizens aged 18-35 about their experience with traineeships and the benefits they felt they had received from them.

(29) ()The question was 'I would like you to think about traineeships. Did you complete one or more traineeships either during or immediately after you completed your education?'

(30) () European Commission, 2014g.

(31) ()European Commission, 2014f.

(32) ()European Commission, 2014g

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 15.9.2015

SWD(2015) 169 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Situation of young people in the EU

Accompanying the document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

Draft 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the renewed framework for European Cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018)

{COM(2015) 429 final}
{SWD(2015) 168 final}

5. SOCIAL INCLUSION

5.1. Introduction

The economic crisis and the subsequent recession continue to have an impact on young people in terms of poverty and social inclusion. According to a recent Eurobarometer survey ( 1 ), the majority of young Europeans – especially in countries hardest hit by the economic recession – feel that young people have been marginalised by the economic crisis and are being excluded from economic and social life ( 2 ). Changing labour markets, increasing uncertainty ( 3 ) and high youth unemployment rates (see Chapter 4) influence many aspects of young people's lives including their levels of poverty and deprivation, their living conditions, their health and well-being (see Chapter 6), and even their political and cultural participation (see Chapters 7 and 9). All these aspects contribute to young people's feelings of social exclusion, especially amongst the most vulnerable groups.

This chapter focuses on the main indicators of social exclusion and poverty and examines the most recent trends. Given the importance of living arrangements in determining poverty levels, a distinction is made between young people living independently and those living with their parents. The chapter also examines some specific aspects of poverty and social exclusion including housing, access to health care and in-work poverty. Finally, the last section focuses on the groups most at risk of poverty and social exclusion: young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs), as well as young people from a migrant background.

Given how determining childhood poverty is for the risk of poverty later in life, for several indicators, the EU Dashboard covers both young people and children. The age breakdown used in the chapter for each of these groups reflects the available data provided by Eurostat. In most cases, the reference age groups are 0-16 for children and 15-29 for young people, although for a few indicators only, slightly different age ranges are provided. While an overlap is evident between the two age groups, the data currently available does not allow for further refinement.

5.2. Moving towards independence: young people leaving the parental home

Young people's lives are characterised by phases and episodes of transition towards independence: they move from education to work, and from living with and being supported by their families towards establishing their own household. As Chapters 3 and 4 have already described, this road towards independence is often bumpy, and usually takes many turns before leading to financial independence. As a result, young people are particularly vulnerable to social exclusion and poverty.

The risk of becoming poor is closely linked to a crucial move: leaving the parental home. In fact, moving out of the parental household is found to be the 'strongest predictor behind youth poverty' ( 4 ). Though moving out of the parental home might not be definitive for many (young people often 'boomerang' back to the parental household if they cannot afford to live independently), the timing of this move differs widely in European countries, influencing the social exclusion and poverty levels among young people.

On average, young Europeans leave the parental home around the age of 26 ( 5 ). However, as Figure 5-A depicts, there are substantial differences across European countries, as well as between young men and women. Regarding country differences, there is a clear north-west vs. south-east divide in Europe: young people in northern and western Europe generally leave the parental household earlier than their peers from southern and eastern European countries. The average age of leaving the parental home ranges from 19.6 years in Sweden to 31.9 years in Croatia ( 6 ). As was discussed in the 2012 Youth Report, such differences are partly cultural and partly linked to the economic environment, and have the effect of either encouraging young people to make an early start in independent living or persuading them to postpone this step ( 7 ).

Figure 5-A: EU youth indicator: Average age of young people when leaving the parental household, by country and by sex, 2013

Source: Eurostat [yth_demo_030]

Common to all European countries, however, is that young women leave their parents earlier than young men, partly due to the fact that women starting to cohabit with their partners at an earlier age than men ( 8 ). The gender difference was 2.2 years on average in the EU-28 in 2013 ( 9 ). Differences between men and women are generally smaller in countries where young people tend to establish their own household earlier (only around seven months in Sweden, and around a year in Denmark and Luxembourg), in part because leaving home is not necessarily connected to moving in with a partner. Conversely, gender differences are greater in countries where young people arrive at the crucial point of establishing their own household later in their lives (the gap is almost five years in Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey and 8.4 years in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ( 10 )), and where leaving the parental household coincides more with moving in with a partner ( 11 ). In some countries in this group, young people tend to stay with their parents even after starting to cohabit with their partner ( 12 ).

Differences between countries in the average age of leaving the parental home also influences the poverty rates shown in the indicators, as they usually combine the data for both independent young people and those living with their parents, and, as will be shown later, moving out of the family home increases the risk of poverty for young people. For this reason, where possible, the next section will make distinctions between these two groups when comparing levels of poverty and social exclusion.

5.3. Levels of poverty and social exclusion

The main indicator of poverty and social exclusion is the composite indicator of 'at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion'. This indicator is based on three sub-indicators of poverty: the at-risk-of-poverty rate; the severe material deprivation rate; and the rate of living in a household with very low work intensity. People at risk of poverty or social exclusion are defined as the proportion of the population that falls into at least one of the categories described by the three sub-indicators. While each of these sub-indicators will be defined and illustrated in the following sections, the analysis focuses first on the composite indicator.

As Figure 5-B-a shows, on average in the EU-28, the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate for young people aged 15 to 29 (29.0 % in 2013) is higher than that for children under the age of 16 (27.3 %) or for the total population (24.5 %). Moreover, the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rates in 2013 stopped increasing for both the total population and children (for children, there had even been small decrease between 2010 and 2011), but continued to rise for young people, widening the poverty gap between young people and the total population. This disparity is mostly due to an increasing proportion of young people living in households with very low work intensity – thus to rising levels of unemployment until 2013 (see Figure 5-J as well as Chapter 4). Within the group of young people, the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate was the highest for the 20 to 24 age group (31.5 %) in 2013 ( 13 ), since most young people complete education, enter the job market and strive to become independent at this age (see Chapter 3, Section 3.5).

On analysing the gender differences, Figure 5-B-b shows that young women are in a more difficult situation than men – partly because they move out of the parental household earlier – though their at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rates have shown a slight decline since 2012, while the rates for men have continued to increase.

Figure 5-B: EU youth indicator: At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate, EU-28 average, 2010-2013

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [yth_incl_010 and ilc_peps01]

As discussed above, moving out of the parental household increases the risk of poverty for young people. Indeed, as Figure 5-C illustrates, the differences between young people living with their parents or living independently are substantial, especially in the younger age groups. In 2013, the gap between young people living with their parents or not was 39.0 percentage points in the 16 to 19 age group, 17.4 percentage points among 20 to 24 year olds, while it was only 2.5 percentage points in the favour independent young people in the oldest, 25 to 29 age group.

Other important factors influencing the risk of poverty or social exclusion of young people include their level of education (the more educated young people are, the lower their risk of poverty ( 14 )), or their immigrant status (see Section 5.5.2).

Figure 5-D shows differences across European countries in the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate. As the figure depicts, for children, the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate is the highest in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia, exceeding 40 % in all five countries, and even 50 % in Bulgaria and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The proportion of young people (aged 15 to 29) at risk of poverty or social exclusion surpasses 40 % in Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Serbia. The rates for children are the lowest in Finland and Norway; and for young people in the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovenia and Iceland.

Figure 5-D: EU youth indicator: At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate, by country and by age, 2013

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [yth_incl_010 and ilc_peps01]

Figure 5-D also illustrates the relatively more vulnerable position of young people in most European countries. Differences between the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rates of young people and the total population are the largest in the Nordic countries, especially in Denmark and Norway, where the share of young people at risk of poverty or social exclusion is more than double that of the total population. This is partly because young people leave the parental home much earlier in this region than in other parts of Europe, thus putting themselves at greater risk. However, as will be discussed below, when taking into account only those not living with their parents, young people in these countries still face a higher risk of being in poverty.

5.3.1. The at-risk-of-poverty rate

The sub-indicator of the composite 'at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate' that measures poverty in relative terms is the at-risk-of-poverty rate. For this indicator, a relative poverty threshold is defined at 60 % of the net median equivalised disposable income ( 15 ), and the population with income below this threshold is regarded as being at risk of poverty ( 16 ).

Given the differences across countries in the average age when young people leave the parental household, the at-risk-of-poverty rate can be misleading if used for international comparisons of 15-29 year-olds. For this reason, the Dashboard of Youth Indicators only considers the at-risk-of-poverty rate for children in comparison to the total population (Figure 5-E and 5-F). Nevertheless, it is still helpful to look at the at-risk-of-poverty rates across Europe for young people not living with their parents (Figure 5-G).

On average in the EU-28, the at-risk-of-poverty rate has been decreasing for children since 2010, and for the total population the increasing trend also reversed between 2012 and 2013 (Figure 5-E). Nevertheless, the average at-risk-of-poverty rate for the total population was still higher in 2013 than in 2010.

In the EU-28 on average and in the majority of European countries, the average at-risk-of-poverty rate is higher for children than for the total population (Figure 5-F). The exceptions are Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland and Norway, where children have a relatively lower risk of poverty. In 2013, the at-risk-of-poverty rate for children was highest in Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia, while it was lowest in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland and Norway. In contrast to the European trend, the at-risk-of-poverty rates for children grew by more than 3 percentage points between 2010 and 2013 in Greece and Hungary ( 17 ).

Figure 5-F: EU youth indicator: At-risk-of-poverty rate, by country and by age, 2013

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [ilc_li02]

In assessing the risk of poverty for young people, it is useful to examine the extent of the problem for those no longer living with their parents. Figure 5-G therefore includes young people aged 20 to 29 who have moved out of the parental household. This wider age group has been chosen to take into account the differences across Europe in the average age of leaving the parental home. However, it has to be kept in mind that young people aged 20 to 24 living independently are on average twice as likely to be at risk of poverty as their older peers aged 25 to 29 ( 18 ).

Figure 5-G: At-risk-of-poverty rate for young people (aged 20-29) not living with parents, by country, 2010 and 2013

%    %

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [yth_incl_060]

In 2013, the highest risk of poverty for young people aged 20 to 29 not living with their parents was found in Denmark – more than 40 %; and the rate also exceeded 30 % in Greece and Norway. Though young people move out of the parental household at different ages in these countries, data still show that young people face much lower income levels than the total population if they choose to live independently. In contrast, the lowest risk of poverty amongst this group in 2013 (below 15 %) was found in the Czech Republic, Latvia and Slovakia.

When comparing the proportion of young people aged 20 to 29 living independently and at risk of poverty in 2010 and 2013, data show that in the EU-28 as well as in the majority of countries, this proportion increased in this period. The most significant increases took place in Croatia (6.5 percentage points), Hungary (5 percentage points), Portugal (9.2 percentage points) and Slovenia (5.6 percentage points).

5.3.2. Severe material deprivation

The severe material deprivation rate ( 19 ) complements the at-risk-of-poverty rate in two important respects. First, instead of defining a poverty threshold that varies between countries, it is based on a single European threshold. For this reason, it is a more absolute measure of poverty, and can capture the differences in living standards between countries. Second, while the relative poverty indicator is based on current income, the severe material deprivation rate takes non-monetary resources into account.

As with the indicators discussed above, in 2013, the severe material deprivation rate was the highest for young people (aged 15 to 29), followed by children (under 16 years of age), while the rate for the total population was lower than either sub-group. As Figure 5-H shows, after substantial increases between 2010 and 2012, material deprivation rates started falling across the board. This decline was the largest for children under 16, from 11.7 % to 11 %.

The severe material deprivation rate is higher for children and young people than for the total population also in the majority of European countries (Figure 5-I). In the EU-28 in 2013, the severe material deprivation rate was the highest in Bulgaria (exceeding 40 % for both children and young people), followed by Hungary and Romania (exceeding 30 % for the youngest age groups). Conversely, the proportion of both children and young people experiencing severe material deprivation was below 5 % in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Iceland and Norway.

Figure 5-I: EU youth indicator: Severe material deprivation rate, by country and by age, 2013

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [yth_incl_070 and ilc_mddd11]

5.3.3. Households with very low work intensity

Since unemployment influences poverty and social exclusion levels to a great extent, this section focuses on children and young people living in households with very low work intensity. This is the third sub-indicator of the main composite indicator of poverty or social exclusion. The indicator on persons living in households with low work intensity is defined as the share of the population living in a household having work intensity which equals or is below the threshold of 0.20 ( 20 ).

The changes in the proportion of the population living in households with very low work intensity have not been consistent across the different age groups in recent years. For young people and the total population (people below the age of 60), the proportion has been increasing since 2008 ( 21 ). However, the rate for young people has been rising faster, to the extent that in 2012, the proportion of young people aged 15-29 living in households with very low work intensity reached the same level as that for the total population under 60 years of age (Figure 5-J). This shows the impact of rising levels of youth unemployment on the poverty levels of young people ( 22 ). In contrast, the share of children under the age of 18 living in households with very low work intensity decreased between 2010 and 2012 but started rising again in 2013.

Figure 5-K depicts the wide differences across Europe in the proportions of people living in households with very low work intensity. Different patterns exist regarding the relative position of children (aged under 18), young people and the total population under 60 years of age. In six countries, it is children who are in the most vulnerable position, (Bulgaria, Hungary, Malta, Slovakia, the United Kingdom and Iceland); while in eight others, it is young people aged 15 to 29 (Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway). However, in 17 other countries, the proportions of both children and young people living in households with very low work intensity are lower than in the total population under the age of 60.

Figure 5-K: EU youth indicator: Proportion of people living in households with very low work intensity, by country and by age, 2013

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [yth_incl_100 and ilc_lvhl11]

The share of young people aged 15 to 29 living in households with very low work intensity is the highest in Ireland (26.4 %), followed by Greece (18 %), Spain and Serbia (17 %), and Denmark (15.3 %). This proportion is the lowest in Luxembourg, Romania and Iceland.

Nevertheless, given that this indicator is based on household composition, whether young people are living with their parents or not makes a difference. In most European countries, the proportion of young people living in households with very low work intensity is much higher for those not sharing a household with their parents. In 2013, in the 20 to 29 age group, the difference was greatest in Denmark, where the proportion of young people living in households with very low work intensity was 3.5 times higher for those living outside the family home than for those who were still living with their parents ( 23 ). Differences were also relatively large in Bulgaria, Croatia and Hungary. However, in twelve other countries, particularly in Greece, Spain and Serbia, the proportion of young people living in low-work intensity households was higher among those living with their parents than among those living independently.

5.4. Other aspects of poverty and social inclusion

Poverty and social exclusion are multi-dimensional phenomena which cannot be understood solely in terms of people's income. The other dimensions that should be taken into account include access not only to basic services such as housing and healthcare, but also to good, well-paid jobs. Limited access to these basic necessities forms part of the root cause of poverty and helps to explain how individuals and families become socially excluded.

Homelessness and housing exclusion represents one of the most extreme forms of poverty and deprivation in society today ( 24 ). One of the key challenges of the Europe 2020 strategy is to provide decent (in terms of quality and cost) housing for everyone. The cost and quality of housing is key to providing adequate living standards as well as promoting young people's well-being; however a shortage of adequate housing is a long-standing problem in most European countries ( 25 ).

Furthermore, limited access to healthcare contributes to deterioration in people's health and can have repercussions on their ability to work. The relatively high cost of medical examinations and treatments (both important aspects of healthcare) represents a barrier to individuals on low incomes obtaining healthcare and as such becomes a main driver of social exclusion.

Finally, when assessing poverty and social exclusion, it must be remembered that these phenomena do not only affect those who are economically inactive or unemployed. Indeed employment does not necessarily make the risk of poverty disappear. Consequently, young people's employment conditions should be looked at carefully, as in-work-poverty, that is poverty among the employed population, is a key indicator in understanding young people's susceptibility to poverty and social inclusion.

5.4.1. Housing conditions and homelessness

The cost and quality of housing are extremely important for living standards and well-being. Having access to decent housing and being part of a community is crucial if people are to realise their full economic potential and to contribute productively to society ( 26 ). However, most European countries continue to have a shortage of adequate housing for their population. Currently, there is no single definition of homelessness that is accepted in all EU Member States. In 2010, a range of stakeholders and the European Commission agreed on the European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion (ETHOS). This typology distinguishes four main concepts of homelessness: 'rooflessness', 'houselessness', 'insecure housing' and 'inadequate housing' ( 27 ). The attention in this section is on the last concept: inadequate housing.

A useful indicator to measure inadequate housing is the severe housing deprivation rate. Housing deprivation is a measure of poor amenities and is calculated by referring to those households with a leaking roof, no bath/shower and no indoor toilet, or a dwelling considered too dark. Severe housing deprivation is defined as the percentage of the population living in a dwelling which is considered as overcrowded whilst also manifesting at least one of the other shortcomings listed above ( 28 ).

The housing deprivation rate of young people aged 15-29 was 7.7 % in 2013 at EU-28 level. At country level, the severe housing deprivation rate among young people was the highest in Latvia (22.5 %), Hungary (24.4 %) and Romania (30.2 %). Conversely, Finland (1.3 %) and Belgium (1.5 %) recorded the lowest values (Figure 5-L).

Figure 5-L indicates a decrease (from 8.5 % to 7.7 %) in the housing deprivation rate among young people (15-29) in the EU between 2010 and 2013. Indeed, in two-thirds of countries, the rate fell between 2010 and 2013. The biggest reductions are recorded in Slovenia (10.3 percentage points), Estonia (6.5 percentage points) and Lithuania (6.0 percentage points); while the countries with the highest increase over the period are Denmark (4.1 percentage points), Italy (3.1 percentage points) and the Ireland (2.8 percentage points).

Figure 5-L: Severe housing deprivation rate for young people (aged 15-29), by country, 2010 and 2013

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [yth_incl_140]

The overcrowding rate, which focuses on the availability of sufficient space in the dwelling, can shed further light on the housing conditions of young people. The overcrowding rate is defined by the number of rooms available to the household, the household's size, as well as its members' ages and family situation ( 29 ).

In 2013, as Figure 5-M shows, the EU-28 average overcrowding rate for young people aged 15-29 was 26.6 %. In comparison to 2010, when the overcrowding rate of young people accounted for 27.2 %, the new rate in 2013 represents a small improvement.

The highest overcrowding rates for young people in 2013 were observed in Bulgaria (60.0 %), Hungary (62.4 %), Romania (69.1 %) and Serbia (67.9%), while the lowest were recorded in Belgium (3.0 %), Cyprus (4.1 %), and Malta (5.8 %). During the period between 2010 and 2013, important improvements were registered in Slovenia (-23.3 percentage points), Estonia (-23.1 percentage points) and Lithuania (-21.8 percentage points).

Figure 5-M: Overcrowding rate among young people (aged 15-29), by country, 2010 and 2013

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [yth_incl_150]

As explained in earlier sections, leaving the parental home and establishing a separate household is a crucial moment in young people's lives and has a strong influence on their risk of poverty (see Section 5.3.2). In this respect, housing costs have a significant impact on young people's living conditions. Given that young people have to face many hurdles in their transition from education to work (see Chapter 3), the question of affordable housing is becoming even more important.

The 'housing cost overburden rate' shows the percentage of the population living in households where the total housing costs ('net' of housing allowances) represent more than 40 % of disposable income ( 30 ). In 2013, 12.7 % of the EU-28 population aged 15-29 lived in households where they spent more than 40 % of their disposable income on housing (Figure 5-N).

Figure 5-N: Housing cost overburden rate for young people (aged 15-29), by country, 2010 and 2013

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [yth_incl_160]

The 'housing cost overburden rate' for young people aged 15-29 for the EU-28 rose in comparison to 2010. At country level, over the period between 2010 and 2013, the largest increases in the rate for the age group 15-29 are recorded in Greece (19.8 percentage points), Bulgaria (5.4 percentage points) and Portugal (5.2 percentage points).

A deeper analysis into age sub-groups reveals that the relative increase is much higher for young people aged 25-29 (+1.1 percentage points) than for the younger age group 20-24 (+0.2 percentage points). Maintaining their own household was the most burdensome for the younger age group, in Denmark (43.6 %), Greece (49.3 %), and Serbia (32.1 %). Also for the 25 to 29 year-olds, the housing cost overburden rate was the highest in Denmark (25.1 %), Greece (40.6 %) and Serbia (26 %). As was discussed above, Denmark and Greece are among the countries with the highest at-risk-of-poverty rates for young people not living with their parents (see Figure 5-G).

5.4.2. Access to health care

Another important aspect of social inclusion for young people is their access to health care. The self-reported unmet need for medical care is a good indicator with which to assess it. Accordingly, the self-reported unmet need for medical care was included among the EU youth indicators as a further pointer to social exclusion among young people.

In 2013, the proportion of young people aged 16 to 24 reporting unmet needs for medical examination (due to its being too expensive, having to travel too far, or as a result of waiting lists) was 1.5 % at EU-28 level (Figure 5-O). This value is around half the rate for the total population (3.6 %), and is due partly to young people having fewer health-related problems than older age groups (see Chapter 6).

Figure 5-O: EU youth indicator: Self-reported unmet needs for medical examination due to access barriers, by country and by age, 2013

Notes: Czech Republic: data not reliable for young people aged 16-24.

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [hlth_silc_03]

In the EU-28, the proportion of young people (aged 16-24) with unmet medical needs has on average been stable since 2010 (Figure 5-P). In 2013, the highest proportion of young people reporting unmet needs for medical examination was recorded in Latvia (4.9 %) and Iceland (4.7 %). Conversely, Spain (0.3 %) had the lowest proportion of young people reporting unmet needs for medical examination (Figure 5-O). Over the period 2010-2013, the biggest increases in the proportion of young people reporting unmet needs for medical examination were recorded in Estonia (3.0 percentage points) and Greece (2.1 percentage points).

Between 2010 and 2013, young women reported higher levels of unmet medical needs than young men (Figure 5-P). In 2013, the proportion of young women aged 16-24 reporting unmet medical needs was 0.4 percentage points higher than the one recorded for young men in the same age group.

5.4.3. In-work poverty

Poverty among those of working age can reflect both labour market exclusion (not having access to jobs) and in-work poverty (being in employment, but not earning enough to make a living) ( 31 ). Given the difficulties for young people in the labour market (see Chapter 4), it is particularly important to examine the effect this has on their risk of poverty and social exclusion. The EU-28 average in-work at-risk-of-poverty rate for young people aged 15-29 in 2013 was 9.5 % (Figure 5-Q).

At country level, the highest in-work at-risk-of-poverty rates for young people aged 15-29 were recorded in Romania (21.4 %), Norway (16.7 %), and Greece (14.6 %). On the other side of the spectrum, Belgium (3.6 %), Czech Republic (2.5 %) and Slovakia (2.8 %) showed the lowest rates.

Figure 5-Q: In-work at-risk-of-poverty rate for young people (aged 15-29) by country, 2010 and 2013

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [yth_incl_130]

Over the period 2010-2013, the EU-28 in-work-at-risk-of-poverty rate for young people (aged 15-29) increased by 0.8 percentage points from 8.7 % in 2010 to 9.5 % in 2013. However, as Figure 5-R shows, the increase took place between 2010 and 2011; since 2011, the in-work-at-risk-of-poverty rate of young people has been falling in the EU-28. Nevertheless, the situation varies at country level: the in-work-at-risk-of-poverty rate for young people increased significantly in Greece (by 6.0 percentage points), Portugal (by 4.2 percentage points), and Romania (by 3.6 percentage points); while it decreased considerably in Denmark (by 7.1 percentage points), Lithuania (by 4.1 percentage points) and the Netherlands (by 2.3 percentage points).

From a gender perspective, the EU-28 average in-work at-risk-of-poverty rate was slightly higher for young men than women in 2013 (Figure 5-R). At country level, the highest gender gap in 2013 (where the rate for men was higher than for women) is recorded in Romania (7.1 percentage points) and Serbia (7.4 percentage points). However, for some countries the gender gap is reversed, with a higher in-work at-risk-of-poverty rate for women than men. This is case in Italy (3.2 percentage points higher for women than men), Lithuania (4.4 percentage points) and Iceland (4.8 percentage points) ( 32 ).

5.5. Groups at risk of social exclusion

After discussing the main poverty and social exclusion indicators as well as specific aspects of poverty, the last section of this chapter turns to specific groups of young people who are more vulnerable to poverty and social exclusion than others. Specific groups of young people most affected by poverty or social exclusion include women, lower educated young people and migrants ( 33 ). Since the situation of young women was discussed above, two groups of young people were selected for this section: young people who are not in employment, education or training (NEETs) and young people from a migrant background.

5.5.1. Young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs)

The indicator on NEETs aims to capture the predicament of a vulnerable group of young people in transition between education and the labour market. This transition between school and work is increasingly complex and individualised for today's young people (see Chapter 4). Those most at risk are young people having disabilities, coming from a migrant background, having a low level of education, living in remote areas, having a low household income, as well as young people with parents who experienced unemployment, have low levels of education or are divorced ( 34 ).

The difficulties faced in entering the labour market can lead to young people's disengagement from the world of work, making them vulnerable to social exclusion. The NEET group therefore includes not only the conventional unemployed job-seekers, but also those who are disengaged from both education and work and are therefore not looking for a job ( 35 ). Being economically inactive, nevertheless, does not always imply disengagement: NEETs also include those unavailable for work (e.g. young carers or those who are sick or disabled), the 'opportunity-seekers' (those who are waiting for better opportunities), and the 'voluntary NEETs' (those who choose to be inactive while travelling or engaging in activities such as arts or self-directed learning) ( 36 ). Yet, by not accumulating the human capital needed for work, even these last three subgroups are at risk of future social exclusion ( 37 ).

After a steady rise in NEET rates of those aged 15-24 in the EU-28 from 2009 due to the economic crisis ( 38 ), the NEET rate reached its peak of 13.1 % in 2012 and then started to decline (Figure 5-S). As Figure 5-S-b shows, this small decrease is due to a decline in the share of unemployed NEETs between 2013 and 2014, and, to a lesser degree, of inactive young people. In addition, looking at the educational background of NEETs reveals that, over the four years considered, the gap between young people with low levels of education and their peers with medium to high levels of education has widened to the disadvantage of the latter group (see Figure 5-S-d).

In general in the EU-28, NEET rates are higher for women than for men (Figure 5-S-a). However, women are also the group for which the decline in the share of NEETs has been more relevant. Countries show great variation in regard to gender differences: NEET rates are actually higher for men in about half of EU-28 countries. Within the EU-28, differences between women and men exceed three percentage points in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta and Romania on the one hand (with higher NEET rates for women), and in Croatia, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Finland on the other hand (with higher NEET rates for men) ( 39 ). With the exception of Malta, countries in the first group have periods of parental leave that are among the longest in Europe ( 40 ), which can partly explain the relatively high share of inactive young women. Outside the EU-28, gender differences are the largest in Turkey, where NEET rates for women are exceptionally high (35 %, in contrast to the 14.6 % NEET rate for men), due to their very high inactivity rate ( 41 ).

Figure 5-S: EU youth indicator: Proportion of young people (aged 15-24) not in employment, education or training (NEET rate), EU-28 average, 2011-2014

Source: Eurostat LFS [yth_empl_150 and yth_empl_160]

Looking at the differences between countries reveals that in 2014, NEET rates were the highest Bulgaria, Italy, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey, all exceeding 20 % (Figure 5-T). On the other hand, NEET rates were around 6 % or below in Denmark, the Netherlands, Iceland and Norway.

Between 2011 and 2014, NEET rates increased by more than 30 % in Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Slovenia (although from a relatively low level) and by more than 20 % in Croatia and Finland, with Croatia registering quite high proportions of NEETs in 2014 (19.3 %). In contrast, NEET rates decreased by more than 15 % in Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the United Kingdom and Turkey in this period (Figure 5-U).

Figure 5-T: EU youth indicator: Proportion of young people (aged 15 to 24) not in employment, education or training (NEET rate), by country, 2011 and 2014

Notes: Break in series: France (2013)

Source: Eurostat LFS [edat_lfse_20]

5.5.2. Young people from a migrant background

Migrants and ethnic minorities are among the groups most vulnerable to poverty and social exclusion. They usually face multiple disadvantages leading to persistent poverty and a marginalised position in society. As the 2012 EU Youth Report pointed out, immigrants often lack the social capital (networks and information) needed for being fully included in society ( 42 ). As a result, migrants tend to be more at risk of poverty and social exclusion than the native-born population.

Figure 5-U shows the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rates of foreign- and native-born young people. The differences between these two groups are telling: foreign-born young people are considerably more likely to be at risk of poverty or social exclusion than native-born youth in the EU-28 (43.8 % vs. 28.1 % in 2013). Nevertheless, while the rate for native-born young people has continued to grow since 2010, it has slightly declined since 2011 for their foreign-born peers.

The greater risk of poverty or social exclusion for young immigrants is evident in almost all European countries (Figure 5-V). The risks for immigrant youth are especially large in Belgium, Austria and Slovenia, where the share of foreign-born young people who are at risk of poverty or social exclusion is about three times as high as for native-born youths. The smallest gaps in the poverty risk between native- and foreign-born youth are registered in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom. Though the reliability of the data on foreign-born young people is open to question, Hungary appears to be the only country where native-born young people are more vulnerable to the risk of poverty or social exclusion than the foreign-born, mostly due to the composition of the foreign-born population ( 43 ). The at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rates of foreign-born youth are highest in Greece (72.3 %), Belgium (52.9 %), Spain (53.9 %), and Finland (50 %).

Figure 5-V: At-risk-of poverty or social exclusion rate of native- and foreign-born young people (aged 16-29), by country, 2013

%    %

Notes: Data on foreign-born young people: Data not reliable and not publishable for Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. Data not reliable for Estonia, Latvia and Hungary.

Data on native-born young people: Serbia: not reliable and not publishable.

Source: Eurostat [yth_incl_020]

The situation looks similar when looking at second generation immigrants – the children of foreign-born parents. As Figure 5-W shows, the children of foreign-born parents are almost twice as likely to be at risk of poverty as the children of native-born parents in the EU-28 (31.1 % vs. 17.8 %). In addition, in contrast to the trends described above for young people, while the at-risk-of-poverty rates for children from native-born families decreased between 2010 and 2013, they increased slightly for the children of foreign-born parents ( 44 ).

The risk for immigrant children is the largest again in Belgium, but it is also high in Denmark and Sweden, where the proportion of children from foreign-born families who are at risk of poverty is more than three times as high as the relevant share of the children of native-born parents. Conversely, in Hungary and Iceland, children from foreign-born families are at lower risk of poverty than children from native-born families. The at-risk-of-poverty rates of immigrant children are the highest in Greece (52.7 %), Spain (46 %), France (37.8 %) and Croatia (37.2 %), while they are lowest in Hungary (9.6 %) and Iceland (11.1 %).

Figure 5-W: At-risk-of poverty rate of children (aged 0 to 17 years) by parental origin and by country, 2013

%    %

Notes: Data on children with foreign-born parents: EU-28 average: estimate. Data not reliable and not publishable for Bulgaria and Romania. Data not reliable for Poland and Slovakia.

Data on children with native-born parents: Serbia: not applicable.

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [ilc_li34]

Given the trans-generational transmission of poverty, children from poor families are also more likely to stay in poverty when they become adults ( 45 ). Immigrant children and those from poorer families are more likely to leave school early and have fewer chances to attain higher education qualifications ( 46 ), leading to further disadvantages in their working lives. Therefore, special attention must be paid to the issue of educational integration for young people from immigrant families.

(1) () Flash Eurobarometer of the European Parliament (EP EB395) on the 'European Youth in 2014'.

(2) () European Parliament, 2014.

(3) () On inequalities and marginalisation among young people in ten European cities, see the 'CITISPYCE' project: http://www.aston.ac.uk/lss/research/research-centres/interland/citispyce/ .

(4) () Aassve et al. 2007, p. 331.

(5) () EU-28 average. Source: Eurostat [yth_demo_030].

(6) () Ibid.

(7) () European Commission, 2012a.

(8) () Iacovou, 2011.

(9) () Source: Eurostat [yth_demo_030].

(10) () Ibid.

(11) () Iacovou, 2011.

(12) () Ibid.

(13) () Source: Eurostat SILC [yth_incl_010].

(14) () Source: Eurostat SILC [ilc_peps04].

(15) () The equivalised disposable income is the total income of a household, after tax and other deductions, that is available for spending or saving, divided by the number of household members converted into equalised adults; household members are equalised or made equivalent by weighting each according to their age, using the so-called modified OECD equivalence scale (Eurostat, 2015b).

(16) () Eurostat, 2015c.

(17) () Source: Eurostat SILC [ilc_li02].

(18) () 2013. Source: Eurostat SILC [yth_incl_060].

(19) () The severe material deprivation rate is defined as the percentage of the population that cannot afford at least four of the following nine pre-defined deprivation items: 1) to pay their rent, mortgage or utility bills, 2) to keep their home adequately warm, 3) to face unexpected expenses, 4) to eat meat or proteins regularly, 5) to go on holiday, or to buy a: 6) TV, 7) refrigerator, 8) car, or a 9) telephone (Eurostat, 2015d).

(20) () The work intensity of a household is the ratio of the total number of months that all working-age household members have worked during the income reference year and the total number of months the same household members theoretically could have worked in the same period (Eurostat, 2015e).

(21) ()European Commission, 2012a.

(22) () As the chapter on Employment and Entrepreneurship showed, youth unemployment rates started declining after 2013. However, poverty and social exclusion data are only available up to 2013.

(23) () Source: Eurostat SILC, [yth_incl_120].

(24) () European Commission, 2010a.

(25) () Eurostat, 2015f.

(26) () European Commission, 2013c.

(27) () On ETHOS (Typology on Homelessness and Housing Exclusion), see http://www.feantsa.org/spip.php?article120&lang=en , accessed on 23/03/2015.

(28) ()Eurostat, 2015g.

(29) () Eurostat, 2015h.

(30) ()Eurostat, 2015i.

(31) ()European Commission, 2014b.

(32) () Eurostat, (SILC) [yth_incl_130].

(33) ()Eurostat, 2015j.

(34) () Eurofound 2012, p. 55-56.

(35) () Ibid, p. 23.

(36) () Ibid, p. 24-25.

(37) () Ibid.

(38) () European Commission, 2012a.

(39) () Source: Eurostat LFS [yth_empl_150].

(40) () European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Eurostat 2014, p. 37.

(41) () Source: Eurostat LFS [edat_lfse_20].

(42) () European Commission 2012a, p. 213-214.

(43) () On the typology of countries with respect to the type of migration inflow, see OECD, 2014a.

(44) () Source: Eurostat SILC [ilc_li34].

(45) () See e.g. Bellani and Bia, 2013.

(46) () European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 15.9.2015

SWD(2015) 169 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Situation of young people in the EU

Accompanying the document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

Draft 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the renewed framework for European Cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018)

{COM(2015) 429 final}
{SWD(2015) 168 final}

6. HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

6.1. Introduction

Young people in Europe have higher levels of life satisfaction and report a higher frequency of 'being happy' than older age groups ( 1 ). Nevertheless, difficulties in their transition to adulthood and independence have an influence on their health and well-being. Vulnerable groups of young people facing unemployment, poverty or social exclusion can especially experience more serious problems in their physical and mental health. For this reason, it is necessary to pay attention to young people's state of health, particularly in the current economic climate.

This chapter examines firstly the general health of young people; it then looks at recent trends in their susceptibility to 'risk behaviour' in terms of smoking, drug and alcohol use, sexual behaviour and physical inactivity. The last section addresses young people's mental well-being. Since the publication of the last EU Youth Report ( 2 ), no updates have been published on the EU youth indicators on obesity, drunkenness, road accidents and psychological distress; hence, no new analysis is provided on these indicators in this chapter ( 3 ). Therefore, in order to show progress, where possible, some of these issues are broached in relation to other indicators.

6.2 Young people's state of health

Young people are not only more satisfied with their life than older age groups, but they also feel healthier. As Figure 6-A-a shows, the proportion of young people aged 16 to 24 in the EU-28 who perceive their health to be 'bad' and 'very bad' is 8.4 percentage points lower than for the general population.

Differences between the proportion of young people and the total population feeling 'bad' and 'very bad' are especially wide in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Montenegro and Serbia, while they are narrowest in Ireland and Sweden. The proportion of young people feeling to be in 'bad' and 'very bad' health is the highest in Denmark (2.4 %), France (2.3 %), Latvia and the United Kingdom (2.6 %) and Norway (2.7 %), while the lowest in Greece and Spain (0.5 %) and Malta (0.4 %).

However, though the share of young people perceiving to be in 'bad' and 'very bad' health is quite low, there has been a 0.3 percentage points increase in this proportion in the EU-28 since 2010 (Figure 6-A-b). The largest increases took place in France (1.0 percentage points) and the United Kingdom (1.4 percentage points). On the other hand, the share of young people in bad and very bad health decreased substantially in Denmark and Slovenia (by 1.3 percentage points) and Portugal (by 1.4 percentage points).

Figure 6-A: Self-perceived health: feeling 'bad' and 'very bad', by country and by age

a) by age, 2013

%    %

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [hlth_silc_01]

b) young people (aged 16-24), 2010 and 2013

%    %

Notes: Data on young people aged 16-24 are not reliable and not publishable for the Czech Republic (2013) and Croatia (2010 and 2013). Data are not reliable for the Czech Republic (total population), Estonia (young people, 2010 and 2013), Croatia (total population), Lithuania (total population and young people, 2010 and 2013), the United Kingdom (young people, 2013), and Serbia (total population and young people, 2013).

Data on young people feeling 'very bad' are not available for Ireland (2010), Lithuania (2010), Malta (2010 and 2013), the Netherlands (2010), Finland (2010) and Iceland (2013. In these cases, data displayed on the figure is the proportion of young people reporting to feel 'bad'.

Source: Eurostat, Statistics on income and living conditions (SILC) [hlth_silc_01]

6.3 Health risks

Despite their generally good health, young people are more prone to risk behaviour than older age groups. Risk behaviours such as smoking, alcohol consumption, drug use, physical inactivity and unsafe sexual practices often cluster together and reinforce each other ( 4 ). They are all influenced by the same social factors: the level of deprivation and social exclusion, access to education, as well as the family, school and living environment ( 5 ). Moreover, these behaviours do not only have a strong influence on young people's health and well-being at the time they occur, but also have life-long effects ( 6 ).

Young people are the most vulnerable to risk behaviours when their life is in transition ( 7 ). As has been discussed in earlier chapters, young people undergo various transition periods as they grow up: from childhood to adolescence, from education to work, and from living with their parents to living with their peers or alone. In this context, barriers to accessing higher levels of education, leaving school prematurely, long periods of unemployment or insecure housing situations all increase the probability of young people engaging in risk behaviours ( 8 ). Moreover, as was shown in Chapters 4 and 5, these transition periods are becoming longer and more complex, thus increasing young people's vulnerability ( 9 ).

This section provides an overview of the behaviours that may put young Europeans' health at risk. Yet, it has to be noted that data are often limited to only a few countries, or are based on surveys for which no time series is available. This hampers the possibility to make comprehensive comparisons across European countries and through time. Nevertheless, this section provides an analysis based on the most up-to-date comparative data in the relevant fields.

6.3.1. Smoking

Smoking is a well-known health risk and is the leading cause of preventable death ( 10 ). However, as Figure 6-B-a shows based on data from 2012 and 2013, a relatively large percentage of young people aged 15 to 24 still smoke daily in European countries, especially in the Czech Republic (33.2 %) and France (27.9 %). These are also the two countries with available data where young people smoke more than older age groups. Young men are particularly prone to daily smoking – with more of them smoking on a daily basis than young women in all countries with available data (Figure 6-B-b). Nevertheless, gender differences are quite small in most Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland) and Luxembourg; whereas almost six times more young men than young women smoke daily in Turkey.

Figure 6-B: EU youth indicator: Share of daily smokers, by country and by age, 2012/2013

a) by age

b) Share of daily smokers among young people (aged 15-24), by sex

Notes: CZ, EE, FR, NL, SI, FI, SE, TR: 2012; DK, IT, LU, NO, IS: 2013

Source: OECD Health Statistics

The proportion of people who smoke daily has been steadily decreasing since the beginning of the 2000s in almost all European countries with available data (Figure 6-C), pointing towards the effectiveness of anti-smoking campaigns and smoke-free legislation ( 11 ). Countries registering the greatest decreases in the proportion of young people who smoke daily between 2002 and 2013 are shown on Figure 6-C-a: they are Luxembourg and Norway, with a fall of around 23 and 19 percentage points respectively, followed by the Netherlands, Finland and Iceland. In Luxembourg, Norway, Finland and Iceland, the proportion is now below 15 %. On the other hand, the countries where the proportion of young people smoking daily has remained relatively stable (with a decrease of less than 6 percentage points) are Estonia, France, Italy and Sweden, though France registered a recent increase of 2.3 percentage points between 2010 and 2012 (depicted on Figure 6-C-b).

Among the countries with available data, the only country where the proportion of young people smoking daily has been on the rise since 2002 is the Czech Republic (Figure 6-C-b). This increase has been especially striking in the case of women: the proportion of young female smokers in 2012 was almost the double of the same ratio in 2002 ( 12 ). Differences between the smoking trends of women and men have also been registered in Estonia and Sweden. In Estonia, the proportion of young women smoking daily has been increasing since 2002; while in Sweden, the proportion of young men smoking daily was growing in this period ( 13 ).

Figure 6-C: EU youth indicator: Share of daily smokers among young people (aged 15-24), by country, 2002-2013

Notes: EE, FR: data not available for 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011; IT: data not available for 2004.

Source: OECD Health Statistics

This decreasing trend is also confirmed by a recently released Eurobarometer survey on the attitudes of European towards tobacco ( 14 ). In comparison to previous surveys, the proportion of smokers (not daily smokers, but smokers in general) decreased in almost all EU-28 countries ( 15 ). However, no data on young people are available by country in these Eurobarometer surveys.

6.3.2. Alcohol consumption

Alcohol is the most consumed psychoactive substance ( 16 ). Despite its links with health problems, unsafe sex and violent behaviour, young people do not perceive the occasional drink as a health risk: 77 % of respondents in a recent Eurobarometer survey believed that drinking alcohol once or twice poses 'no risk' or only a 'low risk' ( 17 ). Nevertheless, regular drinking was perceived differently: 57 % of young respondents thought that regular alcohol consumption posed a high risk to their health ( 18 ). However, the limits between drinking 'once or twice' and 'regularly' are often drawn arbitrarily and can become blurred.

This section relies on the indicator on the last month prevalence of alcohol use among young people ( 19 ), based on national survey data collected by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). This indicator has to be treated with caution, since it does not distinguish between occasional and regular drinking; neither does it indicate the amount of alcohol drunk on any occasion. Nevertheless, past surveys suggest that young people are less likely to drink daily and more likely to drink 5 or more drinks (heavy episodic or binge drinking) once a week than people above the age of 55 ( 20 ).

Figure 6-D-a confirms the widespread consumption of alcohol by young Europeans. In almost all countries with available data, more than 50 % of young people (and people from older age groups) reported having drunk alcohol in the past month. Alcohol consumption is slightly less prevalent in Portugal and Romania, where just over 40 % of young people aged 15-24 drink regularly (at least once in the past month), and very low in Turkey, where only 12 % of young people reported drinking alcohol in the month before the data collection. In contrast, drinking alcohol is the most widespread – with more than 70 % of young people reporting recent alcohol consumption – in Germany, Estonia, Cyprus, the Netherlands and Slovenia.

Different patterns of alcohol consumption are evident across Europe. In about a third of countries with available data, consumption increases with age; in another third, the 15-34 age group is the most prone to regular drinking; and in the final third of countries, consumption decreases with age. Countries in this latter group – where young people drink more than older age groups – are Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Austria, Slovenia and Turkey.

As with smoking, drinking alcohol is more of a habit among men than women ( 21 ). As Figure 6-D-b depicts, with the exception of the Czech Republic and Norway, alcohol consumption is higher among men than women in all countries with available data. Differences between the sexes are the widest in Turkey, followed by Romania, Bulgaria and Portugal; while they are narrowest in the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Finland and Norway.

Figure 6-D: Last month prevalence of alcohol use, by country and by age, year of the last available national survey

a) by age

%    %

b) Last month prevalence of alcohol use of young people (aged 15-24), by sex

%    %

Notes: EL: 2004; HU: 2007; AT, EE: 2008; NL: 2009; RO, SK, FI: 2010; IE, ES, LV, TR: 2011; BG, CZ, DE, HR, IT, CY, LT, PT, SI, NO: 2012 - Source: EMCDDA.

6.3.3. Drug use

Young people – especially in adolescence – are particularly vulnerable to substance use and substance use disorders ( 22 ). As mentioned above, the insecurity experienced in this transition period, together with factors such as the experience of deprivation, an insecure family environment or peer pressure all increase the likelihood of risk behaviour.

This section focuses in the first place on cannabis, the most popular drug used by young people aged 15 to 24 ( 23 ). It also examines data on 'legal highs': new synthetic psychoactive substances that imitate the effects of illicit drugs, but, as yet, are still legal or not controlled. According to the EMCDDA, although the use of such legal highs is still relatively low in Europe, they are growing rapidly. In addition, though they are not perceived as such (see Figure 6-G), accessing them is fairly easy, since they are available online ( 24 ).

According to the 2014 Eurobarometer survey on drugs, in comparison to alcohol, fewer young people think that using cannabis once or twice poses 'no risk' or only a 'low risk' to health, but this proportion is still relatively high, 50 % ( 25 ). A majority of respondents (63 %) thought that regular cannabis use posed a high health risk (as discussed above, the same percentage for alcohol was 57 %) ( 26 ). In contrast, the new synthetic substances are perceived to be much more dangerous: 57 % of respondents thought that using them even once or twice posed a high health risk, while regular use was perceived to be highly risky by 87 % of young respondents ( 27 ).

Young people are more prone to using cannabis than older age groups. According to national surveys collected by the EMCDDA, in all countries with available data, the likelihood of using cannabis decreases with age, thus young people aged 15 to 24 are much more likely to use this substance than older age groups (Figure 6-E-a). Late adolescence and young adulthood is often described as the age of 'experimentation', when young people try new substances, often without becoming addicted to them.

As Figure 6-E-a depicts, the greatest differences between cannabis use among young adults and that of the wider population (between 15 and 64 years of age) are in Hungary, where young adults are more than four times more likely to have used cannabis in the past year than the wider adult population, followed by Denmark, Italy and Norway, where this ratio is almost 3.5.

Figure 6-E: EU youth indicator: Last 12 months prevalence of cannabis use, by country and by age, year of the last available national survey

a) by age

b) Last 12 months prevalence of cannabis use of young people (aged 15-24), by sex

Notes: EL: 2004; HU: 2007; BE, AT, EE: 2008; NL: 2009; FR, RO, SK, FI: 2010; IE, ES, LV, TR: 2011; BG, CZ, DE, HR, IT, CY, LT, PL, PT, SI, SE, UK, NO: 2012; DK: 2013; UK: England and Wales only.

Source: EMCDDA

As with smoking and alcohol consumption, men are more prone to cannabis use than women in all countries with available data (see Figure 6-E-b). The difference between the sexes is the largest again in Turkey, though cannabis consumption is very low for both sexes. Men are more than 2.5 times more likely to use cannabis than women in Greece, Cyprus, Lithuania and Poland. There is no difference between men and women in Romania in their use of cannabis, which is at a very low level in this country, as well as in Finland.

The Eurobarometer surveys on drugs allow for comparing cannabis use in 2011 and 2014, indicating an increase in the European Union from 7.6 % to 10 % (Figure 6-F) ( 28 ). Countries registering significant increases were Denmark, Germany, Italy, Cyprus, Austria and Finland, while cannabis consumption decreased significantly in Lithuania.

The 2014 survey shows that cannabis use was the most widespread in the Czech Republic (15 %), Denmark, Estonia and Spain (13 %), while its use was reported to be the lowest in Hungary (3 %), Cyprus and Romania (2 %).

In contrast, as Figure 6-F also shows, new substances are rarely used by young Europeans, only 3 % of respondents report using the new synthetic substances. These new drugs were used the most in Ireland, Spain and France (5 %). They are typically used in social settings: 68 % of users reported to have obtained them from their friends, 60 % used them together with friends and 65 % at a party or an event ( 29 ).

Figure 6-F: Last 12 months prevalence of cannabis and 'new substances' use of young people (aged 15-24), by country, 2011 and 2014

%    %

Notes: Questions: 'Have you used cannabis yourself?' and 'New substances that imitate the effects of illicit drugs such as cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine, etc. may now sometimes be available. They are sometimes called (…) 'legal highs', or 'research chemicals' and can come in different forms, for example herbal mixtures, powders, crystals or tablets. Have you ever used such substances?'

Base: all respondents, % of 'yes, in the last 12 months' answers by country, EU-28 in 2014 and EU-27 in 2011

Source: Flash Eurobarometer 401, 'Young people and drugs', 2014 and Flash Eurobarometer 330, 'Youth attitudes on drugs', 2011

Figure 6-G: Young people's (aged 15-24) perception of the difficulty in obtaining drugs within 24 hours, EU-28 average, 2014

Notes: Question: 'Q11. How difficult or easy do you think it would be for you personally to obtain the following substances within 24 hours?' – 'Cannabis'; 'New substances that imitate the effects of illicit drugs'

Base: all respondents, EU-28

Source: Flash Eurobarometer 401, 'Young people and drugs', 2014

Differences in the consumption of these two substances are in line with their perceived danger to health as well as the perceived difficulty in accessing them. Figure 6-G depicts young people's perception of the difficulty in obtaining different drugs within 24 hours (15-24 age group). Data show that while the majority of young people (59 %) thought that getting access to cannabis was easy, new substances were perceived to be rather difficult to get hold of: 21 % of respondents thought it impossible to obtain them within 24 hours, and 50 % thought this would be difficult.

6.3.4. Sexual risk behaviour

High-risk sexual behaviour (most notably early first intercourse, multiple sexual partners, or inconsistent condom use) is influenced by the same social factors as the various types of substance use and is even associated with them ( 30 ). Such risky behaviour carries the danger of contracting sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS and can result in unplanned pregnancies.

Collecting data on the sexual risk behaviour of young people or on its consequences is difficult and complex. For example, the true incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is likely to be considerably higher than data suggest, since due to differences in testing methods, screening programmes and surveillance systems across Europe, many cases remain unreported or misdiagnosed.

In the absence of more accurate data, fertility and abortion rates are indications of sexual activity without contraception. Figure 6-H shows the fertility rates of young women aged 15 to 19 in 2010 and 2013. In 2013, fertility rates of 15 to 19 year-old girls were the highest in Bulgaria (4.2 live births per 100 women) and Romania (3.3), and the lowest in the Netherlands (0.4) and Liechtenstein (no live births per 100 women aged 15-19). Almost every country shows declining trends since 2010 for this indicator, with the exception of Bulgaria (no change since 2010), the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Hungary. In the EU-28, fertility rates among young women show a 15 % decrease in 2013 compared to 2010.

Figure 6-H: Fertility rate among young women (aged 15-19), by country, 2010 and 2013 (live births per 100 women)

Source: Eurostat [demo_frate]

Similar trends can also be observed based on available data on the percentage of legally induced abortions in the same age group (young women aged 15 to 19). The percentage of young women's abortions declined in every country except Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Lithuania, though absolute numbers decreased even in these three countries. The decline is especially pronounced in Germany, Romania and the United Kingdom (Figure 6-I). In 2013, the percentage of legally induced abortions for very young women was the highest in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary and the United Kingdom.

Figure 6-I: Percentage of legally induced abortions among young women (aged 15-19), by country, 2010 and 2013

%    %

Notes: For Spain, Italy, Slovenia and the United Kingdom, data are from 2012 instead of 2013. Average populations were calculated as the arithmetic averages between the population on the 1 January in the given year, and on 1 January in the following year.

Source: Eurostat [demo_fabort and demo_pjangroup] and own calculations.

6.3.5. Physical inactivity

Physical inactivity is the fourth leading risk factor for global mortality ( 31 ). Physical inactivity is one of the main causes of obesity, which has long-lasting health consequences if it develops early in childhood ( 32 ).

Recent Eurobarometer surveys indicate that young people aged 15-24 are the most physically active of the age groups investigated ( 33 ). As Figure 6-J depicts, only 36 % of young people aged 15-24 seldom or never take exercise or play sport, as opposed to 54 % in the 25-39 age group, 61 % of those aged 40-54 and 70 % of people over 55. Yet, differences between the age groups are much smaller when it comes to engaging in less formalised physical activities like cycling, dancing or gardening: 44 % of young people seldom or never engage in such activities, while the corresponding proportion is 57 % in the oldest (55+) age group (see Figure 6-K).

Similarly, while relatively large differences exist between young women and men in the frequency of taking exercise or playing sport, differences are much smaller when it comes to their engagement in other physical activities (see Figure 6-J and 6-K). Nonetheless, women are more likely to be physically inactive than men: 44 % of young women seldom or never take exercise or play sport, and 49 % seldom or never engage in other physical activities (as opposed to the 26 % and 40 % of men respectively).

Figure 6-J: Proportion of people seldom or never taking exercise or playing sport, by age and by sex, EU-28 average, 2013

Notes: Question: 'How often do you exercise or play sport?'

Base: all respondents, % of 'less than 1 to 3 times a month' and 'never' answers, EU-28

Source: Special Eurobarometer 412, 'Sport and physical activity', 2014

Figure 6-K: Proportion of people seldom or never engaging in physical activities such as cycling, dancing or gardening, by age and by sex, EU-28 average, 2013

Notes: Question: 'And how often do you engage in other physical activity such as cycling from one place to another, dancing, gardening, etc.?'

Base: all respondents, % of 'less than 1 to 3 times a month' and 'never' answers, EU-28

Source: Special Eurobarometer 412, 'Sport and physical activity', 2014

Although a direct comparison between the Eurobarometer surveys conducted in 2009 and 2013 is not possible due to a change in the question on physical activity (in 2009, it also included 'walking from one place to another'), the direction of change between the surveys is not encouraging ( 34 ). While the proportion of young people seldom or never taking exercise or playing sport has decreased since 2009 (especially among young women), data on the share of young people, and primarily on the share of young women seldom or never engaging in other physical activities point towards increasing inactivity.

While sample sizes in Eurobarometer surveys do not allow for analysing young people's inactivity by country, data are available from the European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) conducted by Eurofound ( 35 ). As Figure 6-L shows, physical inactivity among young respondents aged between 18 and 24 was particularly high (more than 50 %) in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania and Turkey. Young people were the most physically active in the Czech Republic, Austria and Finland.

Figure 6-L: Proportion of young people (aged 18-24) seldom or never taking part in sports or physical exercise, by country, 2011

%    %

Source: Eurofound, EQLS

6.4 Mental well-being

The transition from childhood to adulthood and the societal and family pressures that young people face in such contexts also influence their mental health. Though mental and psychological distress is still less prevalent among young people than older age groups, special attention has to be paid to young people and the factors influencing their vulnerability. As with risk behaviour, mental health is also influenced by the socio-economic conditions of young people's lives – their level of social exclusion and degree of poverty. For this reason, the economic crisis may also have had an impact on the mental health of young people due to their parents' circumstances as well as their own difficulties ( 36 ). As Chapters 4 and 5 of this report showed, youth unemployment and social exclusion rates have grown considerably, which certainly influences young people's mental health and psychological well-being.

The mental well-being index developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) is compiled on the basis of five questions ( 37 ) related to a person's mental well-being. The European Quality of Life Survey includes information on this well-being index, and allows for comparisons between countries, age groups, social groups and over time. The higher the average mental well-being score, the better the respondents' perception of their own psychological well-being. For example, as the EQLS survey shows, the mental well-being index is higher for those in employment than for both the unemployed and the inactive ( 38 ).

Figure 6-M compares the mental well-being index of young people with the total population in European countries. In 2011/12, the mental well-being index of young people aged 18-29 had the highest average scores in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria and Montenegro, while the lowest were in Sweden, the United Kingdom, Malta and Luxembourg.

Figure 6-M: Mental well-being index, by country and by age, 2007 and 2011/12

%    %

Source: Eurofound, EQLS

The figure also shows that young people have higher average scores than the total population almost everywhere. The exceptions are the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Iceland), as well as Ireland and Luxembourg, though to different degrees. It is in Sweden in particular (with a difference of more than 6 percentage points), as well as in Iceland (4.5 percentage points) and Finland (2.5 percentage points) where young people's mental well-being is worse than in the total population. In contrast, young people have much higher mental well-being scores than the total population – with a difference of more than 10 percentage points – in south-eastern countries such as Bulgaria, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia, and to a lesser extent in Greece, Croatia, Romania, Slovenia and Montenegro.

Looking at recent trends in the mental well-being of young people, while the average EU mental well-being index stayed relatively stable between 2007 and 2011, country variations exist (see Figure 6-M). Among the countries with available data, more countries experienced increases in the average mental well-being index scores of young people than decreases. Average mental well-being scores decreased the most in Ireland, Sweden and Slovakia in this period, while the largest increases were registered in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Italy.

6.4.2. Suicide

As the 2012 Youth Report showed ( 39 ), suicide rates were relatively stable in the EU-28, but with a slight increase from 2008, both among young people and in the total population. This increase – and more notable increases in some countries, for example in Greece – can at least partly be linked to the economic crisis ( 40 ).

Figure 6-N: EU youth indicator: Death by intentional self-harm, crude death rate (per 100000 inhabitants), by age and by sex, EU-28 average

Notes: 2011: break in series; 2012: estimates.

Source: Eurostat [yth_hlth_030, hlth_cd_acdr2]

More recent data, as shown on Figure 6-N-a, confirm the relative stability of suicide rates at the EU-28 level. However, since the method for data collection changed in 2011, conclusions can be drawn only regarding the most recent changes. Between 2011 and 2012, suicide rates slightly increased among young people aged 25 to 29 and among the total population, while stayed relatively stable among young people aged 15 to 19 and 20 to 24.

Suicide rates increase with age. In addition, as Figure 6-N-b shows, suicide rates are much higher among young men than young women in all age groups. More than three times more young men than young women aged 15 to 19 committed suicide in 2012, and this ratio reaches to almost five times more for the 20-24 and 25-29 age groups.

As Figure 6-O depicts, among young men aged 15 to 24, suicide rates were the highest in Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland. Among young women in the same age group, suicide rates were the highest in Ireland, Finland, Sweden and Norway. Suicide rates were quite low for both sexes in southern countries like Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Turkey. However, in Greece, though suicide rates remain comparatively low, a more than 50% increase took place between 2007 and 2012 ( 41 ).

Figure 6-O: EU youth indicator: Death by intentional self-harm among young people (aged 15-24), crude death rate (per 100 000 inhabitants), by country and by sex, 2012

Notes: EU-28: estimates. France: 2011. Malta and Liechtenstein: confidential.

Source: Eurostat [hlth_cd_acdr2]

(1) () Eurostat 2013, SILC ad-hoc module on personal well-being [ilc_pw01 and ilc_pw08].

(2) () European Commission, 2012a.

(3) ()These indicators can also be consulted on the website of the European Core Health Indicators (European Commission, 2015a).

(4) () Jackson et al., 2012.

(5) () Ibid.; Viner et al., 2012.

(6) () Sawyer et al., 2012.

(7) () Furlong et al., 2003; Jackson et al., 2012.

(8) () Furlong, 2002; Jackson et al., 2012.

(9) () Furlong, 2002; Jackson et al., 2012.

(10) () WHO Regional Office for Europe 2012, p. 141.

(11) () See e.g. WHO, 2014.

(12) () See OECD Health Statistics, available at: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_LVNG# [Accessed 22 January 2015].

(13) () Ibid.

(14) ()Special Eurobarometer 429, 'Attitudes of Europeans towards tobacco and electronic cigarettes', 2015 (European Commission, 2015c).

(15) ()European Commission 2015c, p. 15.

(16) () WHO Regional Office for Europe 2009, p. 82.

(17) () Flash Eurobarometer 401, 'Young people and drugs', 2014 (European Commission 2014i).

(18) () Ibid. No definitions of 'once or twice' or 'regularly' were given in the questionnaire.

(19) () No new data on drunkenness based on the ESPAD survey used in the last EU Youth Report (European Commission, 2012a) were published since 2012.

(20) () Special Eurobarometer 331, 'EU citizens' attitudes towards alcohol', 2010 (European Commission, 2010b).

(21) () For gender differences regarding the frequency of getting drunk, see the 2012 EU Youth Report (European Commission, 2012a).

(22) () WHO Regional Office for Europe 2009, p. 80.

(23) () Ibid, p. 84.

(24) () EMCDDA, 2012, 2014.

(25) () Flash Eurobarometer 401, 'Young people and drugs', 2014 (European Commission 2014i).

(26) () Ibid.

(27) () Ibid.

(28) () Longer-term time series are available regarding the consumption of cannabis and amphetamines in the framework of the European Core Health Indicators (indicator 48 on the 'use of illicit drugs') on the website of the European Commission, DG Health and Food Safety (European Commission, 2015a).

(29) () Ibid.

(30) () Jackson et al., 2012.

(31) () WHO 2010, p. 10.

(32) () On obesity, see European Commission, 2012a.

(33) ()Special Eurobarometer 412, 'Sport and physical activity', 2014 (European Commission, 2014j).

(34) () Special Eurobarometer 412, 'Sport and physical activity', 2014 (European Commission, 2014j), and Special Eurobarometer 334, 'Sport and physical activity', 2010 (European Commission, 2010c).

(35) () See: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/european-quality-of-life-surveys-eqls [Accessed 27 July 2015].

(36) () EPHA, 2014; WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2011.

(37)

()    The index is based on respondents' evaluations of the following items: 1) 'I have felt cheerful and in good spirits'; 2) 'I have felt calm and relaxed'; 3) 'I have felt active and vigorous'; 4) 'I woke up feeling fresh and rested'; 5) 'My daily life has been filled with things that interest me'. See: http://www.who-5.org [Accessed 4 June 2015].

(38) ()Eurofound, 2014b.

(39) () European Commission 2012a, p. 230.

(40) () Thomson et al. 2014, p. 37. See also Branas et al., 2015.

(41) ()OECD 2014b, p. 28.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 15.9.2015

SWD(2015) 169 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Situation of young people in the EU

Accompanying the document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions

Draft 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the renewed framework for European Cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018)

{COM(2015) 429 final}
{SWD(2015) 168 final}

7. PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRATIC LIFE

7.1. Introduction

Young people are often described as being more disenchanted with politics and less keen on participating, in comparison with older groups in the general population. In this chapter, this view will be challenged using data and information on various forms of political participation and social engagement, and it will be shown how different ways of participating can appeal to young people and motivate them to become more engaged. Indeed, as any other group in society, they develop a desire to become involved in political life when they perceive that their opinions count. Young citizens, therefore, need to have a real stake in political decision-making processes in order to be willing to participate.

This chapter will focus initially on young people's general level of interest in politics, and on their perception of citizenship. It will then examine how young citizens take advantage of different opportunities to actively participate in politics, from the more traditional means such as voting and joining political parties, to the less mediated experiences of engaging in local and non-governmental organisations and social movements. The use of the Internet as a 'new' resource for political participation will then be addressed before concluding with a discussion of the issue of youth exclusion from political engagement.

7.2. Young people's interest in politics and their perception of EU citizenship

Interest in the political life of society is a stepping stone to involvement in community life, and vice versa. Interest prompts an individual to become informed about how decisions are made in the policy-making process, what the opinions of different stakeholders are, and what means of participation are available. Ultimately, interest can engender willingness to actively participate and address shared problems together with other members of the community.

Results from the European Social Survey conducted in 2012 indicate that, on average, about 33 % of respondents declare to be very or quite interested in politics (Figure 7-A). Some differences exist between countries. Northern and Scandinavian Member States register above average levels of interest. On the other hand, several southern and eastern European countries display comparatively low levels of concern with political issues.

Figure 7-A: Share of young people (aged 15-29) claiming to be 'very' or 'quite' interested in politics, by country, 2002 and 2012

%    %

Note: The chart covers the countries for which data exist for 2002 and 2012.

Source: European Social Survey 2002 and 2012

Contrary to the claim that young people are disaffected with politics, interest in political issues amongst young people in Europe has remained stable over the last decade, with approximately one third of respondents reporting to be very or quite interested. Yet, significant changes have occurred in some countries since 2002: while substantial increases have been registered in Germany (+19.9 %), Spain (+117.3 %), Croatia (+51.8 %) and Finland (+29.8 %), rates have dropped in the Czech Republic (-56.7 %), Hungary (-59.7 %), the Netherlands (-22.3 %) and Portugal (-22.6 %).

In order to fully appreciate the figures reported above, it is useful to compare the general level of interest in politics expressed by young people with that reported by other age groups in the general population (Figure 7-B). Within the younger age groups, levels of concern with political issues are highest amongst individuals at the older end of the spectrum (around 40 % of respondents aged 25 to 29 on average declare to be very or quite interested).

Figure 7-B: Level of interest in politics among different age groups, EU-27 average, 2012

This tendency is confirmed when considering the older age cohorts, from 30 to over 60 years. As the figure above illustrates, the degree of attention to political issues increases as individuals grow older. Within the boundaries of the snapshot offered by the 2012 data here illustrated, the notion that young people are comparatively less engaged in following political developments is therefore confirmed.

However, this phenomenon is, at least partly, intrinsic to each generation: individuals tend to become more aware of the political environment as they grow into mature adulthood, become politically socialised, and acquire a larger 'stake' in the social, political and economic life of their community. Therefore, this lower level of interest in politics should not be labelled as a specific characteristic of the current generation of young people but rather as an inherent phase in the average life trajectory ( 1 ).

Besides a general interest in politics, identification with a political entity is essential in determining the degree of engagement in political life. Indeed, perceptions of citizenship are crucial in motivating people to participate. Young people report stronger feelings of citizenship towards the European Union than older cohorts (Figure 7-C). It is therefore possible that, compared to older generations, young people might be more inclined to participate at European rather than at national level.

Figure 7-C: Sense of European citizenship, by age group, EU-28 average, 2014

Data presented in this section shed some light on young people's interest in politics as well as their political identity. Whilst these are important motivational factors, young people must also have the means to actively participate. As in a virtuous circle, the existence of effective means for participation encourages people to become interested in the public sphere, which in turn fosters the desire to take advantage of those means. It is therefore important to identify which forms of participation best meet the needs of young people, keeping in mind that the means young people choose today may not necessarily be those traditionally used by previous generations.

7.3. Young people's participation in representative democracy: voting and joining a political party

Genuine elections with political parties competing on alternative political programmes provide the basis for the functioning of representative democracy. Choosing between the programmes of various parties and candidates, and selecting representatives for public office are the basic actions by which citizens participate in the management of public affairs. This is why election turnout is usually referred to as a relevant measure of citizens' participation.

However, electoral and party engagement seems to have limited appeal for young citizens. A Eurobarometer survey from 2012 indicates that only about one in two young people consider elections as one of the most valuable ways to express their political preferences (Figure 7-D). According to their responses, 47 % among 15-24 year-olds, and 50 % among 25-34 year-olds, believe that voting is one of the two best ways to ensure that their voice is heard by decision-makers. This result is in line with what is indicated in a survey asking young respondents what they consider to be the most effective way for participating in public life in the European Union: voting in elections to the European Parliament was chosen by only 44 % of the sample ( 2 ).

Figure 7-D: Percentage of young people including 'voting in elections' and 'joining a political party' as one of the two best ways to ensure 'that one's voice is heard by decision-makers', by age group (15-24 and 25-34), EU-27 average, 2012

Joining a political party is viewed as an effective way of channelling their views by a much lower proportion of young people: only 13 % in both age groups.

Along with these results, low levels of turnout have been registered amongst young people in recent years. According to the Eurobarometer's results illustrated below, on average about 60 % of young respondents have cast their vote in an election between 2011 and 2014 (Figure 7-E).

Figure 7-E: EU youth indicator: Participation of young people (aged 15-30) in elections at the local, regional, national or EU level, by country, 2011 and 2014

Notes: The question was 'During the last 3 years, did you vote in any political election at the local, regional, national or EU level? If you were, at that time, not eligible to vote, please say so'. Base: respondents who were eligible to vote at the time of the election. EU-27 (2011) and EU-28 (2014)

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer319a 'Youth on the Move', 2015 Flash Eurobarometer 408 'European Youth'

Turnout amongst young voters has declined over recent years. In 2011, an average of almost 80 % of young respondents to the survey declared they had participated in an election in the previous three years. This trend is common to the vast majority of EU Member States, the exceptions being the Czech Republic and Lithuania where a slight increase has occurred ( 3 ).

The propensity to vote seems to be influenced by the age at which respondents completed their education, indicating that higher levels of education are associated with higher turnout in elections (Figure 7-F).

Figure 7-F: Participation of young people (aged 15-29 who are eligible to vote) in elections at the local, regional, national or EU level, by the age at which they stopped full-time education, EU-28 average, 2014

Both the political level at which elections take place, and the gender of young voters play a role in determining how liklely they are to cast their vote in a ballot (Figure 7-G). Young voters tend to favour local elections, followed by national ones, while regional and European elections attract less interest. In addition, there is a higher turnout among male voters than females, in all types of elections.

Figure 7-G: Participation in elections of young people (aged 15-29), by type of election and by sex, EU-28 average, 2014

Besides their limited participation in elections, the proportion of people from the younger age groups elected to public office is low, at least at European Union level. Figure 7-H depicts the proportion of Members of the European Parliament aged 30 or under, who were elected to the European Parliament in May 2014. The percentage on the total of the MEPs is minimal, and, what is more, it has almost halved since the previous European elections in 2009.

In line with these results, joining a political party appeals to a rather small proportion of young people (Figure 7-I). Between 2011 and 2014, levels of membership have remained stable at around an average of 5 % in Europe. Significant drops in membership figures since 2011 have been registered in Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Cyprus, Lithuania and Poland, while the Czech Republic, Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary have seen significant increases.

Figure 7-I: Membership of political parties amongst young people (aged 15-29), by country, 2011 and 2014

Notes: question was ‘In the last 12 months, have you participated in any activities of the following organisations? (Political Party)’. Base: all respondents. EU-27 (2011) and EU-28 (2014)

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer319a ‘Youth on the Move’, 2015 Flash Eurobarometer 408 ‘European Youth’

Membership of political parties is even more limited amongst young women: on average, they are 50 % less likely to become active in such organisations than men of the same age ( 4 ).

The limited levels of participation in traditional activities like voting and being active within political parties should not immediately be interpreted as signals that young people are disenchanted with democracy. Indeed, as an on-going research project suggests, 'young people show general support for democratic systems although are often critical of how they work in practice and for them' ( 5 ). Collecting the views of young individuals from 30

different regions in Europe through surveys, interviews and ethnographic observation, the study indicates that youth dissatisfaction is often with associated political choices (parties, leaders, manifestoes) rather than with democracy and participation per se. It is also to be considered that, though elections and political parties have a pivotal role in democratic societies, they are not the only activities to be taken into account when evaluating political participation. Many other channels are open to people to have their say and to influence political decision-makers and policies, and these may be more attractive to younger citizens.

7.4. Other ways young people participate

Young people tend to favour flexible and issue-based forms of active participation such as contributing to the projects of non-governmental associations, participating in community-driven initiatives, joining social movements and expressing political opinions in public spaces ( 6 ).

Data presented here confirm young people's preference for being active in non-governmental organisations and/or local organisations which address local issues, rather than in political parties. On average, twice as many respondents as those who have been active in a political party stated they had participated in the activities of a local organisation aimed at improving the local community (Figure 7-J).

Figure 7-J: EU youth indicator: Proportion of young people (aged 15-30) who have participated in the activities of organisations aimed at improving their local community, by country, 2011 and 2014

Notes: the question was 'In the last 12 months, have you participated in any activities of the following organisations? (A local organisation aimed at improving the local community)'. Base: all respondents. EU-27 (2011) and EU-28 (2014)

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer319a 'Youth on the Move', 2015 Flash Eurobarometer 408 'European Youth'

On average, the figures remained relatively stable between 2011 and 2014, although important changes occurred in some Member States. Levels of participation fell significantly in Estonia, Greece, and Romania. The proportion of young people taking part in local organisations aimed at improving local communities also declined in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia. In contrast, it rose in Denmark, Latvia and the Netherlands.

Frustration with traditional and institutionalised forms of political participation can also result in people choosing to show their interest in issues or express their concerns without any (or with little) mediation by organised bodies, be they political parties or nongovernmental organisations.