Table of Contents – Second section of SWD

5........... Social Inclusion. 48

5.1........ Introduction. 48

5.2........ Moving towards autonomy: young people leaving the parental home. 48

5.3........ Levels of poverty and social exclusion. 50

5.3.1..... The at-risk-of-poverty rate. 51

5.3.2..... Severe material deprivation. 52

5.3.3..... Households with very low work intensity. 54

5.4........ Aspects of poverty and social exclusion. 55

5.4.1..... Housing conditions and homelessness. 55

5.4.2..... Access to health care. 57

5.5........ Groups at risk of social exclusion. 59

5.5.1..... Young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs) 59

5.5.2..... Migrants and ethnic minorities. 61

6........... Health and Well-being. 63

6.1........ Health and risks. 63

6.1.1..... Obesity. 63

6.1.2..... Smoking. 65

6.1.3..... Drunkenness. 67

6.1.4..... Drug use. 69

6.1.5..... Risky behaviour: road accidents. 71

6.1.6..... Health risks of sexual activity. 72

6.2........ Mental and psychological distress. 74

7........... Youth Participation. 77

7.1........ Introduction. 77

7.2........ Young people's interest in politics. 77

7.3........ Young people's participation in representative democracy: voting, standing in elections and joining a political party  79

7.4........ Other forms of participation by young people, ranging from engagement in civil society to public demonstrations  82

7.5........ Fresh opportunities for participation offered by the new media. 85

5. Social Inclusion 5.1. Introduction

Social inclusion is a process ‘which ensures that those at risk of poverty and social exclusion gain the opportunities and resources necessary to par­ti­cipate fully in economic, social and cultural life and to enjoy a standard of living and well-being that is considered normal in the society in which they live’[61].

Social exclusion at an early age has long-lasting consequences for both the individual and society as a whole. Besides poverty, it also refers to the process ‘whereby certain individuals are pushed to the edge of society and prevented from participating fully by virtue of their poverty, or lack of basic com­petencies and lifelong learning opportunities, or as a result of discrimination’. Social exclusion brings about a vicious circle of unemployment or low-quality employment and poor living conditions with limited access to education and training, health care and ‘social and community networks and activities’[62]. In short, it adversely affects all aspects of young people's lives.

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

Young people are particularly vulnerable to social exclusion and poverty as they move towards an independent life, which involves looking for work and establishing their own household. For many, this is far from easy: even if they find employment, they often start with low-paid jobs, which can make sustaining a household financially difficult.

The risk of becoming poor is closely linked to the timing of departure from the parental home. In fact, some studies have found that moving out of the parental household is the ‘strongest predictor behind youth poverty’[63].

Figure 5‑A shows that the average age of young people leaving the parental household varies substantially in Europe. On average, young people leave the parental household earlier in western and northern Europe, while they stay longer with their parents in eastern and southern Europe. Among the countries where data is available, the average age of leaving the parental household is lowest for both sexes in France, the Netherlands, Finland and the United Kingdom. Within the EU-27, both young women and young men establish their own household relatively late in Malta and Slovakia.

On average in the EU-27, young women leave the parental household more than two years earlier than men (at the ages of 25.1 and 27.5 respectively). This is partly but not fully attributable to the younger age at which women get married[64].

Figure 5‑A: EU youth indicator: Average age of young people when leaving the parental household, by country and by sex, 2010

Men || Women

||

Source: Eurostat. Online data code: not available.

Notes: This indicator tries to estimate the average age of young people when leaving the parental household by comparing for each age the percentage of young people not living anymore in the parental household. The exact age when leaving the parental home is not collected by current surveys. EU-27, EFTA and EU candidate countries covered except when not available.

The average age of leaving the parental home has remained quite stable over time since 2005, though countries differ widely in this respect (Figure 5‑B). For example, the average age of moving out of the parental home decreased significantly in Estonia and Lithuania, but increased markedly in Bulgaria and Malta.

Figure 5‑B: EU youth indicator: Changes in the average age of young people when leaving the parental household, by country and by sex, difference between 2005 and 2010

Years

|| Females || || Males

Source: Eurostat. Online data code: not available.

The likely reasons behind these differences are many and varied. According to the special Eurobarometer survey 2007 on youth, most young Europeans aged 15 to 30 listed financial reasons for staying with their parents: 44 % of respondents stated that they could not afford to move out, while 28 % said that there was not enough affordable housing. On average, young people move out later in countries in which respondents mostly blamed the lack of financial resources for staying longer with their parents.

A lack of financial resources may certainly explain why young people in eastern and southern European countries stay longer with their parents[65]. In these countries, there are high levels of youth unemployment, and wages for young people are relatively low. In addition, affordable housing opportunities are scarce[66]. However, in western and especially northern European countries, young people move out of the parental household early despite the fact that they are at greater risk of poverty, at least temporarily. Explanations for this include cultural factors such as social norms[67], predictable labour market structures and good employment opportunities for young people[68], and the targeted state support available to them[69].

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: at-risk-of-poverty, severe material deprivation and living in a household with very low work intensity. People at risk of poverty and social exclusion are defined as the share of the population that is at least in one of the three situations described in the three sub-indicators.

Figure 5‑C shows that, in the EU-27, the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate for young people (29.1 %) is higher than that of children (27.1 %) and the total population (23.5 %). In two-thirds of the countries examined, this ratio is higher for both children and young people than for the total population, showing that young people are more at risk of social exclusion. This highlights the importance of paying special attention to this segment of the population.

Countries with the highest levels of poverty and social exclusion are Bulgaria, Latvia and Romania. This is true both in the case of children and young people, and as will be shown below, is also measured by the different sub-indicators. The composite indicator of at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion also shows quite high values for Ireland, Lithuania and Hungary for both children and young people. Within the EU-27, the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate is relatively low in the Czech Republic, Austria and Slovenia.

Figure 5‑C: EU youth indicator: At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate, by country and by age, 2010

|| Aged under 18 || || Aged 18 to 24 || || Total population

Source: Eurostat – Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (SILC). Online data code: ilc_peps01

There is a group of countries in which young people seem to be especially vulnerable compared to other groups within the population. This concerns the Nordic countries and the Netherlands, and to some extent Greece and France. The existence of such different at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rates for young people indicates measurement issues that are peculiar to the 18 to 24 age group. As discussed above, the average age of establishing a household and the costs of such a move are different in the countries examined. Since poverty and exclusion are measured at household level, young people living with their parents benefit from the higher living standards derived from the total family income, while those living alone depend solely on their own resources. This means that youth poverty rates are higher in countries in which young people have access to their own resources through a job, housing, or study loans, and lower in countries in which achieving autonomy is more difficult (with the exception of Greece, in which youth poverty is relatively high despite the fact that young people tend to stay with their parents longer). Paradoxically this implies that better opportunities for young people produce higher levels of at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion among them, at least temporarily.

A comparison of at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rates over time in the EU indicates that the situation of children and young people improved between 2005 and 2009 (see Figure 5‑D). However, between 2009 and 2010, the proportion of children and young people who were at risk of poverty or social exclusion increased substantially, more than within the general population. As will be shown below, this is especially owing to a marked increase in the share of the population living in jobless households, which is linked to increasing unemployment levels following the economic crisis (see also Chapter 3 on Youth Employment and Entrepreneurship). Between 2008 and 2010, the increase in the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate for children was highest in Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and Hungary; for young people aged 18 to 24 it was highest in Ireland, Latvia and Malta[70].

Figure 5‑D: EU youth indicator: At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate, EU-27 average, by age, 2005-2010

|| r || Total

¢ || 18-24

˜ || <18

Source: Eurostat – SILC. Online data code: ilc_peps01

Note: 2005, 2006: Eurostat estimate.

5.3.1. The at-risk-of-poverty rate

One sub-indicator of the above composite indicator is the at-risk-of-poverty rate. This indicator measures poverty in relative terms: it defines a relative poverty threshold (60 % of the net median equivalised income) and regards the segment of the population below this threshold as being at risk of poverty.

Equivalised income is a measure of household income that takes account of the differences in a household's size and composition, and thus is equivalised or made equivalent for all household sizes and compositions[71].

As indicated above, comparing the situation of young people by means of this indicator is particularly difficult because their levels of independence vary in the countries concerned. At-risk-of-poverty rates will be higher in countries in which young people generally set up their own household earlier, and lower in those in which they tend to live with their parents longer. For this reason, the list of EU youth indicators does not include this indicator when analysing the situation of the 18 to 24 age group[72]. This section is therefore devoted solely to examining the situation of children (defined as those aged under 18).

Like the composite indicator above, Figure 5‑E shows that a bigger proportion of children are at risk of poverty (20.5 %) than that of the total population in the EU-27 (16.4 %). The at-risk-of poverty rate for children is again highest in Bulgaria, Latvia and Romania, as well as in Spain.

While the at-risk-of-poverty rate of children in the EU has been quite stable since 2005, the proportion of children at risk increased between 2008 and 2010 in the majority of countries examined[73].

Figure 5‑E: EU youth indicator: At-risk-of-poverty rate, by country and by age, 2010

|| Aged under 18 || || Total population

Source: Eurostat – SILC. Online data code: ilc_li02

5.3.2. Severe material deprivation

To complement the relative poverty indicator based on current income and take account of non-monetary resources, material deprivation indicators have been defined. Because the main indicator, the severe material deprivation rate, is based on a single European threshold, it is also a more absolute measure of poverty. It captures the differences in living standards between countries, as well as the impact of growth on those standards in a given country.

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[74].

Figure 5‑F on severe material deprivation confirms previous conclusions about children (9.6 %) and young people (10 %) being in a worse situation than the total population (8.1 %). As in the case of at-risk-of-poverty rates, the severe material deprivation rate in 2010 was highest in Bulgaria, Latvia and Romania, as well as in Hungary. Material deprivation rates were lowest in the Nordic countries and Luxembourg, though with slightly higher levels for those aged 18 to 24.

Figure 5‑F: EU youth indicator: Severe material deprivation rate, by country and by age, 2010

|| Aged under 18 || || Aged 18 to 24 || || Total population

Source: Eurostat – SILC. Online data code: ilc_mddd11

In the EU, the severe material deprivation rate has been steadily falling since 2005, with a slight reversal in the case of children in 2010. For young people and the total population, the decline slowed down after 2009 (see Figure 5‑G). However, this is solely due to the significant decrease in material deprivation levels in the 12 newer EU Member States between 2005 and 2008; in the former EU-15, levels of material deprivation have changed little over time[75].

Figure 5‑G: EU youth indicator: Severe material deprivation rate, EU-27 average, by age, 2005-2010

|| r || Total

¢ || 18-24

˜ || <18

Source: Eurostat – SILC. Online data code: ilc_mddd11

Notes: 2005, 2006, 2009: Eurostat estimate.

5.3.3. Households with very low work intensity

Since unemployment is one of the main determinants of poverty, this section focuses on children and young people living in households with zero or very low work intensity[76]. This is the third sub-indicator included in the main composite indicator.

Very low work intensity is defined as less than 20 % of a person's total work potential during the preceding year.[77]

Figure 5‑H demonstrates that the proportions of children (those aged under 18) and young people (18 to 24) living in households with very low work intensity are similar (9.1 %), and somewhat lower than that of the population aged under 60 (10 %). In 2010, the proportions of people living in households with very low work intensity were greatest in Ireland (over 20 % for all age groups), followed by the United Kingdom.

Figure 5‑H: EU youth indicator: Share of people living in households with very low work intensity, by country and by age, 2010

|| Aged under 18 || || Aged 18 to 24 || || <60

Source: Eurostat – SILC. Online data code: ilc_lvhl11

As to the change in this indicator over time, patterns for the EU are similar to those in several of the preceding indicators. There was a general improvement in the situation until 2009 (until 2008 in the case of children), but the economic crisis and the year 2010 brought about a worsening of the situation (see Figure 5‑I). This deterioration was quite marked for this indicator, given its direct links with rising unemployment since 2008.

Figure 5‑I: EU youth indicator: Share of people living in households with very low work intensity, EU-27 average, by age, 2005-2010

|| r || <60

¢ || 18-24

˜ || <18

Source: Eurostat – SILC. Online data code: ilc_lvhl11

Notes: 2005, 2006: Eurostat estimate.

5.4. Aspects of poverty and social exclusion

Poverty and social exclusion are multidimensional, as they denote not only lower incomes but very limited access to many key services or areas of life.

5.4.1. Housing conditions and homelessness

Homelessness means marginalisation at the edge of society with no access to basic services, and often inability to exercise one's rights. Yet there are many aspects of homelessness which the word may cover. The European Typology of Homelessness and housing exclusion (ETHOS) distinguishes four main concepts of homelessness: inadequate housing, insecure housing, houselessness and rooflessness[78].

The severe housing deprivation rate is an important indicator measuring inadequate housing. Regarding the housing deprivation rate of children, Figure 5‑J indicates a decrease (from 11.3 % to 8.3 %) in the EU between 2005 and 2010, as in the case of severe material deprivation rates. In 2010, the severe housing deprivation rate of children was highest in countries with the highest material deprivation rates, namely Bulgaria, Latvia, Hungary and Romania.

Severe housing deprivation rate: the percentage of population living in the dwelling which is considered as overcrowded, while also exhibiting at least one of the housing deprivation measures. 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[79].

Housing cost overburden rate: the percentage of the population living in households where the total housing costs (‘net’ of housing allowances) represent more than 40 % of disposable income[80].

Figure 5‑J: Severe housing deprivation rate of children (aged under 18), by country, 2005 and 2010

Source: Eurostat – SILC. Online data code: ilc_mdho06a

Housing has a crucial significance for young people. Their progress towards full independence involves finding – and paying for – their own home. Their risk of poverty is strongly linked to the burden of sustaining their own household. This becomes especially difficult for those with low qualifications, who can only find relatively low quality and poorly paid jobs. As the CSEYHP[81] research project describes, low quality employment on low wages may quickly lead to a housing crisis, as young people concerned cannot afford adequate housing[82]. This section therefore also looks at the housing cost overburden rate for young people (aged 18 to 24, and 25 to 29).

Figure 5‑K shows that the housing cost overburden rate in the EU-27 in 2010 was higher for 18 to 24 year olds than for young people aged 25 to 29. For this younger age group, maintaining their own household was the most burdensome in Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, confirming the importance of housing in determining the risk of poverty. For 25 to 29 year olds, the housing cost overburden rate was highest in Denmark, Lithuania and the United Kingdom. For both age groups, and in line with the trend in preceding indicators, the rate declined until 2009, but rose again slightly between 2009 and 2010 (Figure 5‑L).

Figure 5‑K: Housing cost overburden rate, by country and by age, 2010

|| Aged 18 to 24 || || Aged 25-29

Source: Eurostat – SILC. Online data code: ilc_lvho07a

Note: EU-27: Eurostat estimate.

Figure 5‑L: Housing cost overburden rate, EU-27 average, by age, 2005-2010

|| r || Total

¿ || 25-29

¢ || 18-24

Source: Eurostat – SILC. Online data code: ilc_lvho07a

Note: Eurostat estimates for all years.

On average in the EU-27 and the majority of countries examined, women are more likely to have difficulty in maintaining their own household. This is partly because they leave the parental home earlier on average than men (see Figure 5‑A). Young people usually face difficulties when leaving their parents and, since women take this step earlier, their financial commitments are liable to be greater. In addition, women may also find it more difficult to provide for their own household because they earn less on average than men.

One way to overcome the housing problems of young people is to offer social housing to those with low incomes. The scale of social housing differs considerably within the EU. While it is extensive in the Netherlands (around 35 % of the total housing stock in 2005), it is almost non-existent in some other countries, and most notably in central and eastern Europe because of high home ownership rates since privatisation[83].

5.4.2. Access to health care

Access to health care is an important aspect of social inclusion. Therefore, the self-reported unmet need for medical care was included among the EU youth indicators as a further indicator on the social exclusion of young people.

Figure 5‑M shows that a lower proportion of young people aged 18 to 24 (1.5 %) reported unmet needs for medical examination than among the total population (3.1 %). The exceptions were again the Nordic countries (except Finland) and to some extent Slovenia. Overall, the level of unmet need for medical care was among the lowest in these countries. By contrast, the proportion of young people reporting unmet needs for medical examinations was highest in Bulgaria and Latvia.

Figure 5‑M: EU youth indicator: Self-reported unmet needs for medical examinations because of barriers to access, by country and by age, 2010

|| Aged 18 to 24 || || Total

Source: Eurostat – SILC. Online data code: hlth_silc_03

In the EU, the proportion of young people with such unmet needs has on average been decreasing since 2005 (Figure 5‑N). Throughout these years, young women have been reporting higher levels of unmet medical needs than young men.

Figure 5‑N: EU youth indicator: Self-reported unmet needs for medical examinations among young people (aged 18-24) because of barriers to access, EU-27 average, by sex, 2005-2010

||

Males

Females

Total

Source: Eurostat – SILC. Online data code: hlth_silc_03

In the case of children (those aged under 18), data on unmet needs for medical care (as reported by their parents) is also available from some countries for the year 2009. Figure 5‑O shows that the proportion of children with unmet needs for advice from a doctor was somewhere between that of young people and the total population in the majority of countries participating in data collection. In 2009, the proportion of children with such unmet needs was highest in Bulgaria, Estonia, Poland, Romania and Finland.

Figure 5‑O: Unmet needs among children (aged under 18) for consulting a GP or specialist, excluding dentists and ophthalmologists, on at least one occasion in the preceding 12 months, 2009

Source: Eurostat – SILC, ad-hoc module on material deprivation, variable HD250

However, differences between the reported levels of unmet needs for medical examinations stem more from differences between the health conditions of younger and older generations than from differences between social exclusion levels. Smaller differences between young people and the total population were apparent in the perceived likelihood of not receiving medical examinations when needed (Figure 5‑P).

Figure 5‑P: Share of persons finding it likely or very likely not to receive necessary health care in the event of illness in the following 12 months, by country and by age, 2008

|| Aged 18 to 24 || || Total || V || Not participating in the survey

Source: European Social Survey 2008

Within the EU-27, perceived levels of non-access were highest in Bulgaria, Latvia and Romania. This confirms the findings based on the reported level of such unmet needs and points to relatively high levels of exclusion in these countries. At the other extreme, EU countries with the lowest share of respondents claiming they were likely or very likely not to receive assistance when needed were Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden.

5.5. Groups at risk of social exclusion 5.5.1. Young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs)

The group of young people mainly at risk of poverty and social exclusion are the so-called NEETs. A part of this group dropped out of school early without any qualifications and thus cannot find employment. NEETs can be found across all qualifications and in a number of the countries (EL, LU, PT, RO, SK, SI, FI) NEET rates are higher for tertiary educates than lower educated[84]. The potentially long-term unemployment makes NEET youth dependent on social welfare, with substantial societal costs. Furthermore, their situation undermines their life prospects and leads to longer-term social and political marginalisation[85]. As the YOUNEX[86] research project has shown, long-term unemployed young adults face greater anxiety and are less happy, which leads to further (self‑)exclusion from society[87].

NEETs are a mixed group, drawing attention to the multidimensional nature of disadvantage. According to a Eurofound report[88], the following factors influence the probability of becoming NEET: disablement; an immigrant background; a low educational level; living in remote areas; a low household income; parents who experienced unemployment; parents with low level of education; divorced parents.

Figure 5‑Q gives the percentage of NEETs (aged 15 to 24) in 2011. As inferred in Chapter 3 on Youth Employment and Entrepreneurship, the 15 to 24 age group is the one for which NEET rates are usually calculated. In 2011, 12.9 % of young people in the EU-27 were classified as NEETs, with the severest situations in Bulgaria, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy and Romania. However, the highest proportion of NEETs among 15 to 24 year olds occurred in two EU candidate countries, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey.

Figure 5‑Q: EU youth indicator: Share of young people (aged 15 to 24) not in employment, education or training (NEET rate), by country and by sex, 2011

|| Total || || Females || || Males

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: edat_lfse_20

Notes: Luxembourg: unreliable data; Sweden: provisional data.

Similar to the majority of indicators above, the percentage of NEETs in the EU decreased between 2005 and 2008 on average, but started increasing again in 2009 (Figure 5‑R and Figure 5‑S). As Figure 5‑S shows, this trend appears to have been driven by changes in the unemployment ratio of young people. While the proportion of inactive persons within the NEET group has changed little, data on unemployed young people reflect a trend similar to the overall NEET one. Much the same applies if NEETs are separated into those actively seeking employment and those not wanting to work. The proportion of the latter has remained quite stable and relatively low within the EU. By contrast, people who are actively looking for a job constitute the majority of NEETs, and patterns of change look similar to the unemployment figures. This highlights the importance of labour market structures and job prospects in influencing NEET rates.

Figure 5‑R: EU youth indicator: Share of young people (aged 15 to 24) not in employment, education or training (NEET rate), EU-27 average, by sex, 2005-2011

||

Males

Females

Total

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: edat_lfse_20

Figure 5‑S: EU youth indicator: Share of young people (aged 15 to 24) not in employment, education or training (NEET rate), EU-27 average, by labour market status and attitudes towards work, 2005-2011

||

||

¢ || Inactive persons || ˜ || Unemployed persons

¢ || Persons do not want to work || ˜ || Persons would like to work

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: edat_lfse_20

In the EU-27, NEET rates are slightly higher for young women than for young men. However, differences between the sexes decreased between 2005 and 2011, with male NEET rates catching up with female NEET rates (Figure 5‑R).

5.5.2. Migrants and ethnic minorities

Migrants and ethnic minorities (most importantly the Roma) are among the groups most vulnerable to social exclusion. They usually have multiple disadvantages leading to persistent poverty and a marginalised position in society. The European EDUMIGROM[89] research project lists several interrelated factors contributing to the exclusion of migrants and ethnic minorities. Migrant families often lack the social capital needed to integrate into society[90]. They tend to have weaker connections and ties to the local non-migrant community and can find it more difficult to obtain information about institutions, systems (education, health care, etc.) and opportunities. The first generation also often has problems understanding the national language[91]. Given this lack of social capital, information and language skills, migrants and ethnic minorities often have limited access to good quality education – especially early childhood education – which in turn reduces later educational opportunities.

Early disadvantages are reinforced by the fact that ethnic minority pupils are largely educated in segregated environments[92], in the ‘disadvantageous segments’ of education systems[93]. This – apart from increasing the isolation of migrants and ethnic minorities – can mean that children and young people are ‘inside school but outside learning’[94]. Such ethnic segregation and separation affects pupils' performance, aspirations and possibilities.

School segregation and discrimination can lead to frustration and drop-out. As noted in the previous section, leaving school early can be regarded as the main source of marginalisation for young adults[95]. Data on early school-leaving confirms that a higher percentage of first generation migrants than of non-migrants drop out of school in the majority of European countries (Figure 5‑T). In 2009 in the EU-27, early school leavers constituted 26.3 % of the migrant population and 13.1 % of the non-migrant population. The differences are particularly striking in Greece (a difference of 34.5 percentage points), Italy (25.6 percentage points) and Spain (17.1 percentage points).

Figure 5‑T: Early school leavers as a percentage of the migrant, non-migrant and total population, by country, 2009

|| Migrant || || Non-migrant || || Total

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: not available

Notes: Early school leaver is defined as a person aged 18 to 24 with at most lower secondary education and who is not in further education or training.

Migrant is defined as a person for whom the country of birth is not the reference country.

On the assumption that parental involvement influences children's success at school, many countries have adopted measures to enhance communication between schools and immigrant families in general education[96]. Such measures can take three main forms: first, providing written information on the school systems in the language of origin of immigrant families; second, using interpreters in various situations in school life; and third, appointing resource persons such as mediators to be responsible for communication between the school and families. Half of the European countries surveyed rely on all three measures, and the majority of them make use of two or three different channels of communication between schools and immigrant families. Several countries also pay special attention to the mother tongue tuition of immigrant children.

6. Health and Well-being 6.1. Health and risks

Young people are in a better health condition and feel healthier than older age groups[97]. As Figure 6‑A shows, a much smaller proportion of young people aged 16 to 24 feel that they are in bad or very bad health than respondents within the total population. Differences between the two age groups were the largest in Bulgaria and Lithuania, and the smallest in the Nordic countries. Within the EU-27, the proportion of young people feeling in a bad or very bad health was the highest in Denmark and Portugal (over 3 %) and the lowest in Ireland and Spain (less than 0.5 %). Within the EU, the proportion of the population feeling in a bad or very bad health condition has remained quite stable since 2005, both among young people and within the total population.

However, certain health risks (e.g. drug use or involvement in road accidents) are more pronounced in the case of young people than for older age groups, often due to lack of information or peer pressure. Research has shown that risk behaviours are related to each other; for example, smoking during adolescence is associated with higher levels of alcohol consumption, unhealthy eating, early sexual initiation, injuries and low life satisfaction[98]. Such health risks can have long-term, life-long consequences if they start at a young age.

Figure 6‑A: Self-perceived health, feeling bad or very bad, by country and by age, 2010

|| 16-24 || || Total

Source: Eurostat – SILC. Online data code: hlth_silc_02

Notes: Aged 16-24, unreliable data for LT, CZ; Aged 16-24 and total population: unreliable data for EE, HR.

6.1.1. Obesity

Overweight and obesity are serious health risks. Being overweight is usually associated with lower socio-economic status in industrialised countries[99]. Childhood obesity has long-lasting consequences, often throughout one's whole life. Within the EU-27, the share of obese young people is the greatest in Malta, where almost 9 % of young people are affected. In contrast, less than 2 % of the youth are considered as obese in Bulgaria and Romania (Figure 6‑B).

Figure 6‑B: EU youth indicator: Share of obese persons, by country, 2008

a) by age

|| 15-24 || || Total

b) share of obese young people (aged 15-24), by sex

|| Females || || Males

Source: Eurostat – European Health Interview Survey (EHIS). Online datacode: not available

Notes: Obesity is defined by having a Body Mass Index (BMI) greater than 30.

Data collection took place in different years for participating countries: EE, AT: 2006; SI: 2007; BE, BG, CZ, FR, CY, LV, MT, RO, TR: 2008; DE, EL, ES, HU, PL, SK: 2009. Germany: the age group for young people is 18-24.

In the majority of countries with available data, the share of obese young men is larger than the share of obese young women. Reasons for such divergence include differences in eating habits or societal and family pressure for controlling weight[100]. However, there are countries where more young women are affected by obesity: Belgium, France, Malta and Turkey.

Looking at trends, obesity is a rapidly rising problem among young people in the EU-27. The share of obese young people aged 15 to 24 increased almost everywhere, for both women and men (Figure 6‑C). The exceptions are Bulgaria and Malta. In some countries, the proportion of obese young people doubled or even tripled between the 2002 round of the Health Interview Survey (HIS) and the 2008 round of the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS)[101]. In the case of young women, the situation worsened the most in Belgium, Estonia and Poland; among young men, obesity increased the most in Cyprus, Latvia, Poland and Romania. This signals an increasingly serious problem, which needs to be addressed by prevention measures such as the promotion of healthy eating and physical activity.

Figure 6‑C: EU youth indicator: Share of obese young people (aged 15-24), by country and by sex, 2002 and 2008

a) Women

b) Men

Source: Eurostat – Health Interview Survey (HIS) 2002 and EHIS 2008. Online data code: hlth_ls_bmie (2003)

Notes: Data collection for the two surveys took place in different years for participating countries.

HIS: EE, PL: 1996; DE, IS: 1998; AT, PT: 1999; DK, FR, RO: 2000; BE, BG, SI: 2001; NL: 2001/02; CZ, IE, EL, LT, MT, SK, UK, NO, CH: 2002; SE: 2002/03; ES, CY, LV, HU, FI: 2003; IT: 1999/2000 and 2002

EHIS: EE, AT: 2006; SI: 2007; BE, BG, CZ, FR, CY, LV, MT, RO: 2008; EL, ES, HU, PL, SK: 2009.

Data collection did not include all age groups in all countries in the HIS survey: DK, MT, SE, UK, NO: 16+; DE, IE, HU, SI, IS: 18+; LT: 20-64.

6.1.2. Smoking

Smoking is a well-known health risk and the leading cause of preventable death[102]. In the majority of countries, the share of daily smokers among young people is slightly lower than within the total population. However, as Figure 6‑D shows, in Germany, Spain, Hungary and Austria there are more regular smokers amongst young people than in the total population. In these countries, as well as in Estonia, Greece and Cyprus, more than one quarter of young people aged 15 to 24 smokes daily.

Young men are more prone to become regular smokers than young women, with the exception of Greece. In Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia and Romania, more than twice as many young men smoke as young women, with more than 35 % of young men smoking daily in the first two countries. Countries with the smallest difference between young men's and women's smoking habits are Germany, Greece, Spain and Austria, where a high proportion of young women are also regular smokers.

Figure 6‑D: EU youth indicator: Share of daily smokers, by country, 2008

a) by age

|| 15-24 || || Total

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

|| Females || || Males

Source: Eurostat – EHIS. Online data code: hlth_ehis_de3

Notes: Data collection took place in different years for participating countries: EE, AT: 2006; SI: 2007; BE, BG, CZ, FR, CY, LV, MT, RO: 2008; DE, EL, ES, HU, PL, SK: 2009.

A potential effect of anti-smoking campaigns can be detected through a comparison between the HIS and EHIS surveys. This comparison reveals an improvement in the share of daily smokers among young people. In almost every country, with the exception of Greece and Cyprus, the proportion of regular smokers within the 15 to 24 age group decreased in the period between the two survey rounds, in some cases quite significantly. In Greece and Cyprus, the larger proportion of daily smokers in 2008 is due to an increasing share of female smokers; the proportion of regular smokers among young men also declined in these countries (Figure 6‑E).

Figure 6‑E: EU youth indicator: Share of daily smokers among young people (aged 15-24), by country and by sex, 2002 and 2008

a) Women

b) Men

Source: Eurostat – HIS 2002 and EHIS 2008. Online datacodes: hlth_ls_smke and hlth_ehis_de3

Notes: Data collection for the two surveys took place in different years for participating countries.

HIS: EE, PL: 1996; DE, IS: 1998; AT, PT: 1999; DK, FR, RO: 2000; BE, BG, SI: 2001; NL: 2001/02; CZ, IE, EL, LT, MT, SK, UK, NO, CH: 2002; SE: 2002/03; ES, CY, LV, HU, FI: 2003; IT: 1999/2000 and 2002

EHIS: EE, AT: 2006; SI: 2007; BE, BG, CZ, CY, LV, MT, RO: 2008; DE, EL, ES, HU, PL, SK: 2009.

6.1.3. Drunkenness

Alcohol is the most consumed psychoactive substance[103]. Nevertheless, there are differences between the levels of alcohol consumption: while some young people drink alcohol relatively rarely, others regularly experience drunkenness. Figure 6‑F depicts the share of 16 year old students who have been drunk at least once in the last 30 days based on the 2011 ESPAD[104] survey. As the figure shows, in 2011, experiencing drunkenness was the most widespread in Denmark, with 37 % of students reporting it. The share of students who reported being drunk in the last 30 days was also quite high in Ireland, Spain, Hungary, Slovakia and the United Kingdom. Within the EU-27, the lowest share of students reporting drunkenness was in Belgium (Flemish Community), Estonia and Romania.

Boys were more affected by such high levels of alcohol consumption than girls in most countries. The only EU-27 countries where the alcohol consumption of 16 year old girls was higher than that of boys were Estonia, Ireland, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Figure 6‑F: EU youth indicator: Share of students turning 16 in 2011 who reported to have been drunk at least once during the past 30 days, by country and by sex, 2011

|| Total || || Girls || || Boys

Source: ESPAD 2012

Notes: The target group was students who turned 16 in the year of the data collection (2011), thus were born in 1995. The estimated mean age was 15.8 years at the time of data collection.

Belgium: data collection was limited to the Flemish Community of Belgium.

Germany: data collection was limited to five out of sixteen states (Bundesländer): Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Thuringia.

Spain: data is from the Spanish national school survey.

United Kingdom: limited comparability of data due to the low school-participation rate.

Looking at trends, the alcohol consumption of young people did not change significantly[105] in most EU-27 countries between 2007 and 2011. In the case of boys, reported drunkenness decreased significantly in Denmark, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom and increased in Spain, Cyprus and Hungary. In the case of girls, significant changes took place in Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom on the one hand (decrease) and in Spain, Cyprus and Portugal on the other hand (increase).

Figure 6‑G: EU youth indicator: Share of students turning 16 in the year of the data collection who reported to have been drunk at least once during the past 30 days, by country and by sex, 2007 and 2011

a) Girls

b) Boys

Source: ESPAD 2009, 2012

Notes: Belgium: data collection was limited to the Flemish Community of Belgium.

Germany: data collection was limited to seven out of sixteen states (Bundesländer) in 2007 and to five in 2011.

Denmark (2007): limited representativeness and comparability of data due to small net sample (result of a combination of a small gross sample and a high school-dropout level).

Spain: data are from the Spanish national school survey.

Finland (2007): only half of the students answered this question due to a split-half test.

United Kingdom (2011): limited comparability of data due to the low school-participation rate.

Peer pressure is a more important factor influencing alcohol consumption than the socio-economic status of young people and their families. This might be the reason why school-based intervention programmes are usually successful in reducing the alcohol consumption of adolescents[106].

6.1.4. Drug use

Young people and especially teenagers are vulnerable to substance use and substance use disorders. At this age, peer pressure can be strong enough to ‘force’ young people to start using various types of drugs[107].

Cannabis is the most popular drug among young people aged 15 to 24[108]. On average 6 % of 15 to 16 year old school children had tried one or more of the following substances: ecstasy and amphetamines (most common, ca. 3 % of children used each of them), cocaine, crack, LSD or other hallucinogens, heroin and GHB[109]. Cannabis is often the first illegal substance used. Although the majority of cannabis users does not take other drugs, they are between 4 and 25 times more likely to report the use of cocaine than is the general population[110]. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) found that cannabis consumption is the highest among the youngest age group (Figure 6‑H). Among young people aged 15 to 24, cannabis use is the most prevalent in the Czech Republic, Spain, France, Italy, Slovakia and the United Kingdom (Scotland). In these countries, more than 20 % of young people consumed this substance at least once in the preceding 12 months. Cannabis use is the least widespread in Greece and Romania.

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

|| Aged 15-24 || || Aged 15-34 || || Aged 15-64

Source: EMCDDA

Notes: Years of national surveys: EL, NO: 2004; FR, NL: 2005; PL, SK, FI: 2006; IE: 2006/07; LV, HU, PT, RO, SI: 2007; BE, BG, EE, IT, LT, AT, SE: 2008; UK-NIR, UK-SCT: 2008/09; CZ, DE, ES, CY: 2009; UK-ENG/WLS: 2009/10; DK: 2010.

Countries were asked to report results using, as far as possible, EMCDDA standard age groups (all adults: 15 to 64, young adults: 15 to 34). In countries where age ranges are more restrictive, prevalence estimates may tend to be slightly higher. Some countries have recalculated their prevalence figures using the EMCDDA standard age groups.

The most recent General population surveys reported by the Czech Republic display a wide variation in results, the reason for which is being explored, but may be due to differing sampling methods. The data is provided for information, but given the lack of comparability between surveys should be treated with caution.

In the United Kingdom, data collection was separate for England & Wales; Northern Ireland and Scotland.

For methods and definitions, see General population surveys of drug use.

Based on the HBSC[111] survey, the WHO reports that boys are using cannabis more frequently than girls[112]. In all education systems except England, more 15 year old boys reported to have been using cannabis in the past year than girls (Figure 6‑I).

Figure 6‑I: EU youth indicator: Last 12 months prevalence of cannabis use among 15 year olds, by country and by sex, 2005/06 and 2009/10

a) Girls

b) Boys

Source: HBSC survey, WHO (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2008, 2012)

Note: Young people (15 year olds only) were asked whether they had used cannabis in the last 12 months. Response options ranged from ‘never’ to ‘40 times or more’. The findings presented here show the proportions that reported using cannabis at least once in the last 12 months.

Data collection was separate for the French and Flemish Communities of Belgium as well as for England, Wales and Scotland within the United Kingdom.

The reported cannabis consumption among 15 year olds grew in the majority of education systems, especially in the case of boys. Figure 6‑I illustrates that among boys, the reported use of cannabis increased in 2009/10 compared to 2005/06. This was especially the case in Greece and Romania, where the proportion of cannabis users was among the lowest in 2005/06. The proportion of 15 year old girls who reported using cannabis dropped in comparison with the earlier survey.

Multiple substance (polydrug) use is a common trend in the EU. Alcohol use and cigarette smoking, followed by cannabis use, were the most prevalent forms of substance use consistently reported by young adults in all countries. Among 15 to 16 year old school children, about one in four had used both alcohol and tobacco in the last month and a very small proportion had used two or more illicit drugs[113]. Among young adults (aged 15 to 34), frequent or heavy alcohol users were, in general, between two and six times more likely to report the use of cannabis compared to the general population and between two and nine times more likely to use cocaine.[114]

Young people in a disadvantaged position are generally more prone to start using drugs. In 2008, the EMCDDA concluded that the number of countries implementing intervention measures targeting vulnerable youth did not increase in the EU between 2004 and 2007. Furthermore, while the drug use of certain groups, for example young people in care institutions, gained attention in this period, others like young offenders fell out of policy focus. Moreover, countries relied predominantly on office-based services instead of trying to reach vulnerable young people pro-actively[115].

6.1.5. Risky behaviour: road accidents

Injuries are the leading cause of death and disability among young people[116]. Data reveals that often a much larger proportion of young people are involved in road accidents resulting in injury than the relevant share of the total population (Figure 6‑J). The difference between young people and the total population is substantial for example in the Czech Republic, Spain, Cyprus and Slovenia. In 2008 in Slovenia, almost 9 % of young people aged 15-24 reported having had an accident in the preceding 12 months. In contrast, accidents involving young people were relatively rare in Romania. Young men are more frequently involved in road accidents than young women.

Figure 6‑J: EU youth indicator: Proportion of people declaring having had an accident resulted in injury during the past 12 months, by country, 2008

a) by age

|| 15-24 || || Total

b) proportion of young people (aged 15-24) declaring having had an accident, by sex

|| Females || || Males

Source: Eurostat – EHIS. Online data code: hlth_ehis_st2

Notes: Data collection took place in different years for participating countries: EE, AT: 2006; SI: 2007; BE, BG, CZ, FR, CY, LV, MT, RO, TR: 2008; DE, EL, ES, HU, PL, SK: 2009.

6.1.6. Health risks of sexual activity

Sexual and reproductive health is linked to safe and healthy sexual behaviour. Regarding the age of having the first intercourse, there are big differences between European countries due to the diversity of cultural and religious backgrounds[117].

Sex education and personal relationships education are included in curricula in almost every country in Europe, at least at lower secondary and upper secondary levels[118]. Sex education and personal relationships education usually include both biological and emotional aspects of sexuality, e.g. sexual health, responsible sexual behaviour, the processes of human reproduction and awareness of different sexual orientations[119].

The WHO reports widespread condom use in Europe among 15 year olds (between 60 and 90 %, based on data from 2009/10)[120]. Contraceptive pills are less prevalent and differences between countries are larger (2 % of 15 year old girls used the pill at their last intercourse in Greece, while this proportion is 62 % in Germany)[121]. A minority of young girls and boys still does not use any means of contraception[122].

Unwanted pregnancies can be measured by fertility and abortion rates. Fertility and abortion rates of 15 to 19 year old girls are very low but vary greatly within Europe (Figure 6‑K). In 2010 in the EU-27, fertility rates were the highest in Bulgaria and Romania and the lowest in the Netherlands, Denmark and Slovenia. The number of legally induced abortions per 1 000 women aged 15 to 19 was the greatest in the United Kingdom and Sweden and the smallest in Poland, where there were only a few dozens of reported cases (Figure 6‑L). However, it should be noted that differences in the number of legally induced abortions can be partly due to differences in legal frameworks.

Figure 6‑K: Fertility rate of young women (aged 15-19), by country, 2010

‰                                                                                                                                                                                         ‰

Source: Eurostat. Online datacode: demo_frate

Notes: The fertility rate for women aged 15 to 19 is the number of births to mothers of age 15 to 19 divided by the average female population of age 15 to 19.

Data is from 2009 for the European Union, Belgium, Cyprus, Romania and the United Kingdom.

Figure 6‑L: Legally induced abortions per 1 000 young women (aged 15-19), by country, 2010

‰                                                                                                                                                                                            ‰

Source: Eurostat. Online datacodes: own calculation based on demo_fabort and demo_pjangroup

Notes: Data is from 2009 for Italy, Slovenia, the United Kingdom and Iceland.

There is a downward trend in the number of legally induced abortions since 2005 (Figure 6‑M). In almost all countries, there were fewer abortions per 1 000 women aged 15 to 19 in 2010 than in 2005. In the Baltic countries and Romania, this reduction is quite substantial. The exception is Spain, where there were proportionally more abortions in 2010 than in 2005, but there is no obvious trend showing a clear direction of developments.

Figure 6‑M: Trends in the number of legally induced abortions per 1 000 young women (aged 15-19), between 2005 and 2010 (2005 = 100 %)

Source: Eurostat. Online datacodes: own calculation based on demo_fabort and demo_pjangroup

Notes: United Kingdom and Switzerland: 2007 = 100 %; Iceland: 2006 = 100 %.

6.2. Mental and psychological distress

Mental and psychological distress is still less prevalent among young people than within the total population. Nevertheless, mental disorders are more and more common among young people as well[123]. Young people have to face many challenges related to the transition from childhood to adulthood, when societal and family pressures can be difficult to cope with. The economic crisis also influences the mental health of children and young people, both through the situation of their parents and through their own difficulties[124]. For this reason, special attention has to be paid to develop appropriate measures of detection of, and early intervention on situations of mental and psychological difficulty.

Figure 6‑N shows that young people had higher average psychological distress scores in 2008 than the total population, which means that they are less affected by psychological distress. Within the EU-27, countries with the lowest average psychological distress scores among young people were the Czech Republic and Malta. Average psychological distress scores are lower among young women than among young men.

Figure 6‑N Average psychological distress scores, by country, 2008

a) by age

|| 15-24 || || Total

b) young people (aged 15-24), by sex

|| Females || || Males

Source: Eurostat – EHIS. Online datacode: not available

Notes: Data collection took place in different years for participating countries: EE, AT: 2006; SI: 2007; BE, BG, CZ, FR, CY, LV, MT, RO, TR: 2008; DE, EL, ES, HU, PL, SK: 2009.

The Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5) has a score of 0 to 100, where a score of 100 represents optimal mental health. In order to have a comparable scale for all countries, (national) quintile distribution of the score is disseminated. Percentages in these figures represent the average scores by country, by age and by sex.

However, when it comes to the most serious outcome of mental sufferance, suicide, men are more affected than women. In 2009, on average in the EU-27, three times as many young men as women aged 15 to 19 committed suicide (Figure 6‑O). This ratio is five to one in the 20 to 24 and 25 to 29 age groups. For young men aged 15 to 24, suicide rates were the highest in the Baltic countries, Ireland and Finland. The largest proportion of women aged 15 to 24 committed suicide in Finland and Sweden. Suicide rates in this age group were the lowest for men in Greece and Luxembourg, for women in Denmark, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Slovakia (Figure 6‑P).

Suicide rates are increasing with age. Among young people, suicide rates are the highest among the 25 to 29 age group and lowest amongst the 15 to 19 year olds (Figure 6‑O).

Figure 6‑O: EU youth indicator: Death by intentional self-harm, crude death rate (per 100 000 inhabitants), EU-27 average, by age and by sex, 2009

|| Women || Men ||

Source: Eurostat. Online datacode: hlth_cd_acdr

Figure 6‑P: EU youth indicator: Death by intentional self-harm of young people (aged 15-24) year olds, crude death rate (per 100 000 inhabitants), by country and by sex, 2009

|| Females || || Males

Source: Eurostat. Online datacode: hlth_cd_acdr.

For all age groups, suicide rates have been relatively stable over time in the EU, decreasing slightly until 2007 and increasing a little in 2008 and 2009 (Figure 6‑Q).

Figure 6‑Q: EU youth indicator: Death by intentional self-harm, crude death rate (per 100 000 inhabitants), EU-27 average, by age, 2004-2009

|| || Total

r || 25-29

¢ || 20-24

˜ || 15-19

Source: Eurostat. Online datacode: hlth_cd_acdr

7. Youth Participation 7.1. Introduction

The transition from youth to mature adulthood is a complex experience affecting all areas of a person's life. Becoming acquainted with the social and political environment, learning the ‘rules of the game’ in a democratic society, and developing personal political views are basic and challenging steps in the process. In order to support young people during this transition, all European countries have established ‘citizenship education’ or ‘education in civics’ as a subject within the school curriculum. Schools also commonly ensure that pupils and students take part in the management of school activities[125]. Similarly, national or local youth information centres exist in the vast majority of European countries to help circulate information on political and social issues among young people[126].

However important, these initiatives alone are not sufficient to motivate young people to engage in civic and political activities. Like any other group in society, they decide to become involved in political life when they think that their actions will have a real impact[127]. As illustrated in a forthcoming study on youth participation, young citizens must be given real stakes in political decision-making before they will want to take part in it. This is all the more crucial if the aim of increasing participation is to lessen the risk of social exclusion[128].

7.2. Young people's interest in politics

Interest in politics is considered a stepping stone to involvement in community affairs. When interested, people inform themselves about how decisions are taken in policy-making, as well as about the opinions of different stakeholders and available channels of participation. Ultimately, interest can engender willingness to address common problems jointly with other members of the community and take an active part in its affairs.

Political interest is ‘the psychological feeling that political participation is worth the opportunity cost of trading off time and commitment from other occupations’ (Weatherford 1992, p. 151, as in Kestilä-Kekkonen 2009, p. 153)

Conversely, interest will to some extent depend on real opportunities to participate in a social and political system. As in a virtuous circle, the existence of effective means of participation may motivate people to become interested in public life, which in turn will foster willingness to take advantage of those means.

According to the European Social Survey (ESS), one in four young people (aged 15 to 29) on average was at least ‘quite interested’ in politics in 2010 (Figure 7‑A). However, there were wide differences in levels of interest across countries. In some countries (Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden), around half of the respondents reported to be very interested in politics, in others the corresponding proportion was some 20 % (Spain, Hungary, Portugal, Slovenia). The level of interest in politics was lowest in the Czech Republic (5 %).

Figure 7‑A: Share of young people (aged 15-29) claiming to be ‘very’ or ‘quite’ interested in politics, by country, 2002 and 2010

Source: European Social Survey (ESS) 2002 and 2010

Note: The chart covers the 16 countries for which data exist for 2002 and 2010.

The ESS data show trends in young people's level of interest in politics in recent years. From this survey, it appears that the proportion of those interested in politics was fairly similar in 2002 and 2010. It would also seem that, in the intervening period and in the countries considered at least, there is little evidence for the much publicised claim that young people have lost interest in politics. Yet, there were national variations: the proportions of young people in the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary and Portugal who were interested in political developments in their countries fell significantly by 8 percentage points on average. Spain and Sweden are the two countries in which the share of young people claiming to be ‘very’ and ‘quite’ interested increased significantly (by around 5 percentage points).

Clearly, the time span of the 15 to 29 age group is very long when considering the changes in life experience that impact on a person's social and political commitments. Trends in interest in politics among the 15 to 19, 20 to 24 and 25 to 29 age groups suggest that political awareness increases with age (Figure 7‑B). It would appear that the low interest among the youngest cohort is partly due to them still getting acquainted with the basic ‘rules of the game’ (through interaction with family and friends, and targeted instruction in school) and are generally not being entitled to vote until the age of 18.

Figure 7‑B: Share of young people claiming to be ‘very’, ‘quite’ and ‘not at all interested’ in politics, by age, 2010

|| ¢ || Not at all interested

˜ || Quite and very interested

Source: ESS 2010

Note: Countries covered by the survey: Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom.

In accordance with this age pattern, the overall level of interest amongst young people is not as high as that of older people. In 2010, 33 % of people aged over 30 were at least ‘quite interested’ in politics, compared to 25 % of those aged between 15 and 29[129].

However, before concluding that young Europeans are disenchanted with politics and less keen to take a stand than older people, it should be borne in mind once more that interest in politics does not emerge in a vacuum. It partly depends on the opportunities for involvement, for which young people's preferences might differ from those of their elders. Indeed, some opportunities might be more likely to motivate certain stakeholders in society rather than others, and vice versa. It is therefore important to identify which forms of participation best meet the demands of young people, for a more reliable idea of how great and potentially effective their participation will be.

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

Competitive elections are fundamental mechanisms in the functioning of a democratic system. Choosing from amongst the programmes of various political parties and selecting representatives for public office are basic actions on the part of any fully engaged citizen. This is why election turnout is usually referred to as a measure of civic participation.

According to responses published in Eurobarometer ‘Youth on the Move’ (2011), some 80 % of eligible voters aged between 16 and 29 voted in local, regional, national or EU elections in the preceding three years (Figure 7‑C). Lithuania was the only country in which less than half of young respondents said they voted. In other countries – the Czech Republic, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Finland and the United Kingdom – the proportions of young people who took part in elections (67-72 %) were also lower than the EU-27 average.

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

|| Yes || || Dk/NA || || No

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: 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 old enough to vote, % by country.

The Eurobarometer provides information on the sociological profile of young people who have voted in recent elections. Older respondents in the youth population said they had voted more often than younger ones. For example, while 78 % of 20 to 24 year olds had voted in local, regional, national or EU elections in the preceding three years, 82 % of 25 to 29 year olds had done so. Educational attainment also seems to play a role in the turnout of young voters: 88 % of those who had completed higher education said they voted, compared to only half of those with lower secondary qualifications. Having a disability seems to discourage young people from voting: only 54 % of those with a disability said they voted, compared to the overall average of 79 %[130].

ESS data series show that, on average, voting turnout among young people in 16 European countries has changed little over the last decade, despite some national variations (Figure 7‑D). In Belgium, Spain, Poland, and Sweden, they took part in elections more often in 2010 than in 2002, while in France, Hungary and Slovenia the percentages significantly declined.

Figure 7‑D: Share of the youth population (aged 20-29) who voted in the most recent national elections, by country and by age, 2002-2010

||

Source: ESS 2002 and 2010

Note: The chart considers countries in which data exist for 2002 and 2010. The percentage of respondents who said they voted at the most recent national elections is calculated on the basis of the total number of respondents eligible to vote.

As with the level of interest in politics, the percentage of young people voting in elections is significantly lower than that of their elders (70 % in the EU-27)[131]. The longer transition from childhood to adulthood discussed in Chapter 3 may help to explain why: as many accomplishments of adulthood now occur later in life (completing education, securing employment, achieving economic independence and self-sufficiency), political awareness might also emerge later. However, it is debatable whether voting in elections really offers (or is perceived to offer) young people enough for them to stimulate their active participation. Here, data on young representatives elected to national parliaments can provide some insight into how responsive institutions are to youth interests. Information collected by the European Knowledge Centre on Youth Policy (EKCYP) shows that the average proportion of members of parliament aged under 30 in Europe is low (3 %) (Figure 7‑E).

Figure 7‑E: Share of young members of national parliaments (aged under 30), 2011

Source: European Knowledge Centre on Youth Policy (EKCYP) 2011

Of the countries for which data is available, only in three (Belgium, Estonia and the Netherlands) do young Members of Parliament constitute a significant share (around 7 %) of the total membership of the parliament. The situation in the European Parliament is similar. Those aged under 30 constitute 3.4 % of the members elected in 2009. Hence, information from national and European parliaments suggests that opportunities for young people to be represented by their peers are limited, and so they are not strongly motivated to take part in elections.

The weak presence of young people in representative institutions is partly attributable to the fact that relatively few of them join political parties – an average European level proportion of 2 % (Figure 7‑F).

Figure 7‑F: Membership of political parties amongst young people (aged 15-29), by countries and by age, 2002 and 2010

||  

Source: ESS 2002 and 2010

Note: The chart considers countries for which data exist for 2002 and 2010.

The average percentage share of young people in Europe who are members of a political party is less than half that of their elders (4.5 %)[132]. This is in line with data showing that people within the consecutive age groups of the youth population (aged 15 to 29 as a whole) are more willing to join parties as they get older. As with electoral participation, an age divide seems to affect the level of party membership.

If political parties and elections were the only means of being politically active, one might conclude that young people are far more dissatisfied with and uninterested in politics than their elders. Yet other means of taking an active part in society exist and arguably provide for more spontaneous and informal participation. Indeed, some research concludes that personal commitment and faith in political involvement are stronger amongst young people than in other age groups[133]. The fact that their turnout at elections and membership of political parties are relatively weak might not be a symptom of disinterest but of their preference for other forms of participation.

7.4. Other forms of participation by young people, ranging from engagement in civil society to public demonstrations

The previous section suggests that traditional channels of representative democracy only partially stimulate young people's interest in active participation. Voting at elections and joining political parties seem to have a limited appeal, particularly amongst the youngest members of the 15 to 29 age group. However, interest and involvement in political and social activities are not confined to the sphere of elections and political parties. Less institutionalised and structured forms of participation, such as contributing to the work of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or community-driven initiatives and joining social movements, are also worthwhile forms of social engagement which – according to some research – are increasingly appealing to young people[134].

The Flash Eurobarometer ‘Youth on the Move’ confirms the preference of young people for being active in non-governmental and local associations rather than in political parties. Twice as many respondents as those who were active in a political party said they were involved in the work of an NGO, or a local organisation aimed at improving the local community or environment (Figure 7‑G).

Figure 7‑G: EU youth indicator: Share of young people (aged 15-30) who have participated in the activities of various organisations, by country, 2011

||  A local organisation aimed at improving one's local community and/or local environment || ||  Any other non-governmental organisations || ||  A political organisation or a political party

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319b ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Have you in the past year participated in any activities of the following organisations?’

Base: % ‘yes’ answers by country.

The share of young people participating in a local organisation is particularly high in Ireland (almost 25 %). Italy, Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom are the countries with the highest level of participation in NGOs (over 10 %). Bulgaria Spain and Slovakia score lowest for the three categories of organisation identified in Figure 7‑G. Furthermore, in contrast to the over-representation of older people in the membership of political parties, participation levels of young people in other forms of social engagement are similar to the corresponding proportions among other age groups: at European level, about the same percentages of young people and of people above the age of 30 (15 % and 15.5 % respectively) said they were involved in the activities of civil society organisations[135]. These results match recent studies arguing that youth is increasingly disillusioned with traditional political structures because the latter are perceived as unresponsive to young people's interests. They therefore often consider that involvement in community activities and small-scale organisations is far easier and more effective[136].

In line with these findings, the proportion of young people working for civil society organisations and associations has slightly increased over the last decade (Figure 7‑H). This trend is mainly due to the big increases in Denmark, Germany, Finland and Sweden, while the situation in the majority of other countries has changed little. Yet a few others (in particular the Czech Republic) witnessed a significant decrease. As in the case of party membership, there are significant differences between the propensities of different age groups within the youth population to be active members of organisations (Figure 7‑H). Older individuals tend to participate to a larger extent.

Figure 7‑H: Share of young people (aged 15-29) working in civil society organisations and associations, by country and by age, 2002 and 2010

2010

Source: ESS 2002 and 2010

Notes: The chart considers countries for which data exist for 2002 and 2010.

The question was ‘There are different ways of trying to improve things in [country] or help prevent things from going wrong. During the last 12 months, have you worked in another organisation or association?’

Frustration with institutional forms of political participation can also result in people expressing their concerns and interests more or less independently of organised structures like political parties or NGOs. In this context, street demonstrations, protests, or the occupation of public spaces become means of looser and more informal involvement in society and in politics, which many young people find worth experiencing[137]. Indeed, they appear to resort to such activities much more often than their elders. For example, according to ESS data, 8 % of youth respondents in 14 EU Member States – as opposed to 5 % of respondents aged 30 and over – joined lawful public demonstrations in the 12 months prior to the survey[138]. Notable differences also exist between the constituent age groups of the total youth population. The youngest group, which joins political parties the least, appears to take part most frequently in public demonstrations. In comparison, participation amongst respondents aged between 25 and 29 is two percentage points lower (Figure 7‑I).

Figure 7‑I: Participation of young people (aged 15-29) in lawful public demonstrations, by country and by age, 2002 and 2010

||

Source: ESS 2002 and 2010

Note: The chart considers countries for which data exist for 2002 and 2010.

7.5. Fresh opportunities for participation offered by the new media

Young people have been at the forefront in using the Internet and its applications (for example Facebook and Twitter) as means of interpersonal communication. The virtual spaces frequented by young people such as online forums, chats, social networks and blogs, serve the same basic function as the physical ones they replace, by establishing collective interaction around common interests. They thus constitute a great resource for political and social engagement, which the young have been fastest to acknowledge and exploit.

In this context, new media can be used in a variety of ways: to become familiar with and exchange ideas on social and political topics; to expose violations of political and social rights that would otherwise go unreported; to initiate and organise protests and demonstrations around shared objectives; and to establish contacts and exchanges with public authorities. It is also important to note that online and offline modes of participation are usually convergent, with one reinforcing the other[139]. In other words, young people who are already active offline can take advantage of the new media to expand their participation (for example, by joining transnational networks). At the same time, young people who start to participate online are more likely to respond to offline modes of participation (for example, by learning about the existence of a local association and joining it).

However, the challenges posed by a potential digital divide should be acknowledged. The new media can restrict access to certain networks and areas of knowledge solely to those able to use a computer and surf the Internet, thereby replicating the social inequalities of the ‘non-virtual’ environment.

Several studies indicate the importance of the Internet in fostering social contact and facilitating interaction between citizens and their political representatives through what are usually called ‘e-democracy’ projects, often targeting young Internet users[140]. Indeed, the percentage of young people contacting public authorities via the Internet has increased in recent years (Figure 7‑J). This is clearly due to the increase in Internet use in general, but is also an indication that new forms of political participation can be especially appealing to the young, in comparison to more traditional ones. The Eurostat data point to a geographical divide separating countries in northern Europe, in which young people seem to interact more readily with public authorities via the Internet, from those in southern and eastern Europe, in which they do so much less.

Figure 7‑J: EU youth indicator: Share of the population aged 16-24 who have used the Internet (in the last three months) for interaction with public authorities, 2005 and 2010

Source: Eurostat 2010 – Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals (ISS-HH). Online data code: isoc_pibi_igov

Similarly, young people are active in accessing information, forming opinions and exchanging views on political and social issues within Internet communities (Figure 7‑K). Unfortunately, comparison over time is not possible because data is not available for earlier years. However it can be assumed that the percentage followed a trend similar to that of Internet contacts with public authorities.

Figure 7‑K: EU youth indicator: Share of the population aged 16-24 who have used the Internet (in the last three months) to access or post opinions on civic and political issues via websites, 2011

Source: Eurostat 2011 – ISS-HH. Online data code: isoc_ci_ac_i

National trends vary substantially. While some Member States report proportions of some 40 % or over (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland), others register very low levels of Internet use for exchanging political views (Belgium, Cyprus, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden). The percentages of young people active via these ‘new’ forms of participation are generally significant and bear comparison with or surpass those reported for their elders. Among respondents to the Eurostat survey who were young (aged 16 to 24) and older (25 to 64), about one third in each case said they used the Internet to contact public authorities, while 24 % and 14 % respectively said they used it to join blogs and forums to discuss political topics[141].

As in the case of non-institutional forms of participation, young people seem to prefer interaction via the Internet and its services to traditional kinds of political participation. The potential offered by this form of civic involvement for mobilising the interest and commitment of young people should be fully acknowledged and supported.

[61]             7101/04, p. 8.

[62]             7101/04, p. 8.

[63]             Aassve et al. 2007, p. 331.

[64]             Eurostat 2008.

[65]             Aassve et al. 2002 and 2007.

[66]             Iacovou 2001.

[67]             Aassve et al. 2007; Iacovou 2001.

[68]             Aassve et al. 2007.

[69]             Aassve et al. 2002. See also discussion on housing in the following section.

[70]             Eurostat – online datacode: ilc_peps01.

[71]             Eurostat 2012b.

[72]             SEC(2011) 401.

[73]             Eurostat – online data code: ilc_li02.

[74]             SEC(2011) 401, p. 9.

[75]             Eurostat – online datacode: ilc_mddd11.

[76]             Very low work intensity is defined as less than 20 % of a person's total work potential during the preceding year.

[77]             Eurostat 2012e.

[78]             For the definitions and description of the various situations, see FEANTSA n.d.

[79]             Eurostat 2012c.

[80]             Eurostat 2012b.

[81]             ‘Combating Social Exclusion among Young Homeless Populations: a comparative investigation of homeless paths among local white, local ethnic groups and migrant young men and women, and appropriate reinsertion methods’, funded by the EU Seventh Framework Programme (MOVISIE 2012).

[82]             Kutsar and Helve 2012.

[83]             European Commission 2010b, p. 107.

[84]             European Commission 2010a, p. 131, and forthcoming study prepared for DG JUST on "Starting fragile"

[85]             Eurofound 2011b, p. 5.

[86]             ‘Youth, Unemployment, and Exclusion in Europe: A multidimensional approach to understanding the conditions and prospects for social and political integration of young unemployed’, funded by the EU Seventh Framework Programme (Université de Genève 2012).

[87]             Kutsar and Helve 2012.

[88]             Eurofound 2011b, pp. 3-4.

[89]             ‘Ethnic differences in education and diverging prospects for urban youth in an enlarged Europe’, funded by the EU Seventh Framework Programme (Szalai 2011).

[90]             Kutsar and Helve 2012, p. 24.

[91]             Ibid., p. 26.

[92]             Szalai 2011.

[93]             Kutsar and Helve 2012, p. 28.

[94]             Ibid.

[95]             Ibid, p. 31.

[96]             Eurydice/EACEA 2009a.

[97]             Eurostat – online datacode: hlth_silc_02.

[98]             WHO Regional Office for Europe 2012, p. 141.

[99]             WHO Regional Office for Europe 2009.

[100]            WHO Regional Office for Europe 2012.

[101]            For the purpose of comparison, note that HIS and EHIS are different data collections.

[102]            WHO Regional Office for Europe 2012 p. 141.

[103]            WHO Regional Office for Europe 2009, p. 82.

[104]            European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs.

[105]            According to the methodological notes of the ESPAD survey, changes below four percentage points between previous data collections are not recognised as real changes (ESPAD 2012, p. 10).

[106]            WHO Regional Office for Europe 2012, p. 161.

[107]            WHO Regional Office for Europe 2009, p. 80.

[108]            Ibid, p. 84.

[109]            ESPAD 2012, p. 9.

[110]            EMCDDA 2009, p. 25.

[111]            Health Behaviour In School-Aged Children, WHO Collaborative Cross-National Survey.

[112]            WHO Regional Office for Europe 2012, p. 170.

[113]            EMCDDA 2009, p. 25.

[114]            Ibid, p. 12.

[115]            EMCDDA 2008, p. 29.

[116]            WHO Regional Office for Europe 2009, p. 36.

[117]            WHO Regional Office for Europe 2009, p. 92.

[118]            Eurydice/EACEA 2010, p. 60.

[119]            Ibid, p. 59.

[120]            WHO Regional Office for Europe 2012, p. 179.

[121]            WHO Regional Office for Europe 2012, p. 179.

[122]            Ibid., p. 182.

[123]            WHO Regional Office for Europe 2009, p. 41.

[124]            WHO Regional Office for Europe 2011.

[125]            The study conducted by Eurydice on the topic offers EU-wide analysis of the variety of education-related policies and practice in 33 European countries (Eurydice/EACEA 2012a).

[126]            Youth Partnership 2011b.

[127]            SALTO-Youth 2009.

[128]            European Commission 2012d (forthcoming).

[129]            ESS5-2010, ed.1.0.

[130]            2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’.

[131]            ESS5-2010, ed.1.0.

[132]            ESS5-2010, ed.1.0.

[133]            Këstila-Kekkonen 2009, pp. 145-165; Vinken 2005, pp. 147-157.

[134]            For example Hoikkala 2009, Barber 2010, Gaiser et al. 2010, Santo et al. 2010.

[135]            ESS5-2010, ed.1.0.

[136]            Harris et al. 2010, pp. 9-32.

[137]            Feixa et al. 2009, pp. 421-442.

[138]            ESS5-2010, ed.1.0.

[139]            Hirzalla et al. 2010.

[140]            Hirzalla et al. 2010.

[141]            Eurostat – online data code: isoc_ci_ac_i.

Table of Contents – Third section of SWD

8........... Voluntary Activities. 91

8.1........ Introduction. 91

8.2........ Youth participation in voluntary activities. 91

8.3........ Encouraging youth participation in voluntary activities. 94

9........... Culture and Creativity. 97

9.1........ Introduction. 97

9.2........ Cultural participation. 98

9.3........ Youth and use of ICT. 101

9.4........ Fostering creativity through education. 105

10......... Youth and the World. 106

10.1...... Introduction. 106

10.2...... Young people's engagement with global issues. 106

10.3...... Cooperation among young people from different continents. 107

11......... Annex. 110

11.1...... Table of abbreviations. 110

11.2...... Dashboard of youth indicators. 113

11.3...... Bibliography. 121

8. Voluntary Activities 8.1. Introduction

Young people's participation in voluntary activities represents a great contribution to the promotion of social and economic cohesion. In addition to the valuable service to society at large, young volunteers themselves also receive great benefits from participating in such activities. Indeed, by engaging in projects tackling topical social problems, young volunteers become key agents of social reform and develop a sense of belonging and ownership towards their community. This is of particular relevance when young people living in situations at risk of exclusion become active as volunteers: by way of their engagement, they find opportunities for integration in social and economic networks, and improve their participation as active citizens. In addition, volunteering is non-formal learning. The personal and professional skills acquired through voluntary activities are important resources for the enhancement of one's education and employability.

8.2. Youth participation in voluntary activities

On average, one in four young Europeans has been involved in voluntary activities in 2011 (Figure 8‑A). Compared to data from 2007, the percentage of young people active in the field has thus increased. According to a Eurobarometer survey (2011), the level of youth engagement appears to be similar to that of the total population[145].

Figure 8‑A: EU youth indicator: Participation of young people (aged 15-30) in organised voluntary activities, 2007 and 2011

Source: 2007 Eurobarometer ‘Young Europeans’

Note: The question was ‘Are you engaged in any voluntary activities?’

2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Have you been involved in any organised voluntary activities in the past year?’

Base: all respondents, % by country.

Naturally, participation in voluntary activities varies across countries. While the share of young respondents having served in a voluntary project is above one third in Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Slovenia, it is less than one fifth in the case of Greece, Italy, Hungary, Poland, and Sweden. Such variation also affects national trends over the past years. The share of young people taking part in voluntary projects has increased in the vast majority of countries, except for Greece, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia and Finland. The increase has been particularly significant (around 20 %) in Ireland, Latvia and Romania.

Eurobarometer data indicate that young persons in the 15 to 19 age group are the most likely to engage in volunteering (Figure 8‑B). In contrast, the oldest in the youth population appear to be the least active, perhaps because they have usually already entered employment and have relatively less time to devote to voluntary work.

Figure 8‑B: Participation in organised voluntary activities, EU-27 average, by age, 2011

|| 15-19 || 20-24 || 25-29 ||

Yes || 26 || 25 || 22

No || 73 || 74 || 78

DK/NA || 1 || 0 || 0

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Have you been involved in any organised voluntary activities in the past year?’

Base: all respondents.

When engaged in volunteering, approximately half of young individuals chose to contribute to the improvement of his or her local community (Figure 8‑C). In some countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Portugal and Romania) the share of young volunteers serving their communities is as high as two thirds, while in other countries (Denmark, France, Cyprus and Finland) the opposite situation exists.

Figure 8‑C: EU youth indicator: Voluntary actions aimed at changing respondents' (aged 15-30) local communities, 2011

|| Yes || || Dk/NA || || No

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Was the voluntary action aimed at changing something in your local community?’

Base: respondents who have been involved in any organised voluntary activities, % by country.

European Voluntary Service (EVS) EVS is one of the five operational Actions of the EU Youth in Action programme (2007-2013). Its aim is to support young people's participation in various forms of voluntary activities, both within and outside the EU. Young volunteers take part in non-profit-making unpaid activities to the benefit of the general public in countries other than their countries of residence. Volunteering experiences can last from two to twelve months. The volunteers need to be young people aged 18 to 30 legally resident in the country of the Sending Organisation. Financial support is granted to both the volunteer and the promoters to cover the costs related to the voluntary service.

Comprehensive information on the main fields of engagement of young volunteers is not systematically collected at European level. In this respect, information on the organisations accredited in the framework of the European Voluntary Service can be useful to identify some of the themes that more often attract the interest of young individuals, albeit limited to the realm of EU funding schemes[146].

Around one third of accredited organisations focus on fostering European awareness and identity amongst European youth (Figure 8‑D). Organisations aimed at combating forms of discrimination and fostering artistic and cultural activities each represent one fifth of the total. About one in six deals with providing services in the social field (healthcare, civil protection, education). The last two categories of voluntary organisations concern actions related to the environment, and to supporting third countries (for example, post-conflict rehabilitation and development and cooperation).

Figure 8‑D: Accredited European Voluntary Service organisations, by main theme, 2010

|| anti-discrimination

environment

European awareness

external actions

social services

art and culture

Source: SALTO Youth and Educational, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

Note: a total of 4 018 voluntary organisations participating in EVS were accredited in 2010.

As discussed in Chapter 2 on Demography of this report, young Europeans have increasingly become mobile, living in other European countries during their studies and early professional stages. However, serving in cross-border volunteering does not appear to be a major reason to leave their country of origin: only around 2 % of young respondents to the ‘Youth on the Move’ Eurobarometer reported to have spent a period abroad for this purpose (Figure 8‑E).

Figure 8‑E: EU youth indicator: Young people (aged 15-30) staying abroad for volunteering, by country, 2011

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319b ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Apart from vacation or tourism, learning or training, have you ever stayed abroad for at least one month for the purpose of volunteering?’

Base: all respondents, % by country.

Albeit with widespread variations between Member States (the share of young people volunteering abroad is six times higher in Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Luxembourg than in Greece, Slovakia, Italy, Hungary and Portugal), this percentage never exceeds 6 %.

Overall, data show that participation in voluntary activities still concerns a minority of young Europeans, especially in the case of cross-border volunteering. The potential for non-formal learning attached to voluntary experiences appears to be only partly appreciated and exploited by young generations. Many initiatives exist both at local, national and European level aiming at fostering youth engagement in the non-profit sector, and thus at supporting their personal and professional development. However, legal and social barriers hinder more widespread access to voluntary projects, which often curb youth's motivation to participate.

8.3. Encouraging youth participation in voluntary activities

Amongst the most important factors fostering participation of young people in voluntary activities are: the existence of a legal and policy framework giving formal recognition of volunteering; the possibility of receiving financial support for the activities carried out; and the right to obtain formal recognition of the personal and professional experience acquired.

The definition of a legal status for volunteers (of any age) through specific legislation, or within a more general law also covering not-for-profit activities, contributes to protecting participants' rights and clarifying the administrative procedures for their employment. About two thirds of countries in the EU-27 have established formal regulations in the field of volunteering (Figure 8‑F)[147].

Figure 8‑F: Laws on volunteering in 24 EU Member States, 2011

|| Law and Policy

|| Law only

|| Policy only

|| Not participating

|| Not available

Source: EKCYP 2011

As volunteering implies unpaid work, the financial burdens arising from contributing to voluntary activities can represent a powerful disincentive. This is even more crucial when considering volunteering abroad, which implies coping with higher personal expenses due to living in a foreign country without either receiving a scholarship or being employed. Further, leaving one's own country often means the loss of social benefits (such as unemployment benefits) and insurance, which easily makes the option of going abroad discouraging.

According to the EKCYP survey, two thirds of the countries covered report having schemes for financial and/or material compensation for the time and energies young volunteers dedicate to not-for-profit work (Figure 8‑G).

Figure 8‑G: Reimbursement and remuneration for volunteering involvement in 24 EU Member States, 2011

|| Reimbursement of incurred expenses

|| Other (vouchers, accommodation, meals...)

|| Allowances/pocket money

|| Not participating

|| Not available

Source: EKCYP 2011

Participation in voluntary activities does not only offer young people opportunities to make a contribution to society. By taking part in such projects, volunteers also acquire or enhance their professional capabilities through non-formal learning which can later be useful in either continuing education or entering the labour market. Receiving recognition plays an important role in supporting young people's motivation to engage: in the absence of credit that can subsequently be useful on the labour market, many young people prefer to focus on finding internships and apprenticeships to pave their way towards employment.

Youthpass, the certificate issued at the request of the volunteer at the end of his/her service fulfils the role of EU-wide certification. Introduced in 2007, it provides a tool to reflect and analyse the competences gained through cross-border volunteering.

Recognition of the experience acquired through volunteering can be particularly complicated, when the activity has been carried out in another country than the one where the volunteer wishes to either continue education or seek employment, due to differences amongst national validation systems.

One in four young volunteers has received a certificate or a diploma recognising their experiences (Figure 8‑H).

Figure 8‑H: EU youth indicator: Young people (aged 15-30) receiving a certificate or diploma for voluntary activities, 2011

|| Yes || || Dk/NA || || No

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Did you receive a certificate, diploma or other formal recognition for your participation in these voluntary activities?’

Base: respondents who have been involved in any organised voluntary activities, % by country.

These data are supported by information on the existence of schemes for recognising qualifications acquired through voluntary experiences in European countries (Figure 8‑I). One third of countries participating in the EKCYP survey reported having established formal procedures for validating the skills and competences obtained by young volunteers during their periods of service in credit systems.

Figure 8‑I: Recognition of volunteering in 24 EU Member States, 2011

|| Recognition through formal qualification

|| No formal qualification

|| Not participating

|| Not available

Source: EKCYP 2011

Younger individuals (15 to 19) tend to obtain recognition more often than older ones (Figure 8‑J).

Figure 8‑J: Receiving a certificate or diploma for voluntary activities, EU-27 average, by age, 2011

|| 15-19 || 20-24 || 25-30 ||

Yes || 34 || 26 || 16

No || 66 || 74 || 84

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Did you receive a certificate, diploma or other formal recognition for your participation in these voluntary activities?’

Base: respondents who have been involved in any organised voluntary activities,

9. Culture and Creativity 9.1. Introduction

Young people's interest and participation in cultural and artistic activities are of great importance for the enjoyment they give and for their beneficial effects on many areas of a young person's life. Involvement in cultural activities may also help developing personal, social, and professional skills. In fact, cultural interests and creativity can ease the transition from school to the labour market, by imparting non-formal skills useful in either further education and vocational training or professional development. Similarly, by creating opportunities for interpersonal contact and socialisation, they can promote active participation in community life and foster political awareness and engagement. Not least of all, cultural participation is considered essential for furthering the mutual understanding, social inclusion and integration of different national, ethnic and linguistic traditions, and for combating discrimination and social exclusion.

In this context, the development and increased use of new technologies – especially those concerned with computing, the Internet and communications – can potentially nurture young people's creativity and ability to innovate. It is therefore vital to note their general conduct and preferences regarding Culture and Creativity and the main trends in this respect, as well as the reasons why it is important to support and expand their scope for involvement in cultural activities.

9.2. Cultural participation

Young people are the most active in the population of Europe as regards participation in cultural activities. This is borne out by a 2007 Europe-wide survey of the whole population, which reported that those aged 15 to 29 took part in such activities more often than other age groups (Figure 9‑A)[148].

Figure 9‑A: Participation rate for selected cultural activities, EU-27 average, by age, 2007

|| Cinema || Sport || Public library || Concert || Book || Historical monuments || Museums/ Galleries || Theatre

Source: 2007 Special Eurobarometer 278

The same survey reports that young people seem to be more inclined to take advantage of opportunities to learn about and appreciate different cultural traditions, as they are more often exposed to cross-cultural exchanges. This is certainly linked to the considerable scope they have for spending time abroad as part of their education, as under the Erasmus and Youth in Action programmes.

According to the Flash Eurobarometer ‘Youth on the Move’ survey (2011), the majority of young respondents enjoy various cultural offerings, in particular those involving the cinema or concerts (Figure 9‑B). Visits to museums, galleries and historical monuments appear to be less popular, and the performing arts (theatre, dance and opera) less still.

Figure 9‑B: Share of young people (aged 15-30) who say that they have undertaken one or more of the following cultural or amateur artistic activities at least once in the preceding 12 months, EU-27 average, by age, 2011

|| 15-19 || 20-24 || 25-30

Been to the cinema or concert ||

Visited historical monuments (palaces, castles, churces, gardens, etc), museums or galleries)

Been to a theater, dance performance or an opera

Participated in an amateur artistic activity (eg. Playing a musical instrument, singing, acting, dancing, writing poetry, photograpy, film making)

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Notes: The question was ‘Have you participated in any of the following cultural activities in the past year?’

Base: all respondents, % of ’Yes’ answers shown.

Slight national variations exist. Although all countries in the survey reported relatively high levels of cultural involvement some differences were observable (Figure 9‑C).

Figure 9‑C: EU youth indicator: Share of young people (aged 15-30) who say that they have undertaken one or more of the following cultural activities at least once in the preceding 12 months, by country, 2011

|| Monuments, museums or galleries || || Cinema or a concert || || Theatre, a dance performance or an opera

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Have you participated in any of the following cultural activities in the past year?’ (i.e. been to the cinema or a concert, visited a historical monument, museum or gallery, or attended a theatre, dance or opera performance).

Base: all respondents, % by country.

Encouraging results have been reported concerning the real participation of young people in amateur activities, which implies a stronger personal commitment than simple presence at a cultural event or location. One third of young Europeans say they pursue a cultural activity in their free time, whether playing a musical instrument, writing poetry, singing or dancing, or engaging in other performing or visual art activities such as film-making and photography (Figure 9‑D). Naturally, countries vary in their levels of participation. While some (such as Germany and Austria) report that amateur activities are pursued by half of the youth population surveyed, others (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta and Portugal) report that only around a quarter of young people interviewed were involved in cultural and artistic activities.

Figure 9‑D: EU youth indicator: Share of young people (aged 15-30) who say that they have undertaken an amateur artistic activity at least once in the preceding 12 months, by country, 2011

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Have you participated in any of the following cultural activities in the past year?’ (i.e. an amateur artistic activity, e.g. playing a musical instrument, singing, acting, dancing, writing poetry, photography, or film making).

Base: all respondents, % of ‘yes’ answers shown by country.

As regards participation in associations and organisations that promote sport, cultural or youth-related interests, a majority answered positively (Figure 9‑E). Here again, variations exist between countries. While Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands report comparatively high results, in Bulgaria, Cyprus and Poland only a minority of young people seem to be active in such organisations.

Figure 9‑E: EU youth indicator: Share of young people (aged 15-30) who say that they have been active in a sports club, youth club or cultural organisation at least once in the preceding 12 months, by country, 2011

|| Sport club || || Youth club || || Cultural organisation

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Have you in the past year participated in any activities of the following organisations?’ (i.e. a sports club; a youth club, leisure-time club or any kind of youth organisation; a cultural organisation; a local organisation aimed at improving your local community and/or local environment; any other non-governmental organisations; an organisation promoting human rights or global development; a political organisation or a political party; an organisation active in the domain of global climate change/global warming).

Base: all respondents, % by country.

There seems to be some consistency in the tendency of young people to take an interest in all three types of cultural experience discussed so far (presence at cultural events or locations, amateur activities, and membership of sports or cultural organisations). Some countries consistently report the highest levels of participation (Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden), while others (Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Portugal and Romania) constantly report lower percentages.

According to the UNESCO Recommendation on Participation by the People at Large in Cultural Life and Their Contribution to it (1976), access to culture means the existence of concrete opportunities for everyone freely to obtain information, training, knowledge and understanding, and to enjoy cultural values and cultural property, in particular through the creation of appropriate socio-economic conditions. Disadvantaged young people and those at risk of exclusion have fewer opportunities to access culture, often because they lack the financial resources or time to enjoy cultural and artistic activities.

A Commission study, based on a survey of young people (2008) has shed some light on what they themselves regard as the most widespread difficulties in accessing culture[149]. The study indicates that lack of money is a key impediment to cultural participation, given that young people often do not earn enough to purchase cultural goods, either because they are still in education, or at only the first stages of working life. Attitudes among the public in general, as well as young people themselves, also play a role. Interviews reveal that many young people may feel alienated from society and therefore uninterested in participating in its cultural life. Geographical circumstances can also be a problem. As cultural and artistic activity occurs mainly in urban environments in which public transport to and from rural areas may be limited, some young people may feel culturally isolated. Last but not least, they often regard what is culturally on offer as unsatisfactory. In this respect, the cultural offering has to be attractive, creative, and relevant with an interactive dimension to inspire interest and participation on the part of the young.

The study suggests that these and other barriers to cultural access can also be overcome by investing in the digitalisation of cultural output. Creativity and innovation that are related to the life and future of young people are strongly associated with the new technologies, the creative use of the Internet, and the way the young accumulate, analyse and exchange information and knowledge. The digital cultural environment is a central – and still largely unexploited – factor in today's youth culture.

9.3. Youth and use of ICT

The development of ICT and the Internet exerts a strong influence on cultural production and participation, as well on creativity. Among the other benefits of ICT are its vast scope for sharing ideas and knowledge, and overcoming physical and non-physical boundaries. New technologies have expanded access to all cultural and artistic activities, both in terms of an almost unlimited cultural output, and of creative practice (for example, music, video and film-making computer applications). The spread of ICT has also enabled young people to engage in non-formal learning, which can provide useful skills for later professional activity in the cultural and artistic fields.

Around 80 % of young people aged between 16 and 24 use computers and the Internet daily in EU (Figure 9-F)[150]. Denmark, Germany, Estonia, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden report the highest (percentage) levels of computer and Internet use, while Bulgaria, Ireland, Greece and Romania record much lower levels. In the latter country, under half of those surveyed have daily access to ICT.

Both computer and Internet use significantly increased between 2006 and 2011 (Figure 9‑F). The growth was 17 and 33 percentage points for the daily use of a computer and the Internet, respectively. According to data reported below, the largest increases in ICT use have occurred in many of the central and eastern European countries. The Czech Republic, Cyprus, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia in particular have reported dramatic increases in the numbers of young people regularly using computers and the Internet.

Figure 9‑F: Trends in daily computer and Internet use among young people (aged 16-24), 2006 and 2011

a) Daily computer use

b) Daily Internet use

Source: Eurostat 2011 – ISS-HH. Online datacodes: isoc_ci_cfp_fu, isoc_ci_ifp_fu

Notes: Ireland: 2011 data for daily computer use are unreliable according to Eurostat.

Between 2006 and 2011, the proportion of the young population using the internet daily increased in most EU Member States much more than the share of new computer users. During this five-year period, twice as many young people started to use the Internet daily when comparing to those who began using computers. This is closely linked to the fact that a higher number of young people had access to a computer in 2011 than in 2006.

An interesting aspect of the above figures on ICT use concerns the educational level of respondents (Figure 9‑G). In the case of both computers and the Internet, daily levels of use tend to rise with educational attainment. This suggests a positive relation between the level of education and opportunities for young people to access and become familiar with ICT. However, the increase in the number of young people using ICT between 2006 and 2011 seems unrelated to the level of formal education. This increase of 17 percentage points for computer use and 33 percentage points for the Internet is similar in the case of those with both relatively low and high educational levels.

Figure 9‑G: Daily computer and Internet use and level of education among young people (aged 16-24), EU-27 average, 2006 and 2011

Daily computer || Internet use

||

|| Low formal education || || High formal education

Source: Eurostat 2010 – ISS-HH. Online datacodes: isoc_ci_cfp_fu, isoc_ci_ifp_fu

Notes: Low education: primary (ISCED1) and lower-secondary education (ISCED2). High education: tertiary education (ISCED5 and 6).

These findings are even more interesting alongside data on young people's perception of the value of their computer skills in finding a job (Figure 9‑H).

Figure 9‑H: Share of young people (aged 16-24) who think their computer or Internet skills would be sufficient if they were to look for a job or change job within a year, by level of formal education, 2011

|| Low education || || Medium education || || High education

Source: Eurostat 2011 – ISS-HH. Online datacode: isoc_sk_cskl_i

Notes: Low education: primary (ISCED 1) and lower secondary education (ISCED 2)

Medium education: upper secondary education (ISCED 3) and post-secondary non-tertiary education (ISCED 4)

High education: tertiary education (ISCED 5 and 6).

The data suggest that, in most countries, young people's confidence in their computer skills grows with the increase in their educational level. There are a few exceptions such as Austria in which the level of education does not appear to affect people's confidence in their ICT skills.

Yet although formal education seems to have a positive impact in preparing young people for the labour market by equipping them with relevant computer skills, learning by doing – followed by formal education and assistance from friends and family (Figure 9‑I) – appears to be the strategy most used for gaining ICT proficiency.

Figure 9‑I: Main ways of acquiring ICT skills among young people (aged 16-24), EU-27 average, 2011

||

Friends and relatives

Learning by doing

Self-study

Training courses on own initiative

Formal education

Source: Eurostat 2011 – ISS-HH. Online datacode: isoc_sk_how_i

Differences in educational level also affect young people's attitudes towards Internet security. Except in the case of Belgium, and to some extent Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden, the higher the level of formal education, the stronger the awareness of risks in surfing the Internet, such as financial fraud and the unwanted disclosure of personal information (Figure 9‑J). A higher educational level means better training and greater awareness regarding the potential dangers of surfing the Web, while those who leave school early are more vulnerable to such risks. The value of completing a high level of education in order to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by ICT is also reflected in greater attention to Internet user safety.

Figure 9‑J: Share of young people (aged 16-24) expressing concern about Internet security, by level of education, 2010

Strongly concerned about abuse of PERSONAL INFORMATION sent on the Internet and/or other privacy violations (e.g. abuse of pictures, videos, personal data uploaded on community websites)

|| Low education || || High education

Strongly concerned about FINANCIAL LOSS as a result of receiving fraudulent messages ('phishing') or getting redirected to fake websites asking for personal information ('pharming')

|| Low education || || High education

Source: Eurostat 2010 – ISS-HH. Online datacode: isoc_cisci_co

9.4. Fostering creativity through education

Creativity and culture are closely interrelated[151]. In this sense, creativity represents a set of transversal soft skills that facilitate the processes of learning, the use of knowledge for creating innovation, cultural participation and, not least of all, the development of entrepreneurial and professional skills.

At an individual level, creativity is associated with the development of personal aptitudes such as problem-solving, experimentation, risk-taking and the ability to learn from failure, use of the imagination and hypothetical reasoning, and a sense of entrepreneurship. In this respect, education and training play an essential role in fostering such aptitudes in young people. Because of the broad spectrum of components the concept of creativity entails, its application in the domain of education has proved particularly difficult to measure.

A study conducted by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in 2010 focused on evaluating the extent to which European education and training systems are equipped to enhance these skills amongst students in compulsory (primary and lower secondary) education[152]. The study concluded that the term ‘creativity’ is quite frequently mentioned in curricula in many EU countries. In most of them it is seen as an essential part of learning, which encourages children and young people to be successful learners and confident, effective and responsible citizens. Creativity is viewed as a skill that should be nurtured and developed in most subjects.

However, the extent to which creativity is really a part of learning seems to be limited. The study also showed that the majority of school teachers did not include activities fostering creativity (for example, multidisciplinary work) in their classrooms. Despite recognising its importance, potentially relevant activities are not widely pursued in schools.

A composite indicator for measuring creativity in countries has been developed, which consists of sub-indicators dealing with various aspects of creativity, including its level in education[153]. EU-27 Member States score as shown in Figure 9‑K.

Figure 9‑K: Measuring creative education in the, by country, 2009

Source: Hollanders and van Cruysen 2009

Note: Composite indicator to measure the level of creative education, highest possible value = 1.

Countries fall into two main geographical areas in Europe: the northern and Scandinavian regions seem to have designed education and training systems that enhance student creativity to a greater extent than the southern and eastern ones.

10. Youth and the World 10.1. Introduction

Young people growing up in the era of globalisation can play a crucial role in bringing about global change around issues such as climate change, sustainable development or the promotion of human rights. Young people are also the ones who are disproportionately affected by globalisation[154].

10.2. Young people's engagement with global issues

Young people's engagement with global issues in general is quite low in the EU-27 (Figure 10‑A). The Eurobarometer survey on ‘Youth on the Move’ found that only 3.2 % of young Europeans participated in NGOs active in the domain of climate change, while 5.2 % were engaged with human rights or global development issues. This also means that when it comes to young people's participation in non-governmental organisations, human rights or global development are more popular themes than global climate change.

Nevertheless, the variation among countries is substantial. When it comes to human rights or global development, the participation of young people is ranging from 11.1 % in Denmark to 1.3 % in Hungary. In terms of climate change, young people's participation is between 5.6 % (Ireland) and 1.3 % (Poland). Young people's participation in both domains tends to be higher in western Europe than in eastern Europe, though not without exceptions.

Among those who participate, almost two thirds of young people active in the relevant NGOs were in education or training at the time of the survey (Figure 10‑B). There are no significant differences in involvement between young men and women, neither among the different age groups within young people[155].

Figure 10‑A: EU youth indicator: Participation of young people (aged 15-30) in non-governmental organisations active in the domains of global climate change/global warming, human rights or global development, self-reported participation in the last 12 months, by country, 2011

|| Global climate change/global warming || || Human rights or global development

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Notes: The questions were ‘An organisation active in the domain of global climate change/global warming – Have you in the past year participated in any activities of the following organisations?’; ‘An organisation promoting human rights or global development – Have you in the past year participated in any activities of the following organisations?’

Base: all respondents, % of ‘yes’ answers by country, EU-27.

Figure 10‑B: Young people (aged 15-30) participating in non-governmental organisations active in the domains of global climate change/global warming, human rights or global development, by being in education or training or not, EU-27 average, 2011

Climate change/global warming || Human rights or global development

||

|| Currently in education or training || || Currently not in education or training

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Notes: The questions were ‘An organisation active in the domain of global climate change/global warming – Have you in the past year participated in any activities of the following organisations?’; ‘An organisation promoting human rights or global development – Have you in the past year participated in any activities of the following organisations?’

Base: all respondents, % of ‘yes’ answers, EU-27.

10.3. Cooperation among young people from different continents

Several EU-27 countries support volunteers to engage in global development causes[156]. The Youth in Action programme also devotes specific action to cooperation with the EU Partner Countries and supports volunteers in development cooperation. However, data on accredited organisations in the framework of the European Voluntary Service reveal that only 1.1 % of such organisations had development cooperation as a principal theme in 2010 within the EU-27 (see also Chapter 8 on Voluntary Activities). This means a total of 43 organisations, most of which were accredited in Germany, Italy and Portugal (Figure 10‑C).

Figure 10‑C: Accredited European Voluntary Service organisations having development cooperation as the main theme, by country, 2010

Source: SALTO Youth and EACEA

Figures for the participation of young people in activities involving cooperation with young people from other continents are similarly low. As Figure 10‑D shows, only around 4 % of young Europeans reported such participation in the 2011 Eurobarometer survey. Again, differences between countries are quite significant: while 7.6 % of young Germans and Austrians engage in cooperation with young people from other continents, the figure is barely higher than 1 % in Bulgaria, Poland or Romania. Young people from western and northern Europe are more likely to participate in international/global activities or projects than their counterparts in eastern and southern Europe.

Figure 10‑D: Participation of young people (aged 15-30) in activities or projects aimed at fostering cooperation with young people from other continents,  self-reported participation in the last 12 months, by country, 2011

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Have you participated in any activities or projects during the past year aimed at fostering cooperation with youth from other countries?’

Base: all respondents, % of ‘Yes, in activities/projects with young people from other continents’ answers by country, EU-27.

Similar to the findings above, among the young people participating in relevant activities and projects, two thirds are taking part in education and training (Figure 10‑E). In addition, as Figure 10‑F demonstrates, the youngest age group (15 to 19) is slightly overrepresented in projects involving young people from other continents[157], while young people aged 20 to 24 participate least in such activities. However, there is no difference between the participation of young men and women[158].

Figure 10‑E: Young people (aged 15-30) participating in activities or projects aimed at fostering cooperation with young people from other continents, by being in education or training or not, EU-27 average, 2011 || Figure 10‑F: Young people (aged 15-30) participating in activities or projects aimed at fostering cooperation with young people from other continents, EU-27 average, by age, 2011

|| Currently in education or training

|| Currently not in education or training

|| 15-19 || || 20-24 || || 25-30

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Have you participated in any activities or projects during the past year aimed at fostering cooperation with youth from other countries?’

Base: all respondents, % of ‘Yes, in activities/projects with young people from other continents’ answers, EU-27.

11. Annex 11.1. Table of abbreviations

Statistical codes

:           Data not available

V         Not participating

Country codes

EU Member States[159]

BE || Belgium

BE-nl || Flemish Community of Belgium

BE-fr || French Community of Belgium

||

BG || Bulgaria

CZ || Czech Republic

DK || Denmark

DE || Germany

EE || Estonia

IE || Ireland

EL || Greece

ES || Spain

FR || France

IT || Italy

CY || Cyprus

LV || Latvia

LT || Lithuania

LU || Luxembourg

HU || Hungary

MT || Malta

NL || Netherlands

AT || Austria

PL || Poland

PT || Portugal

RO || Romania

SI || Slovenia

SK || Slovakia

FI || Finland

SE || Sweden

UK || United Kingdom

UK-ENG/WLS || England and Wales

UK-NIR || Northern Ireland

UK-SCT || Scotland

UK (1) || United Kingdom – England, Wales and Northern Ireland

||

Non-EU Member States

LI || Liechtenstein

NO || Norway

CH || Switzerland

||

HR || Croatia

ME || Montenegro

IS || Iceland

MK || the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

RS || Serbia

TR || Turkey

||

Other Abbreviations

CoE || Council of Europe

DG EAC || Directorate General for Education and Culture

DK/NA || Don't know/not applicable

EACEA || Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

EEA || European Economic Area

EFTA || European Free Trade Association

EHEA || European Higher Education Area

EHIS || European Health Interview Survey

EKCYP || European Knowledge Centre on Youth Policy

EMCDDA || European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

EQF || European Qualifications Framework

ESC || European Steering Committee for the Structured Dialogue

ESF || European Social Fund

ESPAD || European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs

ESS || European Social Survey

EU || European Union

EU-15 || The 15 Member States of the EU before 1 May 2004

EU-27 || The 27 Member States of the EU after 1 January, 2007

EVS || European Voluntary Service

GHB || γ-Hydroxybutyric acid, illegal narcotic substance

GP || General practitioner

HBSC || Health Behaviour In School-Aged Children, WHO Collaborative Cross-National Survey

HIS || Health Interview Survey

ICT || information and communications technology

IL || intergenerational learning

ILO || International Labour Organisation

ISCED || International Standard Classification of Education

ISCO || International Classifications of Occupations

ISS-HH || Survey on ICT Usage in Households and by Individuals

LFS || Labour Force Survey

MS || Member State(s)

NEET || Not in employment, education or training

NGO || non-governmental organisation

NQSF || National Quality Standards Framework

NWG || National Working Group

NYC || National Youth Council

OECD || Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

SALTO || Support, Advanced Learning and Training Opportunities within the European YOUTH programme – a network of eight resource centres

SILC || Statistics on Income and Living Conditions

South Med || Southern Mediterranean region

TFEU || Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

TFR || Total Fertility Rate

UN || United Nations

UNICEF || United Nations Children's Fund

UOE || United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation Institute for Statistics (UNESCO-UIS), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat)

VET || Vocational education and training

WHO || World Health Organization

11.2. Dashboard of youth indicators

PART 1 ||

POLICY DOMAINS WITH EXISTING INDICATORS ||

||

|| || || || || || ||

0. CONTEXT ||

Indicator || Definition/Comment ||

|| || ||

0.1. Child population || Definition: The total number of children in the age groups 0-14  living in a Member State of the European Union on January 1.                                                                                                         Source: Eurostat demographic data. ||

0.2. Youth population || Definition: The total number of young people in the age groups 15-19, 20-24 and 25-29  living in a Member State of the European Union on January 1.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Source: Eurostat demographic data. ||

0.3. The ratio of young people in the total population || Definition: Young people (age groups 15-19, 20-24 and 25-29) as a share of the total population living in a Member State of the European Union on January 1.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Source: Eurostat demographic data. ||

0.4. Mean age of young people leaving the parental household || Definition: Mean age of young people leaving home.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Source: Eurostat EU LFS. ||

1. EDUCATION & TRAINING ||

Indicator || Definition/Comment ||

|| || ||

1.1. Early leavers from education and training || Definition: % of the population aged 18-24 with at most lower secondary education and who is no longer in education or training.                                                      EU target: Less than 10 % by 2020.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Source: Eurostat EU LFS. ||

1.2. Low achievers || Reading || Definition: Share of 15 year olds who get a score of 1 or below (on a scale from 1 to 5) in PISA tests.                                                                                                                                                                     EU target: less than 15 % by 2020.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Source: OECD - PISA (2009). Every 3 years, upcoming in 2012. Comment: PISA 2003 analyses data from 19 MS while PISA 2006 and PISA 2009 analyse data from 25 MS. PISA science tests were introduced in 2006. ||

Mathematics ||

Science ||

1.3. Tertiary education attainment || Definition: Share of population aged 30-34 with tertiary education attainment.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       EU target: By 2020, at least 40 .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Source: Eurostat EU LFS. ||

1.4. Young people (20-24) having completed at least upper secondary education || Definition: Percentage of young people aged 20-24 having completed at least upper secondary education (ISCED level 3c)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Source: Eurostat EU LFS. ||

1.5. Learning at least two foreign languages || Definition: Young people in upper secondary education (ISCED level 3 general programmes, excluding pre-vocational and vocational education) learning two or more foreign languages.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Source: Eurostat data collection on language learning in schools                                                                                                                                                                                      ||

2. EMPLOYMENT & ENTREPRENEURSHIP ||

Indicator || Definition/Comment ||

|| || ||

2.1. Youth unemployment || 2.1.1. Youth unemployment rate || Definition: Share of unemployed among active population (employed and unemployed) aged 15-24.                                                                                                                   Source: Eurostat EU LFS. ||

2.1.2. Long-term youth unemployment rate || Definition: Share of unemployed youth 15-24 without a job for the last 12 months or more among all unemployed in this age group                                                                      Source: Eurostat EU LFS. ||

2.2. Youth unemployment ratio  || Definition: Share of unemployed among the total population (employed, unemployed and inactive), aged 15-24.                                                                                                                            Comment: This balances out differences in MS activity rates, which influences unemployment rate.                                                                                                                                                  Source: Eurostat LFS. ||

2.3. Self-employed youth || Definition: Percentage of self-employed among  all employed aged 20-24 and 25-29                                                                                                                                                                                       Source: Eurostat EU LFS. ||

2.4. Young people who would like to set up their own business || Definition: The share of young people age 15-30 answering YES to the question "Would you like to set up your own business in the future?". Source: DG EAC Flash Eurobarometer on youth.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ||

2.5. Young employees with a temporary contract || Definition: The share of young employed people (age 20-29) who are on a contract of limited duration.                                                                                                                                             Source: Eurostat EU LFS                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Comment: Age class 20-29 is chosen since younger youth often have a temporary contract because they are in apprenticeships. ||

3. HEALTH & WELL-BEING

Indicator || Definition/Comment

|| ||

3.1. Regular smokers || Definition: Share of  daily cigarette smokers in the population aged 15-24.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Source: Eurostat, Health Interview Surveys 1996-2003, depending on country. Upcoming data will come from latest wave 2007-2009. ECHIM #44.

3.2. Obesity || Definition: Young people 18-24 with a Body Mass Index of 30 or above.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Source: Eurostat, Health Interview Surveys (EHIS). Every 5 years Last wave 2007-2009. ECHIM #42.

3.3. Drunkness past 30 days  || Target group: Students turning age 16 during year of ESPAD data-collection.                                                                                                                                                                                  Definition: Share of target group who reported having been  drunk in the last 30 days.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Source: ESPAD survey data. No data for ES+LU. Upcoming data will come from latest wave 2011-2012.                                                                                                                                                                                           

3.4. Cause of death of young people - suicide || Definition: Deaths caused by suicide per 100 000 inhabitants aged 15-24.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Source: Eurostat, Causes of death DB. ECHIM #13.

3.5. Psychological distress || Definition: Young people (15-24) having had psychological distress during the past four weeks. Source: Eurostat, EHIS. ECHIM #38.

3.6. Injuries: road traffic: self-reported incidences || Definition: Proportion of individuals aged 15-24 reporting to have had a road traffic accident, which resulted in injury for which medical treatment was sought during the past 12 months. Source: Eurostat, EHIS. ECHIM #30(a).

3.7. Use of illicit drugs[160] || Definition: Proportion of individuals aged 15-34 reporting to have used cannabis during the past 12 months. Source: EMCDDA (surveys between 2004-2010).

4. SOCIAL INCLUSION

Indicator || Definition/Comment

|| ||

4.1. At-risk-of-poverty or exclusion rate || 4.1.1. For children (<18) compared to total population || Definition: The share of children (under age 18)  who are at risk of poverty and/or severely materially deprived and/or living in a household with very low work intensity compared to total population Source: Eurostat EU SILC.

4.1.2. For young people (18-24) compared to total population || Definition: The share of young people (18-24) who are at risk of poverty and/or severely materially deprived and/or living in a household with very low work intensity compared to total population.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Source: Eurostat EU SILC.

4.2. At-risk-of-poverty rate || 4.2.1. For children (<18) compared to total population || Definition: The share of children (under age 18) living in families with an equivalised disposable income below 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable income (after social transfers) compared to total population.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Source: Eurostat EU SILC.

4.2.2. For young people (18-24) compared to total population || Definition: The share of young people (18-24) living in families with an equivalised disposable income below 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable income (after social transfers) compared to total population.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Source: Eurostat EU SILC.

4.3. Severe Material deprivation rate || 4.3.1. For children (<18) compared to total population || Definition: percentage of the population that cannot afford at least three of the following nine 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 cannot afford to buy a: 6) TV 7) Refrigerator, 8) Car, 9) Telephone; compared to total population.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Source: Eurostat EU SILC.

4.3.2. For young people (18-24) compared to total population

4.4. Living in households with very low work intensity || 4.4.1. For children (<18) compared to total population || Definition: The share of children (under age 18) who live in households with very low work intensity (households where adults worked less than 20 % of their total work potential during the past year) compared to total population.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Source: Eurostat SILC.

4.4.2. For young people (18-24) compared to total population || Definition: The share of young people (18-24) who live in households with very low work intensity (households where adults worked less than 20 % of their total work potential during the past year) compared to total population.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Source: Eurostat SILC.

4.5. Self-reported unmet need for medical care for young people (18-24) compared to total population || Definition: Self-reported unmet need for medical care for the following 3 reasons: financial barriers + too far to travel + waiting times, compared to total population.                                                          Comment: To be analysed together with 'care utilisation, defined as the number of visits to the doctor (GP or specialist) during the last 12 months.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Source: Eurostat SILC.

4.6. Young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) || Definition: Young people (age group 15-24 not in employment, nor in any education or training.                                                                                                                                                       Source: Eurostat LFS.

PART 2

POLICY DOMAINS WITH NEW INDICATORS

|| || || || || ||

5. CULTURE & CREATIVITY

|| ||

5.1. Performing/taking part in amateur artistic activities || Definition: Share of young people (15-30) who declare that they have participated in any of the following amateur artistic activities at least once in the last 12 months: Playing a musical instrument, singing, acting, dancing, writing poetry, photography, film-making.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Source: DG EAC Flash Eurobarometer on youth.

5.2. Participation in cultural activities || Definition: Share of young people (aged 15-30) reporting that they have participated in any of the following cultural activities in the last 12 months:  visited historical monuments (palaces, castles, churches, gardens, etc.), museums or galleries, been to a cinema or a concert, a theatre, a dance performance or an opera.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Source: DG EAC Flash Eurobarometer on youth.

5.3. Participation in sports clubs, leisure time or youth clubs/associations or cultural organisations  || Definition: Share of young people (aged 15-30) reporting that they have participated in activities of a sports club, leisure time or youth club, any kind of youth association or cultural organisation in the last 12 months.                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Source: DG EAC Flash Eurobarometer on youth.

6. YOUTH PARTICIPATION

Indicator || Definition/Comment

|| ||

6.1. Young people's participation in political organisations/party or community/environmentally-oriented organisations || Definition: Self-reported participation in activities of a political organisation or political party or a local organisation aimed at improving their local community and/or local environment in the last 12 months. Age 15-30.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Source: DG EAC Flash Eurobarometer on youth.

6.2. Participation of young people in political elections at local, regional, national or EU level || Definition: Percentage of young people aged 18-30 who declare that they participated in political elections at either local, regional, national or EU level in the last three years.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Source: DG EAC Flash Eurobarometer on youth.

6.3. Young people aged 18-30 who got elected into the European Parliament || Definition: The number of young Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) elected into the European Parliament in the last elections (2009). Source: The European Parliament.

6.4. Young people who use internet for interaction with public authorities || Definition: Percentage of individuals aged 16-24 who have used the Internet, in the last 12 months for interaction with public authorities (i.e. having used the Internet for one or more of the following activities: obtaining information from public authorities web sites, downloading official forms, sending filled in forms). Source: Eurostat, Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals.

6.5. Young people using internet for accessing or posting opinions on websites (e.g. blogs, social networks, etc) for discussing civic and political issues (in the last three months). || Definition: Percentage of individuals aged 16-24 declaring that they have used internet for accessing or posting opinions on websites (e.g. blogs, social networks, etc) for discussing civic and political issues (in the last three months).                                     Source: Eurostat, Survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals.

7. VOLUNTEERING

Indicator || Definition/Comment

|| ||

7.1. Young people's participation in organised voluntary activities  || Definition: Self-reported involvement in organised voluntary activities in the last 12 months. Age 15-30.                                                                                                                             Source: DG EAC Flash Eurobarometer on youth.

7.2. Share of young people participating in organised voluntary activities aimed at improving their local community  || Definition: Share of young people (age 15-30) declaring that they have taken part in any voluntary action aimed at changing something in their local community during the last 12 months.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Source: DG EAC Flash Eurobarometer on youth.

7.3. Share of young people who have stayed abroad for the purpose of volunteering || Definition: Share of young people (age 15-30) declaring that they have stayed abroad for the purpose of volunteering.                                                Source: DG EAC Flash Eurobarometer on youth.

7.4. Formal recognition of participation in voluntary activities || Definition: Share of young people (age 15-30) that declare having taken part in voluntary activities who have received a certificate, a diploma or other kind of formal recognition for their participation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Source: DG EAC Flash Eurobarometer on youth.

8. YOUTH & THE WORLD

Indicator || Definition/Comment

|| ||

8.1. Young people's participation in non-governmental organisations active in the domains of global climate change/global warming, development aid or human rights || Definition: Self-reported participation in activities of an organisation active in the domain of global climate change/global warming, global development or promoting human rights in the last 12 months. Age 15-30.                                                                                                                                                                                                               Source: DG EAC Flash Eurobarometer on youth.

8.2. Participation of young people in activities or projects aimed at fostering cooperation  with youth from other continents || Definition: Self-reported involvement of young people in activities or projects during the past year aimed at fostering cooperation with youth from other continents. Age 15-30.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Source: DG EAC Flash Eurobarometer on youth.

11.3. Bibliography

Aassve, A., Billari, F.C., Mazzuco, S. and Ongaro, F., 2002. Leaving home: a comparative analysis of ECHP data. In: Journal of European Social Policy, 12(4), pp. 259-275.

Aassve, A., Davia, M.A., Iacovou, M. and Mazzuco, S., 2007. Does leaving home make you poor? Evidence from 13 European countries. In: European Journal of Population, 23(3), pp. 315-338.

Adams, P., 2010. A History of Global Youth Work. Development Education Association (DEA) Thinkpiece. Available at: http://www.think-global.org.uk/getinvolved/thinkpieces.asp [Accessed 30 April 2012].

Barber, T., 2010. Participation, Citizenship, and Well-being: Engaging with Young People, Making a Difference. In: Young, 17, pp. 25-40.

Belfield, C.R., Levin, H.M. and Rosen, R., 2012. The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth. Written for the Corporation for National and Community Service and the White House Council for Community Solutions, in association with Civic Enterprises. Available at: http://www.civicenterprises.net/reports/econ_value_opportunity_youth.pdf [Accessed 11 April 2012].

Buchmann, M.C, 2011. School-to-work transitions. In: B. Bradford Brown and M. J. Prinstein, ed. Encyclopedia of adolescence. Elsevier: Oxford, vol. 2, pp. 306-313.

Cedefop, 2010. The Skill Matching Challenge: Analysing Skill Mismatch and Policy Implications. Luxembourg: Cedefop.

Coleman, D., 2008. The demographic effects of international migration in Europe. In: Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(3).

EACEA, 2008. Access of young people to culture. Brussels: EACEA. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/youth/documents/study-on-youth-access-to-culture-full-report_en.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

ECORYS, 2011. Assessing practices for using indicators in fields related to youth – Final Report for the European Commission, DG Education and Culture. Available at: http://youth-partnership-eu.coe.int/youth-partnership/documents/EKCYP/Youth_Policy/docs/YP_strategies/Research/ECORYS_Final_Report.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction), 2008. Drugs and Vulnerable Groups of Young People. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_64250_EN_EMCDDA_SI08_vulnerable-young.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

EMCDDA, 2009. Polydrug use: Patterns and Responses. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_93217_EN_EMCDDA_SI09_polydrug%20use.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

ESPAD (The European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs), 2009. The 2007 ESPAD Report. Substance Use among Students in 35 European Countries. Stockholm: The Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs.

ESPAD, 2012. The 2011 ESPAD Report. Substance Use Among Students in 36 European Countries. Stockholm: The Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs.

Eurofound (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions), 2011a. Foundation Findings: Youth and Work. Dublin: Eurofound.

Eurofound, 2011b. Young People and NEETs in Europe: First Findings. Dublin: Eurofound.

European Commission, 2006. Commission Communication: The demographic future of Europe – from challenge to opportunity. COM(2006) 571 final. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52006DC0571:EN:NOT [Accessed 30 November 2011].

European Commission, 2007a. Looking Behind the Figures: The Main Results of the 2007 Eurobarometer Survey on Youth. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission, 2007b. European Cultural Values. Special Eurobarometer 278. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_278_en.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

European Commission, 2007c. Young Europeans – A survey among young people aged between 15-30 in the European Union. Flash Eurobarometer 202. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_202_en.pdf [Accessed 19 July 2012].

European Commission, 2010a. Employment in Europe 2010. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission, 2010b. The Social Situation in the European Union 2009. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission, 2011a. Commission Staff Working Document on EU Indicators in the Field of Youth, SEC(2011) 401 final, Brussels, 25.03.2011.

European Commission, 2011b. Communication from the Commission on Early Childhood Education and Care: Providing All Our Children with the Best Start for the World of Tomorrow, COM(2011) 66 final, Brussels, 17.2.2011.

European Commission, 2011c. Demography Report 2010: older, more numerous and diverse Europeans. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=5936&furtherPubs=yes [Accessed 13 June 2012].

European Commission, 2011d. Employment and Social Developments in Europe. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=113&langId=en&pubId=6176&type=2&furtherPubs=yes [Accessed 13 June 2012].

European Commission, 2011e. Reducing early school leaving. Commission staff working paper accompanying the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving. SEC (2011) 96 final.

European Commission, 2011f. The Measurement of Extreme Poverty in the European Union. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=982&furtherNews=yes [Accessed 4 April 2012].

European Commission, 2011g. Youth on the Move. Analytical Report. Flash Eurobarometer 319a Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_319a_en.pdf [Accessed 11 May 2012].

European Commission, 2011h. Youth on the Move. Analytical Report. Flash Eurobarometer 319b. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_319b_en.pdf [Accessed 11 May 2012].

European Commission, 2012a. Active aging. Special Eurobarometer 378. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission, 2012b. Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2011. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission, 2012c. Erasmus – Facts, Figures and Trends. The European Union support for student and staff exchanges and university cooperation in 2010-11. Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission, 2012d. Youth Participation in Democratic Life (forthcoming).

European Commission, 2012e. Study on a comprehensive overview on traineeship arrangements in Member States. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7754&langId=en [Accessed 18 July 2012].

European Commission, 2012f. EU Employment and Social Situation – Quarterly Review June 2012. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/12/695&format=PDF&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en [Accessed 18 July 2012].

European Commission, n.d. Youth in Action Programme Guide. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/youth/youth-in-action-programme/doc/how_to_participate/programme_guide_11/programme-guide_en.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 2010. Creative Learning and Innovative Teaching. Final Report on the Study on Creativity and Innovation in Education in the EU Member States. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

European Commission/EACEA, 2011. Study on Volunteering in the European Union. Final Report. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/doc1018_en.pdf [Accessed 13 June 2012].

European Parliament, 2011. Voluntary Work. European Parliament Special Eurobarometer 75.2. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/eurobarometre/2011/juillet/04_07/SA_en.pdf [Accessed 13 June 2012].

Eurostat, 2006. Classification of learning activities – Manual. Luxembourg: European Commission.

Eurostat, 2008a. Population and social conditions. Statistics in Focus, 72/2008. Luxembourg: European Commission. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-08-072/EN/KS-SF-08-072-EN.PDF [Accessed 2 December 2011].

Eurostat, 2008b. The Life of Women and Men in Europe. A Statistical Portrait. Luxembourg: Eurostat.

Eurostat, 2011a. Population and social conditions. Statistics in Focus, 34/2011 Luxembourg: European Commission. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-11-034/EN/KS-SF-11-034-EN.PDF [Accessed 13 June 2012].

Eurostat, 2011b. Fewer, older and multicultural? Projections of the EU populations by foreign/national background. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-11-019/EN/KS-RA-11-019-EN.PDF [Accessed 2 December 2011].

Eurostat, 2012a. Glossary: Equivalised Income. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Equivalised_income [Accessed 7 June 2012].

Eurostat, 2012b. Glossary: Housing Cost Overburden Rate. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Housing_cost_overburden_rate [Accessed 10 April 2012].

Eurostat, 2012c. Glossary: Severe Housing Deprivation Rate. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Severe_housing_deprivation_rate [Accessed 10 April 2012].

Eurostat, 2012d. Population and Social Conditions. Statistics in Focus, 9/2012. Luxembourg: Eurostat. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-12-009/EN/KS-SF-12-009-EN.PDF [Accessed 8 May 2012].

Eurostat, 2012e. Glossary: Persons living in households with low work intensity. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Persons_living_in_households_with_low_work_intensity [Accessed 7 June 2012].

Eurydice/EACEA and Eurostat, 2012. Key Data on Education in Europe 2012. Brussels: Eurydice. Available at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/134EN.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

Eurydice/EACEA, 2009a. Integrating Immigrant Children into Schools in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice. Available at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/101EN.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

Eurydice/EACEA, 2009b. Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe: Tackling Social and Cultural Inequalities. Brussels: Eurydice. Available at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/098EN.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

Eurydice/EACEA, 2010. Gender Differences in Educational Outcomes: Study on the Measures Taken and the Current Situation in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice. Available at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/120EN.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

Eurydice/EACEA, 2011a. Adults in Formal Education: Policies and Practice in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice. Available at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/128EN.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

Eurydice/EACEA, 2011b. Key Data on Learning and Innovation through ICT at School in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice. Available at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/129EN.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

Eurydice/EACEA, 2011c. Science Education in Europe: National Policies, Practices and Research. Brussels: Eurydice. Available at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/133EN.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

Eurydice/EACEA, 2012a. Citizenship Education in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice. Available at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/139EN.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

Eurydice/EACEA, 2012b. The European Higher Education Area in 2012: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Brussels: Eurydice. Available at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/138EN.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

Faragau, B., 2011. Mid-term Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the European Voluntary Service. Master thesis, unpublished.

FEANTSA (European Federation of National Associations Working with the Homeless), n.d. ETHOS – European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion. Brussels: FEANTSA. Available at: http://www.feantsa.org/files/freshstart/Toolkits/Ethos/Leaflet/EN.pdf [Accessed 10 April 2012].

Feixa, C., Pereira, I. and Juris, J.S., 2009. Global Citizenship and the ‘New, New’ Social Movements: Iberian Connections. In: Young, 17, pp. 421-442.

Gaiser, W., De Rijke, J. and Spannring, N., 2010. Youth and Political Participation. Empirical Results for Germany within a European Context. In: Young, 18, pp. 427-450.

Harris, A., Wyn, J. and Youned, S., 2010. Beyond Apathetic or Activist Youth: ‘Ordinary’ Young People and Contemporary Forms of Participation. In: Young, 18, pp. 9-32.

Hirzalla, F. and van Zoonen, L., 2010. Beyond the Online/Offline Divide: How Youth's Online and Offline Civic Activities Converge. In: Social Science Computer Review, Available at: http://ssc.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/09/24/0894439310385538 [Accessed 13 June 2012].

Hoikkala, T., 2009. The Diversity of Youth Citizenships in the European Union. In: Young, 17, pp. 5-24.

Hollanders, H. and van Cruysen, A., 2009. Design, Creativity and Innovation: a scoreboard approach. In: European Commission, Measuring Creativity. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/creativity/report/design.pdf [Accessed 13 June 2012].

Iacovou, M., 2001. Leaving Home in the European Union. ISER Working Papers 2001-18. Available at: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/iser_working_papers/2001-18.pdf [Accessed 8 May 2012].

ICP (Innovations in Civic Participation), 2008. Innovations in International Youth Volunteering. An Analysis of 22 Innovative Youth Volunteer Programs from around the World. London: V. Available at: http://icicp.org/resourcecenter/files/2011/07/V-project-Final-report.pdf [Accessed 13 June 2012].

ILO (International Labour Organisation), 2012. Global Employment Trends for Youth: 2012 Update. Geneva: ILO. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_180977.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2012].

Kestilä-Kekkonen, E., 2009. Anti-party Sentiment among Young Adults. Evidence from Fourteen West European Countries. In: Young, 17, pp. 145-165.

Kutsar, D. and Helve, H., 2012. ‘Social Inclusion of Youth on the Margins of Society: More Opportunities, Better Access, and Higher Solidarity’ Policy review of the Youth Research Cluster on Social Inclusion (forthcoming).

MOVISIE (Netherlands centre for social development), 2012. Homeless Youth.  Available at: http://www.movisie.nl/homelessyouth [Accessed 7 June 2012].

ODI (Overseas Development Institute), 2010. The Impacts of the Economic Crisis on Youth. Review of Evidence. London: ODI. Available at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/PDF/Outputs/Mis_SPC/60828_Youth-Evidence-Review-Final.pdf [Accessed 21 May 2012].

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2011. OECD Employment Outlook 2011. Paris: OECD.

Orr, D., Gwosc, C. and Netz, N., 2011. Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe. Synopsis of indicators. Final report. Eurostudent IV 2008–2011. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag. Available at: http://www.eurostudent.eu/download_files/documents/EIV_Synopsis_of_Indicators.pdf [Accessed 29 May 2012].

Partnership between the European Commission and the Council of Europe in the field of Youth, 2007. The Socio-economic scope of Youth Work in Europe. Available at: http://youth-partnership-eu.coe.int/youth-partnership/documents/EKCYP/Youth_Policy/docs/Youth_Work/Research/study_Final.pdf [Accessed 2 May 2012].

Partnership between the European Commission and the Council of Europe in the field of Youth, 2011a. Volunteering of Young People in Europe. Available at: http://youth-partnership-eu.coe.int/youth-partnership/documents/EKCYP/Youth_Policy/docs/Voluntary/Research/Summary_report_VOLUNTEERING_OF_YOUNG_PEOPLE_IN_EUROPE.pdf [Accessed 13 June 2012].

Partnership between the European Commission and the Council of Europe in the field of Youth, 2011b. Youth Participation in Policy Making. Available at: http://youth-partnership-eu.coe.int/youth-partnership/documents/EKCYP/Youth_Policy/docs/Citizenship/Research/Summary_report_participation_final.pdf [Accessed 13 June 2012].

Ravallion, M., 1994. Poverty Comparisons. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Salamon, L.M. and Sokolowski, W., 2001. Volunteering in Cross-National Perspective: Evidence From 24 Countries. Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, no. 40. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.

SALTO-Youth, 2009. Youth Influence, the Real Deal. Brussels: SALTO.

SALTO-Youth, 2011. Inclusion through Employability. Youth Work Approaches to Unemployment. Brussels: SALTO-Youth Inclusion Resource Centre. Available at: http://www.salto-youth.net/downloads/4-17-2316/InclusionThroughEmployability.pdf [Accessed 11 May 2012].

Santo, C.A, Ferguson, N. and Trippel, A., 2010. Engaging Urban Youth through Technology: The Youth Neighbourhood Mapping Initiative. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research, 30, pp. 52-65.

Social Protection Committee, 2012. SPC Advisory Report to the European Commission on Tackling and preventing child poverty, promoting child well-being. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7849&langId=en [Accessed 20 July 2012].

Szalai, J., 2011. ‘Ethnic Differences in Education and Diverging Prospects for Urban Youth in an Enlarged Europe’ EDUMIGROM Summary Findings. Budapest: Central European University, Center for Policy Studies.

United Nations, 2011. Current Status of the Social Situation, Well-Being, Participation in Development and Rights of Older Persons Worldwide. New York: United Nations. Available at: http://social.un.org/index/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=jpOj8HtfwHU%3d&tabid=502 [Accessed 13 June 2012].

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2003. Young People in a Globalizing World. In: World Youth Report 2003. New York: United Nations, pp. 209-309.

Université de Genève, 2012. YOUNEX: Youth Unemployment and Exclusion in Europe. Available at: http://www.younex.unige.ch/index.html [Accessed 7 June 2012].

Vinken, H., 2005. Young People's Civic Engagement: The Need for New Perspectives. In: H. Helve and G. Holm, eds., Contemporary Youth Research: Local Expressions and Global Connections. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 147-157.

WHO (World Health Organization) Regional Office for Europe, 2008. Inequalities in Young People's Health. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) international report from the 2005/2006 survey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2009. A Snapshot of the Health of Young People in Europe. A report prepared for the European Commission Conference on Youth Health, Brussels, Belgium, 9-10 July 2009. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2010. Preventing Injuries in Europe – From international collaboration to local implementation. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/96455/E93567.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2011. Impact of Economic Crises on Mental Health. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/134999/e94837.pdf [Accessed 18 July 2012].

WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2012. Social Determinants of Health and Well-being among Young People.HBSC international report from the 2009/2010 survey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

[145]            European Parliament 2011.

[146]            For more information about EVS accredited organisations, see European Commission n.d, p. 60, and The European database on EVS accredited organisations.

[147]            Information collected by the European Knowledge Centre of the Youth Partnership (EKCYP).

[148]            European Commission 2007b.

[149]            EACEA 2008.

[150]            According to a study by Eurydice on ICT use amongst young people, the majority of 15 year olds use the Internet for entertainment-related activities, while a minority do so for school-related purposes (Eurydice/EACEA 2011, p. 25).

[151]            The Council recognised creativity as ‘a process of generating ideas, expressions and forms, when looking for new ways of tackling existing problems, of reinterpreting reality or searching for new opportunities. Creativity is in essence a process that can amplify knowledge and lead to new ways of using it’ (Council Conclusions on Culture as a Catalyst for Creativity and Innovation, 8749/1/09 REV 1).

[152]            European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies 2010.

[153]            The composite indicator used to measure the level of creative education in the 27 EU Member States includes the following: the number of art schools per million people in the population (ELIA – European League of Institutes of the Arts/Eurostat); the quality of the educational system (Global Competitiveness Report 2007/08); public expenditure on education per capita (Eurostat); the share of tertiary students by field of education related to culture (Eurostat); and the extent of staff training (Global Competitiveness Report 2007/08). For further information on the indicator and on the methodology used for its calculation see Hollanders and van Cruysen 2009.

[154]            United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2003.

[155]            2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’.

[156]            See country-specific information on such programmes for example here.

[157]            They are even more overrepresented in the case of cooperation with young people from other European countries (source: Flash Eurobarometer 319a, ‘Youth on the Move’).

[158]            2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319a ‘Youth on the Move’.

[159]            Alphabetical order according to country's name in national language.

[160]            This indicator was added compared to the initial version of the dashboard presented in the document SEC(2011) 401.

Table of Contents – first section of SWD

Executive Summary. 2

1........... Introduction. 5

2........... Demography. 6

2.1........ How many young Europeans are there?. 6

2.2........ Past and future trends in European youth population. 6

2.2.1..... The number of young people continues to decrease. 6

2.2.2..... Increase in youth immigration from third countries. 10

2.3........ Increase in the mobility of young Europeans. 11

3........... Youth Employment and Entrepreneurship. 13

3.1........ Introduction. 13

3.2........ Transition from education to employment 13

3.2.1..... Between 20 and 24: an age of transition. 13

3.2.2..... Economically active young people. 15

3.3........ The position of young people in the labour market 16

3.3.1..... Aspects of unemployment 16

3.3.2..... Working patterns of young employees. 24

3.3.3..... Young entrepreneurs. 27

3.4........ Support for the transition to employment 29

3.4.1..... Skills forecasting and career guidance. 29

3.4.2..... High-quality traineeships and internships. 30

3.4.3..... Support for young households to reconcile work and private life. 31

3.4.4..... Geographical career mobility. 32

4........... Education and Training. 32

4.1........ Introduction. 32

4.2........ Formal education. 33

4.2.1..... Participation and attainment 33

4.2.2..... Skills achievements. 37

4.3........ Non-formal education and training and youth work. 38

4.4........ Learning mobility. 40

Executive Summary

Background

The EU Youth Strategy

In 2009, the Council endorsed the renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018), known in short as the EU Youth Strategy[1]. Its objectives are to:

(i)           create more and equal opportunities for all young people in education and in the labour market, and

(ii)          promote the active citizenship, social inclusion and solidarity of all young people.

The EU Youth Strategy advocates a cross-cutting approach, branching out into eight different policy areas (‘fields of action’), which are the following: Education and Training, Employment and Entrepreneurship, Social Inclusion, Health and Well-being, Participation, Culture and Creativity, Volunteering, and Youth and the World.

The EU Youth Strategy and its implementation are based on the Open Method of Coordination, addressing both the Commission and Member States to take specific actions in the above-mentioned ‘fields of action’. To this end, it proposes a set of instruments which include: evidence-based policy-making; mutual learning; regular progress-reporting; dissemination of results and monitoring; Structured Dialogue with young people and youth organisations; and mobilisation of EU programmes and funds.

The EU Youth Strategy invited the Commission and Member States to implement the strategy by fostering cooperation that cuts across all of the various policy fields concerned. Such an approach should be pursued at all levels, and policies can be improved by sharing good practices. Youth work should be supported, developed and recognised for its economic and social contribution.

EU Youth Report: reporting on progress and looking ahead

The period covered by the EU Youth Strategy is divided into three-year cycles, with the requirement to produce an EU Youth Report at the end of each cycle, the first of which will be drawn up in 2012 and ‘consist of […]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. […] The EU Youth Report should also serve as a basis for establishing a set of priorities for the following work cycle.’

This Staff Working Document supports the Commission Communication which presents the draft EU Youth Report to the Council. It provides a comprehensive picture of the situation of young people in Europe based on the latest available data, statistics and research. It portrays trends and developments in young people's conditions in different areas, corresponding to the ‘fields of action’. It builds on the dashboard of EU youth indicators, which is an overview of 41 indicators that measure the most crucial aspects of the lives of young people in Europe[2].

The second Staff Working Document supporting the Commission Communication on the EU Youth Report summarises the results of the first cycle (2010-2012). It presents the actions taken at EU-level and in Member States, as well as initiatives taken by young people themselves. Separate chapters report on achievements in all eight ‘fields of action’ of the strategy, the general organisation and approach to youth policy, and the Structured Dialogue between young people and policy-makers. The references made to Member States' activities are based on National Youth Reports submitted by them[3]. Young people are represented in the report by the European Youth Forum, which is an umbrella organisation of approximately 40 National Youth Councils and more than 60 international non-governmental youth organisations in Europe.

Status of the situation of young people in the European Union

In addition to the EU Member States, information and analysis cover, as far as data allows, the acceding country of Croatia, the five EU candidate countries (Montenegro, Iceland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, and Turkey) as well as the EFTA countries Norway, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland

The period when a person is considered to be ‘young’ differs across Europe according to national context, socio-economic development of a society and time[4]. Common to all countries, however, is the fact that the period of youth is marked by important life transitions. For statistical purposes the target population is primarily the age category between 15 and 29 years of age.

These transitions provide opportunities for youth to excel and prosper, but can also leave them vulnerable and deprived. With the current economic crisis, many young people are unable to find jobs that allow them to live on their own. This period of transition has become longer and harder, leading to the risk of a ‘lost generation’. The statistical evidence points to the following:

More school, less work – Between 2005 and 2009, the share of young people either in full-time education or employment was relatively stable. Since then, the situation has increasingly diverged: while the share of students is going up, that of young employees is going down. Young people who lose their job are returning to education in greater numbers than before.

Increase in the number of young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) – After several years of decline, the share of NEETs levelled out in 2007, but has increased sharply since 2008. This shows a link to the current financial crisis, as NEETs are over-represented in families with a low work intensity and low household income.

Increasingly difficult labour market – The unemployment rate of young people (aged 15 to 24) rose sharply from 15 % in February 2008 to an unprecedented 22.6 % in June 2012. This amounts to an increase of 50 % in four years. Among those unemployed, more than 30 % have been without a job for the past year. Temporary employment is also much more common among young people aged 15 to 24 that for those aged 25-59. While 42.5 % of young people in employment were on a temporary contract in 2011, this was the case for only 11 % in the older age-group. Between 2008 and 2011, temporary employment among young people increased by almost two and a half percentage points while it increased by less than one percentage point for the general working population. This suggests that young people are more likely than the general population to get a temporary job (which often means precarious work). Even if a young person achieves a high level of education, employment is no longer guaranteed.

Fewer early school leavers – Progress has been made in reducing the share of early school leavers to reach the headline target of less than 10 % by 2020. Although the share fell from 14.9 % in 2008 to 14.1 % in 2010, any further reduction is becoming a major challenge.

Young people at serious risk of social exclusion and poverty – A headline target of Europe 2020 is to reduce the share of the EU population at risk of social exclusion and poverty by 20 million, or 25 %, by 2020. The share of young people at such risk is higher than that of the general population. Between 2009 and 2010, the increase in the number of young people at risk was significantly higher than for the total population.

Young people's well-being under pressure – While high unemployment rates have resulted in more low-income families and jobless households, and with young people being most at risk of poverty and social exclusion, the crisis has also had an impact on the health and well-being of young people. Unemployment, impoverishment, inadequate housing conditions and family disruptions significantly increase the risk of mental health problems such as depression, alcohol abuse disorders and suicide. As detriments to health and well-being can often last for life, they have a particularly serious impact on young people.

But young people remain active – the participation of young people in democratic life has not suffered as a result of the crisis. On the contrary, young people have spearheaded social movements in Europe and beyond. While youth turnout in elections is low (only 29 % of young people aged 18 to 30 voted in the 2009 European Parliament elections, for example), young people do not appear to experience any major disenchantment with policy issues and causes in general –, only a clear and growing mistrust of a political establishment which young people feel does not represent their interests. The results of a 2011 Eurobarometer survey supports the claim that young people are interested in politics: 78 % of eligible young people up to the age of 30 declared that they had voted in a political election at local, regional, national or EU level in the last three years. The survey also documents the active participation young people in society: half of the young people in the EU participated in activities of a youth organisation, leisure and/or sports club in the past year, while a quarter took part in organised voluntary activities.

A tendency towards above-average participation by young people can be identified in countries which have established regulations and policies on volunteering, created systems of financial support for volunteers, and operate a system of recognition of the competencies acquired. As far as the various indicators for cultural participation, computer and internet use and creative education are concerned, there seem – with some significant exceptions – to be few differences between countries. The general trend common to all countries is, however, that, these aspects of cultural engagement are interrelated.

Whilst many young people are very committed to global issues such as climate change or poverty, active participation by young people in structures that address global issues is fairly limited. There are only a few EU Member States in which a considerable portion of the youth population participate in NGOs dedicated to global causes or are involved in projects aimed at cooperating with young people from other continents. Young people taking part in education and training are more likely to dedicate their time to global causes.

1. Introduction

This report, which is a supporting document to the Commission Communication on the EU Youth Report, presents data and information on the current situation of young people in Europe[5]. Following an introductory chapter on demographics, which presents the main trends in the youth population over the last years, separate chapters are dedicated to the eight ‘fields of action’ identified in the Council Resolution on the EU Youth Strategy (2010-2018)[6]: Employment and Entrepreneurship, Education and Training, Social Inclusion, Health and Well-being, Participation, Voluntary Activities, Culture and Creativity, and Youth and the World.

The period during which a person is considered to be ‘young’ differs across Europe according to the national context, the socio-economic development of a society and time[7]. 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 transitions: from being financially dependent to being in control of one's own budget, from living in the family home to having set up one's own household - maybe with a partner, from being in education to having a full-time job, and from being a child to being responsible for one's own children.

For statistical purposes, this report needs to rely on age categories. The target population is primarily the age category between 15 and 29 years of age, for which there is a good statistical basis using Eurostat data and other data sources. The analysis focuses on the age groups 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 to 29. In some cases, a more limited age range or different age groups are used, either because certain conditions mainly affect a particular age group (e.g. early school leavers) or the analysis relates to a specific perspective (e.g. child population at risk of poverty or social exclusion). In other cases, the analysis is limited to certain age groups due to the availability of data.

In addition to the EU Member States, information and analysis cover, as far as data allows, the acceding country of Croatia, the five EU candidate countries (Montenegro, Iceland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, and Turkey) as well as the EFTA countries Norway, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland

It was not possible to select a single reference year for the information presented in the report, due to variation in the sources of data. However, the report focuses on the most recent years (2010 and 2011) in order to depict the most up-to-date situation of young people. Wherever data are available, comparisons with past years and relative trends are included.

This report builds on the dashboard of EU youth indicators, an overview of 41 indicators which measure the most crucial aspects of the conditions of young people in Europe. The dashboard was released by the European Commission in spring 2011. With input from an expert group, the Commission reviews the dashboard on an annual basis to ensure that the indicators reflect the changing realities of young people. Wherever the report uses these indicators, this is highlighted in the text. The dashboard of EU youth indicators is presented as an annex to this report.

2. Demography 2.1. How many young Europeans are there?

In January 2011, around 95.2 million young people aged between 15 and 29 lived in the EU-27. The acceding country Croatia and five candidate countries to the EU (Montenegro, Iceland, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, and Turkey) added approximately 22 million young people to this figure[8]. Figure 2‑A shows the percentage share of young people in the overall population, which ranges from 15 % in Italy to over 23 % in Cyprus and 22 % in Poland and Slovakia. EU candidate countries have shares of young people above the EU-27 average, particularly in Turkey where those aged between 15 and 29 account for more than a quarter of the total population.

Figure 2‑A: EU youth indicator: Share of young people in the total population, by age, 1 January 2011

Source: Eurostat 2011. Online data code: demo_pjanind

Note: EU-27, Belgium, Cyprus, Romania, and Switzerland: data are from 2010.

2.2. Past and future trends in European youth population 2.2.1. The number of young people continues to decrease

The share of young Europeans in the total population has declined steadily over the last 25 years (Figure 2‑BFigure 2‑B). This is due to a reduction in the fertility rate in Europe following the end of the demographic boom of the 1950-60-70s. Fewer births, longer life expectancies and the ageing of those baby-boomers since then have led to a fall in the youth population and a parallel increase in the proportion of older age groups as the increase of the old is now mainly driven by the ageing baby-boomers.

Figure 2‑B: Share of young people in the total population, EU-27 average, by age, 1985-2010[9]

||

% || r || 25-29

¢ || 20-24

˜ || 15-19

Source: Eurostat 2010. Online data code: demo_pjanind

Note:

In line with the long-term decline since 1985, the number of young people decreased steadily by over 4 million between 2000 and 2010. The 15 to 19 age group has been most affected by the decline, in particular since 2006, and the youth population will fall even more sharply in the near future.

Yet this trend was not common to all countries during the decade in question. From closer examination of national variations (Figure 2‑C), it is possible to identify cases in which the youth population actually grew between 2000 and 2010. Cyprus, Luxembourg and, to a lesser extent, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland and Iceland all experienced such increases. Otherwise the number of young people has fallen in the majority of countries and by as much as a fifth in Bulgaria and Greece.

Figure 2‑C: Youth population (aged 15-29), change between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2010

||

equal or higher than 20%

between 10% and 19%

between 0% and 9%

between -10% and 0%

equal or higher than -20%

|| Not available

||

Source: Eurostat 2010. Online data code: demo_pjangroup

Note: EU-27, EFTA and EU candidate countries covered.

In recent decades, EU-27 countries have generally been having fewer children[10]. A total fertility rate[11] of around 2.1 children per woman is considered to be the replacement level, that is, the average number of children per woman required to keep the population size constant in the absence of inward or outward migration.[12] Between 2002 and 2010, the total fertility rate in the EU-27 rose slightly from just under 1.45 to 1.6 children per woman, reversing an earlier steady decrease, however still far below the replacement level. According to Eurostat population projections EUROPOP2010, the share of young people in the total population is expected to fall in the years up to 2060 (Figure 2‑D).

Figure 2‑D: Projected youth population, EU-27, by age, 2010-2060[13]

||

millions || r || 25-29

¢ || 20-24

˜ || 15-19

Source: Eurostat 2011. Online data code: proj_10c2150p

If the decline is not reversed, the youth population of the European Union could fall by a further 14 million in the next 50 years.

One of the most significant outcomes of the decrease in the numbers of young people in Europe, taken with the rise in average life expectancy, is the steady ageing of the European population overall. This scenario is illustrated by means of the projected dependency ratios in the decades ahead (Figure 2‑E).

Figure 2‑E: Projected young-age and old-age dependency ratios in the EU-27, 2010-2060

Ages || ¢ || Old-age dependency ratio

˜ || Young age-dependency ratio

Source: Eurostat – EUROPOP2008. Online data code: not available

The age dependency ratios compare the number of people – young (0 to 14 years old) or old (65 years old or over) to the working age population (15 to 64 years old). According to EUROPOP2008, while the young-age dependency ratio would change little over the next 50 years, the old-age dependency ratio would increase by almost 30 percentage points. This means that each person in working age will potentially support the same number of young people, but about twice as many older people.

2.2.2. Increase in youth immigration from third countries

Glossary Citizenship: the particular legal bond between an individual and his or her State, acquired by birth or naturalisation, whether by declaration, choice, marriage or other means under national legislation. EU citizen or EU national: a citizen of a Member State of the EU-27. Foreigners or foreign population refer to persons who are not citizens of the country in which they reside, including persons of unknown citizenship and stateless persons. EU foreigners: persons who have citizenship of an EU-27 Member State and who are usually resident in another EU-27 Member State. Non-EU foreigners or third-country nationals: persons who are usually resident in the EU and who have citizenship of a country outside the EU. Foreign-born: a person whose place of birth, or residence of the mother at the time of the birth, is outside the country of his/her usual residence. Source: Eurostat, 2011

The steady decline in the youth population over the last decade has been partially offset by the increase in net immigration flows.

Figure 2‑F shows that, despite periodical downturns, the growth in immigration from third countries over the last 30 years has significantly offset the steady decrease in the population of EU nationals.

Figure 2‑F: Crude rates of population change, EU-27, 1960-2010[14]

Change per 1 000 inhabitants || || Total population change

Natural change of population

Net migration change including statistical adjustment

Source: Eurostat 2011. Online data code: demo_gind

Furthermore, whereas the median age of nationals of all EU-27 Member States was 40.6 years in 2009, the median age of non-EU nationals was 27.5 years[15]. Figure 2‑G illustrates differences in the average ages of EU-27 and non-EU nationals. Immigrants arrive typically when they are between 25 and 35, i.e. in their prime working and child-bearing ages. Thus they contribute twice to rejuvenating the populations they join; firstly, because they themselves are relatively young; secondly, because they bear children.

Figure 2‑G: Age distribution of EU nationals and non-EU foreigners, EU-27, 1 January 2010

||  Nationals || Non-EU foreigners ||

Source: Eurostat, Statistics in Focus, 34/2011. Online data code: migr_pop2ctz

As shown in Figure 2‑G, while the proportions of EU nationals in the four age groups considered are fairly even, non-EU foreigners in the 20 to 39 age group are over-represented in comparison to the other groups, accounting for over 40 % of the total third-country population. The immigrants from non-EU countries who partially offset the decrease in the numbers of EU nationals are predominantly young.

According to the assumptions of EUROPOP2010 the levels of youth migration could affect the projected EU-27 youth population as a whole (Figure 2‑H).

Figure 2‑H: Projected youth population (aged 15-29) – with and without migration, EU-27, 2010-2060[16]

millions || Youth population (aged 15-29) ¢ || including migration

˜ || without migration

Source: Eurostat 2010. Online data code: proj_10c2150zmp

2.3. Increase in the mobility of young Europeans

Young people in the EU-27 have become increasingly mobile. Crossing national borders to study, to work in the paid employment or voluntary sectors, or to travel for pleasure has become increasingly common.

Based on available information, there is a general growth in the numbers of young people choosing to live in a different Member State. Among people who have experienced studying or working abroad, young adults are over-represented. There are a few exceptions to this trend: in Sweden the number of young EU foreigners started to increase only since 2006; in Germany it started to fall in 2008 following several years of increase. The leveling out or decrease in youth mobility after 2008 is one of the more general effects of the current economic crisis on intra-EU student and professional mobility (Figure 2‑I)[17].

Figure 2‑I: Trends in the EU population of young foreigners (ES, DE, LV, NL, AT, SI, SE) [18]

Source: Eurostat 2011. Online data code: migr_pop1ctz

Note: Countries, for which time series are available. Slovenia – break in series between 2008 and 2009 due to a change in the definitions and methods used.

Figure 2‑J: Young EU foreigners (aged 15-29), 1 January 2011

Source: Eurostat 2011. Online data code: migr_pop1ctz

Note: Latvia, Poland, United Kingdom: provisional data. Luxembourg: 2010 data.

The share of young EU foreigners varies from one country to another (Figure 2‑J). Luxembourg is the Member State with the highest share of young EU foreigners (almost 40 %) in its youth population[19]. Other countries with a high proportion of EU foreigners are Belgium, Ireland, Spain, and Cyprus. By contrast, the youth population in Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovenia is more homogeneous in terms of nationality. It is important to bear in mind that the data shown here is based on citizenship, and that naturalisation policies of countries (under which it may be relatively hard or easy to acquire the new nationality) will affect official measurements of the EU foreign population.

Between 2010 and 2011 migration increased by an average of 45 % from southern EU Member States, an increase of 52 % from Spain and 90 % from Greece. It was underlined that the majority of migrants were well educated young people with qualifications in the tertiary sector[20].

3. Youth Employment and Entrepreneurship 3.1. Introduction

The current crisis has severely affected employment. This is of special concern to young people, who are more vulnerable to the effects of unstable economic cycles in the labour market.

Indeed, the youngest workers are the first hit by unemployment because they are the least experienced and more often employed under temporary contracts. The labour market is also more competitive during a crisis, in the sense that there are more young applicants for fewer job offers[21]. In addition, some groups of young people are more at risk of unemployment than others. Those who are only modestly qualified or entering the labour market for the first time are especially vulnerable in times of economic crisis[22]. Even those who are employed can experience precarious situations with low pay, poor quality working conditions and weak social security coverage. Lack of family – work-life reconciliation measures, discrimination, and absence of skills required by the current labour market may constitute further barriers of youth employment.

3.2. Transition from education to employment

The transition from education and training to employment can be defined as a period in which young people should ideally finish their formal education, find employment to match their qualifications, and thereby achieve financial autonomy. Yet the existence throughout Europe of other possible career paths that, for example, combine studies with part-time work, or alternate education and training with professional activity, calls for a closer examination of precisely how young Europeans have experienced this transition in recent years. The research focus on school-to-work transition is therefore moving from treating the transition as a single event towards treating it as a sequence, involving multiple transitions in a given period of time.

3.2.1. Between 20 and 24: an age of transition

As shown in Figure 3‑Abelow, the period of transition occurs for most young Europeans between the ages of 20 and 24. This is the age group in which the proportion of young people who are exclusively in education and training falls below 50 % to be gradually overtaken by the proportion of those who are exclusively employed.

Figure 3‑A: Full-time education rate and full-time employment rate of young people, EU-27 average, by age and by sex, 2011

||

Men

Women

Education

Employment

Source: Eurostat – Labour Force Survey (LFS). Online data code: edat_lfse_18

The transition occurs slightly later for women aged between 20 and 24 than men. A gap emerges between them, as more women than men in that age group continue their studies and postpone joining the labour market. The employment gap is maintained in later years, whereas participation exclusively in education and training simply drops to similar rates for both men and women.

Figure 3‑B: Full-time education rate and full-time employment rate of young people (aged 20-24), EU-27 average, 2000-2011

||

Employment

Education

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: edat_lfse_18

Since 2000, the proportion of the 20 to 24 age group enrolled in education and training but not employed has been growing. Between 2000 and 2011, there was an increase of 3.7 percentage points (Figure 3‑B). Conversely, the proportion of young people in the same age group exclusively working and not participating in education and training fell from 41.2 % in 2000 to 34.2 % in 2011.

Figure 3‑B shows that this trend has become more pronounced since 2008. Since the economic downturn, more young people aged between 20 and 24 increasingly devote a longer time to education and training exclusively, while a decreasing share is active in employment but not in education and training. Therefore, while this remains the age category with the highest share of youth in transition from education to employment, an increasing number of young people stay in education longer than the age of 24.

3.2.2. Economically active young people

The postponement of the transition discussed above has clearly been changing the proportions of young people in the economically active population, defined as those who are either employed or searching for a job[23]. Figure 3‑C shows how the activity rate has changed between 2000 and 2011 among the three main age groups i.e. 15 to 19, 20 to 24 and 25 to 29.

Figure 3‑C: Activity rates of young people (aged 15-19, 20-24, 25-29), EU-27 average, 2000 and 2011 (a) and (aged 20-24) variations of the EU-27 average, 2000-2011 (b)

a)                                                                                                             b)

||

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: lfsa_argan

There appears to have been little change for the 25 to 29 age group, whose activity rate stands at around 82 %. This does not apply to the other two age groups. Young people aged 15 to 19 have always been the least active, as most of them are still enrolled in education and training programmes. Their activity rate has decreased further in 2011, however, for this age group this is a good development providing that they go or stay in education, As Figure 3‑C shows, the proportion of those in the transition age group (20 to 24) in the active population has also decreased in the last ten years. Since 2007, their activity rate has fallen faster, sinking to 61.8 % in 2011.

This decrease in the activity rate and the postponement of the transition from education (or training) to work are interrelated. Chapter 0 on Due to the high unemployment rates in southern European countries, mobility intentions are high (especially among young people) and labour mobility from those countries has increased, contrasting with an overall decline in intra-EU mobility since 2008. Emigration from these countries has increased, notably in the form of return migration, but there are also early signs of new patterns of emigration of nationals (e.g. from Ireland to Australia).

Education and Training sets out that there has been a counter-trend in terms of rising enrolments in post-secondary level and tertiary education in Europe in recent years, which is in line with EU education targets. However, this prolongation of studies may also be partly attributable to difficulty in finding employment[24].

Figure 3‑D: Activity rates of young people (aged 15-19, 20-24 and 25-29), by country, 2011

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: lfsa_argan

The most recent data on youth activity rates in the EU-27 complete the picture (Figure 3‑D). In several countries, such as Belgium, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovenia, the postponement of the transition from education to work is clear. Activity rates are very high for the 25 to 29 age group while for 20 to 24 year olds rates are below the EU-27 average, as many of them continue studying and only become economically active when aged 25 or over.

However, in many other countries including Denmark and the Netherlands, the activity rates observed in the three age groups (15 to 19, 20 to 24 and 25 to 29) are the highest, at far above the EU-27 average. In these countries, a majority of young people combine studies and work as both trainees and apprentices under the dual education system, or as students working while in tertiary education.

There are also young people who drop out of education or training and are unable to access the labour market, thus comprising the vulnerable group known as NEETs – those who are not in employment, education or training. The NEETs are a group consisting of ‘persons typically aged between 15 and 24 years who, regardless of their educational level, are disengaged from both work and education’[25]. They are also a mixed group. For instance, they may include young persons who are ‘not seeking jobs or applying for education and are not constrained from doing so’[26] alongside active but unsuccessful job seekers or vulnerable groups of young people who are farther from the labour market. Yet despite such distinctions, all NEETs are more likely to be disengaged from work and education for longer periods and thus more vulnerable to social marginalisation (see Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion on NEETs).

3.3. The position of young people in the labour market 3.3.1. Aspects of unemployment

Young people in Europe are hindered in their efforts to start a rewarding professional career and more generally to achieve their long-term career goals. Indeed joblessness ‘prevents them from accumulating work experience, which reduces their entire human and social capital, and can be reflected in lower future wages’[27]. Going through a joblessness situation early in life may leave long-term scars[28]. Furthermore, difficulty in finding a job may ultimately lead to economic and social exclusion and result in a psychological hindrance for young people if they feel unable to contribute fully to society[29].

Youth unemployment rates[30] have been consistently higher than that of the population as a whole. As shown in Figure 3‑E, the increase in the share of youth unemployed has been significantly greater than for the older active population since the start of the financial crisis in spring 2008. In spring 2012, more than one in five young people aged below 25 in the labour market in the EU-27 was jobless.

Figure 3‑E: Increase of unemployment rates of young people, EU-27 average, by age, 2007-2011

|| || r || 25-54

¢ || 25-29

˜ || 15-24

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: une_rt_a

As shown in Figure 3‑F, the proportion of unemployed young women aged 15 to 24 in the EU-27 was slightly higher than that of young men until 2008. In that year, both rates were equal. The same trend applies to the active population of the 25 to 29 age group. Since then, the opposite has occurred with greater proportions of unemployed young men, although almost identical proportions of women and men aged between 25 and 29 in the active population were unemployed in 2011.

Figure 3‑F: EU youth indicator: Unemployment rates of young people, EU-27 average, by age and by sex, 2007-2011

||

Men

Women

15-24

25-29

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: lfs_urgan

Figure 3‑G: Unemployment rates of young people (aged 15- 24 and 25-29), by country and by age, 2011

a) aged 15-24                                                                        b) aged 25-29

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: lfsa_urgan

Note: EU-27, EFTA and EU candidate countries covered.

Almost everywhere in Europe, the active population of the 15 to 24 age group has been more often affected by unemployment than that of those aged 25 to 29. In the case of the former (map a) in Figure 3‑G), unemployment rates in 2011 were below 10 % only in a few countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Austria as well as in Norway and Switzerland. By contrast, the proportion of unemployed in the active population in the same age group (15 to 24) was three times as high in Lithuania, Portugal and Slovakia while in Spain and Greece it reached 45 %. Although unemployment rates for the 25 to 29 age group were lower (second map in Figure 3‑G), they were still above the EU-27 average of 12.6 % in the same countries as in the case of 15 to 24 year olds. In 2011, rates ranged from 13.9 % in Estonia to 26.9 % in Spain and 29.6 % in Greece.

Figure 3‑H shows unemployment ratios [31] for the 15 to 24 age group in European countries in 2011. This indicator offers a better insight into youth unemployment since it does take account the large proportion of young people still enrolled in education. The data reveals how youth unemployment levels in Europe vary widely from one country to the next.

Figure 3‑H: EU youth indicator: Unemployment ratio of young people (aged 15-24), by country, 2011

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: lfsi_act_a

In some countries, unemployment affects only a small minority of the 15 to 24 age group with ratios below or close to 5 %. This applies to the Czech Republic, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria as well as to Norway and Switzerland. As already mentioned, the dual education system in these countries, which combines courses at school with company apprenticeships, helps to account for low unemployment among those aged between 15 and 24. At the other end of the spectrum, Spain has the highest proportion of jobless young people in the same age group (18 %), followed by around a dozen countries in which the unemployment ratio is above the EU-27 average of 9.1 % (10 % for men and 8.2 % for women). Ratios range from 9.6 % in Denmark and Lithuania to 13 % in Greece.

These two different approaches towards understanding how unemployment affects the youth population of Europe via unemployment rates and ratios respectively, point to a disturbing situation in Spain, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal and Slovakia. Jobless young people in these countries constitute a relatively high proportion of both the entire labour force and the 15 to 24 age group.

The length of the period during which young persons search for a job after having completed education is likely to depend on various factors. Foremost among them will be the level of their educational qualifications. In general, tertiary education graduates experience shorter search periods than those who completed secondary school. Indeed in 2009, the average time taken by graduates to find a ‘significant’ job [32] was put at around half that required by those who had at most completed lower secondary education, namely 5 months compared to 9.8 months[33].

In 2011, a third of the unemployed aged 15 to 24 were unemployed for a year or more [34] (Figure 3‑I). While the long-term unemployment rate was lower than in the case of the active population in the 25 to 59 age group (in which it was 46.3 %), the situation has worsened for the active population of young people in the last five years. Whereas the long-term unemployment rate of the 25 to 59 has been steadily falling since 2000, it suddenly started increasing for the 15 to 24 age group in 2007. Since then,        a higher proportion of young men than young women among the labour force have experienced long-term unemployment (31.9 % compared to 27.8 %).

Figure 3‑I: Long term youth unemployment rates of young people, EU-27 average, by age and by sex, 2000, 2007 and 2011

||

Male 15-24

Female 15-24

Total 15-24

Total 25-59

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: lfsa_upgal

Since 2007, there have been diverging trends between EU countries concerning the number of young people who have spent long periods job-hunting (Figure 3‑J). In eleven countries, long-term unemployment rates have decreased, while in ten countries the trend is the opposite with rates increasing between 2007 and 2011. The extreme case is in Spain in which the proportion of those aged 15 to 24 in the active population being in long-term unemployment is three times higher than four years ago, reaching 32.4 % in 2011. Furthermore, in one third of EU-27 countries, over a third of the unemployed aged 15 to 24 had been jobless for one year or more in 2011. The highest long-term unemployment rates were in Slovakia (54.4 %), Bulgaria (49.8 %), Italy (47.1 %) and Ireland (45.8 %). In Denmark, Finland and Sweden, the situation seems to be more favourable for 15 to 24 year olds in the active population who have tended to find a job quickly, with fewer than 10 % of them were unemployed for 12 months or longer in 2011. Outside the EU-27, the long-term unemployment rate was over 50 % in Croatia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Figure 3‑J: EU youth indicator: Long term unemployment rate of young people (aged 15-24), by country, 2007 and 2011

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: lfsa_upgal

Figure 3‑K suggests that the more young people are educated, the better they are protected against unemployment. In 2011, the unemployment rate was indeed much lower for young graduates from tertiary education than for those with the lowest levels of education in the EU-27[35]. Rates among the active population aged 25 to 29 were 9.2 % and 11.3 % for those who had completed tertiary education and upper secondary education, respectively. However they are twice as high in the case of the active population of the 25 to 29 year olds, whose qualifications were obtained only in or prior lower secondary education (24.3 %).

Figure 3‑K: Unemployment rate of young people, by highest educational attainment level, EU-27 average, by age, 2000, 2007 and 2011

20-24 || || 25-29

|| ||

0-2

3-4

5-6

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: lfsa_urgaed

Note: Educational levels as defined by the 1997 ISCED.

ISCED 0 = pre-primary education, ISCED 1 = primary education, ISCED 2 = lower secondary education, ISCED 3 = upper secondary education, ISCED 4 = post-secondary non-tertiary education, ISCED 5 = tertiary education (first stage) and ISCED 6 = tertiary education (second stage).

However, the risk of unemployment has increased also for higher educated young people since 2007. The economic crisis has affected them too, albeit to a lesser extent. However, the situation in some countries is rather different (Figure 3‑L). This is especially pertinent in Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Portugal and Romania, where graduates are at a greater risk of unemployment than young people with lower qualifications, including those who have not completed secondary education. In these countries, the economic crisis has exacerbated the situation of ‘overqualified’ graduates[36]. There appears to be a mismatch between the skills acquired in tertiary education and those needed for available jobs. Beyond the EU-27, graduates in Croatia, the Former Republic of Macedonia and Turkey face similar problems. Vulnerable groups of young people like migrants, Roma or other minorities, youngsters with a disability or mental health problem, homeless youth experience increased difficulties to get a job.

Figure 3‑L: Unemployment rate of young people, by the highest educational attainment, by age and by country, 2011

a) aged 20-24

b) aged 25-29

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: lfsa_urgaed

The ‘Youth on the Move’ Flash Eurobarometer gives some insight into the main concerns of young Europeans when seeking a job on completion of their education (Figure 3‑M).

The majority of respondents (53 %) identified a structural factor, namely ‘no available jobs in their city or region’ as their first or second main concern. Many also highlighted ‘poorly paid available jobs’ and ‘low employability in the field of studies’ (42 % and 41 %). Possible personal reasons for their difficulty, such as lack of ‘the right knowledge and skills’ and ‘unawareness of job opportunities’ were the least cited.

Figure 3‑M: Young people having difficulties in finding a job, EU-27 average, 2011

||

No jobs available in their city or region (might have to move)

No good job opportunities available in the field of studies

Jobs are available but they are very poorly paid (standard not adequate for a reasonable standard of living)

That they don't have the right knowledge and skills

They don't know what job opportunities are out there

DK/NA

|| First response || || Second response

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319b ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Finding a relevant and suitable job after finishing education is often a challenge. In your opinion, what is the main concern of young people in your country regarding getting a job after finishing education? And the second main concern?’

Answers by educational level show that the main difficulty for those who are better qualified is the mismatch between skills and jobs. Indeed, young people who were in tertiary education or had completed it were more likely to indicate a lack of good job opportunities in their field of study (47 %) than their counterparts at lower levels of education. Conversely, 54% of young people who had dropped out of lower secondary education and were the least qualified said that poorly paid jobs were their main concern, as opposed to 42% in the case of those who had pursued their education further.

When looking at country variations, a lack of good job opportunities in young people's fields of study is the main concern of over half of the respondents in one third of European countries (Figure 3‑N). They include countries in which youth unemployment is the highest in Europe, both in general and among tertiary education graduates (for example, Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal).

Figure 3‑N: Young people considering that there are no good job opportunities in their field of studies, by country, 2011

|| First response || || Second response

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319b ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Finding a relevant and suitable job after finishing education is often a challenge. In your opinion, what is the main concern of young people in your country regarding getting a job after finishing education? And the second main concern?’

In other countries, the main concern is that jobs are very poorly paid (Figure 3‑O), e.g in Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus, Poland and Lithuania. Conversely, poor pay was a minor concern reported by fewer than 20% of young people in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland.

Figure 3‑O: Young people considering that jobs are available but they are very poorly paid, by country, 2011

|| First response || || Second response

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319b ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Finding a relevant and suitable job after finishing education is often a challenge. In your opinion, what is the main concern of young people in your country regarding getting a job after finishing education? And the second main concern?’

3.3.2. Working patterns of young employees

Young people are more likely to be employed on a temporary contract or part-time basis. And they more commonly have jobs with atypical and unusual schedules, including shifts and weekend or night-time work.

Since 2000, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of the 15 to 24 age group who work on a part-time basis[37]. In 2011, nearly one in three employed 15 to 24 year olds had a part-time job (Figure 3‑P). The situation is different among the working population aged 25 to 54, with its part-time employment rate of around 16 % over the last ten years.

In some countries, the trend for the 15 to 24 age group is even more marked. For example, in Ireland, the proportion of part-time workers in this group almost doubled. In Denmark and the Netherlands, the rates were already among the highest in Europe in 2008 and continued to increase reaching 62.6 % and 75.2 % respectively. By contrast, in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, part-time employment of 15 to 24 year olds was still uncommon in 2011 with rates of just 4.4-7.6 %.

Figure 3‑P: Part-time employment rate of young people (aged 15-24), by country, 2008 and 2011, and EU-27 average 2000-2011

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: lfsa_eppgan

Part-time work among young people often implies apprenticeship either under a vocational education programme or in a job while studying. This accounts for the high part-time rates reported in many countries and their increase in recent years.

Figure 3‑Q: Involuntary part-time employment rate of young people (aged 15-24), by country, 2008 and 2011

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: lfsa_eppgai

That said, many young people work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

Figure 3‑Q shows the high rates of involuntary part-time employment among 15 to 24 year olds in several European countries. In Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus and Romania, over half of young people aged under 25 worked part-time because they had no choice. Since 2008, involuntary part-time youth employment has increased in most parts of Europe. By contrast, in Denmark and the Netherlands, in which the most of those aged 15 to 24 work part-time, it is clear from the data that they do so deliberately.

From 2008 to 2011, the percentage of young people with temporary employment contracts [38] rose from 40.2 % to 42.5 % in the EU-27 (Figure 3‑R). Even before the economic downturn, the great majority of 15 to 24 year olds in several countries was employed under fixed-term contracts. This was the case in Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia. However, in a few countries, such as Bulgaria, Romania and the United Kingdom, the opposite was true with just a small minority of those aged 15 to 24 employed under temporary contracts.

Figure 3‑R: Employees with a temporary contract among young people (aged 15-24), by country, 2008 and 2011

Source : Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: lfsa_etpga

Temporary employment occurs among a far greater proportion of young workers aged 15 to 24 than in the case of those aged between 25 and 59. In 2011, the difference was one of nearly 30 percentage points in the EU-27 (11 % against 42.5 %). This is indicative of a labour market segmented into workers with long-term contracts and those with temporary jobs.

Temporary contracts may help young people in the transition from education to full-time employment, by giving them work experience and making it easier to enter the labour market or providing training opportunities as stepping-stones to permanent jobs. However, high rates of temporary employment may be indicative of insecure jobs. Temporary employees face a worse social security coverage and more precarious working conditions. Where this is the case, young people may lack the stability enabling them to live independently. They can be trapped in a cycle of alternating temporary contracts and unemployment, which may adversely affect their status into their thirties or beyond. The lack of a degree or professional experience is among the factors that may hinder the transition from a temporary to a permanent contract. Finally, there is evidence that the longer people spend searching for a job, the less likely they are to secure a permanent contract. Research showed that in 2006-2007, the younger workers (15 to 24 and 25 to 34 age groups) especially in Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary and in the United Kingdom, had good chances of moving to a permanent contract[39].

In 2011, the proportion of employed young people in the 15 to 24 age group which had atypical working hours was also much higher than for those aged 25 to 64. This was especially true of work on Saturday, with proportions of 33.6 % and 25.4 % respectively (Figure 3‑S). The proportion of young people aged 15 to 24 which worked on Sundays and in the evenings was also around four percentage points higher than that of their elders in the 25 to 64 age group. The percentage of employees doing night work was the same in both age groups – the only exception to the overall trend. A higher proportion of 15 to 24 year olds did shift work (19.5 %), almost two percentage points higher than the proportion of their elders.

Figure 3‑S: Share of employees working in atypical and asocial working hours among young people, EU‑27 average, by age, 2011

|| Shifts || Saturday || Sunday || Evening || Night ||

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data codes: lfsa_ewpshi (shift); lfsa_ewpsat (Saturday); lfsa_ewpsun (Sunday); lfsa_ewpnig (night); lfsa_ewpeve (evening)

There are wide variations in these trends from one EU-27 country to another. In the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia, over 40 % of young employees aged 15 to 24 did shift work. In Belgium, Denmark, France and the Netherlands, the corresponding proportion was below 10 %. In Greece, the proportion of employed young people aged 15 to 24 who worked in the evening (42.9 %) was almost twice the EU-27 average. Conversely, at less than 12 %, the proportion was around half that average in Belgium, Cyprus, Latvia, Austria and Poland. Proportionally more young employees in the 15 to 24 age group in Slovakia did night work (21.9 %) than everywhere else in the EU-27. In addition, a high proportion of young employees in Greece and the Netherlands worked on Saturdays (54.9 % and 46.5 % respectively), while the approximately 25 % of 15 to 24 year olds who worked on Sundays in Ireland and Slovakia exceeded the EU-27 average of 17.3 %. Finally, the proportions of young employees aged 15 to 24 working at weekends or other less usual times were lowest in Poland[40].

3.3.3. Young entrepreneurs

Young people aged 25 to 29 seem far more likely to set up their own business than 20 to 24 year olds. In 2010, the EU self-employment rate of the higher age group was double that of the younger group, and already close to double that of ten years earlier.

Figure 3‑T shows that, in 2010, the proportions of young self-employed people in the 20 to 24 and 25 to 29 age groups in the EU-27 were smaller than ten years earlier. However, the proportions have grown among the 20 to 24 age group in the Czech Republic, Romania and Finland and in both age groups, in France, the Netherlands and Slovakia.

Figure 3‑T: EU youth indicator: Self-employed rate of young people, by country and by age, 2000 and 2010

a) aged 20-24

b) aged 25-29

Source: Eurostat – LFS

Eurobarometer gives some insight into the thinking of young people aged between 15 and 29 towards entrepreneurship. Figure 3‑U reports the response rates to one of the questions on the attitudes of young people to setting up their own business, revealing that 40 % of respondents would like to do this and 6 % of them had done so already.

Figure 3‑U: EU youth indicator: Young people's desire to set up their own business, EU-27 average, 2011

||

Yes

No, because it is too risky

No, it is too complicated to set up a bussiness

No, because no access to finance

No, I don't have adequate entrepreneurship skills

I have already set up a bussines

DK/NA

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319b ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Would you like to set up your own business in the future?’

Among those who answered that they did not wish to set up their own business, similar percentages thought that it was either too risky or too complicated. Almost half as frequent were answers related to lack of financial resources (8 %) or in adequate entrepreneurial skills (7 %). Although there were gender differences regarding willingness to set up a business (47 % of men were willing, compared to 39 % of women), the decline in interest became more noticeable with age. While 50 % of 15 to 19 year olds wanted to start a company, only 34 % of 30 to 35 year olds did so. Willingness also appeared to vary with educational level. Young people still in vocational and secondary education were keener to start up a business (53 % and 50 %, respectively) than those still in tertiary education (47 %).

3.4. Support for the transition to employment 3.4.1. Skills forecasting and career guidance

Young people entering the labour market are one of the groups in society most affected by the issue of skills-to-job mismatch. Research has found that, without work experience, they are more likely to find that they have inappropriate skills or are overqualified. If there is a mismatch between the acquired and required level of education or skills, they may be considered ‘overqualified for the job’[41].

Figure 3‑V shows that ‘vertical skills mismatch’ or ‘over-qualification’ among young people with tertiary education qualifications is widespread in Europe, by relating their qualifications to their jobs as classified in the International Classifications of Occupations (ISCO). In 2010, on average just over one fifth of the 25 to 34 age group was either inappropriately qualified or overqualified. The highest proportions of overqualified young people were in Spain, Cyprus and Ireland, in which almost one in three young people were employed in a job which did not require their tertiary qualifications[42].

Figure 3‑V: Distribution of young people (aged 25-34) with tertiary education (ISCED 5-6) 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, 2010

Source: Eurostat.

Note: ISCO 1, 2 and 3 are categories of occupations usually requiring tertiary qualifications.

Clearly, the impact of skill forecasting in helping young people to plan their studies and enter the labour market is most effective when integrated into a career guidance system[43]. However, the evidence from the Eurobarometer survey ‘Employment and Social Policy’ is that a majority of respondents received no guidance during education, while one in four of those who did were not satisfied (Figure 3‑W).

The Eurydice study ‘New Skills for New Jobs’ Policy initiatives in the field of education: Short overview of the current situation in Europe (2010) reports on the measures taken by Member States in the field of the early identification of skills requirements. Several actions are recognised. The first is related to conducting studies on skills supply and requirements in the labour market, i.e. forecasting labour market developments and planning education and training provision. The second concerns developing a monitoring system based on both quantitative and qualitative methods, aiming at providing a deeper understanding of the regional and national labour market trends and requirements. The third relates to setting up the networks of organisations to establish a well-functioning communication system, and constructing a coherent system of informing and planning.

Figure 3‑W: Career guidance offered at school and its support on acquiring the skills needed for the type of job wanted, EU-27 average, 2011

||

It helped you acquire the skills needed for the type of job you wanted

It did not help you acquire the skills needed for the type of job you wanted

You did not receive any career guidance at school (spontaneous)

Don't know

Source: 2011 Special Eurobarometer 377 ‘Employment and Social Policy’

Note: the question was ‘Which of the following statements best describes the career guidance you received at school? It helped you acquire the skills needed for the type of job you wanted; it did not help you acquire the skills needed for the type of job you wanted; you did not receive any career guidance at school (spontaneous); don’t know.’

In a few countries (Estonia, Greece, Cyprus, Hungary and Portugal), a majority of young respondents said they received no career guidance at school. By contrast, very high proportions of students were involved in guidance activities in France, Poland and the United Kingdom. Around half the respondents in the Czech Republic, France, Slovenia and Slovakia, greatly appreciated the quality of these activities. This differs from the situation reported in Germany, Ireland, Greece and Finland, in which only one in four students found career guidance an effective means for preparing for the job market.

3.4.2. High-quality traineeships and internships

Young people often have difficulty in finding a job because they lack experience, and special measures such as traineeships and internships can help to broaden their experience. In the 2011 ‘Employment and Social Policy’ Eurobarometer survey, which explored the topic of traineeships, 61 % of respondents acknowledged that work experience was the most important factor in employability. The survey then went further by focusing on their participation in such training programmes and how this might help them to get a job. All respondents except students were asked whether they had completed one or more traineeships either during or immediately after completing their education[44]. Although almost two-thirds (63 %) said that they had not completed any training programmes, and a third (34 %) has completed at least one traineeship. Out of this third, 16 % completed one, 8 % two, and 10 % three or more. The six countries whose citizens completed at least one traineeship are: Denmark (51 %), Estonia (57 %), Lithuania (55 %), Luxembourg (54 %), Finland (56 %), and Sweden (53 %). Young people in the remaining 21 Member States predominantly had not completed any traineeship either during or immediately after finishing their education.

Figure 3‑X: Traineeship and its importance on finding a job, EU-27 average, 2011

|| %

It helped to get a permanent job

It helped to find a temprorary job

It led you to another traineeship

It did not help you to find a job

Don't know

Source: 2011 Special Eurobarometer 377 ‘Employment and Social Policy’

Note: The question was ‘Thinking about the traineeship(s) you have completed, which of the following statements best corresponds to your situation? It led you to another traineeship; it helped you to find a temporary job; it helped you to get a permanent job; it did not help you to find a job; don't know’.

Base: those who completed a traineeship = 31 % of the total sample.

As shown in Figure 3‑X, 44 % of respondents who reported they had completed a traineeship felt that it helped them to get a permanent job. A lower percentage (17 %) reported a similar opinion with regards to a temporary job. By contrast, 26 % stated that a traineeship was not helpful. Finally, almost one in ten respondents reported that their traineeship led to another one.

3.4.3. Support for young households to reconcile work and private life

Early childhood education and care are provided and subsidised, albeit organised differently from one country to another[45].

Figure 3‑Y: Affordability of childcare services, by country, 2010

|| total affordable || || not affordable (not very and not all affordable) || || not at all affordable

Source: 2010 Special Eurobarometer 355 ‘Poverty and Social Exclusion’

Note: The question was ‘And thinking now about the affordability of childcare services in your country, would you say that they are – Very affordable, Fairly affordable, Not very affordable, Not at all affordable, Nothing to pay/free?’

Figure 3‑Y shows the opinions of EU citizens on affordability of childcare (collected in 2010 by a special Eurobarometer). Childcare services were considered generally affordable by 44 % of respondents. On the other hand, 34 % reported that these services were ‘not affordable’[46].

3.4.4. Geographical career mobility

The Flash Eurobarometer survey ‘Youth on the Move’ (2011) contains findings on young people's experience and willingness to move to another EU country. First, 77 % of them said that they had not experienced living in another country. Conversely, 20 % said that they had gone abroad for at least one month for other than leisure purposes. Of this 20 %, only about half replied that they had already worked abroad. Among the survey respondents, more young men (10.8 %) had been abroad than young women (6.9 %). And it was unsurprising that higher proportions of older respondents had gone abroad to work than in the case of the young. The steadily increasing proportions for the age groups of 15 to 19, 20 to 24 and 25 to 29 years were 1.7%, 7.5%, and 10.9 % respectively.

Figure 3‑Z reveals substantial differences between European countries in the proportions of young people who have gone abroad to work even for short periods. The highest proportions came mainly from central Europe, ranging from around 20 % in Poland and Romania to 27 % in Slovakia. But Ireland fell within the same range with 26 %. By contrast, the proportions in Belgium, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Slovenia were no more than around 5 %.

Figure 3‑Z: Young having stayed abroad for working purposes for at least one month, by country, 2011

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319b ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Apart from vacation or tourism, learning or training, have you ever stayed abroad for at least one month for working purposes?’

Base: all respondents, % of 'mentions' shown, total.

Due to the high unemployment rates in southern European countries, mobility intentions are high (especially among young people) and labour mobility from those countries has increased, contrasting with an overall decline in intra-EU mobility since 2008. Emigration from these countries has increased, notably in the form of return migration, but there are also early signs of new patterns of emigration of nationals (e.g. from Ireland to Australia)[47].

4. Education and Training 4.1. Introduction

Education is at the centre of a young person's life. At school and in other learning environments, young people acquire the skills needed in order to make appropriate choices with a view ultimately to achieving fulfilment and independence in adult life. Between the age of 15 and mature adulthood, young people progress gradually through the different routes offered by education and training system. As they gain successive qualifications, they ideally become better equipped to find their preferred jobs and play an active part in society.

4.2. Formal education

Formal education here means ‘education provided in the system of schools, colleges, universities and other formal educational institutions. It normally constitutes a continuous “ladder” of full-time education for children and young people, generally beginning at the age of 5 to 7 and continuing to up to 20 or 25 years old’[48].

4.2.1. Participation and attainment

Today, young people expect to spend an average of 17 years in education during their lifetime. This estimation varies from one country to another, ranging for example, in 2011, from Luxembourg and Slovenia with 15 years to Finland with 20.5 years[49].

Since 2005 the duration of education is extending. This is related to efforts to extend the length of compulsory education in many countries, by either bringing forward the start of formal education or by extending full-time/part-time attendance at upper secondary level. In addition, participation rates in education in the two years following the end of compulsory education has increased or stayed stable, as observed in the 2000/09 period[50].

Figure 4‑A shows data on the proportion of the 20 to 24 year olds who had at least completed upper secondary education in 2010. On average, the EU-27 rate was 79 %, marking a slight increase across the European countries since 2000 when the rate was 76.6 %. The increase has been the greatest in Malta and Portugal.

Figure 4‑A: EU youth indicator: Young people (aged 20-24) having completed at least upper secondary education (ISCED 3), by country, 2000 and 2011

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: tsiir110

Despite this overall positive trend, there were still countries where many 20 to 24 year olds did not complete upper secondary education in 2011, such as Malta and Spain. In Denmark, Luxembourg, Spain and Finland, the proportion of young people having completed at least upper secondary level has decreased compared to 2000. By contrast, in the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, almost all young people aged 20 to 24 years old had completed upper secondary level. Outside the EU-27, Iceland and Turkey had the lowest share of young people having completed upper secondary education (nearly half) whereas in Norway, the rate decreased by more than 20 percentage points in eleven years.

Figure 4‑B: EU youth indicator: Young people (aged 20-24) having completed at least upper secondary education (ISCED 3), by country and by sex, 2011

|| Females || || Males

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: tsiir110

Differences by gender are significant. Figure 4‑B indicates that at EU level (2011), the proportion of women among the 20 to 24 year olds who have at least completed upper secondary education was greater than that of men: 82.4 % against 76.7 %. This picture applies to all Member States but Bulgaria. The gap between women and men is the greatest in Denmark, Spain, Malta and Portugal with more than 10 percentage points difference between the genders.

There is a significant share of young people not having completed upper secondary education. Early leavers from education and training are defined as people aged 18 to 24 who have only lower secondary education or less and are no longer in education or training. It means that they have only achieved pre-primary, primary, lower secondary or a short upper secondary education of less than two years.

Students facing strong difficulties in the school education system might feel compelled to end their education prematurely without having gained relevant qualifications or a school certificate. Many factors can explain why young people find themselves in such a situation. Some reasons lie in personal backgrounds, for example coming from a socially disadvantaged background which does not support school attendance and academic performance. Other reasons relate to school and education systems, for instance, the lack of support for those who repeat a year and are left behind. Early leavers from education and training tend more to be unemployed, get less secure and jobs and earn less. They are therefore more at risk of poverty and social exclusion.

Figure 4‑C: EU youth indicator: Early leavers from education and training[51] (population aged 18-24 with at most lower secondary education, ISCED 3c, and not in further education or training), by country, 2000 and 2011

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: t2020_40

Note:  2000: Data are from 2001 for BG, PL and SI; Data are from 2002 for CZ, IE, LV, SK and HR.

Figure 4‑C shows a decreasing trend in early leaving from education and training. In 2011, the EU-27 rate was 13.5 %, or 3.5 percentage points less than in 2000. Early leaving is rather uncommon in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia with rates below 5 %. Bulgaria, Malta and Portugal are among the countries where the share of early leavers decreased the most. Malta still had the highest rate with 33.5 % followed by Portugal and Spain and Portugal with respectively rates of 23.2% and 26.5 % Outside the EU-27, in Iceland and Turkey early leaving stood at respectively 19.7 % and 41.9 % while in Croatia it affected only a minority.

Early leaving has a strong gender dimension: on average in the EU-27, men are more affected than women with 15.3 % against 11.6 %. The extreme case is Portugal where the male early school leaving rate (28.2 %) is ten points higher than the female rate (18.1 %). Although in Denmark and Lithuania, the early leaver rate is rather low in total, the rate for men is twice as high as that of women. An exception is Bulgaria, where the share is slightly higher among women.

Figure 4‑D: EU youth indicator: Early leavers from education and training (population aged 18-24 with at most lower secondary education, ISCED 3c, and not in further education or training), by country and by sex, 2011

|| Females || || Males

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: t2020_40

There are still opportunities for young people who have prematurely left school to re-enter mainstream education or to gain the qualifications they need. The recognition and validation of such learning outcomes are also a means of (re)integrating education and training systems, enabling students to progress further and possibly access tertiary education or equivalent courses.

Figure 4‑E: EU youth indicator: Trends in the tertiary educational attainment of people aged 30-34, EU-27 average, by sex, 2000-2011

||

Males

Females

Total

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: t2020_41

The trend observed during the 2000-2011 period shows an increase of nearly 50 % in the attainment rate in tertiary education or equivalent at EU levelThere are still opportunities for young people who have prematurely left school to re-enter mainstream education or to gain the qualifications they need. The recognition and validation of such learning outcomes are also a means of (re)integrating education and training systems, enabling students to progress further and possibly access tertiary education or equivalent courses.

Figure 4‑E).

Figure 4‑F: EU youth indicator: Tertiary educational attainment of people aged 30-34, by country and by sex, 2011

|| Total || || Females || || Males

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: t2020_41

According to Figure 4‑F, the highest attainment rates are to be found in Luxembourg and Ireland where almost half of the young people aged 30 to 34 have graduated from tertiary education. At the other end, in Italy and Romania this rate is nearly a fifth of 30 to 34 year olds.

The gender gap regarding tertiary educational or equivalent attainment is widespread in the EU-27. The proportion of women gaining qualifications is higher than that of men with nearly more than 20 percentage points difference in Estonia, Latvia and Finland. In Germany, Austria, Malta and Romania, the attainment rate for women was almost equal to that for men.

Notwithstanding the positive overall trend, not all students entering tertiary education complete their studies. The average completion rate for programmes leading to a Bachelor degree was 72 % in 2008[52].

4.2.2. Skills achievements

Figure 4‑G shows the percentage of low achievers[53] in reading, mathematics and science (2009). Regarding the EU average, the highest proportion of low achievers is to be found in mathematics (22.2 %) while in reading and science, rates are 19.6 % and 17.7 % respectively.

Figure 4‑G: Low-achieving 15 year-old students in reading, mathematics and science, by country, 2009

Reading

Mathematics

Science

Source: OECD – PISA 2009 databases.

Note: UK (1) stands for United Kingdom – England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Belgium (the Flemish and German-speaking communities), Estonia, the Netherlands and Finland are the countries in which the share of low achievers is among the lowest in at least two of the three basic skills fields. Bulgaria and Romania are the EU-27 countries in which the proportion of low achievers is highest in the three fields, with rates of sometimes 40 % or over.

Young people with a disadvantaged background are prone to have a higher share among low-achievers[54].

Communication in another language than one's mother tongue enables young people to discover and understand different cultures and is also important for mobility, either to study or to work in an international environment abroad.

Nearly 60 % of students in upper secondary education in the EU-27 were learning at least two foreign languages in 2010. Yet, there are high discrepancies between countries. Every upper secondary student enrolled in general education in the Czech Republic and Luxembourg was learning two or more foreign languages. In four others (Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Finland), rates stand above 95 %. By contrast, in Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom less than one in ten upper secondary students were learning two or more foreign languages.

Figure 4‑H: EU youth indicator: Young people in upper general secondary education (ISCED 3 Gen) learning two or more foreign languages, by country, 2010

Source: Eurostat data collection on language learning in schools. Online data code: educ_ilang

Comparing 2010 with 2005 and 2007, a few countries (e.g. Estonia and Malta) registered an increase, whereas there was a decline in Portugal and the United Kingdom. These diverging trends can be explained by differences in educational regulations regarding teaching of foreign languages at school. In most countries, students have to learn a minimum of two foreign languages for at least one year during full-time compulsory education.

4.3. Non-formal education and training and youth work

Formal education and training is the most visible and recognised form of learning in society. Yet, non-formal education and training is increasingly acknowledged as an essential part of the lifelong learning process of any individual. Non-formal education covers a range of educational programmes: ‘adult literacy, basic education for out of school children, life-skills, work-skills, and general culture. It may take place both within and outside educational institutions and cater to persons of all ages’[55].

Figure 4‑I shows 2011 data on the proportion of young people between 15 and 24 who had taken part in non-formal learning activities in the four weeks preceding the survey. The participation rate in the EU-27 was 9 %. This percentage has remained rather stable since 2004, fluctuating between 9.1 % and 9.5 %.

Figure 4‑I: Participation in non-formal learning of young people (aged 15-24), by country, 2011

Figure 4‑J: Participation in non-formal learning of young people (aged 15-24), by country and by sex, 2011

|| EU || || BE || BG || CZ || DK || DE || EE || IE || EL || ES || FR || IT || CY || LV || LT || LU || HU || MT || NL || AT

Total || 9.0 || || 2.7 || 0.9 || 10.2 || 34.4 || 3.1 || 4.7 || 3.8 || 16.2 || 19.4 || 5.7 || 4.6 || 28.4 || 2.1 || 7.5 || 7.0 || 2.2 || 6.3 || 3.4 || 12.8

Males || 8.7 || || 2.5 || : || 9.3 || 32.5 || 2.9 || 3.4 || 3.4 || 14.5 || 18.3 || 5.7 || 4.6 || 27.4 || 2.0 || 7.5 || 7.0 || 2.0 || : || 3.6 || 12.4

Females || 9.3 || || 2.8 || 1.2 || 11.1 || 36.3 || 3.3 || 6.0 || 4.3 || 17.8 || 20.5 || 5.8 || 4.6 || 29.3 || 2.2 || 7.5 || 7.0 || 2.5 || 7.8 || 3.2 || 13.1

|| PL || PT || RO || SI || SK || FI || SE || UK || || || LI || NO || CH || || HR || || ME || IS || MK || RS || TR

Total || 1.9 || 11.3 || 1.1 || 10.5 || 1.6 || 11.2 || 28.7 || 23.1 || || || : || 8.2 || 23.0 || || 0.7 || || : || 9.5 || 2.8 || : || 6.7

Males || 1.8 || 10.6 || 1.2 || 9.5 || 1.5 || 9.8 || 26.7 || 23.1 || || || : || 8.9 || 20.4 || || : || || : || 8.8 || 3.0 || : || 6.5

Females || 2.0 || 11.9 || 1.0 || 11.6 || 1.7 || 12.7 || 30.8 || 23.2 || || || : || 7.5 || 25.6 || || : || || : || 10.2 || 2.6 || : || 6.9

Source: Eurostat – LFS. Online data code: trng_lfs_09

There are however significant differences among the countries. In Denmark, nearly 35 % of the 15 to 24 age group, or triple the EU-27 average, were attending non-formal learning activities. Also, in Cyprus, Sweden and the United Kingdom, participation rates ranged from 23.1 % to 28.4 %. Yet, in nearly half of the EU countries, less than about 5 % of the 15 to 24 year olds took part in non-formal learning activities in 2011. In Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and Slovakia, participation rates are below 2 %.

Figure 4‑J shows that young women take part in non-formal learning activities more extensively than young men almost everywhere in Europe. This trend is especially marked in e.g. Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Finland and Sweden.

Non-formal education and training takes mainly place in the context of youth work. Youth work refers to ‘activities with and for young people of a social, cultural, educational or political nature.’ In addition, ‘youth work increasingly deals with unemployment, educational failure, marginalisation and social exclusion.’[56] Youth work plays a fundamental role in supporting young people in their personal education and fulfilment and in consolidating their identity among their peers and within society, as they are encouraged to take an active part in any field of interest to them. Youth work activities also sometimes target young people who are especially at risk of social marginalisation and poverty.

A study on youth work as carried out in some countries[57] showed that such activities are offered to a broad age range encompassing childhood and early adolescence (seven and eleven years old respectively in Estonia and Austria) as well as mature adulthood (36 years is the ceiling age in Italy). However, in all countries the young people most intensively involved appear to be aged between 15 and 29. Finally, while in general they mainly take part in extracurricular youth education and recreational activities, many other types of services are on offer. The latter may be internationally oriented or may focus on the local community; they may promote active civic and democratic participation of young people, or the prevention of social exclusion; or they may be concerned with youth information and counselling on matters such as school problems and career guidance.

4.4. Learning mobility

Going abroad for learning purposes is an experience that brings many benefits: from learning a foreign language and discovering a different culture to widening job opportunities and career prospects.

The Eurobarometer survey ‘Youth on the Move’ conducted in 2011 inquired about mobility of young people aged between 15 and 29 in Europe. As Figure 4‑K shows, the vast majority of respondents reported never to have stayed abroad for learning or training purposes. Only 13.5 % of them and 15.4 % at EU level studied in another country. At national level, percentages vary greatly: 41.3 % of the respondents from Luxembourg and 38.6 % in Cyprus studied abroad. At the other end of the scale, in Bulgaria, Romania and the United Kingdom less than one in ten respondents went abroad for learning purposes.

Figure 4‑K: Young people who have stayed abroad for learning or training purposes (aged 15-29), by country, 2011

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319b ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Have you ever stayed abroad for learning or training purposes (outside the country where you received your prior education) or are you currently abroad?’

Base: all respondents, % by country.

According to the survey, of the respondents who had stayed abroad, 43% said they had studied abroad as part of their higher education studies and the same proportion answered that they had done so as part of their lower or upper secondary school education. In Greece, Ireland, Cyprus and Luxembourg the share of respondents who studied abroad as part of higher education was more than 67 %. In Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Austria and Sweden, more than 50 % of respondents had studied outside their country at secondary level of education.

Vocational education and training (VET) students were less likely to study abroad (33 %). Nonetheless, in Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Poland the rates are nearly 45 %.

Undertaking a traineeship abroad either within higher or vocational education abroad was less prevalent among the respondents with 26 % and 21 % respectively. The highest rates within higher education were in Luxembourg and France (36 % and 38 %) and in vocational education and training in Bulgaria and Romania (32 % and 31 %).

The duration of learning mobility periods varies according to the type and level of education programmes. Respondents who went abroad for studying in higher education were more likely to stay longer i.e. more than one year (21 %).

According to the Eurobarometer survey, the most important reason why respondents did not go abroad is lack of interest (28 %), followed by lack of funding or the stay being too expensive (20 %). In addition, 13 % have reported family commitments as the first main reason.

The Eurobarometer survey also shows that students used various types of financial resources for their studies abroad. Figure 4‑L shows that they mostly used their private funds and savings (65.7 %). This is particularly the case of countries such as Germany, Spain, Greece, France, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Austria and the United Kingdom, where nearly half of the respondents reported doing so. Young Europeans used the three other types of financial resources almost equally during their studies or traineeships: employers' support (18.4 %), regional or national study loans and grants (17.3 %) and EU funded mobility programmes such as Erasmus, and Youth in Action (15.2 %).

Figure 4‑L: Type of financial resources used during the longest stay abroad by young people (aged 15-29), by country, 2011

|| Private funds / savings || || EU funded mobility programmes (LLP, Youth in Action, Erasmus Mundus or other)

|| National or regional study loans/grants || || Other grants and awards

|| Paid partly by employer || ||

Source: 2011 Flash Eurobarometer 319b ‘Youth on the Move’

Note: The question was ‘Thinking about your longest stay abroad, how did you finance your stay?’

Base: respondents who have been abroad for at least one of the tested learning mobility periods, % of mentions 'shown', total.

Behind this overall picture, young people financed their longest stays differently in the different countries. In Luxembourg, national or regional study loans and grants financed the longest stays of more than half of the young people surveyed. In Ireland, the Netherlands, Romania and the United Kingdom, more than a third of the respondents had their stay partially paid by the employer.

EU funded mobility programmes were used by a significant percentage of young respondents from Lithuania and Finland (around 35 %). Finally, in Belgium, Finland and Sweden, more than one in ten respondents who stayed abroad have had other grants and awards for financing their longest stay abroad.

Annual data on the Erasmus programme[58] show that in 2010/11, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Liechtenstein and, Spain, Austria and Finland were the countries with the highest share of students who went abroad in the overall student population of students. The countries which sent most students abroad under the Erasmus programme in 2010/11 were by order of numbers Spain, France followed by Germany, Italy and Poland. The most popular destinations among students were first Spain and France, followed by the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy.

Figure 4‑M: Outward degree tertiary education students from the EHEA to abroad outside the EHEA, by country of origin, 2008/09

Source: Eurostat – UOE data collection

Figure 4‑M reveals that 48 % of the students who went abroad outside the European Higher Education Area (EHEA)[59] in 2008/09 were from Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Turkey. This type of mobility i.e. outward degree mobility[60] was also significant in numerical terms in Spain, Italy and Sweden.

Figure 4‑N: Tertiary education graduates from a country of the EHEA, graduating inside the EHEA, as a percentage of the total number of graduates of the same country of origin, 2008/09

Source: Eurostat –UOE data collection

Figure 4‑N shows that most graduates from Cyprus (58 %) have graduated abroad but within the EHEA. However this was truly exceptional case among the EU-27 countries, as in Greece, Ireland and Malta, the rates ranged from 10 % to 13.5 %, while in the remaining countries, they were much smaller so that the total average rate was below 2 %.

[1]               Council Resolution of 27 November 2009 on a renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018) (2009/C 311/01), OJ C 311, 19.12.2009, pp. 1-11.

[2]               SEC(2011) 401. This document presents 40 indicators. One additional indicator has since been added, bringing the total number of EU Youth Indicators to 41.

[3]               Separate contributions were submitted by the three language communities of Belgium. All EU candidate countries and EFTA-countries, which are programme countries under the Commission's Youth in Action programme, were invited to submit National Youth Reports.

[4]               The age-span of eligibility in the Youth in Action programme is 13 to 30.

[5]               The data from Eurostat databases was extracted in June 2012.

The special value ‘:’ indicates that the data is not available for a country. The special value ‘V’ indicates that the respective country is not participating in the survey.

[6]               OJ C 311, 19.12.2009, pp. 1-11.

[7]               The age-span of eligibility in the Youth in Action programme is 13 to 30.

[8]               Eurostat – online data code: demo_pjangroup.

[9]               The population is a stock and it refers to 1 January of a certain year.

[10]             Eurostat – online data code: demo_frate.

[11]             The main indicator of fertility is the Total Fertility Rate (TFR): this is the mean number of children that would be born alive to a woman during her lifetime if she were to pass through her childbearing years conforming to the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.

[12]             Eurostat 2011b, p. 28.

[13]             The population is a stock and it refers to 1 January of a certain year.

[14]             The population is a stock and it refers to 1 January of a certain year.

[15]             European Commission 2011c, p. 46.

[16]             The population is a stock and it refers to 1 January of a certain year.

[17]             European Commission 2011d, p. 255.

[18]             The population is a stock and it refers to 1 January of a certain year.

[19]             The immigration of large numbers of Portuguese citizens during the 1960s and 1970s appears to be the main reason for this.

[20]             European Commission 2012f.

[21]             Eurofound 2011a, pp.6-9.

[22]             ODI 2010, pp.14-17.

[23]             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 as unemployed.

[24]             ILO 2012, p. 8.

[25]             Eurofound 2011a, p. 3.

[26]             Ibid. p. 4.

[27]             European Commission 2010a, pp. 132-133.

[28]             OECD 2011, p. 12.

[29]             SALTO-Youth 2011.

[30]             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.

[31]             The Youth unemployment rate (15 to 24) is the proportion of unemployed people over the active population in the same (15 to 24) age group.

The Youth unemployment ratio (15 to 24) is the proportion of unemployed people over the total population in the same (15 to 24) age group.

[32]             A job lasting at least three months.

[33]             Eurydice/EACEA and Eurostat 2012, pp. 178-179.

[34]             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.

[35]             Please see the definition of the educational levels according to the 1997 International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED – UOE) in Chapter 0 on Due to the high unemployment rates in southern European countries, mobility intentions are high (especially among young people) and labour mobility from those countries has increased, contrasting with an overall decline in intra-EU mobility since 2008. Emigration from these countries has increased, notably in the form of return migration, but there are also early signs of new patterns of emigration of nationals (e.g. from Ireland to Australia).

Education and Training.

[36]             Eurofound 2011a, p. 2.

[37]             As explained when defining full-time employment, the distinction between full-time and part-time work is based on a spontaneous response by the respondent (except in the Netherlands, Iceland and Norway where part-time is determined 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.

[38]             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).

[39]             European Commission 2010a, p. 141

[40]             Eurostat – online data codes: shift work: lfsa_ewpshi; evening work: lfsa_ewpeve; night work: lfsa_ewpnig; Saturday: lfsa_ewpsat; Sunday:lfsa_ewpsun.

[41]             Cedefop 2010, p. 34.

[42]             The forthcoming 2012 European Commission's report on Employment and Social Developments in Europe will explore in more details the problem of skills mismatch in the EU.

[43]             For the development of career guidance policies see: European Lifelong Guidance Policy Network (www.elgpn.eu), For an insight onto existing career guidance provided at school in Europe, see Eurydice/EACEA 2010, pp. 61-64 and Eurydice/EACEA 2011c, pp. 48-53.

[44]             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?’

[45]             See Eurydice/EACEA 2009b for more information on how early childhood education and care is provided for and organised in the EU.

[46]             See more data on accessibility, affordability of childcare, other reconciliation measures in the SPC report on Tackling and preventing child poverty (Social Protection Committee, 2012).

[47]             European Commission, 2012f

[48]             Eurostat 2006, p. 13.

[49]             Eurostat – online data code: educ_igen.

[50]             Eurydice/EACEA and Eurostat 2012, pp. 77/78.

[51]             Further harmonisation of concepts used in the EU Labour Force Survey hampers the comparability of data between 2000 and 2010 in particular in Denmark, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Iceland and Norway.

[52]             Eurydice/EACEA 2012, p. 106.

[53]             The Council of the European Union has defined low achievers as students who have been marked below Level 2 in the PISA surveys.

[54]             Social Protection Committee 2012.

[55]             Eurostat 2006, p. 13.

[56]             Partnership between the European Commission and the Council of Europe in the field of Youth 2007, p. 20.

[57]             Partnership between the European Commission and the Council of Europe in the field of Youth 2007.

[58]             European Commission 2012c.

[59]             The countries considered as outside the EHEA were Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States.

[60]             Outward degree mobility refers to students that moved out of a country in order to acquire a whole degree or certificate in the country of destination.