1. Implementation monitoring of the youth guarantee in Latvia Riga, 12-13 April 2016

2. 1. Key features of the youth guarantee (YG) in Latvia; 2.Framework of indicators for monitoring the YG (EMCO, ESF/YEI); 3.Monitoring progress in early intervention, activation and outreach; 4.Direct YG monitoring indicators: 2014 results; 5.Reporting the progress of YG implementation: some highlights Content

4. EU indicators framework The EU monitoring framework comprises three sets of indicators: 1.The Indicator framework for monitoring the YG set by the Employment Committee (EMCO) Indicator Group (centred on entry/exit of young people in the YG and on the indirect effects of implementation on youth educational attainment and labour market situation); 2.Those established by the European Social Fund (ESF) for the programming period 2014-2020; and 3.Those set under the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI). These latter indicators are aimed at monitoring the direct intervention financed by the EU funds and targeting specific individuals.

5. Indicator framework for monitoring the YG (EMCO) Aggregate indicators 1.NEET rate; 2.Labour market indicators; 3.Educational attainment indicators; Direct monitoring 1.Youth in the YG preparatory phase beyond the 4 month target; 2.Positive and timely exit from YG; 3.Coverage of YG (average annual stock in the YG preparatory phase/NEET population) Follow-up monitoring 1.Situation of youth after exiting YG preparatory phase (6.12, 18 months); 2.As above, by type of offer

6. ESF/YEI monitoring indicators Output indicators 1.Number of participants by personal characteristics and type of intervention; 2.Number of participants who complete a funded intervention. Outcome indicators 1.Participants situation upon leaving the supported intervention (4 weeks); 2.Participants situation 6 months after leaving the supported intervention.

7. In a nutshell.....

8. Monitoring YG delivery: pending issues 1.There is an overlapping between the EMCO and the ESF/YEI indicators, but with different disaggregation requirements for individual characteristics; 2.The novelty of the YG monitoring framework (definition of entry and exit, what is a valid offer and what is not, classification of positive/negative destination) has forced the attention of monitoring authorities on delivery and result indicators, while the overall progress of the YG goes under-reported; 3.There is no express definition of what constitute a “quality” offer and uncertainties on how to measure the quality of YG service delivery.

9. Monitoring key reforms NEET rate, by labour market status (from baseline); Employment-to-population ratio; employment rate of recent graduates; early leavers (%); youth educational attainment; Proportion of youth (20-29) with low educational attainment; Employment-to-population ratio, unemployment rate; Youth-to-adult unemployment ratio.  National outreach strategy;  Framework for the provision of career education;  Second chance vocational education programmes;  Reform of SEA service delivery for youth.  National outreach strategy;  Framework for the provision of career education;  Second chance vocational education programmes;  Reform of SEA service delivery for youth.

10. Monitoring early intervention Employment rate of recent graduates (20-34 years old, ISCED level 3-6); Early school leavers (18-24), ISCED level 0-2; Youth (20-29) with low educational attainment (ISCED level 0-2); Youth (20-24) with ISCED level 3 and over (%); Share of 30-34 with tertiary education (ISCED level 5-8); Employment-to-population ratio by educational attainment (ISCED) and stream (general/vocational).  Dual education, apprenticeship;  Involvement of employers in VET;  Education Information System (absenteeism);  Mandatory support to low achievers;  Career education in schools;  Extra curricula interest (at municipal level).  Dual education, apprenticeship;  Involvement of employers in VET;  Education Information System (absenteeism);  Mandatory support to low achievers;  Career education in schools;  Extra curricula interest (at municipal level).

11. Monitoring activation The indicators to measure the effect of activation are YG direct monitoring indicator (entry/exit and destination) combined with aggregate labour market and NEET indicators: NEET rates, by labour market status; Employment-to-population ratios; Youth unemployment ratio; Youth unemployment rate; Youth to adult unemployment ratio.  Individual and group counselling and guidance, LMI, job search assistance;  Assessment vocational skills;  Individual employment planning;  Motivation training;  Psychological support;  LM competitiveness (short training courses).  Individual and group counselling and guidance, LMI, job search assistance;  Assessment vocational skills;  Individual employment planning;  Motivation training;  Psychological support;  LM competitiveness (short training courses).

12. Monitoring outreach Transition indicators and direct monitoring indicators (entry/exit) combined with aggregate indicators (especially the NEET rate). Transition table to map the situation of youth by labour market status before and after intervention.

13. Direct monitoring: entry and exit (total, 2014) AgeTotal entrantsRegistered unemployed No prior YG experience 15-2416,577 (100%) 15,221 (91.8%) 25-2915,326 (100%) 14,166 (92.4%) AgeTotal exitsPositiveNegativeUnknown 15-2410,688 (64.5%) 7,629 (71.4%).....3,059 (28.6%) 25-2915,326 (100%) 5,322 (34.7%) 10,004 (65.3%)....

14. Positive exits (15-24) by destination (total, 2014) TotalEmploymentEducationApprent.Trainees. 7,6296,074 (79.6%) 1,555 (20.4%)........... Of which subsidized 2,423 (31.7%) 897 (37%) 1,526 (63%)......... 25.5% of youth were still in the YG preparatory phase after the 4 months target; 56.1% of timely exits were positive 43.7% of timely, positive exits were in employment and 12.4% in education; 20% of all timely and positive exits were subsidized.

15. Distribution of participants across labour market measures Distribution of youth (15-29), YG labour market measures (Jan. 2014-May 2015)

16. Reporting on YG progress: some highlights 1.Consider the changes of aggregate indicators over time also in relation to the policy reforms introduced; 2.Compare the individual characteristics of youth groups at risks of becoming NEET with the distribution of YG participants; 3.Expand the disaggregation of EMCO follow-up indicators to verify the quality of YG outcomes (employment, education, traineeship and apprenticeship); 4.If necessary, run follow-up surveys to verify reasons of non-acceptance of offers, dropout, negative and unknown destination.

17. QUESTIONS?

18. Contact International Labour Office EC-ILO Action on youth employment policy in Europe Email: youth@ilo.org, rosas@ilo.orgyouth@ilo.orgrosas@ilo.org Website: www.ilo.org/youthwww.ilo.org/youth Twitter:@ ILOyouth