Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: February 2018

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: February 2018"

Transcription

1 Data collection for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: 2016 February 2018 January 2018

2 This report has received financial support from the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation EaSI ( ). For further information, please consult: The report has been prepared by Alphametrics Ltd under contract to the European Commission. The information contained in it does not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Commission. January

3 Table of contents Executive summary Introduction Context for the implementation of YG schemes Main indicator: NEET rate Developments in NEET rates since the launch of the YG Supplementary indicators The YG in numbers Direct and follow-up monitoring key results Overview of YG implementation EU level improvement needed in all areas Implementation performance at national level Direct monitoring results Young people are remaining longer in YG schemes Just over 4 of those leaving the YG took up an offer within 4 months More than two thirds of timely offers were employment opportunities YG schemes continue to reach less than 4 of NEETs Recycling through the YG is becoming significant Follow-up monitoring Less than half of those leaving the YG in 2016 known to be in a positive situation 6 months later Longer-term monitoring suggests that outcomes are sustained but highlight the need to improve follow-up data Indicative evidence that YG offers contribute to better outcomes YG offers Basis of data Characteristics of offers Employment Continued education Traineeships Apprenticeships Assessment of data provided Delivery of data Coverage Improvements Outstanding issues Completion of data Improvements Outstanding issues Quality of data Improvements Outstanding issues Conclusions Appendix List of tables & figures Table 1 - Timely and positive offers by type of offer and the proportion that is subsidised, EU28, 2016 (%) Table 2 - Summary of the types of YG offer provided by country, Table 3 - Characteristics of employment offers, Table 4 - Characteristics of continued education offers, Table 5 - Characteristics of traineeship offers, Table 6 - Characteristics of apprenticeship offers, January

4 Table 7 - Delays in the delivery of YG data Table 8 - Key improvements in the completion of data, Table 9 - Key missing data, Table 10 - Proportion of exits with unknown destinations, Table 11 - Proportion of unknown situations in 6m follow-up data for Table 12 - YG monitoring data (age-group 15-24), main variables, Table 13 - Direct main: proportion of young people in the YG for more than 4 months, 2016 (% stock) Table 14 - Direct supplementary: timely and positive exits from the YG, 2016 (% exits) Table 15 - Direct supplementary: timely and positive exits from the YG by type of offer, 2016 (% timely and positive exits) Table 16 - Direct supplementary: NEET coverage, 2016 (% NEET population) Table 17 - Follow-up main: proportion of young people known to be in a positive situation 6 months after exit from the YG, 2016 (% exits) Table 18 - Situation of young people (aged 15-24) 6 months after exit from the YG, 2016 (% exits) Table 19 - Proportion of young people leaving the YG in 2016 and known to be in a positive situation 6 months after exit in total and by type of offer (% exits) Table 20 - Proportion of young people leaving the YG in 2015 and known to be in a positive situation 12 months after exit in total and by type of offer upon exit (% exits) Table 21 - Proportion of young people leaving the YG in 2014 and known to be in a positive situation 18 months after exit in total and by type of offer upon exit (% exits) Figure 1 - NEET rates by sex, 2016 (% population, 15-24) Figure 2 - NEET rates by age-group, 2016 (% population, 15-24) Figure 3 - Change in NEET rates by status, (pp) Figure 4 - NEET rate by labour market status, 2016 (% population, 15-24) Figure 5 - Proportion of young unemployed not in education or training, Figure 6 - Ratio of the youth and adult unemployment ratios and NEET rates, Figure 7 - Flows through the YG and annual average stocks by age-group, EU-28, Figure 8 - Key indicators of YG implementation, EU average, Figure 9 - Key indicators of YG implementation in 2016 compared to 2015, EU average Figure 10 - Proportion of young people aged currently in a YG scheme and registered for more than 4 months, (% annual average stock) Figure 11 - Timely and positive exits from the YG, (% all exits) Figure 12 - Distribution of timely and positive exits by type of offer, 2016 (% timely and positive exits) Figure 13 - Coverage of YG schemes, (% NEET population aged 15-24) 26 Figure 14 - Rates of recycling through the YG, Figure 15 - Rates of recycling through the YG and NEET coverage rates, Figure 16 - Proportion of young people leaving the YG known to be in a positive situation 6 months after exit, (%) Figure 17 - Proportion of young people leaving the YG known to be in a positive situation 6, 12 and 18 months after exit, 2014 (% exits) Figure 18 - Proportion of young people leaving the YG known to be in a positive situation 6, 12 and 18 months after exit, 2015 (% exits) Figure 19 - Proportion of young people known to be in a positive situation 6,12 and 18 months after leaving the YG by situation on exit, (% of exits) Figure 20 - Proportion of young people known to be in a positive situation 18 months after leaving the YG by type of offer, 2015 (%) January

5 Figure 21 - Proportion of young people known to be in a positive situation 6, 12 and 18 months after exit in total and by type of offer, EU aggregates, (% exits) Figure 22 - Proportion of young people leaving the YG known to be in a positive situation 18 months after exit in total and by type of offer, 2015 (% exits) Figure 23 - Key indicators of YG implementation by country, January

6 EU-28 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Executive summary The Council Recommendation on establishing a Youth Guarantee (YG) was adopted in April 2013 as the basis for concerted efforts to tackle the high levels of youth unemployment prevalent across the European Union. The Youth Guarantee aims to ensure that all young people receive a good-quality offer of a job, apprenticeship, traineeship, or continued education within 4 months of leaving formal education or becoming unemployed. This report presents results of monitoring the implementation of YG schemes in Data collection was based on the Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee and the accompanying methodological manual, as revised by the Employment Committee (EMCO) in January The general situation of young people The Indicator Framework includes a set of aggregate (macroeconomic) indicators intended to monitor the general situation of young people in the labour market and to indirectly monitor the impact of YG schemes through changes to this situation. The main indicator is the NEET rate, which refers to the proportion of people within an age-group that are not in employment, education or training, and is an important factor in the implementation of YG schemes. In 2016 the NEET rate for persons aged was 11.5% across the EU, representing just under 6.3 million young people who were potential targets of YG schemes. This group is more or less evenly split between those that are unemployed (5.4% of the youth population) and those that are inactive (6.2%). NEET rates varied from 4-6% in Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands to 17- in Bulgaria, Italy and Romania. NEET rates by sex, 2016 (% population, 15-24) Total Men Women Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (edat_lfse_20), data extracted on 19 October YG schemes were mostly launched on 1 January 2014 and over the last two years of implementation, the NEET rate for persons aged has improved by 1 percentage point from 12.5% in 2014 to 11.5 % in The NEET rate has improved (decreased) in all but three countries (Germany, France and Romania). Although the improvement in the NEET rate is welcome, the number of NEETs remains high. The YG in key numbers In total, there were just over 7.2 million starts on YG schemes during 2016, 4.9 million from the main target group of NEETs aged and 2.3 million from the age-group in countries that adopted the extended coverage. The number of starts from the age-group is down 0.6 million compared to 2015 but part of this decline results from reduced coverage of the monitoring data in the UK. The number January

7 of starts from the age-group was higher, however, primarily as a result of the coverage of the YG being extended in Poland and, to a lesser extent, in Spain. On average, 3.5 million young people were registered with a YG provider at any point during 2016 (2.4 million aged and 1.1 million aged 25-29). This number is increasing through time as more young people in the age-group are registered. Of the total of 7.3 million exits from YG schemes during 2016 (5.2 million aged and 2.1 million aged 25-29), just over two-thirds (4.9 million or 67.1%) are known to have taken up an offer of employment, education or training, though the real figure is likely to be higher since the destination was unknown for over a fifth (21.1%) of all exits. Main results of monitoring in relation to key YG objectives (15-24 age-group) The key objectives of the YG are to ensure that all young people that are or become NEET are registered with a YG scheme and get a concrete offer of employment, education or training within 4 months of the registration date. Monitoring of the efficiency and effectiveness of implementation is based on sets of indicators at the direct and follow-up levels. Taking the three indicators for direct monitoring and the main follow-up indicator as a group, aggregate results at EU level show that YG schemes are still some way from achieving targets. Of the 2.4 million young people aged enrolled in a national YG scheme at any point during 2016, more than three in five (61.8%) had been waiting for an offer for more than 4 months, a worse result than in 2015 (57.7%). The high share of young people waiting more than 4 months for an offer raises some concern about the capacity to deliver timely offers and possible accumulation of young people that are difficult to place. At the same time, it has to be recognised that groups of young people that suffer from multiple disadvantages or who are otherwise particularly hard to place may need longer preparatory support before they are ready to take up an offer and in this sense, it is more important to ensure that they get this support, rather than pushing them through within a fixed timescale just to meet targets. During 2016, the proportion of YG participants registered for more than 4 months varied from less than 3 in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Luxembourg and Malta to more than 6 in Ireland, Greece, the Netherlands, Romania and Slovenia and over 7 in Spain, France and Italy. Proportion of young people aged currently in a YG scheme and registered for more than 4 months, (% annual average stock) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Notes: Empty columns show data that are not comparable across years, but which are included in the EU level figures. January

8 Of the 5.2 million young people aged that left YG schemes during 2016, 2.1 million (41.4%) took up an offer of employment, education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within 4 months of registration, though as with the total number of positive exits above - the real figure is likely to be higher as the reason for leaving is unknown for more than a fifth of cases. The average of the country results is better at 44.5% as the EU aggregate is weighed down by lower results in a few larger countries. Timely and positive exits from the YG, (% all exits) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Notes: Empty columns show data that are not comparable across years, but which are included in the EU level figures. NL Data estimated as 75% of those exiting within 6 months. FI, UK - Data refer to exits within 3 months rather than 4. Of the 2.1 million young people that took up an offer within 4 months, 1.4 million, or 67.2% took up an employment opportunity. The remaining 0.7 million mostly took up offers of a traineeship or continued education (13.9% and 12% of all timely offers respectively) while far fewer are reported to have taken up an apprenticeship (6.9%). In 2016, the proportion of NEETs registered in YG schemes was estimated at 38.5%, marginally higher than in 2015 (37.7%). Although data do not cover all of the support provided and the results should be interpreted as an estimation, rather than a definitive measurement, of the extent to which YG schemes reach the NEET population, they show that, taken together, YG schemes are still some way off the objective of reaching the vast majority of young people that become NEET. The average of the country results is better at 42.5% as the EU aggregate is weighed down by lower results in a few larger countries with large NEET populations. January

9 Coverage of YG schemes, (% NEET population aged 15-24) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Notes: Empty columns show data that are not comparable across years, but which are included in the EU level figures. The NEET population used in the denominator refers to the age-group in all cases but there are some minor differences in the age-group covered by the YG monitoring data used as the numerator. Follow-up data on the situation of young people 6, 12 or 18 months after leaving the YG are only available for 20 countries. Of the 2.4 million young people that left YG schemes in these countries during 2016, 1.1 million (46.2%) were known to be in employment, education or training 6 months after exit. However, it should be clear that this figure is likely to be significantly understated because the situation of 0.9 million (36.1%) of this cohort was unknown. Proportion of young people leaving the YG known to be in a positive situation 6 months after exit, (%) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Notes: EU averages and aggregates take into account only countries for which data are available. The completion of data has improved through time so the data cover 18, 19 and 20 countries in 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. Empty columns show data that are not comparable across years, but which are included in the EU level figures. RO Data refer to the situation of all persons that had reached at least 6 months after exit on a fixed date of observation (end of reference year). EE Data are missing for participants registered unemployed with the PES (main provider, 95% of exits). HU The YG scheme started on 1 January 2015 thus there are no data for Longer-term monitoring for those leaving the YG in 2014 and 2015 show lower proportions in a positive situation after 6 months (38.9% and 42% respectively). These figures hardly change after 12 (36.8% for 2014 and 44.5% for 2015) or 18 months (35.1% and 43.6% respectively). This suggests tentatively at least that January

10 the outcomes achieved are sustainable through time, but perhaps of more importance is the implication that more than half of those passing through YG schemes are in a negative or unknown situation. It should be a clear priority, therefore, to improve the completion and quality of the follow-up data so that the real situation can be better understood. More detailed analysis appears to show that outcomes are better for those that left the YG to take up an offer compared to those that left to negative or unknown situations. Although differences reduce as the time after exit increases, data for 2015 show that 47. of those that are known to have taken up an offer on exit were in a positive situation 18 months later compared to 35.8% of those that exited to negative or unknown situations. Whilst these are encouraging findings, it should be recognised that the results may not be fully reliable due to the high numbers still in unknown situations and a risk of some bias in the data in the case that people taking up offers are more likely to be tracked in follow-up data than those that did not. In order to improve the reliability of such analysis, countries need to improve their capacity to track the situation of all young people that pass through the YG. Data completion and quality The 2016 data collection exercise has seen a further improvement in the completion and quality of data compared to previous years, though there remain some specific issues in some countries that need to be taken into account when interpreting results. Despite these improvements, there remain some gaps, the most important of which relate to the completion of follow-up data and reducing the number of unknown destinations and subsequent situations in both exit and follow-up data. Follow-up data are still not available for eight countries so that the related indicators cannot be calculated, while several other countries provide data that are still partial (cover only part of the population or selected situations). Regarding the proportion of unknowns in exits data, although this has dropped from 28.4% of exits (aged 15-24) in 2014 to 22.5% in 2016, it still means that the destination upon exit is still not known for more than one in five participants and significantly more in some countries. January

11 1 Introduction In April 2013 EU Member States endorsed the principles laid out in the Council Recommendation on establishing a Youth Guarantee as the basis for concerted efforts to tackle the high levels of youth unemployment prevalent across the European Union. The Youth Guarantee aims to ensure that all young people receive a good-quality offer of a job, apprenticeship, traineeship, or continued education within 4 months of leaving formal education or becoming unemployed. The Recommendation gives the European Commission the role of monitoring the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes in each EU Member State through the multi-lateral surveillance of the Employment Committee within the framework of the European Semester. A monitoring framework has accordingly been established through the development of the Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee, endorsed by the Employment Committee (EMCO) in May 2015 and revised in January 2017 to reflect agreed changes to the definition/calculation of follow-up indicators. The Indicator Framework is accompanied by a methodological manual, which is considered to be a living document that may be revised in response to the practical experience of data collection and/or policy needs. The manual was updated in March 2016 and again in January 2017 following the experiences of the first and second formal collections of data for reference years 2014 and This report presents results of the data collection for reference year 2016, the third data collection exercise. Section 2 provides a brief overview of the context for the implementation of YG schemes, taking into account developments since their launch. Section 3 gives a brief overview of the stocks and flows through the YG during Section 4 uses the indicators defined in Indicator Framework, together with some additional indicators, to analyse the efficiency and effectiveness of YG implementation during 2016 and changes compared to Section 5 provides an overview of the different types of offer provided to young people through public funding and section 6 provides an assessment of the data delivered for reference year 2016 in terms of coverage, completion and quality, and identifies key areas for improvement. 2 Context for the implementation of YG schemes The aggregate (macroeconomic) indicators defined in the Indicator Framework are intended to monitor the general situation of young people in the EU. They provide, on the one hand, information about the context within which YG schemes are being implemented and, on the other, an indirect means of monitoring their effects since the purpose of YG schemes is ultimately to improve the labour market situation of young people. 2.1 Main indicator: NEET rate The main indicator for YG monitoring at the aggregate level is the NEET rate for young people aged i.e. the proportion of people aged that are not in employment, education or training. The NEET rate is clearly an important factor in the implementation of YG schemes a high NEET rate makes effective implementation more imperative but at the same time more difficult and more expensive because of the (relatively) high numbers of young people in need of assistance and (potentially) weak labour market situation. January

12 EU-28 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK EU-28 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion In 2016, the NEET rate for persons aged was 11.5% across the EU 1. The NEET rate varied from 4-6% in Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands to 17- in Bulgaria, Italy and Romania (Figure 1). At EU level, the NEET rate for young men (11.2%) was slightly lower than for young women (11.9%). However, there were more substantial differences in some countries: in Croatia, the NEET rate for young men was 4.4 percentage points (pp) higher than that for young women, whilst in Estonia, Hungary and Romania the NEET rates for young women were higher by 4-7pp (Figure 1). Figure 1 - NEET rates by sex, 2016 (% population, 15-24) Total Men Women Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (edat_lfse_20), data extracted on 19 October There are more significant differences in the NEET rate by age-group. The NEET rate at EU level for those aged in 2016 was almost 11 pp lower than the rate for those aged (6.1% vs. 16.7%). This is to be expected since many of those at the younger end of the age-group will still be in compulsory education or in further education and not yet looking to move into work. The balance of the two age-groups in the YG target population in each country may influence the types of offers made available, with a focus on education offers more likely when the younger age-group is relatively more important. The NEET rate for the age-group was lower than that of the age-group in all countries but Malta, where the NEET rate was actually higher for the younger age group (9.3% vs 8.1%) (Figure 2). Figure 2 - NEET rates by age-group, 2016 (% population, 15-24) Total (15-24) Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (edat_lfse_20), data extracted on 19 October The LFS data used for aggregate level indicators were extracted on 19-Oct 2017 but may have been subsequently updated by Eurostat. For example, data on NEET rates (edat_lfse_20) were updated on 21- Dec 2017 and include small changes (+/- 0.1 pp) at EU level (11.6% instead of 11.5%) and for a few countries. January

13 EU-28 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion More than a fifth of young people aged were not in employment, education or training in Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, and Romania, while in Italy nearly three in ten year-olds are NEET. 2.2 Developments in NEET rates since the launch of the YG The EU Member States committed to the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes in 2013 and most were formally launched on 1 January Over the first three years of the YG implementation, the NEET rate for persons aged has improved by 1 pp from 12.5% in 2014 to 11.5% in At national level, there have been improvements of more than 2 pp in eight Member States, and of more than 3 pp in Greece. The NEET rate has worsened (increased) in Germany, France and Romania, but by 0.5 pp or less in all cases. Indeed, there is still cause for concern, as despite the improvements the latest NEET rate means that about 6.3 million young people in the EU are still not in employment, education or training. The improvement in the NEET rate at EU level, and in most Member States, derives from an improvement in the unemployed NEET rate and not in the inactive NEET rate. Indeed, in 12 countries the inactive NEET rate increased over the period whilst the unemployed NEET rate went down. The only exceptions in which the inactive NEET rate improved (fell) more than the unemployed NEET rate were Estonia, Malta and the Netherlands. In this respect, it is worth noting that most YG schemes still only cover young people who register as unemployed with the public employment services and who are likely (but not certain) to be counted as unemployed NEETs in the LFS. This might contribute to the lack of progress in reducing inactive NEET rates (Figure 3). Figure 3 - Change in NEET rates by status, (pp) Total change Unemployed Inactive Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (edat_lfse_20), data extracted on 19 October Supplementary indicators The NEET population includes young people who are actively seeking and available for work, who are considered to be unemployed, but also others who are either not seeking work or not immediately available for work or both. This latter group will include some who are disabled or sick but also others who are discouraged from seeking work because they believe that they have no chance of finding or securing a job. In general, those that are actively seeking work will be easier to help because they are already taking steps to find work whereas the inactive group is potentially more difficult to reach and to activate. So, although the overall NEET rate is an 2 Schemes were launched later in Italy (May 2014), Spain, Luxembourg, Malta (all July 2014) and Hungary (January 2015). The YG scheme in Cyprus was implemented progressively and was not fully implemented until The UK did not establish a YG scheme along the exact lines set out in the Council Recommendation, considering that existing provision was considered best suited to national and local circumstances. January

14 EU-28 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion indicator of the size of the target population for YG schemes, the relative weights of the unemployed and inactive groups are also important factors in implementation. The first supplementary indicator for aggregate level monitoring breaks down the NEET rate by labour market status. Data for 2016 show that the EU s NEET population was fairly evenly split between unemployed and inactive young people with NEET rates of 5.4% and 6.2% respectively. There are as many as 19 Member States in which the inactive NEET rate exceeds the unemployed NEET rate but, in most cases, both groups are fairly well balanced (at least 4 of the total NEET population in each category). There are however countries in which one or the other predominates. In Denmark, Hungary, Germany and Romania, inactive NEETs predominate, accounting for about two thirds or more of the total NEET population (Figure 4), and in Bulgaria, nearly four fifths of the NEET population are inactive. At the other end of the spectrum, unemployed NEETs account for at least six in ten NEETs aged in Greece, Spain, Croatia, and Portugal. Figure 4 - NEET rate by labour market status, 2016 (% population, 15-24) Total NEET rate unemployed NEET rate inactive Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (edat_lfse_20, lfsi_act_a), data extracted on 19 October In considering YG implementation it is important to remember that the target group is all young people who are not in employment, education or training. Whilst the high unemployment rates of young people tend to make the headlines, in some countries a significant proportion of those counted as unemployed according to the ILO definition (out of work, actively seeking and available for work) are actually still participating in some form of education or training. This group is represented by the difference between the unemployed NEET rate and the youth unemployment ratio, another of the supplementary indicators for aggregate monitoring. The youth unemployment ratio measures the number of young unemployed as a proportion of the population of the age-group whilst the unemployed NEET rate covers only those who are unemployed and not in education or training. In the EU as a whole, the unemployed NEET rate is nearly 7 of the unemployment ratio, meaning that less than one in three young unemployed is in any form of education or training. In twelve Member States, this proportion is at least 8, and in five of these cases (BG, HR, HU, RO and SK), nine out of ten unemployed aged are not in education or training. On the other hand, in Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden around three-quarters of young unemployed are seeking work whilst still in some form of education or training. January

15 EU-28 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK NEET rates (%) YUR/AUR ratio EU-28 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Figure 5 - Proportion of young unemployed not in education or training, 2016 % of unemployed aged who are not in education/training Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (edat_lfse_20, lfsi_act_a), data extracted on 19 October It is interesting to note also the results from the final supplementary indicator for aggregate level monitoring, which compares the youth unemployment ratio to the adult unemployment ratio. In theory, one would expect the proportion of those aged who are unemployed to be lower than for those aged 25-64, simply on the basis that a significant proportion of the younger age-group is likely to be still in education or training. If the reverse is true, then it suggests that young people are relatively disadvantaged in the labour market compared to their older counterparts. Consequently, indicator values greater than 1 can be taken to imply a labour market that is relatively unfavourable for young people. Across the EU, the ratio of the youth and adult unemployment ratios is 1.5, suggesting that young people are relatively disadvantaged and thus justifying the introduction of YG schemes to try and alleviate the situation. What is interesting, however, is the fact that countries with the highest NEET rates (the main indicator for YG monitoring) are not necessarily those in which young people are most disadvantaged compared to adults (Figure 6). In Bulgaria and Greece, two of the six countries with highest NEET rates, the ratio of youth/adult unemployment ratios is below 1. On the other hand, the four countries in which young people appear most disadvantaged compared to adults (on the basis of the ratio of ratios) the UK, Sweden, Malta and Denmark - all have below average NEET rates. At the same time, in Denmark and Sweden, and to a lesser extent the UK, relatively high proportions of the young unemployed are actually in some form of education and training and therefore outside the scope of the YG. Such observations demonstrate the complexity of the situation and serve as a reminder that it is dangerous to focus too much on specific indicators in isolation. Figure 6 - Ratio of the youth and adult unemployment ratios and NEET rates, NEET rates Ratio of youth/adult unemployment ratios Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (edat_lfse_20, lfsa_pganws), data extracted on 19 October January

16 3 The YG in numbers There were just over 4.9 million new starts on YG schemes in 2016 from the main target group of young people aged (2.7 million men and 2.2 million women), around 11% fewer than in 2015 (Figure 7 and Table 12). Although there were reduced inflows compared to 2015 in all but 5 countries (DE, EE, EL, ES and NL), the differences were often small and more than half of the decline (0.35 million) can be attributed to a change in the coverage of the monitoring data in the UK 3. The number of starts in the extended age-group (25-29) has, however, increased from 1.8 million in 2015 to 2.3 million in This increase derives primarily from Poland, where a decision to extend the coverage of the YG was announced in October 2015, and to a lesser extent from Spain, where enlarged coverage was approved in July More than half a million young people in the age-group were registered in the Polish YG during 2016, while in Spain the number of new registrations in this age-group increased almost four-fold (from 44 thousand in 2015 to 165 thousand in 2016). Inflows for other countries applying the extended agegroup were slightly down on 2015 (1.6 million vs. 1.8 million). In total, therefore, there were just over 7.2 million starts on YG schemes during 2016 compared to 7.4 million in 2015 and 8.7 million in 2014, when the YG was launched. The higher figure in 2014 derives from the fact that many countries automatically transferred all young people that were already registered as unemployed onto the YG scheme when it was launched. The impact of this initial loading is, however, offset to some extent by progressively increasing inflows in two of the larger countries Italy and Spain which both launched the YG as a completely new scheme with registration being independent from registration with the PES. Inflows were slow in the early months and increased through time as the schemes became more established. Note New start figures do not equate to numbers of different individuals. In most countries (Luxembourg is an exception), people that do not find sustainable employment or training after their first YG experience can re-register in the YG as soon as they find themselves out of work or training again and this is recorded in the data as a new start (re-entry). Although data on previous experience of the YG are not available for all countries, there are already 4 cases in which more than half of those entering the YG in 2016 had been through the YG before. Recycling through the YG is to be welcomed in the sense that it implies effective re-engagement of those that do not manage to find a sustainable outcome from their first experience, something that is very much in line with the spirit of the Recommendation, which aims to ensure support for all young people as soon as they become NEET, irrespective of their previous history. At the same time, high rates of recycling through the YG imply a low rate of success in terms of achieving sustainable outcomes and give rise, therefore, to potential concerns about the quality of offers provided. This highlights the need to consider the indicator set as a whole (aggregate, direct and follow-up levels) in order to assess fully the effectiveness of YG schemes. In a similar way to the inflows, the number of outflows from the main agegroup has reduced from 5.6 million in 2014 to 5.1 million in 2016, whilst outflows 3 UK monitoring data for 2016 cover only recipients of Jobseekers Allowance (JSA), which is being phased out, while in 2014 and 2015 the data also covered recipients of the employment element of the replacement benefit, Universal Credit. January

17 from the age-group have increased from 1.2 to 2.2 million. Overall there were 7.3 million exits in 2016 compared to 6.8 million in The stock data show that just over 2.4 million young people aged (1.3 million men and 1.1 million women) were registered with a YG provider at any point during 2016, virtually the same as in 2015 and On the other hand, as would be expected from the increased inflows, the stock of those aged has increased to 1.1 million from 0.6 million in 2014 so that the total stock has increased from 3.1 to 3.5 million. Young people aged account for the largest share of flows in and out of the YG (Figure 7 - ). There were 3.4 million starts from this age-group in 2016 (48% of the total), compared to 1.4 million aged () and 2.3 million aged (32%). Similarly, the average stock of 3.5 million registered in the YG at any point during 2016 was made up of 1.6 million aged (46%), 0.7 million aged (21%) and 1.1 million aged (32%). The share of the older age-group is increasing as a result of the extension of the YG in Poland and Spain. Figure 7 - Flows through the YG and annual average stocks by age-group, EU-28, ,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000, Stock (15-19) Stock (20-24) Stock (25-29) Entrants (15-19) Exits (15-19) Entrants (20-24) Exits (20-24) Entrants (25-29) Exits (25-29) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December Of the total of 7.3 million exits from YG schemes during 2016 (i.e. including the age-group), 4.9 million or 67.1% are known to have taken up an offer of employment, education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship while the other 2.4 million (32.9%) were deregistered for negative or unknown reasons 4. The real number of positive exits (i.e. offers taken up) is likely to be higher as the reason for leaving is unknown for over a fifth of cases (21.1%, down from 23. in 2015 and 25.3% in 2014). The large majority of offers which include open market offers found on own initiative as well as those found with the assistance of YG provider were to employment (3.5 million or 72.), while 13.9% took up a traineeship (679 thousand), 9.2% went back to education (449 thousand) and 5. started an apprenticeship (246 thousand). 4 Deregistration may occur for a variety of reasons including not being available to take up work (e.g. due to sickness, maternity or moving away), not fulfilling obligations (e.g. failing to attend interviews), and expiry of entitlement to YG services (e.g. in France the YG scheme lasts a maximum of 18 months and all young people that have not taken up an offer within this time are automatically deregistered). January

18 4 Direct and follow-up monitoring key results Notes about the data Comparability. Data are compiled on the basis of a common methodology - the Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee and the accompanying methodological manual and are therefore considered broadly comparable between countries. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that the data for direct and follow-up monitoring are derived from national administrative registers that are designed to support and monitor specific national systems, which vary in terms of the processes followed and definitions applied and may, therefore, result in some inherent differences between countries. These differences are, however, expected to be relatively minor and more important differences are those that derive from the way in which YG schemes have been implemented and the capacity of countries to provide complete data. During the early stages of implementation, the size and composition of the populations registered in the YG in each country varied because of different approaches. Some countries implemented the YG as a completely new intervention and monitored inflows starting from zero, while other implemented the YG as a reinforcement of existing processes and monitored inflows accumulating with the existing stock. Countries in the former group will tend to have a smaller stock with lower average duration in the early stages of implementation. However, as flows through the YG stabilise the differences will reduce. For the purposes of comparison between countries and through time, therefore, data for 2014 should be treated with due consideration to the underlying differences. The capacity of countries to monitor what happens to young people on leaving the YG impacts on the quality of data on both exits and follow-up but particularly for the latter. Almost half of Member States (12) either provide no follow-up data (8) or do not know the subsequent situation of the majority (at least 2/3) of young people passing through the YG (4 countries). The problem derives from a lack of capacity to routinely link administrative registers or legal restrictions to do so. The investment needed to link PES registers and other administrative registers (e.g. social security) would have benefits not only for YG monitoring but also for other EU level data collections (e.g. LTU and LMP) as well as providing a base for policy evaluation at national level. EU level data. Figures labelled EU average are unweighted averages of all available country data (i.e. average of indicator values). These are most relevant for comparison of indicator results between countries. Figures labelled EU28 (or in the case of follow-up data, EU agg ) are based on EU level aggregates that take into account all affected NEETs in all countries for which data are available (i.e. indicator results calculated using aggregate of underlying numbers, effectively producing a weighted average of indicator results at country level). These figures describe the overall situation of NEETs in the EU but can be significantly influenced by the situation in a small number of large countries. In 2016, for example, two-thirds of the average stock of participants in the YG across the EU were found in just 5 Member States: France, Germany, Poland, Spain and Italy. January

19 The Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee 5 defines three levels of indicators for monitoring of Youth Guarantee schemes: - Aggregate monitoring indicators describe the general situation of young people in the EU by looking at their labour market situation and levels of educational attainment; - Direct monitoring indicators assess the efficiency of implementation against the objectives laid out in the Council Recommendation to treat all young people that are, or become, NEET and to deliver offers within 4 months of registration; - Follow-up monitoring indicators assess the effectiveness of YG schemes by measuring the extent to which young people that have been through the scheme are kept out of NEET status (i.e. remain in employment, education or training). The aggregate level indicators provide context for the implementation of YG schemes and are the ultimate indicators of whether or not YG schemes are contributing to improvement in the situation of young people. The direct and follow-up levels together monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of implementation. Results for the aggregate level indicators are reviewed in Chapter 2 above. This chapter focuses on the direct and follow-up level indicators, firstly by taking all the key indicators together in order to get an overview of the state of implementation and then by considering each indicator separately. 4.1 Overview of YG implementation EU level improvement needed in all areas The YG Indicator Framework defines three indicators for direct monitoring (one main and two supplementary) and two for follow-up monitoring (one main and one supplementary). The supplementary follow-up indicator adds detail to the information provided by the main follow-up indicator by looking at outcomes for a subset of the population passing through the YG scheme (i.e. those benefitting from an offer). Whilst this is important information, in terms of assessing the overall effectiveness of YG schemes the indicator does not add anything new to the main follow-up indicator. Therefore, for the purposes of an overall assessment, only the three direct monitoring indicators and the main follow-up indicator are taken into account. Bearing in mind also that the data for reference year 2016 were collected in April-September 2017, so that many of those leaving during 2016 could not have reached the 12- or 18-month follow-up points, only the 6-month observation point of the main follow-up indicator is taken into account. Figure 8 shows the EU average results for each of the four indicators covered as well as the targets for these. Even if these targets are theoretical and are unlikely to ever be fully achievable in practice, it is clear that the shape of the EU average results is quite different from the ideal a kind of mid-sized diamond rather than a large downward pointing triangle. This indicates that progress is needed in all areas the average time spent in the YG is too long (upward point of the diamond is too high and the right-hand point too close to the centre), the proportion of the NEET population registered in YG schemes is too low (downward point of the diamond is too high) and too few of those passing through the YG are finding sustainable positions in work or in education/training (left-hand point of the diamond too close to the centre). 5 January

20 Figure 8 - Key indicators of YG implementation, EU average, 2016 EU average Follow-up 6m (positive) EU average Target In YG beyond 4m target NEET coverage Timely & positive exits In YG beyond 4m target - Main indicator for direct monitoring: Proportion of young people in the YG preparatory phase beyond the 4 month target (% annual average stock), target. Timely & positive exits - Supplementary indicator for direct monitoring: Positive and timely exits from th YG preparatory phase (% total exits), target 10. NEET coverage indicator - Supplementary indicator for direct monitoring: Average annual stock of young people in the YG preparatory phase / NEET population (annual average) (%), target 10 Follow-up 6m (positive) - Main indicator for follow-up monitoring: Situation of young people 6 months after exiting the YG preparatory phase (% total exits), target 10 positive Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 In addition to being a long way from targets, albeit ambitious ones, the key indicator results for 2016 have generally deteriorated compared to the previous year. In particular, more young people are having to wait longer than the 4-month target to receive an offer so that the main indicator for the proportion in the YG beyond 4 months and the supplementary indicator on timely and positive exits were respectively 3.2 and 2.6 percentage points further from targets in 2016 than in The proportion of those in a positive situation 6 months after exit has also fallen by 1.5 pp. The only indicator that has improved slightly is that measuring the proportion of the NEET population covered by the YG, a result that may reflect some improvements in coverage but is also helped by the fact that participants are tending to remain registered for longer than before (i.e. to some extent worse performance in terms of timely delivery of offers can improve performance in terms of coverage of the target population). Figure 9 - Key indicators of YG implementation in 2016 compared to 2015, EU average pp -2.6 pp 0.5 pp -1.5 pp In YG beyond 4m target Timely & positive exits NEET coverage Follow-up 6m (positive) EU average (2015) EU average (2016) Target Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December Implementation performance at national level Charts showing the four indicator results for each country are shown in Figure 23 in the Appendix. The shape of the chart for each country in comparison to the EU average and to the targets for each indicator then gives an indication as to relative January

21 performance in relation to delivery of offers within the 4-month target period (combination of the main indicator for direct monitoring and the supplementary indicator on positive and timely exits), the coverage of YG schemes (second supplementary indicator for direct monitoring) and the outcomes achieved (main follow-up indicator). Interpretation of the shapes will to some extent be subjective, not least in cases where the two delivery indicators give apparently conflicting results - i.e. the main indicator for direct monitoring is above average (smaller proportion of the stock in the YG preparatory phase for more than 4 months) but the supplementary indicator is below average (fewer exits are timely and positive), or vice versa. Additionally, the follow-up data remain difficult to interpret reliably firstly because there are still eight countries without any follow-up data and secondly, because of the high proportion of unknown situations in many countries, which can result in unrealistically low results. Nevertheless, the results for indicators measuring performance in terms of delivery and coverage are as reliable as they can be (given the inherent differences that may arise when using administrative data based on national definitions and the limited coverage of the data in some countries) and where countries demonstrate below average performance for one or more areas it can be taken to be a good indication that further efforts are needed (either in policy terms or in the completion and reliability of the data submitted). Note also that idea of using this type of analysis is that no particular priority should be attached to any of the areas covered i.e. delivery, coverage and outcomes are all considered to be of equal importance. 4.2 Direct monitoring results Young people are remaining longer in YG schemes The main indicator for direct monitoring shows that as many as 61.8% of the young people registered in the YG scheme at any point during 2016 (1.5 of 2.4 million) had been waiting for an offer for more than 4 months, up from 57.7% in 2015 and 50.6% in Although it should be clear that the result in 2014 covers the start-up period and is therefore lowered by results from countries that launched the YG as a completely new process, the increase in 2016 compared to 2015 should be of some concern as it implies that implementation is becoming less efficient. This could be a result of a general difficulty to deliver offers within the target period and/or an accumulation of young people that are difficult to place (and who may also need longer accompanying measures), something that may occur alongside high flows of short-term participants. Better performing countries, where less than a third of the average stock had been registered for more than 4 months, are all relatively small: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Luxembourg and Malta, with Lithuania and Austria only marginally outside this threshold. In contrast, worse performing countries, where at least two thirds had been registered for more than four months, are all larger countries: France, Spain, and Italy, though Slovenia and Romania are close behind (Figure 10 and Table 13). The situation in the larger countries mentioned, and particularly France, which accounted for nearly a third (32%) of all those registered for more than 4 months 6, weighs heavily on the overall EU28 aggregate figure (61.8%) and the average across Member States is considerably lower at 49.1%. 6 Results in France are partially attributable to the fact that some accompanying services typically last longer than 4 months. January

22 Figure 10 - Proportion of young people aged currently in a YG scheme and registered for more than 4 months, (% annual average stock) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Notes: Empty columns show data that are not comparable across years, but which are included in the EU level figures. For explanation and further information about differences in the coverage of age-groups, and observations of stocks refer to the box with notes about the data and the footnotes to Table 12, both in the Appendix. At EU level, the average results across countries show only small differences between the sexes (49.9% for women vs 48. for men) or between age-groups (46.2% for those aged vs 49.3%% for those aged 20-24). There are, however a few cases where there are more substantial differences (>10 pp) at national level with the situation being worse (i.e. higher retention beyond 4 months) for women in Poland, men in Romania, the age-group in France and the age-group in Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Finland and the UK (Table 13) Just over 4 of those leaving the YG took up an offer within 4 months The first supplementary indicator for direct monitoring measures the proportion of those leaving the YG preparatory phase that took up an offer within 4 months of being registered i.e. it measures the efficiency of the scheme in delivering timely offers. A total of 5.2 million young people (2.8 million men and 2.3million women) exited YG schemes after taking up an offer (3.5 million or 67%) or otherwise being deregistered 7 (1.7 million or 33%) during the year, slightly fewer than in 2015 (5.4 million). Of these, 2.1 million (41.4%) are reported to have taken up an offer of employment, education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within 4 months of registration, though the real figure is likely to be higher as the reason for leaving is unknown for almost a fifth of cases 8. This result, in combination with the main indicator, indicates that whilst the YG is achieving its objectives for some (the four in ten leavers that get a timely offer), it is failing to deliver timely offers for the majority, and a significant proportion are getting stuck in the preparatory phase for long periods without being able to access an offer. 7 Deregistration may occur for a variety of reasons including not being available to take up work (e.g. due to sickness, maternity or moving away), not fulfilling obligations (e.g. failing to attend interviews), and expiry of entitlement to YG services (e.g. in France the YG scheme lasts a maximum of 18 months and all young people that have not taken up an offer within this time are automatically deregistered). 8 In 2016, destination was unknown for 19.7% of exits within 4 months of registration, down from 21.5% in January

23 Malta and Hungary stand out as countries that are achieving excellent throughputs, with 96.2% and 85.4% respectively of exits from the YG during 2016 taking up an offer within four months. Italy and Denmark are the only other countries in which at least 6 of leavers received a timely offer (Figure 11 and Table 14). On the other hand, in Greece, France, Cyprus, Romania and the UK, less than a third of those leaving the YG in 2016 are known to have taken up an offer within four months. It should be clear, however, that these low results are likely to understate the true situation due to a lack of capacity in these countries to track people on leaving. In the UK, in particular, almost two thirds (65.3%) of those aged that ended a claim for Jobseekers Allowance within 4 months did not self-report the reason for ending the claim and no other information on what happened to this group is available in the published statistics. In Cyprus, the data are even worse quality, with 76.4% of those deregistered from the YG within 4 months of registration going to unknown destinations. On average across countries, 44.5% of exits were timely and positive in 2016 compared to 47.1% in 2015 and 47.6% in As with the main indicator, the EU aggregate result (41.4%) is worse than the average of country results (44.5%) because of relatively poor results in countries with large numbers of YG participants, particularly France and the UK 9. The better results (e.g. those over 6) are mostly concentrated in countries where the YG covers relatively small numbers of NEETs, either because of the size of the NEET population (DK, HU, MT) or because of low coverage rates (IT). The average results across countries show little difference between the sexes (44. for men vs. 45. for women) or between age-groups (42.5% for those aged vs. 45.3% for those aged 20-24). At national level, differences of more than 10 percentage points occur only in relation to age, with the proportion of timely and positive exits being higher for the age group in Latvia and for the agegroup in Estonia, France, Luxembourg and Romania. Figure 11 - Timely and positive exits from the YG, (% all exits) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Notes: Empty columns show data that are not comparable across years, but which are included in the EU level figures. For explanation and further information about differences in the coverage of age-groups, and observations of exits see the box with notes about the data and the footnotes to Table 14, in the Appendix. NL Data estimated as 75% of those exiting within 6 months. FI, UK - Data refer to exits within 3 months rather than 4. 9 In addition to the problem of high numbers of exits to unknown destinations, the UK data also refer to exits within 3 months rather than 4, which makes it more difficult to deliver a timely offer. This issue is, however, of secondary importance to the high proportion of unknowns. January

24 4.2.3 More than two thirds of timely offers were employment opportunities Of the 2.1 million young people that took up an offer within 4 months of registering in a YG scheme, 1.4 million, or 67.2% took up an employment opportunity (Figure 12, EU28, Table 15). This figure includes open market jobs found on the own initiative of young people as well as those found with assistance from the YG provider, together with various forms of short and longer-term placements subsidised with public funds. The remaining 0.7 million mostly took up offers of a traineeship or continued education (13.9% and 12. of all timely offers respectively) while far fewer are reported to have taken up an apprenticeship (6.9%). In practice, the numbers taking up all types of offer are likely to be understated. Firstly, in some countries, there are significant numbers of young people that leave the YG without any record of where they have gone 10 and it is likely that some will have found a job or, to a lesser extent, re-entered education or training. Secondly, some countries have difficulties to monitor particular types of offer. For example, it may not be possible to track young people returning to the regular education system, apprenticeships may be recorded as a form of employment offer 11 and, in others, traineeships form part of the regular education system and are therefore recorded as education offers. The distribution of timely and positive offers by type of offer in each country has to be viewed bearing in mind the limitations of the data noted above but, on the basis of the data available, it is clear that employment offers are most important in the large majority of countries, accounting for an average of 72% of timely offers (Figure 12, EU average, Table 15). Exceptions are Denmark, and Malta, where the YG schemes have a clear focus on improving the employability of young people through continued education (52.5%, and 84.1% of timely offers respectively, compared to an average of 16%) and Italy where traineeships are most important (51.5% compared to an average of 8.5%). Finland (30.2%) is the only other country in which traineeships accounted for more than 3 of timely offers in On average, apprenticeships accounted for just 3.4% of known offers, with Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Italy, and Austria the only countries to report more than 1 apprenticeships. Over a quarter (556 thousand or 25.9%) of all known offers taken up within 4 months of registration were fully or partly subsidised with public money. This includes the majority of traineeships (76.8%), half of continued education offers (50.4%) and two fifths of apprenticeships (37.7%), but only one in ten employment offers (9.8%). The proportion of timely offers that was subsidised varies from more than 9 in Malta (98.9%) and Hungary (92.4%) to less than 1% in the Netherlands (0.1%), Romania (0.2%) and the UK (0.7%), though in these cases subsidised exits are not known for all types of exits. 10 For example, in some countries if a young person fails to attend one or more compulsory interviews with the PES, unemployment (or other) benefits are terminated and they are deregistered from the YG with destination unknown. 11 For example, in the case that data come from the social security register which does not distinguish different forms of employment contract. January

25 Figure 12 - Distribution of timely and positive exits by type of offer, 2016 (% timely and positive exits) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Employment Education Apprenticeship Traineeship Notes: The breakdown by type of offer is not complete for all countries. This is mainly because one type cannot be distinguished from another (e.g. apprenticeships cannot be distinguished from education) or cannot be monitored, rather than because the type of offer is not available to YG participants. There was very little difference between the sexes in terms of the types of offer taken up (Table 1), but there were substantial differences by age with (as might be expected) more of the younger age-group taking up education and apprenticeship offers, and to a lesser extent traineeship offers, than those aged Consequently, the proportion of those aged taking up an employment offer was much lower (49.1% vs 73.1% for those aged 20-24). Offers taken up by those aged were also more likely to be subsidised (29.4% vs 25.3%). This largely reflects the fact that fewer took up open market jobs. Table 1 - Timely and positive offers by type of offer and the proportion that is subsidised, EU28, 2016 (%) Employment Education Apprenticeship Traineeship Subsidised (all types) Total % % 13.9% 25.9% Men 66.8% 12.2% 7.6% 13.4% 26.5% Women 67.7% 11.6% 6.2% 14.5% 25.1% % 18.6% 15.8% 16.6% 29.3% % 9.8% 3.9% 13.1% 25.2% Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December YG schemes continue to reach less than 4 of NEETs Notes about the data Coverage indicator. The second supplementary indicator for direct monitoring measures the proportion of the NEET population (average across the year) that is registered in the YG preparatory phase (annual average stock). Whilst data for the numerator are derived from administrative data in each country, the only available comparable data on the size of the NEET population that can be used as a denominator derive from the EU Labour Force Survey. This uses a definition of NEETs that is common across countries 12 but which may vary from the definitions applied in 12 See T) January

26 the context of national YG schemes and in the administrative data used to monitor these. Results should thus be interpreted as an estimation, rather than a definitive measurement, of the extent to which YG schemes achieve the objective of reaching all young people that become, or are already, NEET. On average during 2016, 6.3 million young people aged were recorded by the LFS as being NEET (not in employment, education or training) while 2.4 million of this age-group were registered in the preparatory phase of a national YG scheme. The coverage rate of 38.5% is marginally higher than in 2015 (37.7%) but still well below the objective of supporting all young people in this situation. Coverage ranges from over 7 in Belgium, Finland and, most notably, Austria (82.9%), to below 15% in Bulgaria, Italy, Romania and the UK and below 1 in Hungary and Malta (Figure 13 and Table 16). In the group of countries with low coverage it should be noted that in Italy, Hungary and Malta the YG monitoring data do not cover all of the young people registered with the PES. The YG scheme in Hungary was also launched later than elsewhere (1 January 2015). On average, the coverage rate of YG schemes ("EU average ) in 2016 was 42.5% compared to 42% in 2015 and 40.7% in However, the EU aggregate result ("EU28") was lower at 38.5% because of low coverage rates in two of the countries with the largest NEET populations (IT and the UK) 13. Figure 13 - Coverage of YG schemes, (% NEET population aged 15-24) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Notes: Empty columns show data that are not comparable across years, but which are included in the EU level figures. The NEET population used in the denominator refers to the age-group in all cases but there are some minor differences in the age-group covered by the YG monitoring data used as the numerator see notes about the data and the footnotes to Table 14, both in the Appendix. Across the EU (i.e. EU28 aggregate, not average) in 2016, YG schemes covered a higher proportion of young male NEETs (41.3%) than young female NEETs (35.4%) and also a higher proportion of those aged (45.3%) covered compared to those aged (34.8%). At national level, there were large differences (in excess of 20 percentage points in all cases) in favour of men in the Czech Republic and Germany, women in Denmark and Croatia, the age-group in France 14 and the Czech Republic and the age-group in Ireland and Lithuania. 13 According to the LFS data for 2016, Italy and the UK together accounted for 31.7% of all NEETs in the EU while their YG schemes covered only 14.1% and 10.5% of the target group respectively. 14 In France, the coverage rate for the for the age-group group is over 10 (113.9%) which suggests that some of those entering the YG in France are not NEET according to the LFS definition. January

27 The results show that, in general, YG schemes are still some way off the objective of reaching all young persons that become NEET after leaving school or becoming unemployed, though it should be noted that the data do not cover all of the support provided. In most countries, the YG monitoring data only cover young people that have registered with the public employment services and miss young people accessing support delivered by other providers. In Ireland and the UK, for example, data cover only young people aged 18 or over that receive an unemployment benefit so that services for younger NEETs (mostly delivered by education authorities) and older NEETs not receiving an unemployment benefit are not recorded 15. In Denmark Italy, Malta and Hungary, the YG monitoring data do not cover all young people registered with the PES. In other countries, support delivered by specialist youth services (youth organisations, centres and associations, NGOs) may be missed but it is not possible at this stage to estimate the extent to which these might improve coverage of the target population Recycling through the YG is becoming significant The ultimate objective of the YG is to reduce the number of NEETs by ensuring that young people have access to opportunities to engage in employment, education or training. Ideally the offers provided will be sustainable so that young people do not return to NEET status and require further assistance through the YG. Indeed, if many young people have to keep returning to the YG so that there is a high rate of recycling, this may be an indication that the offers being provided are not fulfilling their objectives and that further review of policy is needed. At the same time, a high rate of recycling through the YG also demonstrates a certain efficiency in the system since it suggests that the engagement process and the incentives for young people to return to the YG provider are strong and that young people are not overly discouraged by their previous experience. Although there is currently no indicator dealing with recycling rates, the necessary data are collected. In the YG monitoring data for 2016, 23 of the 28 Member States provided data including a breakdown of entrants by previous YG status in which it was possible to identify the number of entrants with previous YG experience for at least part of the total population of entrants in the year 16. In these countries, more than a third of those entering the YG during 2016 (34.1%) had been in the YG before (Figure 14). Further, two fifths of this group (4 or 13.7% of all entrants) were known to have previously benefitted from a YG offer. Both the above-mentioned figures (total with previous experience and the proportion that also had an offer) are liable to be understated due to unknowns in the data. Most notably, in Estonia and France, the previous YG experience of, respectively, 99.7% and 76.5% of total entrants is unknown. Additionally, in both Germany and France, for those that are known to have previous YG experience it is currently not possible to differentiate between those that have or have not previously benefitted from an offer. Rates of recycling are high in Belgium (54%), Croatia (58.1%), Cyprus (59.5%), Poland (57.9%) and, most notably, in Austria (73.9%). In all cases except Belgium, 15 In addition, from 2016, UK data only cover young people claiming unemployment benefits under a scheme that is being phased out (Job Seekers Allowance) and exclude claimants of the new scheme providing social and unemployment benefit (Universal Credit). 16 The count includes Estonia where no breakdown is available for the main YG provider (PES), but a small number of participants entering the Youth Prop Up programme are reported to have previous YG experience. January

28 34.4% 34.1% % : 25.1% 44.3% 0.3% 40.2% 33.8% 37.7% 23.5% 58.1% 5.1% 59.5% 27.1% 42.4% % 13.8% : 73.9% 57.9% 42.1% : % : 44.4% : Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion around two out of five of re-entrants had previously benefitted from an offer: 41.5% in Croatia, 39.8% in Cyprus, 44.6% in Austria and 43.6% in Poland. In contrast, recycling rates were less than 1 in Bulgaria (6.4%), Italy (5.1%), and Hungary (9.7%), and by definition in Luxembourg where the YG is designed to provide just a one-time opportunity so that recycling is not possible. In Estonia, the low result shown in the chart (0.3%) is not representative because previous YG experience is not known for 99.7% of entrants. In Hungary, the low level of recycling is at least in part linked to the fact that the YG was launched only in January A delayed start (compared to the majority of countries that launched the YG on 1 January 2014) may also contribute to relatively low rates of recycling in Italy (May 2014) and Malta (July 2014), though the fact that in Spain the recycling rate is already over 35% despite a similarly delayed start (July 2014) suggests that this is by no means the only reason. Figure 14 - Rates of recycling through the YG, Prev YG with offer Prev YG without offer Prev YG offer unknown No prev YG Unkown EU av. EU28 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Notes: EU average covers only countries where the number of entrants with previous YG experience is known for at least part of the total population of entrants. No breakdown of entrants by previous YG experience is available in CZ, NL, RO, FI, UK. EE Data cover only a small number of participants entering the Youth Prop Up programme. Previous experience is unknown for 99.7% of YG entrants. LU Young people can benefit from the YG only once so previous experience is by definition zero. EL, CY, LT Re-entry following participation in an ALMP that does not break the unemployment spell, but which is counted as an offer, is not recorded. Recycling rates are thus understated. The positive aspect of a high recycling rate is that it indicates an efficient reengagement of people that have been through the YG scheme at least once, something that is equally important as engaging young people when they first become NEET. In this respect, it is not surprising that countries with a high recycling rate also tend to have high coverage rates (Figure 15). The exception is Cyprus, where coverage remains low despite high recycling rates this suggests ineffective initial engagement of young NEETs but effective re-engagement of those leaving the YG. In practice, the majority of those covered by the Cypriot monitoring data are young people registered as unemployed with the PES and there is known to be a high rate of de-registration (by the PES) in case of people that fail to attend obligatory interviews but who subsequently re-register in order to claim benefits. This suggests that the services provided are not effective in sustaining the interest of young people. Countries with lower rates of recycling can be split into two groups those with above average NEET coverage rates - France, Denmark and Greece, though France may not really fit in this group due to a high proportion of unknown situations regarding recycling - and those with below average NEET coverage rates - Hungary, Malta, Italy, January

29 NEET coverage Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia and Luxembourg. Note that Estonia may not really fit in this group due to a high proportion of unknown situations regarding recycling and in Luxembourg recycling is not possible by design. In the latter group (except Luxembourg), it is likely that the recycling rate will increase as coverage is improved. However, if the YG is really effective at delivering sustainable offers this may limit the extent of recycling. Unfortunately, the follow-up data remain too incomplete (high proportion of people in an unknown situation after exit in many countries) to make a meaningful correlation of recycling rates and the sustainability of offers as measured through follow-up data. Figure 15 - Rates of recycling through the YG and NEET coverage rates, Low recycling rate, high NEET coverage FR DE High recycling rate, high NEET coverage BE AT 6 DK PT SI PL 5 EL IE SE SK HR 4 3 LU EE IT Low recycling rate, low NEET coverage LV EU av. ES LT High recycling rate, low NEET coverage CY 1 BG HU MT Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Notes: Recycling rate = % entrants with previous YG experience; NEET coverage = average YG stock as % NEET population measured by LFS (age-group 15-24). EU average for NEET coverage covers all 28 Member States while EU average for recycling rate excludes CZ, NL, RO, FI, UK because no breakdown by previous status is available. EE Data cover only a small number of participants entering the Youth Prop Up programme. Previous experience is unknown for 99.7% of YG entrants. LU Young people can benefit from the YG only once so previous experience is by definition zero. EL, CY, LT Re-entry following participation in an ALMP that does not break the unemployment spell, but which is counted as an offer, is not recorded. Recycling rates are thus understated. 4.3 Follow-up monitoring Notes about the data: Recycling rate Follow-up data i.e. information about what happens to people after leaving the YG are available for only 20 of the 28 Member States 17. Moreover, even where data are available, they do not necessarily reflect the true situation because of a lack of 17 The countries for which no data are available are CZ, DE, FR, LV, NL, SI, FI and UK. Note also that for Estonia, follow-up data are available only for the Youth Prop-up programme, which accounted for only 5% of exits in Follow-up data for the 95% of exits that left the PES register are not available. January

30 capacity to track people after exit (i.e. the situation is unknown for a high proportion). The results should be interpreted accordingly. The January 2017 revision of the Indicator Framework and accompanying methodological manual updated the definition of follow-up indicators to exclude (from the denominator) young people that had not reached the relevant observation point at the time of data collection (situation not applicable). Results for 2014 and 2015 mentioned in this report may therefore differ from results presented in previous reports, which were calculated using the previous definition where the denominator covered all exits in the reference year Close to half of those leaving the YG in 2016 known to be in a positive situation 6 months later The main indicator for follow-up monitoring looks at the situation of young people 6, 12 or 18 months after leaving the YG. Of the 2.4 million young people that left YG schemes during 2016 in the 20 countries for which data are available, just over 1.1 million (46.2%) were known to be in employment, education or training 6 months after exit. However, it should be clear that this figure is likely to be significantly understated because the situation of 861 thousand (36.1%) of this cohort was unknown. In addition to the 8 countries that provide no follow-up data, several others have limited capacity to track young people after they leave the YG and lose contact with the YG provider 18. The 6-month situation is unknown for more than 95% of exits in Estonia, around 85% in Cyprus, 7 in Bulgaria and Romania and 6 in Poland (Table 18). Indeed, the high proportion of unknowns in Poland, which accounts for more than a quarter of all young people followed-up in 2016, weighs heavily on the overall EU aggregate result, which would show 53.8% in a positive situation if the Polish data were excluded. Figure 16 shows the results for 2016 together with the results for 2014 and There are four just countries Denmark, Ireland, Spain and Italy in which the follow-up data for 2016 include known situations for around 9 or more of cases (i.e. 1 or less unknowns) and the data can be considered to provide a good representation of the real situation. Within this group, at least half of leavers in 2016 were in a positive situation 6 months later, with figures rising to 63.8% in Denmark and 70.7% in Ireland. The best performance in terms of positive outcomes after 6 months was seen in Malta (82.6%), with most of the remainder (14.8%) being in an unknown situation. Although the data remain too incomplete for further comparison between countries, there is no reason to assume that the incompleteness applies unequally across the sexes or age-groups so some comparison here is appropriate. The main follow-up indicator showing the proportion of young people known to be in a positive situation 6 months after exit was slightly higher for all young women followed up across the EU (EU20: 46.9%) than for men (45.6%) and the difference at national level was below 7 pp in all cases (Table 17). There was also a small difference by age with 47.1% of those aged in a positive situation 6 months after exit compared to 43.4% of those aged Here, though, there was more variation between countries with the younger age-group noticeably more likely to be in a positive situation in Malta (84.6% 18 In some cases, known situations cover only people that remain in contact with the YG provider because they are still participating in a subsidised offer or have returned to the unemployment register. January

31 vs. 62.4%) but the older age-group more than 20 pp better off in Luxembourg and Romania. Figure 16 - Proportion of young people leaving the YG known to be in a positive situation 6 months after exit, (%) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Notes: EU averages and aggregates take into account only countries for which data are available. The completion of data has improved through time so the data cover 18, 19 and 20 countries in 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. Empty columns show data that are not comparable across years, but which are included in the EU level figures - see notes about the data and the footnotes to Table 14, both in the Appendix. RO Data refer to the situation of all persons that had reached at least 6 months after exit on a fixed date of observation (end of reference year). EE Data are missing for participants registered unemployed with the PES (main provider, 95% of exits). HU The YG scheme started on 1 January 2015 thus there are no data for Longer-term monitoring suggests that outcomes are sustained but highlight the need to improve follow-up data Although the issues raised in the previous section regarding the completeness and quality of follow-up data still apply, it is interesting to consider briefly the longer-term follow-up data available regarding young people that went through YG schemes in 2014 and Figure 17 and Figure 18 show the proportion of those leaving the YG in 2014 and 2015 respectively that were known to be in a positive situation 6, 12 and 18 months after exit. On average at EU level, the results show little change through time: for 2014, 49.6% after 6 months, 46.7% after 12 months and 48% after 18 months and for 2015, 5 after 6 months, 48.6% after 12 months and 50.5% after 18 months. It should be noted however, that the number of countries covered varies at each stage (see notes under each figure). This suggests tentatively at least that the outcomes achieved are sustainable through time, though this is perhaps of lesser importance than the fact that the result implies that on average around half of young people are in a negative (unemployed or inactive, 16-18%) or unknown situation (33-36%) 12 or 18 months after exit. The priority must be to improve the completion of the follow-up data so that the real situation can be understood. Across countries also, the results tend to show little variation through time, exceptions being Italy, Malta and Romania. In Italy, the proportions known to be in a positive situation after 12 and 18 months are only just over half the proportions after 6 months for both 2014 and 2015 (69.5% vs 38.4% and 35.9% in 2014, 65.1% vs 33.9% and 26.3% in 2015). The reductions derive partly from increased numbers in an unknown situation (more than a quarter for 2014 and 15- for 2015) and partly from increased numbers that are again unemployed or inactive, which tends to imply that the outcomes achieved early on are not being sustained. Quite probably, this January

32 reflects the fact that the 6-month positive results will include people still participating in the offer that they took up on exit. For Malta and Romania results show the proportion known to be in a positive situation increasing through time. For Malta, results show an increase of 10 pp or more for both 2014 and 2015, whereas for Romania the increase in the proportion of those being in a positive situation 12 and 18 months after exit when compared to 6 months after exit is around 6 pp in 2014, but more than doubled in 2015 (19.7% vs 53% and 52.7%). Figure 17 - Proportion of young people leaving the YG known to be in a positive situation 6, 12 and 18 months after exit, 2014 (% exits) months 12 months 18 months Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Notes: EU averages and aggregates take into account only countries for which data are available so that the number of countries covered varies between observation points (18 at 6 months and 17 at 12 and 18 months). RO Data refer to the situation of all persons that had reached at least 6, 12 and 18 months after exit on a fixed date of observation (end of reference year). HU The YG scheme started on 1 January 2015, thus there are no data for BE Data cover only the Walloon region. Figure 18 - Proportion of young people leaving the YG known to be in a positive situation 6, 12 and 18 months after exit, 2015 (% exits) months 12 months 18 months Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Notes: EU averages and aggregates take into account only countries for which data are available so that the number of countries covered varies between observation points (19 at 6 and 12 months and 18 at 18 months). RO Data refer to the situation of all persons that had reached at least 6, 12 and 18 months after exit on a fixed date of observation (end of reference year). January

33 4.3.3 Indicative evidence that YG offers contribute to better outcomes As reported above, in the 20 countries with some follow-up data, 46.2% of all those exiting the YG in 2016 were known to be in a positive situation 6 months later. As follow-up data are collected for all exits and separately for those that took up each type of offer, it is possible to compare the situation of those that did or did not take up an offer. In 2016, well over half (56%) of those known to have taken up an offer were in a positive situation 6 months after exiting compared to less than a quarter (23.2%) of those that exited to either negative or unknown destinations. This is a striking difference but could simply reflect the fact that young people benefitting from more substantial offers (in terms of duration) are likely to be still participating in the offer that gave rise to their exit so that a comparison at this stage is not representative of final outcomes. It is necessary, therefore, to look at the longer-term follow-up data available for exits in 2014 and Encouragingly, these data confirm that longer-term outcomes are more positive for YG participants that are known to have taken up an offer on exit from the YG than for those that left to negative or unknown situations (see Figure 19). Although for leavers in both 2014 and 2015, the difference between offer/no offer in the proportion of positive outcomes reduces as the time after exit increases (which is to be expected) the difference remains above 10 percentage points in all cases. Whilst these findings are welcome in that they suggest that the YG is having a positive effect, the results should be taken as indicative but not conclusive evidence. Firstly, there are still significant numbers of young people in unknown situations (roughly 4 at the 18-month observation point in 2015). Secondly, it is possible that there is some bias in the data in that, in some countries, people that took up an offer are more likely to be tracked in follow-up data than those that initially exited to negative or unknown destinations. The impact of such issues cannot be assessed and the way forwards is for countries to improve their capacity to track the situation of all young people that pass through the YG. Figure 19 - Proportion of young people known to be in a positive situation 6,12 and 18 months after leaving the YG by situation on exit, (% of exits) Source: DG EMPL, YG monitoring database, data extracted 11 December 2017 Notes: Data are based on aggregates of available data, which cover 18 countries in 2014 and 19 in At the national level, the proportion of those being in a positive situation 12 and 18 months after exit is always higher for those with a known positive exit compared to those with an exit to a negative or an unknown destination for both 2014 and January

February 2014 Euro area unemployment rate at 11.9% EU28 at 10.6%

February 2014 Euro area unemployment rate at 11.9% EU28 at 10.6% STAT/14/52 1 April 2014 February 2014 Euro area unemployment rate at 11.9% EU28 at 10.6% The euro area 1 (EA18) seasonally-adjusted 2 unemployment rate 3 was 11.9% in February 2014, stable since October

More information

May 2014 Euro area unemployment rate at 11.6% EU28 at 10.3%

May 2014 Euro area unemployment rate at 11.6% EU28 at 10.3% STAT/14/103-1 July 2014 May 2014 Euro area unemployment rate at 11.6% EU28 at 10.3% The euro area 1 (EA18) seasonally-adjusted 2 unemployment rate 3 was 11.6% in May 2014, stable compared with April 2014

More information

June 2014 Euro area unemployment rate at 11.5% EU28 at 10.2%

June 2014 Euro area unemployment rate at 11.5% EU28 at 10.2% STAT/14/121 31 July 2014 June 2014 Euro area unemployment rate at 11.5% EU28 at 10.2% The euro area 1 (EA18) seasonally-adjusted 2 unemployment rate 3 was 11.5% in June 2014, down from 11.6% in May 2014

More information

March 2013 Euro area unemployment rate at 12.1% EU27 at 10.9%

March 2013 Euro area unemployment rate at 12.1% EU27 at 10.9% STAT/13/70 30 April 2013 March 2013 Euro area unemployment rate at 12.1% at 10.9% The euro area 1 (EA17) seasonally-adjusted 2 unemployment rate 3 was 12.1% in March 2013, up from 12.0% in February 4.

More information

1 Background and definitions

1 Background and definitions EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Europe 2020: Employment Policies European Employment Strategy Youth neither in employment nor education and training (NEET) Presentation

More information

Methodological manual

Methodological manual EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion The Employment Committee Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee (YG) Methodological manual (January 2017) Note: this manual

More information

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS December 2018 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS **** Important notice: Starting with the next flash publication on 23 January 2019, the composition of the consumer confidence indicator will be revised.

More information

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. Euro Area (EA) February 2014: Economic Sentiment broadly unchanged in the euro area and the EU

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. Euro Area (EA) February 2014: Economic Sentiment broadly unchanged in the euro area and the EU February 2014 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 120 Graph 1: Economic sentiment indicator (s.a.) 110 100 90 80 Euro Area (EA) 70 60 long-term av erage (1990-2013) = 100 European Union (EU) 1990 1991

More information

December 2011 compared with November 2011 Industrial producer prices down by 0.2% in both euro area and EU27

December 2011 compared with November 2011 Industrial producer prices down by 0.2% in both euro area and EU27 18/2012-2 February 2012 December 2011 compared with November 2011 Industrial producer prices down by 0.2% in both euro area and EU27 In December 2011, compared with November 2011, the industrial producer

More information

Euro area unemployment rate at 10.5%

Euro area unemployment rate at 10.5% 3/2016-7 January 2016 November 2015 Euro area unemployment rate at 10.5% EU28 at 9.1% The euro area (EA19) seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate was 10.5% in November 2015, down from 10.6% in October 2015,

More information

Consumer confidence indicator

Consumer confidence indicator February 2016 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 120 Graph 1: Economic sentiment indicator (s.a.) 110 100 90 80 70 long-term average (1990-2015) = 100 Euro Area (EA) European Union (EU) 60 1990 1992

More information

September 2011 compared with August 2011 Industrial producer prices up by 0.3% in euro area Up by 0.4% in EU27

September 2011 compared with August 2011 Industrial producer prices up by 0.3% in euro area Up by 0.4% in EU27 161/2011-4 November 2011 September 2011 compared with August 2011 Industrial producer prices up by 0.3% in euro area Up by 0.4% in EU27 In September 2011 compared with August 2011, the industrial producer

More information

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. September 2018: Economic Sentiment decreases in both the euro area and the EU

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. September 2018: Economic Sentiment decreases in both the euro area and the EU September 2018 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 120 Graph 1: Economic sentiment indicator (s.a.) 110 100 90 80 70 60 long-term av erage (1990-2017) = 100 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

More information

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS February 2018 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 120 Graph 1: Economic sentiment indicator (s.a.) 110 100 90 80 70 long-term av erage (1990-2017) = 100 EA EU 60 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

More information

Survey on passengers satisfaction with rail services. Analytical report. Flash Eurobarometer 326 The Gallup Organization

Survey on passengers satisfaction with rail services. Analytical report. Flash Eurobarometer 326 The Gallup Organization Flash Eurobarometer 326 The Gallup Organization Flash Eurobarometer European Commission Survey on passengers satisfaction with rail services Analytical report Fieldwork: March 2011 Publication: June 2011

More information

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. Euro Area (EA) European Union (EU)

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. Euro Area (EA) European Union (EU) June 2015 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 120 Graph 1: Economic sentiment indicator (s.a.) 110 100 90 80 70 60 long-term average (1990-2014) = 100 Euro Area (EA) European Union (EU) 1990 1991 1992

More information

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS May 2018 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 120 Graph 1: Economic sentiment indicator (s.a.) 110 100 90 80 70 60 long-term av erage (1990-2017) = 100 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

More information

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS March 2018 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 120 Graph 1: Economic sentiment indicator (s.a.) 110 100 90 80 70 long-term av erage (1990-2017) = 100 EA EU 60 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

More information

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. Euro Area (EA) June 2014: Economic Sentiment decreasing in the euro area, while stable in the EU

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. Euro Area (EA) June 2014: Economic Sentiment decreasing in the euro area, while stable in the EU June 2014 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 120 Graph 1: Economic sentiment indicator (s.a.) 110 100 90 80 Euro Area (EA) 70 60 long-term av erage (1990-2013) = 100 European Union (EU) 1990 1991 1992

More information

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. February 2019: Economic Sentiment broadly stable in the euro area, down in the EU

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. February 2019: Economic Sentiment broadly stable in the euro area, down in the EU February 2019 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 120 Graph 1: Economic sentiment indicator (s.a.) 110 100 90 80 EA EU 70 long-term av erage (1990-2018) = 100 60 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

More information

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. August 2013: Economic Sentiment rises further in both the euro area and the EU

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. August 2013: Economic Sentiment rises further in both the euro area and the EU August 2013 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 120 Graph 1: Economic sentiment indicator (s.a.) 110 100 90 80 70 long-term av erage (1990-2012) = 100 Euro Area (EA) European Union (EU) 60 1990 1991 1992

More information

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. August 2011

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. August 2011 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS August 2011 Upcoming releases of Business and Consumer Survey results Flash CCI: 22 September,

More information

DRINK-DRIVING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

DRINK-DRIVING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION DRINK-DRIVING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Safe and Sober Talk Switzerland Bern, 17 th of October 2017 Frank Mütze Policy & Project Officer ETSC ETSC A science based approach to road safety Secretariat in Brussels

More information

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION L 188/50 Official Journal of the European Union 19.7.2011 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 11 July 2011 on a Union financial contribution towards Member States fisheries control, inspection and surveillance

More information

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. Euro Area (EA) European Union (EU) September 2015: Economic Sentiment improves in the euro area and the EU

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. Euro Area (EA) European Union (EU) September 2015: Economic Sentiment improves in the euro area and the EU September 2015 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 120 Graph 1: Economic sentiment indicator (s.a.) 110 100 90 80 70 60 long-term average (1990-2014) = 100 Euro Area (EA) European Union (EU) 1990 1991

More information

Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee 1

Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee 1 The Employment Committee Indicators' Group working group on Youth Guarantee INDIC/10/16092014/EN-rev Indicator Framework for Monitoring the Youth Guarantee 1 INDEX: A) Introduction B) Proposed indicators

More information

First Trends H2020 vs FP7: winners and losers

First Trends H2020 vs FP7: winners and losers First Trends H2020 vs FP7: winners and losers Special focus on EU13 countries by Christian Saublens for EURADA INTRODUCTION Based on data available on the Cordis website on 3 December 2015, it is possible

More information

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. November 2013: Economic Sentiment improves in the euro area and the EU

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. November 2013: Economic Sentiment improves in the euro area and the EU November 2013 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 120 Graph 1: Economic sentiment indicator (s.a.) 110 100 90 80 Euro Area (EA) 70 60 long-term av erage (1990-2012) = 100 European Union (EU) 1990 1991

More information

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. April 2011

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. April 2011 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS April 2011 From February 2011 onwards, business surveys are presented exclusively in accordance

More information

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. Euro Area (EA) European Union (EU)

BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS. Euro Area (EA) European Union (EU) September 2016 BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS 120 Graph 1: Economic sentiment indicator (s.a.) 110 100 90 80 70 long-term average (1990-2015) = 100 Euro Area (EA) European Union (EU) 60 1990 1992

More information

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER. Technical Annex. Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER. Technical Annex. Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 22.6.2011 SEC(2011) 759 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Technical Annex Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

More information

Alcohol Interlocks and the fight against Drink-Driving

Alcohol Interlocks and the fight against Drink-Driving Alcohol Interlocks and the fight against Drink-Driving Safe and Sober Seminar Portuguese Parliament - Assembleia da República Lisbon, Portugal Wednesday 22 nd April 2015 Ilyas Daoud Project Manager Ilyas.Daoud@etsc.eu

More information

Monitoring the CO 2 emissions from new passenger cars in the EU: summary of data for 2010

Monitoring the CO 2 emissions from new passenger cars in the EU: summary of data for 2010 Monitoring the CO 2 emissions from new passenger cars in the EU: summary of data for 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EEA has collected data submitted by Member States on vehicle registrations in the year 2010,

More information

Single vehicle accidents

Single vehicle accidents Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2013 - Main Figures Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2015 Traffic Safety Single vehicle accidents Basic Facts 2015 Single vehicle accidents General In this Basic Fact Sheet, single

More information

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 23.3.2012 COM(2012) 127 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Quality of petrol and diesel fuel used for road transport in the European

More information

Labour Market Latest Trends- 1st quarter 2008 data 1

Labour Market Latest Trends- 1st quarter 2008 data 1 Population and social conditions Author: Fabrice ROMANS Data in focus 34/2008 Labour Market Latest Trends- 1st quarter 2008 data 1 Chart 1: Employment rate 2 (15-64 years) for from 2000Q1 to 2008Q1 % 66.5

More information

Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2010

Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2010 Motorways More than 23.000 people were killed in traffic accidents on motorways in 16 1 European Union countries between 1999 and 2008 2. This number corresponds to 7% of all traffic accident fatalities

More information

Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2008

Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2008 In 2006, powered two wheelers make up 22% of the total number of road accident fatalities in the EU-14. In 2006,moped rider fatalities make up 5,7% of the total number of road accident fatalities in the

More information

Passenger cars in the EU

Passenger cars in the EU Passenger cars in the EU Statistics Explained Data extracted in April 2018 Planned article update: April 2019 This article describes developments in passenger car stocks and new registrations in the European

More information

OECD unemployment rate falls to 6.0% in March 2017

OECD unemployment rate falls to 6.0% in March 2017 OECD unemployment rate falls to 6.0% in March 017 The OECD unemployment rate for the population as a whole fell by 0.1 percentage point, to 6.0%, in March 017. Across the OECD area, 37.5 million people

More information

Proportion of the vehicle fleet meeting certain emission standards

Proportion of the vehicle fleet meeting certain emission standards The rate of penetration of new technologies is highly correlated with the average life-time of vehicles and the average age of the fleet. Estimates based on the numbers of cars fitted with catalytic converter

More information

NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1. October 2016

NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1. October 2016 PRESS EMBARGO: NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1 October 2016 Next press release: Thursday 22 December 2016 1 Data for Malta unavailable Page 1 of 7 Commercial vehicle registrations:

More information

DEMOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION FINAL REPORT

DEMOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION FINAL REPORT DEMOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION FINAL REPORT Peter Ekamper Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute Lange Houtstraat 19

More information

OECD unemployment rate stable at 5.4% in March 2018

OECD unemployment rate stable at 5.4% in March 2018 OECD unemployment rate stable at.4% in March 2018 The OECD unemployment rate remained stable at.4% in March 2018. Across the OECD area, 34 million people were unemployed, 1.4 million more than in April

More information

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 25.10.2017 COM(2017) 622 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL European Development Fund (EDF): forecasts of commitments, payments and contributions from

More information

Spring forecasts : a tough 2009, but EU economy set to stabilise as support measures take effect

Spring forecasts : a tough 2009, but EU economy set to stabilise as support measures take effect IP/09/693 Brussels, 4 May 2009 Spring forecasts 2009-2010: a tough 2009, but EU economy set to stabilise as support measures take effect In the Commission's spring forecast, GDP in the European Union is

More information

NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1. November 2018

NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1. November 2018 PRESS EMBARGO: NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1 November 2018 Commercial vehicle registrations: +3.8% 11 months into 2018; +2.7% in November Total new commercial vehicles In November

More information

OECD unemployment rate down to 6.5% in January 2016

OECD unemployment rate down to 6.5% in January 2016 OECD unemployment rate down to 6.% in January 2016 The OECD unemployment rate fell by 0.1 percentage point to 6.% in January 2016, 1.6 percentage points below the January 2013 peak. Across the OECD area,

More information

RSWGM meeting European Commission DG MOVE 3-4 April 2017

RSWGM meeting European Commission DG MOVE 3-4 April 2017 Podgorica RSWGM meeting European Commission DG MOVE 3-4 April 2017 Mobility and Transport 1 WHITE PAPER 2011: Towards a zero-vision on road safety POLICY ORIENTATIONS ON ROAD SAFETY 2011-2020 The -50%

More information

Single vehicle accidents

Single vehicle accidents Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2013 - Main Figures Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2016 Traffic Safety Single vehicle accidents Basic Facts 2016 Single vehicle accidents A significant decrease of 44% in single

More information

Greening transport taxation

Greening transport taxation Greening transport taxation Jos Dings GBE conference, Budapest, 8 July 2010 www.transportenvironment.org A ranking of transport tax anomalies 1 Tax free aviation 2 Private benefits of company cars 3 Europe

More information

TAXATION N 322 JC/ 49 /14 LC/ 39 /14 BARS/ 25 /14 WG-TX/ 2 /14 WG-CO2/ 23 /14 WG-EV/ 4 /14 WG-CSG/ 10 /14

TAXATION N 322 JC/ 49 /14 LC/ 39 /14 BARS/ 25 /14 WG-TX/ 2 /14 WG-CO2/ 23 /14 WG-EV/ 4 /14 WG-CSG/ 10 /14 Brussels, 3 April 2014 TAXATION N 322 JC/ 49 /14 LC/ 39 /14 BARS/ 25 /14 WG-TX/ 2 /14 WG-CO2/ 23 /14 WG-EV/ 4 /14 WG-CSG/ 10 /14 Subject: Overview of C2 taxes and incentives for EVs Dear colleagues, Please

More information

OECD unemployment rate down to 6.4% in March 2016

OECD unemployment rate down to 6.4% in March 2016 OECD unemployment rate down to 6.4% in March 2016 The OECD unemployment rate fell by 0.1 percentage point to 6.4% in March 2016, 1.7 percentage point below the January 2013 peak. Across the OECD area,

More information

OECD unemployment rate stable at 5.3% in July 2018

OECD unemployment rate stable at 5.3% in July 2018 OECD unemployment rate stable at.3% in July 208 The OECD unemployment rate was stable at.3% in July 208. Across the OECD, 33. million people were unemployed,.7 million less than the peak in January 203

More information

ACEA Report. Vehicles in use Europe 2017

ACEA Report. Vehicles in use Europe 2017 ACEA Report Vehicles in use Europe 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary... 2 Vehicles in use in Europe... 3 Passenger cars... 3 Light commercial vehicles... 4 Medium and heavy commercial vehicles... 5 Buses...

More information

September 2003 Industrial producer prices stable in euro-zone and EU15

September 2003 Industrial producer prices stable in euro-zone and EU15 STAT/03/123 31 October 2003 September 2003 Industrial producer prices stable in euro-zone and EU15 The euro-zone 1 industrial producer price index 2 remained unchanged in September 2003 compared with the

More information

OECD unemployment rate stable at 5.5% in January 2018

OECD unemployment rate stable at 5.5% in January 2018 OECD unemployment rate stable at.% in January 2018 The OECD unemployment rate was stable at.% in January 2018. Across the OECD area, 34. million people were unemployed, 1.9 million more than in April 2008.

More information

NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1. April 2017

NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1. April 2017 PRESS EMBARGO: NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1 April 2017 Next press release: Friday 23 June 2017 1 Data for Malta unavailable Page 1 of 7 Commercial vehicle registrations: +3.8%

More information

BREXIT AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY: FACTS AND FIGURES

BREXIT AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY: FACTS AND FIGURES BREXIT AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY: FACTS AND FIGURES GLOBAL TRADE European Union EU vehicle imports: Total value: 48,019 million Quantity: 3,640,975 units EU vehicle exports: Total value: 138,536 million Quantity:

More information

This paper has been prepared for The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN) aisbl by Perchards Ltd.

This paper has been prepared for The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN) aisbl by Perchards Ltd. Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics 1998-2010 This paper has been prepared for The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN) aisbl by Perchards Ltd., St Albans, UK EUROPEN

More information

NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1 February 2018

NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1 February 2018 PRESS EMBARGO: NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1 February 2018 Next press release: Tuesday 24 April 2018 1 Malta not available Page 1 of 7 Commercial vehicle registrations: +6.5% first

More information

KEY DRIVERS AND SLOWERS OF PASSENGER CAR TRANSPORT (ENERGY) DEMAND IN THE EU-27

KEY DRIVERS AND SLOWERS OF PASSENGER CAR TRANSPORT (ENERGY) DEMAND IN THE EU-27 Amela Ajanovic KEY DRIVERS AND SLOWERS OF PASSENGER CAR TRANSPORT (ENERGY) DEMAND IN THE EU-27 Vienna University of Technology, Energy Economics Group, Austria, Phone +431 5881 37364, e-mail ajanovic@eeg.tuwien.ac.at

More information

Road safety in Europe. Graziella Jost, ETSC, PIN Programme Manager

Road safety in Europe. Graziella Jost, ETSC, PIN Programme Manager Road safety in Europe Graziella Jost, ETSC, PIN Programme Manager ETSC PIN Programme 1 Compare country performance in road safety Include the 27 EU Member States (+ Israel, Norway and Switzerland) A PIN

More information

Fact Sheet - Meta info cover page for non CSI fact sheets (*)

Fact Sheet - Meta info cover page for non CSI fact sheets (*) Fact Sheet - Meta info cover page for non CSI fact sheets (*) (*) Note: The updating of the CSIs has to be done directly in the web based Indicator Management Service (IMS) of EEA. IP2005 - Task reference

More information

Improved timeliness of employment data

Improved timeliness of employment data 2007Q1 2007Q2 2007Q3 2007Q4 2008Q1 2008Q2 2008Q3 2008Q4 2009Q1 2009Q2 2009Q3 2009Q4 2010Q1 2010Q2 2010Q3 2010Q4 2011Q1 2011Q2 2011Q3 2011Q4 2012Q1 2012Q2 2012Q3 2012Q4 2013Q1 2013Q2 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1

More information

Inflation Differentials in Europe. Balázs Égert Economics Department, OECD

Inflation Differentials in Europe. Balázs Égert Economics Department, OECD Inflation Differentials in Europe Balázs Égert Economics Department, OECD Objectives of the presentation Different factors driving inflation rates in Europe Differences between mature and catching-up countries

More information

Common Safety Indicators (CSIs) as reported by Member States Extracted on 18 October 2013 from ERAIL database (

Common Safety Indicators (CSIs) as reported by Member States Extracted on 18 October 2013 from ERAIL database ( Table 1 Fatalities by category of persons Victim types Year AT BE BG CT CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK UK EU Passengers 2006 0 4 1 4 18 0 3 9 1 12 4 0 5 0 0 1 1 9

More information

OECD unemployment rate stable at 5.8% in August 2017

OECD unemployment rate stable at 5.8% in August 2017 OECD unemployment rate stable at 5.8% in August 017 The OECD unemployment rate was stable at 5.8% in August 017, unchanged since May. Across the OECD area, 36.1 million people were unemployed, 3.5 million

More information

Traffic Safety Basic Facts Main Figures. Traffic Safety Basic Facts Traffic Safety. Main Figures Basic Facts 2017.

Traffic Safety Basic Facts Main Figures. Traffic Safety Basic Facts Traffic Safety. Main Figures Basic Facts 2017. Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2013 - Main Figures Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2015 Traffic Safety Main Figures Basic Facts 2017 Main Figures EU road safety targets The European Commission set the ambitious

More information

42/ March GDP growth in the euro area and EU28. GDP growth rates % change over the previous quarter, based on seasonally adjusted data

42/ March GDP growth in the euro area and EU28. GDP growth rates % change over the previous quarter, based on seasonally adjusted data 2007Q1 2007Q2 2007Q3 2007Q4 2008Q1 2008Q2 2008Q3 2008Q4 2009Q1 2009Q2 2009Q3 2009Q4 2010Q1 2010Q2 2010Q3 2010Q4 2011Q1 2011Q2 2011Q3 2011Q4 2012Q1 2012Q2 2012Q3 2012Q4 2013Q1 2013Q2 2013Q3 2013Q4 2014Q1

More information

NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1. December 2018

NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1. December 2018 PRESS EMBARGO: NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1 December 2018 Commercial vehicle registrations: +3.2% in 2018; 4.0% in December Total new commercial vehicles In December 2018, commercial

More information

Drink Driving in Europe

Drink Driving in Europe Safe & Sober: Reducing deaths and injuries from drink driving Paris, 2nd December 2008 Drink Driving in Europe Ellen Townsend Introduction to ETSC A science-based approach to road safety policy Bringing

More information

Figure 1: Development of the number of passenger cars, motorcycles and buses/coaches per capita and trucks per unit of GDP in AC-13

Figure 1: Development of the number of passenger cars, motorcycles and buses/coaches per capita and trucks per unit of GDP in AC-13 Indicator fact sheet TERM 2002 32 AC Size of the vehicle fleet Car ownership has grown rapidly in the ACs. The number of cars per capita grew from 146 to 223 cars per 1 000 inhabitants between 1990 and

More information

ACEA Report. Vehicles in use Europe 2018

ACEA Report. Vehicles in use Europe 2018 ACEA Report Vehicles in use Europe 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary... 2 Vehicles in use in Europe... 3 Passenger cars... 3 Light commercial vehicles... 4 Medium and heavy commercial vehicles... 5 Buses...

More information

Tackling the Three Main Killers on the roads - A priority for the forthcoming EU Road Safety Action Programme Klaus Machata Austrian Road Safety

Tackling the Three Main Killers on the roads - A priority for the forthcoming EU Road Safety Action Programme Klaus Machata Austrian Road Safety Tackling the Three Main Killers on the roads - A priority for the forthcoming EU Road Safety Action Programme Klaus Machata Austrian Road Safety Board Tackling the Three Main Killers... Speed, drink driving

More information

Adjusting and extending the LFS data used for the projections

Adjusting and extending the LFS data used for the projections Alphametrics (AM) Alphametrics Ltd Adjusting and extending the LFS data used for the projections Skillsnet technical workshop 14-15 June 2010, Thessaloniki Robert Stehrer and Terry Ward wiiw, Vienna Alphametrics,

More information

BREXIT AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY: FACTS AND FIGURES

BREXIT AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY: FACTS AND FIGURES BREXIT AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY: FACTS AND FIGURES GLOBAL TRADE European Union EU vehicle imports: Total value: 45,693 million Quantity: 3,395,419 units EU vehicle exports: Total value: 135,398 million Quantity:

More information

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 12.7.2012 COM(2012) 385 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

More information

Motorcycles and Mopeds

Motorcycles and Mopeds Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2013 - Main Figures Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2017 Motorcycles and Mopeds General In 2015, about 26.100 people were killed in road accidents throughout the EU. Motorcycle and

More information

Workshop on Road Traffic Statistics

Workshop on Road Traffic Statistics Document: RTS-2008-2-EN Original: English EU transport statistics Workshop on Road Traffic Statistics Luxembourg, 04-05 November 2008 Bech Building Room BECH QUETELET Beginning 10:00 AM Measuring road

More information

SafetyNet. Based on data from CARE / EC. Building the European Road Safety Observatory Workpackage 1 Task 3 Deliverable No: D 1.20

SafetyNet. Based on data from CARE / EC. Building the European Road Safety Observatory Workpackage 1 Task 3 Deliverable No: D 1.20 2008 Based on data from CARE / EC SafetyNet Building the European Road Safety Observatory Workpackage 1 Task 3 Deliverable No: D 1.20 Authors: KfV Austria NTUA Greece SWOV The Netherlands TRL United Kingdom

More information

Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics in Europe: An analysis of official EU data by EUROPEN

Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics in Europe: An analysis of official EU data by EUROPEN Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics in Europe: 1998-2008 An analysis of official EU data by EUROPEN This paper has been prepared for The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN)

More information

NEW PASSENGER CAR REGISTRATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE FUEL TYPE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 1 Quarter

NEW PASSENGER CAR REGISTRATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE FUEL TYPE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 1 Quarter PRESS EMBARGO: NEW PASSENGER CAR REGISTRATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE FUEL TYPE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 1 Quarter 3 2017 Alternative fuel vehicle registrations: +51.4% in third quarter of 2017 In the third quarter

More information

NEW ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 1 Q2 2015

NEW ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 1 Q2 2015 NEW ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS IN THE Q2 2015 New alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) registrations in the EU by engine type Q2 2014 Q2 2015 Thousand units 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 EVs HEVs AFVs other

More information

Motorcycles and Mopeds

Motorcycles and Mopeds Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2013 - Main Figures Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2015 Motorcycles and Mopeds General In 2013, 26.090 people were killed in road accidents throughout the EU. Motorcycle and moped

More information

Teaching English to Foreigners: 2008

Teaching English to Foreigners: 2008 15 June 2009 1100 hrs 106/2009 In 2008, 83,288 foreign students followed courses at local English-language specialised schools. This shows a decrease of 0.8 per cent over 2007. Teaching English to Foreigners:

More information

Excise duties on commercial diesel Frequently Asked Questions (see also IP/07/316)

Excise duties on commercial diesel Frequently Asked Questions (see also IP/07/316) MEMO/07/99 Brussels, 13 March 2007 Excise duties on commercial diesel Frequently Asked Questions (see also IP/07/316) What is the proposal about? The proposal aims at reducing the distortions of competition

More information

EUROPEAN FISHERIES IN FIGURES

EUROPEAN FISHERIES IN FIGURES EUROPEAN FISHERIES IN FIGURES The tables below show basic statistical data in several areas relating to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), namely: the fishing fleets of the Member States in 2014 (Table

More information

NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION* September 2014

NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION* September 2014 PRESS EMBARGO: 8.00 A.M. (7.00 A.M GMT), October 28, 2014 NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION* September 2014 Next Press Release: November 27, 2014 *Data for Malta unavailable Page 1 of

More information

The 3 rd European Road Safety Action Programme

The 3 rd European Road Safety Action Programme ROAD SAFETY: the European Union Policy 2001-2010 & 2011-2020 SEETO, 18.10.2010 J.P Repussard/G. Bergot European Commission, Directorate General for Mobility & Transport Unit «Road Safety and Transport

More information

NEW PASSENGER CAR REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1

NEW PASSENGER CAR REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1 PRESS EMBARGO: 8.00 AM (6.00 AM GMT), 19 September 2018 NEW PASSENGER CAR REGISTRATIONS EUROPEAN UNION 1 Passenger car registrations: +6.1% eight months into 2018; +10.5% in July and +31.2% in August In

More information

Analyses. May HolidayEuro Summer Purchasing Power of the Euro Abroad. Bank Austria Economics & Market Analysis Austria

Analyses. May HolidayEuro Summer Purchasing Power of the Euro Abroad. Bank Austria Economics & Market Analysis Austria Bank Austria Economics & Market Analysis Austria Analyses HolidayEuro Summer 2011 Purchasing Power of the Euro Abroad May 2011 http://economicresearch.bankaustria.at Overview Holiday uro in summer 2011

More information

Introduction of the Digital Tachograph

Introduction of the Digital Tachograph European Commission Directorate-General for Energy and Transport Introduction of the Digital Tachograph Background and latest developments By Leo Huberts (EC-DG TREN) Historical overview 1992: Commission

More information

Autumn 2015 Economic Forecast: Moderate recovery despite challenges

Autumn 2015 Economic Forecast: Moderate recovery despite challenges European Commission - Press release Autumn 2015 Economic Forecast: Moderate recovery despite challenges Brussels, 5 November 2015 The economic recovery in the euro area and the European Union as a whole

More information

Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2010 Seasonality

Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2010 Seasonality Although the annual number of people who died in road traffic accidents in Europe has fallen over many years, the distribution of the annual number by month has scarcely changed. Traffic Safety Basic Facts

More information

Bank Austria Economics and Market Analysis. Analyses &.,+)(1%0/. '96+0)713/!'4;-6! 4.!80-!&964!%*64), March.

Bank Austria Economics and Market Analysis. Analyses &.,+)(1%0/. '96+0)713/!'4;-6! 4.!80-!&964!%*64), March. Bank Austria Economics and Market Analysis &.,+)(1%0/. 'rtkpi!#"10 " '96+0)713/!'4;-6! 4.!80-!&964!%*64), # March 2010 http://economicresearch-e.bankaustria.at Overview Holiday uro worth less than a year

More information

NEW PASSENGER CAR REGISTRATIONS BY FUEL TYPE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 1

NEW PASSENGER CAR REGISTRATIONS BY FUEL TYPE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 1 PRESS EMBARGO: NEW PASSENGER CAR REGISTRATIONS BY FUEL TYPE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 1 Quarter 3 2018 Fuel types of new cars: diesel 18.2%, petrol +15.2%, electric +30.0% in third quarter of 2018 In the third

More information

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 4.6.2012 COM(2012) 258 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2007/38/EC on the retrofitting of mirrors

More information

NEW PASSENGER CARS BY FUEL TYPE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 1 Quarter

NEW PASSENGER CARS BY FUEL TYPE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 1 Quarter PRESS EMBARGO: NEW PASSENGER CARS BY FUEL TYPE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 1 Quarter 1 2018 Next press release: Thursday 6 September 2018 1 Data for Croatia, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta is not available Page

More information

The SafeCulture project Results on safety culture in professional transport in Greece

The SafeCulture project Results on safety culture in professional transport in Greece Promotion of Road Safety Culture International Workshop Herakleio, Greece May 29, 2017 The SafeCulture project Results on safety culture in professional transport in Greece Alexandra Laiou, George Yannis,

More information