Support Study For The Interim Evaluation of The Eu-NC0224061ENN

Support study for the Interim
Evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy

2019-2027
Annexes
Kantar Public
Ramboll Management
Consulting
Technopolis Group
2024
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The Commission's Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC)
Unit B3 – Youth, Volunteer Solidarity and Traineeship Office
Contact point: Jadranka Vukovic Johnsson
Email: jadranka.vukovic-johnsson@ec.europa.eu
European Commission, DG EAC Rue Joseph II 70, 1000 Brussels, Belgium

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Support study for the Interim Evaluation of

the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027
Annexes
Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sports, and Culture

Interim Evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027
2024
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the
views only of the authors, and the European Commission is not liable for any
consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. More information on the
European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).
EN PDF ISBN 978-92-68-11689-0 doi 10.2766/587282 NC-02-24-061-EN-N
Manuscript completed in October 2023
1st edition
AUTHORS
Daniela Ulicna (Kantar Public-main author)

Patricia Scherer (Kantar Public-main author)
Giorgi Davidovi (Kantar Public-main author)
Ivona Koronthalyova (Kantar Public-main author)
Emanuela Carta (Kantar Public)
Robin Fauconet (Kantar Public)
Yasemin Zeisl (Kantar Public)
Vanessa Ludden (Ramboll-Main quality assurance)
Fraser Sharp (Ramboll- co-author)
Silvia Beghelli (Ramboll)
Emily Cochran Bech (Ramboll)
Mikaela Almerud (Technopolis Group-co-author)
Nils Karlsson (Technopolis Group-co-author)
Izabella Martins Grapengiesser (Technopolis Group)
Valentina Caimi (Independent)
Wojciech Paczynski (Independent)
Pavel Trantina (Independent youth expert-Quality assurance)
Manfred Zentner (Independent youth expert-Quality assurance)
The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of
this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
© European Union, 2024
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission

Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ
L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is
authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate
credit is given and any changes are indicated.
For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union,
permission may need to be sought directly from the respective rightholders.
Contents
1. Annex 1 - Evaluation questions and matrix ........................................................ 7
Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 7
Efficiency ....................................................................................................... 21
Relevance ...................................................................................................... 23
Coherence ...................................................................................................... 26
EU added value ............................................................................................... 30
2. Annex 2 - Methodological and analytical model used ......................................... 34
Overall methodology of this interim evaluation .................................................... 34
Task 1 – Inception and desk research ................................................................ 34
Task 2 - Stakeholder consultations .................................................................... 36
Call for Evidence ............................................................................................. 37
Public consultation .......................................................................................... 38
Survey of young people and Civil Society Organisations ........................................ 40
Qualitative activities via interviews and focus groups ............................................ 45
Task 3 – Analysis and key issues for possible mid-term review .............................. 52
Task 4 – Systematic review .............................................................................. 54
Task 5 - Reporting and dissemination ................................................................. 58
3. Annex 3 - Synopsis report ............................................................................. 59
4. Annex 4 – Analysis of the results of surveys among CSOs and young people ........ 88
5. Annex 5 - Public Consultation Analysis .......................................................... 124
6. Annex 6 - Additional evidence about cost-effectiveness analysis........................ 149
7. Annex 7 - A systematic overview .................................................................. 180
Introduction ................................................................................................. 180
Background .................................................................................................. 180
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................... 183
Methodology ................................................................................................. 187
Outcomes from the Systematic Overview .......................................................... 190
Implementation instruments of the EUYS .......................................................... 190
Concluding Reflections ................................................................................... 212
8. Annex 8 – Analysis of group interviews and focus groups ................................. 247
9. Annex 9 – Mapping of national policies .......................................................... 263
10. Annex 10 – Data collection tools................................................................... 310
Desk research tools ....................................................................................... 310
Country research template ............................................................................. 310
Interview guide for key informant interviews ..................................................... 325
Public consultation ........................................................................................ 340
Survey questionnaire for young people ............................................................. 359
Survey questionnaire for CSOs ........................................................................ 392
Discussion guide for focus groups with young people .......................................... 432
Discussion guide for focus groups with CSOs and interview guide for youth researchers
.................................................................................................................. 435
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1. Annex 1 - Evaluation questions and matrix

This section presents the evaluation framework and matrix.
Effectiveness
Our approach to assess the effectiveness of the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027 (Hereafter
EUYS of the Strategy) uses a theory-based contribution analysis. Beyond the development of
the intervention logic and related theory of change, this implies:
• Development of the detailed impact pathways between the individual components of

the EUYS implementation and the expected results and impacts. This recognises that
not all elements of the EUYS contribute to all the results and impact but that there is a
more detailed set of pathways between the actions taken and the expected changes;
• Explicit formulation of assumptions that underpin the impact pathways. These reflect
under what conditions we assume the changes will follow from the activities
implemented;
• Identify the critical assumptions and critical segments of impact pathways and focus
data collection and compilation on those elements of the theory of chain;
• Collect evidence from primary and secondary data against the impact pathways so as
to confirm or disconfirm whether these pathways have materialised;
• Assess the strength of the evidence gathered and subsequently the credibility of the
emerging narrative of contribution of the EUYS to the changes observed and
measured; and
• Revise the contribution theory and present the actually achieved theory of change
(rather than the expected one) showcasing what the EUYS has achieved to deliver.
The analysis of effectiveness assesses changes at multiple levels:
• Evaluate the extent to which progress has been made in the three core areas
(‘Engage’, ‘Connect’ and ‘Empower’) and towards the impact areas targeted by the
EUYS (see intervention logic in section 2.3);
• Assess the extent to which progress has been made against the 11 European Youth
goals of the EUYS and the targets which underpin them;
• Important attention is paid to uncovering the extent to which there is plausible evidence
about the relationship between the activities put in place by the EUYS and any changes
to the 11 goals or the 3 core areas and impact areas. This relationship will be assessed
qualitatively based on narratives of key stakeholders and quantitatively measuring the
perceived contribution of policy makers and civil society.
• Finally, looks in detail into each of the implementation of mechanisms and identify the
scale of the actions that were put in place, their thematic coverage and gather evidence
of the ways in which these mechanisms and actions input into progress and broader
decision making. Through this analysis we verify the extent to which the assumptions
about the effectiveness of these mechanisms can be verified.
Another important dimension will be to differentiate between the effectiveness of the EUYS at
national and EU level. The EUYS does not only aim to influence national youth strategies. It
is also the overarching youth strategy at EU level and subsequently it should be a reference
point for EU decisions in the area of youth. This evaluation therefore also examines to what
extent to EUYS was taken into account in EU level processes and to what extent it succeeded
to mainstreaming youth perspectives in other policy areas. Another important dimension to
assess the effectiveness of the EUYS is the results stemming from the 2022 European Year
of Youth in the context of the 11 European Youth goals and 3 core areas. The 2022 European
Year of Youth is a separate initiative that has a strong impact on young people and youth civil
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
society organisations. When carrying out the assessment of the effectiveness of the EUYS,
the activities of the 2022 European Year of Youth linked to the EUYS will be taken into account.
Table 1 Evaluation matrix – Effectiveness
Evaluation question Judgement criteria Indicators Methods/source

s
1. To what extent has Objectives, priorities See other This an

the EUYS, at mid-term, and actions of the indicators for overarching
proven to be an EUYS have been effectiveness question that we
effective strategic translated into below answer through
framework, in terms of concrete and an overall
turning the objectives, sustainable assessment of all
priorities and actions achievements effectiveness
into concrete and (outputs, results and questions
sustainable impacts) at European
achievements and national level.
(outputs, results and
impacts) at European The outputs produced Volume and Desk research
and national levels? are thematically thematic focus
aligned with EUYS of outputs Key informant
goals interviews with
Stakeholders stakeholders at
The outputs produced reached the national and
are used EU level
Use of EUYS
The outputs produced outputs Youth survey and
are considered as focus groups
useful Extent of
usefulness of Civil society
these outputs survey and focus
groups
Public
consultation
There is evidence that Analysis of Desk research

the EUYS influenced examples of
national youth policies specific Key informant
and priorities influence of interviews with
the EUYS on stakeholders at
national the national and
policies exist EU level
Analysis of Civil society

contribution of survey and focus
the EUYS to groups
shaping
national Public
policies consultation
There is evidence that Examples of Desk research

the EUYS influenced specific
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EU-level youth policies influence of Key informant

and priorities the EUYS on interviews
EU policies
exist Civil society
survey and focus
Identified groups
contribution of
the EUYS to Public
shaping EU consultation
policies
Progress has been Level of Desk research

made in the three core engagement
areas of the EUYS and Youth survey and
consultation of focus groups
Youth perspectives youth at EU
have been and national Key informant
mainstreamed at level interviews
national and EU level
Extent of Civil society
mainstreaming survey and focus
of youth groups
perspectives
in policy Contribution
making analysis
Analysis of
situation of
young people
in areas
covered by the
youth strategy
goals
1.a What are the actual The majority of Analytical Desk research
effects achieved (or Member States have in description of
progress made) at place clear actions in the type of Key informant
mid-term at EU and line with the three core effects interviews
Member State level, in areas of engage, achieved (or
each of the 3 core connect, empower and progress Civil society
areas (‘Engage’, implementation made) at EU survey and focus
‘Connect’, instruments. and Member groups
‘Empower’)? State, civil
society levels
across four
impact areas: Youth survey and
focus groups
Youth active
citizenship,
social
inclusion,
solidarity;
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Youth
mainstreaming
across policy;
Continuous
youth work
International
influence
Via EUYS
activities in the
area of
implementatio
n instruments,
engage,
connect and
empower
And in the Analytical
contribution to the Contribution has been description of
Youth Goals? made to the Youth success
Goals: stories at the
EU, National
Connecting EU with and civil
Youth society levels
on how the
Equality of All Genders EUYS helped
young people
Inclusive Societies
to be more
engaged,
Information &
more
Constructive Dialogue
connected and
more
Mental Health &
empowered.
Wellbeing
Key
Moving Rural Youth
stakeholders
Forward
identifying the
Quality Employment contribution of
for All the EUYS to
the Youth
Quality Learning Goals
Space and Analytical

Participation for All description of
which Youth
Sustainable Green Goals and
Europe how the EUYS
contributed to.
Youth Organisations &
European
Programmes
10
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1.b In what way and to The Guiding principles Key Desk research
what extent have the of the Strategy have stakeholders
Guiding principles of influenced its recognise that Key informant
the Strategy effectiveness. these interviews
influenced its principles
effectiveness? Guiding principles: have been Civil society
present in the survey and focus
Equality and non- implementatio groups
discrimination n of the EUYS
Youth survey and
Inclusion Extent to focus groups
which the
Participation Guiding
principles of
Global the Strategy
have
European, national, influenced the
regional and local effectiveness
dimension of the EUYS.
Dual approach Analytical
description of
how the
Guiding
principles
have
influenced the
effectiveness
of the
Strategy.
Key
stakeholders
recognise that
these
principles
have
facilitated
changes at EU
and national
levels
1.c To what extent has The Strategy has Key Desk research
the Strategy already influenced and/or stakeholders
influenced or created created synergies with recognise that Key informant
synergies with Member States’ youth EUYS interviews with
Member States' youth policies. influenced or the stakeholders
policies? created at the national
synergies with level
Member
States' youth Civil society
policies survey and focus
groups
11
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Analytical Youth survey and

description of focus groups
how the
Strategy has
influenced
and/or created
synergies with
Member
States’ youth
policies
Extent to
which the
Strategy has
influenced
and/or created
synergies with
Member
States’ youth
policies.
1.d Which main The role of external Stakeholders’ Desk research

factors have factors in influencing perception of
contributed to or the effectiveness of the role of Key informant
limited the progress EUYS (covid-19, war other factors interviews with
towards the objectives in Ukraine, digital and and policies/ stakeholders at
at mid-term? green transition, interventions national level
globalisation, inflation) in shaping the
youth agenda Civil society focus
groups
The role of other EU

policies and actions in Identification
influencing the of factors that
effectiveness of EUYS have
(2022 European Year contributed to
of Youth, European (or limited) the
Solidarity Corps, progress
Erasmus+ programme) towards the
objectives of
the EUYS.
How has the 2022 The 2022 European Analytical Desk research
European Year of Year of Youth description of
Youth contributed to contributed to progress how the 2022 Key informant
progress? towards the objectives European interviews
of the EUYS. Year of Youth
has Civil society
contributed survey and focus
towards the groups
objectives of
the EUYS.
12
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
1.e Have there been Unintended/unexpecte Key Desk research

any d effects that have stakeholders
unintended/unexpecte occurred are positive. identifying Key informant
d effects? unintended/un interviews
No negative expected
unexpected effects effects of Civil society
have been identified. EUYS survey and focus
groups
Identification
of unintended
effects and
their scope
and scale. For
example:
instrumentalis
ation of youth
engagement,
divisive
discourse
between youth
and older age
groups
1.f To what extent are The effects of the Stakeholders Desk research
the effects of the strategy are likely to identifying
Strategy likely to last last in the long-term different EUYS Key informant
in the long-term? impacts likely interviews with
The strategy has to last in the stakeholders at
produced structural long-term national and EU
changes which are level
likely to last Analysis of the
nature of Civil society focus
impact groups
produced as a
result of the
strategy
Analysis of
which EUYS
effects of the
strategy are
likely to last in
the long-term
Stakeholders’
perceptions on
which EUYS
impact is to
last long term
Extent to
which the
effects of the
Strategy are
13
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
likely to last in
the long-term.
2. To what extent have The Strategy’s Extent to Desk research

the Strategy’s instruments have been which the
instruments proven to effective in supporting Strategy’s Key informant
be effective in the mid-term instruments interviews with
supporting the implementation of the have been stakeholders at
implementation at Strategy. effective in the national and
mid-term? achieving the EU level
Instruments: outputs and
outcomes of
Evidence-based youth the EUYS.
policymaking and
knowledge building
Mutual learning and

dissemination
Future National
Activities Planner
EU Work Plans for

Youth
Partnership with CoE
Participatory
governance
EU Youth Dialogue
EU Youth Coordinator
Communicating the EU
Youth Strategy
Mobilising and
Monitoring EU
Programmes and
Funds
European Youth Work

Agenda
Youth Information and

Support
2.a Which instruments There are instruments Analytical Desk research

or combination of or combination of description of
14
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
instruments stand out instruments that are which Key informant

as particularly particularly effective. instruments interviews Youth
effective vs. needing (or survey
adjustment at mid- combination of
term? instruments) Civil society
are particularly survey
effective.
There are instruments
that need adjustments.
Analytical
description of
which
instruments
need
adjustment,
reasons for
the
adjustments
and possible
changes.
2.b Are the The instruments and Assessment of Desk research

instruments and implementing tools are whether the
implementing tools sustainable and apt to instrument and Key informant
regarded as continue facilitating the implementing interviews
sustainable and apt to implementation of the tools are
continue facilitating EUYS. considered by
the implementation of stakeholders
the EUYS and the sustainable
main factors behind and apt to
this? continue
facilitating the
implementatio
n of the
There are factors that Strategy.
enable the
sustainability and
implementation of the
EUYS.
Analytical
description of
factors which
enable the
sustainability
and
implementatio
n of EUYS.
2.c To what extent Youth issues have Extent to Desk research

have the instruments been integrated into which the
supported a cross- other policy fields. youth issues Key informant
sectorial approach have been interviews Youth
15
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
and effective mainstreamed survey and focus

mainstreaming of in other policy groups
youth issues and fields.
greater youth
involvement into other Analytical
policy fields? description of
how youth
issues have
been taken-
into account in
other policy
fields.
Analytical
description of
successful
stories of how
youth issues
There has been a have been
youth involvement into incorporated
other policy fields. into other
policy fields.
Extent to
which young
people have
been involved
in other policy
fields.
Analysis of
how young
people have
been involved
in other policy
fields.
Analysis of
success
stories of how
young people
have been
involved in
other policy
fields.
2.d To what extent Links and synergies Extent to Desk research

have the EU exist between the which links
programmes, such as EUYS and other EU and synergies Key informant
Erasmus+, European programmes exist between interviews with
Solidarity Corps, (Erasmus+, European the EUYS and the stakeholders
Horizon Europe, ESF+, Solidarity Corps, other EU at the EU
16
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
RRF, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe, programmes services and at

CERV, EU4Health, ESF+, RRF, Digital (Erasmus+, national level
Creative Europe, etc., Europe, CERV, European
been mobilised and EU4Health, Creative Solidarity
linkages, alignments Europe etc). Corps,
and synergies created Horizon
between them and the Europe, ESF+,
EUYS to effectively RRF, Digital
address the objectives Europe,
of the Strategy? CERV,
EU4Health,
Creative
Europe, etc.).
Analysis of
links and
Links, synergies and synergies
alignments between between the
the EUYS and other EUYS and
EU programmes allow other EU
for effectively address programmes.
Is there a need and the objectives of the
how could synergies Strategy. Extent to
be improved further? which links
and synergies
between the
EUYS and
other EU
There is room for programmes
improvement in support the
synergies between effective
EUYS and other EU achievement
programmes. of the
objectives of
the Strategy.
Analytical
description of
how synergies
can be
improved
between the
EUYS and
other EU
programmes.
3. How well was the The EUYS adapted Extent to Desk research
strategy able to adapt well to the which the
to the unforeseen developments of the strategy Key informant
developments and Covid-19 pandemic adapted well interviews
impact of Covid19- to the
pandemic and of development
17
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Russia’s invasion of and the Russia’s of the Covid-

Ukraine? invasion of Ukraine. 19 pandemic
and the
Ukrainian
crisis.
Analysis of
how the
Strategy
In what way did the adapted to
unforeseen events deal with the
impact the Covid-19
implementation? situation and
the Ukrainian
crisis.
The events impacted
the implementation of
the EUYS.
Analysis of
how the
What have been the Covid-19 and
enabling/limiting the Ukraine’s
factors impacting the crisis impacted
adaptability? on the
implementatio
There are n of the
enabling/limiting Strategy.
factors that impacted
the adaptability of
EUYS to the
unforeseen events. Analytical
What has been the description of
role of solidarity in the factors that
Strategy’s have enabled
adaptability? or limited the
adaptability of
the EUYS to
the Covid-
Solidarity had a role in
19/Ukrainian
the adaptability of the
crisis.
Strategy.
Extent to
which
solidarity had
a role in
supporting the
adaptability of
the Strategy.
Analytical
description of
how solidarity
18
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
had a role in
supporting the
adaptability of
the Strategy.
Analytical
description of
success
stories of how
the Strategy
adapted to the
unforeseen
events.
4. To what extent and The EUYS has Extent to Desk research

how has the Strategy promoted and which the
promoted and influenced the EUYS has Key informant
influenced the inclusion of young promoted and interviews
inclusion of young people with fewer influenced the
people with fewer opportunities e.g. inclusion of Civil society
opportunities and young people survey and focus
facing obstacles in life people with disabilities, with fewer groups
due to e.g. disability, health issues (incl. opportunities.
health problems (incl. mental health issues, Youth survey and
mental health, chronic chronic health focus groups
health conditions), conditions), low
barriers linked to education, little Analysis of Public
education and training training, low income how the EUYS Consultations
systems, cultural has promoted
differences, social People facing social and influenced
barriers, economic barriers, cultural the inclusion
barriers, barriers differences, of young
linked to discrimination and people with
discrimination, racism, racism, and fewer
and geographical geographical barriers opportunities.
barriers?
Analytical
description of
success
stories of how
the EUYS has
In what way has the promoted and
EUYS affected the influenced the
inclusion of young inclusion of
people with diverse young people
backgrounds in light with fewer
of the recent health opportunities.
and political crisis?
Analysis of
19
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
how the EUYS

adapted to
How have the actions include young
stemming from the people with
EUYS adapted to the diverse
better support youth background
people with mental during health
health issues? and political
The EUYS adapted crisis
well to include young
people with diverse
backgrounds in light of Analysis of
health and political how the
crisis actions
stemming from
the EUYS
contributed to
improving the
situation of
young people
with mental
health issues.
The actions stemming
from the EUYS
targeted and
supported young
people with mental
health issues
5.To what extent and The strategy has Extent to Desk research
how has the Strategy promoted that green which the
promoted the green and digital transition. Strategy has Key informant
and digital promoted the interviews Civil
transitions? green and society survey
digital and focus groups
transition.
Youth survey and
focus groups
Analysis of
how the
Strategy has
promoted the
green and
digital
transition.
Analytical
description of
success
stories of how
20
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
the EUYS has

promoted the
green and
digital
transition.
Efficiency
The EUYS is implemented through a range of instruments. These instruments are funded
from different funding sources and in addition to budgets they also mobilise the time of
different stakeholders. Time of stakeholders is needed for participation in different events
and activities. This time constitutes and important indirect costs for the implementation of the
EUYS. In our approach to evaluating efficiency of this strategy we therefore propose to not
only assess the direct costs (expenditure on the different activities) but also indirect costs
meaning:
• Headcount dedicated to EUYS in DG EAC; and

• Time spent by different stakeholders engaging with the strategy.
These indirect costs is quantified and monetised using the EU standard cost model which
will allow us to get a more comprehensive view of the costs of the implementation of this
strategy. This is compared with the benefits of the strategy as identified under effectiveness.
Table 2 Evaluation matrix – Efficiency
Evaluation Judgement criteria Indicators Methods/sou

question rces
6. To what The EUYS’s Direct and indirect costs of Cost-

extent have instruments, the EUYS compared to effectiveness
the EUYS structures, processes benefits analysis
instruments, and activities put in
structure, place at EU and
processes national level have
and activities proved well-
put in place functioning, non-
at EU and burdensome and
national level cost effective.
for the EUYS
proved well- The budgets
functioning, allocated and the
non- time needed for
burdensome these activities is
and cost proportionate to the
effective for results and impacts
their achieved
implementati
on at mid-
term?
21
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
6.a To what The instruments, Extent to which the Key

extent, at processes and instruments, processes and informant
what level activities do not activities created interviews
and for whom create excessive administrative or other
do the administrative or burdens for stakeholders. Costs data
instruments, other burdens for and time
and activities stakeholders. Description of which needed
create instruments, processes and
(administrativ activities created Survey of
e or other) administrative or other civil society
burdens for Stakeholders agree burdens and for which organisations
stakeholders that the burden is stakeholders.
? proportionate to the
benefits of Description of other burdens
participation and for which stakeholders.
Description of factors which

create administrative
burdens.
What are the

main factors
behind this? The factors that
create administrative
or other burdens for
stakeholders are
understood and
efforts exist to
minimise them.
6.b What is n/a Description of how Key

the scope for instruments, processes and informant
further activities can be simplified interviews
simplification and for which stakeholder.
and burden- Focus groups
reduction in
the
instruments,
processes
and
activities, at
what level
and for
whom?
22
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
6.c Which n/a Description of costs and Cost-

instruments benefits of each instrument effectiveness
can be for different stakeholders. analysis at
regarded as the level of
having the Description of instruments different
highest cost- which have the highest cost- instruments
benefits benefit ration.
ratio?
Direct and indirect costs per
instrument
7 To what The resources Extent to which the Cost-

extent are the dedicated to the resources dedicated to the effectiveness
resources implementation of implementation of the analysis
dedicated to the Strategy are Strategy are proportionate to
the proportionate to the the objectives of the
implementati what the objective of Strategy.
on of the the Strategy.
Strategy
proportionate
to what the
Strategy has
set out to
achieve?
Relevance
As per the Better Regulation Guidelines1, the criterion of relevance looks at the relationship
between the needs and problems in society and the objectives of the intervention and hence
touches on aspects of design. Analysis under the criterion of Relevance requires a
consideration to how the objectives of an EU intervention (i.e. the EUYS) corresponds to wider
EU policy goals and priorities. The analysis also requires the identification of possible
mismatches between the objectives of the intervention and the (current) needs or problems.
Using the abovementioned understanding from the BRG toolbox, the approach to analysing
relevance in the context of this Interim evaluation is four-pronged approach:
Firstly, the aim of EQ8 is to take a summative approach in understanding the degree to which
the objectives of the Strategy remained relevant over the period 2019-2023, i.e. met the needs
of its stakeholders ranging from policymakers through to CSOs and youth. A desk-based
analysis is firstly be performed of the main needs of stakeholders in relation to the Strategy
over the 2019-2023 period. This analysis would be part of the desk research under Sub-Task
1.2 on the mapping of national youth policies’ evolutions, as well utilising other documentary
sources to examine the relationship between the Strategy and stakeholders over time. Utilising
existing documentary sources to understand the extent to which the Strategy can be directly
or indirectly linked to initiatives at the EU, national and regional levels will also be an important
data source to be consulted. In addition, looking retrospectively, the evaluation will seek to
consult and analyse the views of different types of stakeholders on the degree to which they
perceived the Strategy to be relevant – here it is important to assess the degree to which the
needs of policy-makers from different countries and youth from different types of backgrounds
1
European Commission (2021). Better Regulation Guidelines, Toolbox, Tool #47, p405-406
23
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
(e.g. more or less politicised and/or from more or less advantaged groups) were addressed
by the Strategy and its instruments over the 2019-2023 period. This would be primarily tested
through the online surveys and focus groups.
Secondly, the aim of EQ9 is conversely take a formative approach through understanding the
degree to which do the Strategy’s objectives continue to correspond to the needs and
challenges of young people, youth stakeholders and the activities of national youth policy
makers today. Online surveys and focus groups with different types of stakeholders serve to
gather evidence in this regard – here again it is important to assess the degree to which the
Strategy continues to address the needs of policymakers from different countries and youth
from different types of backgrounds (e.g. more or less politicised and/or from more or less
advantaged groups). Potential new areas of coverage or gaps in the Strategy is to be
uncovered, which would serve to increase the relevance of the Strategy going forward.
Moreover, in making this assessment, documentary evidence is utilised to look at how the
policy context has evolved over the 2019-2023 period, based on changing political priorities
and objectives, or emerging technological, social, environmental or economic developments,
which could have impacted the relevance of the Strategy’s objectives for its stakeholders.
Finally, the aim of EQ10 is to examine the extent to which the relevance of the Strategy was
influenced by the 2022 European Year of Youth and its corresponding legacy. A specific effort
is made gain views from stakeholders which participated or have knowledge of the 2022
European Year of Youth as well as the activities under the Strategy, in order to understand
the extent to which the Year and its legacy have contributed to and strengthened the relevance
of the EUYS.
Table 3 Evaluation matrix – Relevance
Evaluation Judgement criteria Indicators Methods/sources

question
8. To what Evidence Evidence that Desk research

extent did the demonstrates that the stakeholders had (over
Strategy’s motivations of the period 2019-23) an Key informant
objectives stakeholders to awareness of: interviews
remain participate in the
relevant over activities under the Youth engagement Public
the 2019-2023 Strategy are in line tools at an EU level consultation
period? with the Strategy (e.g. the EU Youth
objectives Dialogue). Civil society
survey and focus
Instruments to be groups
connected to peers
(e.g. EU Youth Portal Youth Survey and
and EU Youth Strategy focus groups
Platform)
Recognition tools of
formal and informal
and formal learning
(European Youth Work
Agenda).
Existence of illustrative
(qualitative) examples
24
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
of how the Strategy

responded to the
needs of stakeholders
over the period 2019-
23 and youth problems
addressed by the
EUYS.
Stakeholders’ views
about the Strategy’s
attractiveness to
stakeholders, primarily
to youth.
Shares of different
groups of consultees
who consider that the
Strategy addressed
their needs in the
period 2019-23.
9. How well Evidence Evidence / examples of Desk research

do the demonstrates that the alignment between
Strategy’s Strategy continues to Strategy’s objectives Key informant
objectives be visible and meet and the current needs interviews
still the needs of of stakeholders
correspond stakeholders (across Public consultation
to the needs all geographical levels Evidence of new needs
and and stakeholder that emerged that were Civil society survey
challenges types). The Strategy’s not covered by the and focus groups
of young ethos remains strong. Strategy’s objectives
people and Youth Survey and
youth Stakeholder views on focus groups
stakeholders the degree to which the
today? And Strategy’s objectives
to the meet their current /
activities of future needs
national
youth policy Existence of no
makers? significant gaps in
terms of how the
Strategy responds to
the current needs of
specific stakeholder
groups
Share of different
groups of consultees
who consider that the
Strategy addresses
their current needs
Evidence
demonstrating that the
25
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
motivations of
stakeholders to
participate in activities
under the Strategy is in
line with its objectives
10. To what There is direct/ Evidence / examples Desk research

extent and indirect evidence that from activities under
how has the the 2022 European the 2022 European Key informant
Strategy’s Year of Youth and its Year of Youth (e.g. interviews
relevance legacy increased the national initiatives,
been relevance of the ALMA3, European Public consultation
influenced Strategy Youth Event, debates
by the 2022 held within the Civil society survey
European European Parliament, and focus groups
Year of the 2022 European
Youth and Year of Youth
the legacy of Conference) having
the Year?2 influenced the
perceived relevance of
the Strategy.
Stakeholder views on
the degree to which the
legacy of the 2022
European Year of
Youth had a positive or
negative impact upon
the Strategy’s
objectives.
Evidence
demonstrating that the
motivations of
stakeholders to
participate in 2022
European Year of
Youth impacted their
motivations to
participate in activities
under the Strategy
Coherence
To analyse the coherence of the EUYS, looks at the internal relationship between the different
core areas (‘Engage’, ‘Connect’ and ‘Empower’) and instruments within the Strategy as well
as between the EU Youth Strategy and wider EU policies and priorities which relate to the
Strategy’s challenges and objectives. We also assess (possible) complementarities and gaps
2
It should be noted that the original question from the ToR stated, “To what extent and how has the Strategy’s relevance,
coherence and added value been influenced by the European Year of Youth and the legacy of the Year?”. The decision was
made at the tender stage to slit this question across each of the criterions so that they could be adequately addressed in turn.
3
Aim, Learn, Master, Achieve. https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1549&langId=en
26
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
between the Strategy and other international obligations, such as the Sustainable
Development Goals.
The methodological toolbox of the Better Regulation Guidelines is the baseline and the
reference for the overall conceptual design of the framework for assessing coherence. In this
sense, we will check:
• the ‘internal’ coherence: i.e. how the various core areas, instruments and guiding
principles in different areas of the EUYS operate together to achieve its objectives.
This also look at whether synergies have actively been sought across the Strategy’s
core areas and instruments, as relevant.
• the ‘external’ coherence: i.e. the relationship between the EUYS and other
interventions, at different levels: for example, between EU interventions within the field
of education, training and youth (e.g. European Education Area, European Strategy
for Universities, Digital Education Action Plan, European Skills Agenda). Also, the
relationship with other relevant EU policies and programmes with more high level and
horizontal policy objectives such as the Green Deal, NextGenerationEU and the
Recovery and Resilience Facility).
Based on the analysis of the internal and external coherence, conclusions can be drawn
regarding (the lack of) overlaps (within the EUYS and compared to other programmes), but
also the existing complementarities and synergies created within the Strategy and by the
Strategy in coordination with other policies at EU level. This is also closely related to the
assessment of relevance of the Strategy, where we assess the correspondence of the
Strategy to the needs and challenges of young people (and youth stakeholders) and to the
activities of national youth policymakers.
As the Better Regulation Guidelines state, the assessment of coherence usually is addressed
by qualitative approaches, but also via scenario analyses or comparisons of different time
periods (‘Better regulation’ toolbox 2021, p. 409). To address the coherence questions in the
EUYS evaluation, we rely on qualitative insights from key informants, gathered through focus
groups and online surveys among different stakeholders such as national/regional/local
policymakers, youth and youth work organisations. In addition, we propose to conduct a desk-
based review of external coherence, assessing the degree to which there are any
complementarities, overlaps or duplications between the EUYS’s objectives, core areas and
instruments and those of other EU interventions within the field of education, training and
youth.
Table 4 Evaluation matrix – Coherence
Evaluation question Judgement Indicators Methods/sources

criteria
11. To what extent is EUYS is coherent Extent to which the Desk research
the Strategy coherent with existing Strategy is coherent
with (current) wider wider EU policies, with existing wider Public
EU policies, strategies and EU policies and EU consultation
strategies and priorities which strategies which
priorities4. relate to the relate to the
4
In particular, the evaluation will examine the coherence with the following strategies/ policies/ initiatives: European Education
Area, European Strategy for Universities, European Research Area, New European Innovation Agenda, European Green Deal,
Digital Education Action Plan, European Skills Agenda, NextGenerationEU and the Recovery and Resilience Facility, Youth
27
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
To what extent is the Strategy’s Strategy’s Key informant

Strategy coherent challenges and challenges and interviews
with international objectives objectives
obligations, such as Civil society
the Sustainable EU Youth Extent to which the survey and focus
Development Goals? Strategy is Strategy is coherent groups
coherent with with international
How could synergies international obligations, such as Youth Survey and
be improved obligations, such the Sustainable focus groups
wherever gaps are as the Development Goals
detected? Sustainable
Development Number of actions
Goals within the three core
areas of the
Gaps and Strategy which refer
synergies are directly to other EU
detected between policies
the Strategy and
wider EU policies, Share of
priorities or stakeholders which
international perceive
obligations complementarities
with relevant EU
policies and
priorities or
international
obligations which
relate to the
Strategy’s
objectives
Share of
stakeholders which
perceive overlaps to
relevant EU policies
and priorities or
international
obligations which
relate to the
Strategy’s
objectives
Examples of gaps
with EU policies and
priorities, or
international
obligations as well
Action Plan in EU external action, EU Strategy on the Rights of the child, EU Human rights and Democracy Action Plan, Gender
Equality Strategy 2020-2025, EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation, Council Recommendation
on Roma equality, inclusion and participation, Communication on an LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025, Strategy for the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities; the EU Anti-racism Plan 2020-2025, EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish
Life 2021-2030, EU Citizenship Report 2020 Empowering citizens and protecting their rights
28
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
as synergies to be
improved
12. To what extent are The Strategy’s Extent to which the Desk research
the Strategy’s core core areas and Strategy’s core
areas and instruments are areas and Public
instruments coherent coherent instruments are consultation
with one another? internally (i.e. with coherent internally
one another) Key informant
Share of interviews
stakeholders which
perceive the three Civil society
core areas (i.e. survey and focus
‘Engage’, ‘Connect’, groups
‘Empower’) of the
EU Youth Strategy Youth Survey and
as coherent focus groups
internally
Share of
stakeholders which
perceive the
instruments
(Evidence-based
youth policymaking
and knowledge
building, mutual
learning and
dissemination,
Future National
Activities Planner,
EU Work Plans for
Youth, EU-CoE
youth partnership,
Participatory
governance, EU
Youth Dialogue, EU
Youth Coordinator,
Communicating the
EU Youth Strategy,
Mobilising and
Monitoring EU
Programmes and
Funds, European
Youth Work
Agenda, Youth
Information and
Support) of the EU
Youth Strategy as
coherent internally
Examples of
synergies and gaps
within the Strategy’s
29
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
core areas and

instruments
13. To what extent The Strategy’s Extent to which the Desk Research
and how has the core areas and Strategy was
Strategy’s coherence instruments were coherent with the Public
been influenced by coherent with the activities under the consultation
the 2022 European activities under 2022 European
Year of Youth and the the 2022 Year of Youth. Key informant
legacy of the Year?5 European Year of interviews
Youth Number of actions
within the three core Civil society
areas of the survey and focus
Strategy which groups
interlinked directly
to actions under the Youth Survey and
2022 European focus groups
Year of Youth
Share of
stakeholders which
perceived synergies
with the 2022
European Year of
Youth (and its
legacy) and the
Strategy’s
objectives and
actions
Share of
stakeholders which
perceive overlaps
with the 2022
European Year of
Youth (and its
legacy) and the
Strategy’s
objectives and
actions.
EU added value
As per the Better Regulation Guidelines6, the criterion of EU-added value looks for changes
which it can reasonably be argued are due to the EU intervention (i.e. the Strategy), over and
above what could reasonably have been expected from national actions by the Member
States. In many ways, the evaluation of EU added value brings together the findings of the
other criteria, presenting the arguments on causality and drawing conclusions, based on the
evidence to hand, about the performance of the Strategy. The assessment is also underpinned
5
made at the tender stage to slit this question across each of the criterions so that they could be adequately addressed in turn.
6
European Commission (2021). Better Regulation Guidelines, Toolbox, Tool #47, p407-409
30
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
by the principle of subsidiarity7, and in areas of non-exclusive competence, where the EU

should only act when the objectives can be better achieved by Union action rather than action
by the Member States. On this basis, the evaluation questions set out below aim to first
distinguish the contribution the Strategy provided compared to what have realistically been
achieved at the Member State level, and then go further to understand how the Strategy
promoted cooperation between countries.
To operationalise the analysis of EU added value, the evaluation assesses four main aspects:
• Volume/scale effects: the extent to which the Strategy creates additional volume
effects (scale of cooperation) which would not be achieved through national actions.
• Scope effects: the extent to which the Strategy covers stakeholders that would not be
covered by national interventions.
• Role effects: the extent to which the Strategy and actions implemented through it
allowed innovation and its uptake at national and organisational level. For example,
the Strategy could emphasise focus on certain new priorities that are otherwise under-
represented at national level.
• Process effects: the extent to which the Strategy created innovation in the process.
This concerns notable spill-over effects such as how engaged, connected and
empowered youth across Member States have become. The provision of tools for
managing as well as recognising outcomes of the Strategy and their use are possible
examples of process effects.
Table 5 Evaluation matrix – EU added value
Evaluation Judgement Indicators Methods/sources

question criteria
14. How and to The Strategy Volume/scale effects: the Desk research
what extent does had added additional scale in terms
action at EU level value over of engagement, Key informant
add value in and above connection and interviews
addressing the what could be empowerment of youth
objectives of the achieved by that has been influenced/ Public consultation
EU Youth Member achieved through the
Strategy, beyond States alone Strategy. Civil society survey
what individual in its absence and focus groups
Member States Scope effects: the
could achieve on relevant stakeholders Youth focus groups
their own? across sectors were
covered through the
Strategy and relevant
programmes/policies.
Role effects: the coverage

of new issues or priorities,
as well as target groups,
in addition to what is
covered at national and/or
regionals level.
7
Article 5 Treaty on European Union
31
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Process effects: the scale

and nature of process
innovation compared to
what is done at national
and/or regional levels.
Evidence from
stakeholders that the
same results could have
been achieved at national
and/or regional levels
without the Strategy.
Evidence of impacts from

other support schemes
targeting youth at national
and/or regional levels.
Data on outputs from

programmes under the
strategy (e.g. results of
these programmes, data
on youth engagement
etc.).
Number of participants in
programmes under the
strategy at national and
international level.
15. To what The Strategy Evidence / examples of Desk research

extent does the outlined its the Strategy having
Youth Strategy added value promoted cooperation Key informant
promote through between countries both interviews
cooperation increased within Europe and
between cooperation internationally (e.g. via Public consultation
countries (in between EU-CoE youth
Europe and countries on partnership). Civil society survey
beyond)? policies and and focus groups
matters Stakeholder views on the
relevant to degree to which
youth. cooperation between
countries can be attributed
to the influence of the
Strategy
Evidence demonstrating
that stakeholders were
motivated by the Strategy
to undertake actions and
cooperation across
borders, both within the
EU and internationally.
32
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
16. To what There is Evidence / examples from Desk research

extent and how direct/ indirect activities under the 2022
has the evidence that European Year of Youth Key informant
Strategy’s added the 2022 (e.g. national initiatives, interviews
value been European ALMA9, European Youth
influenced by the Year of Youth Event, debates held within Civil society survey
2022 European and its legacy the European Parliament, and focus groups
Year of Youth influenced the the 2022 European Year
and the legacy of added value of Youth Conference)
the Year?8 of the having influenced the EU
Strategy, over added value of the
and above Strategy
what could
have been Stakeholder views on the
achieved by degree to which the
Member legacy of the 2022
States alone European Year of Youth
in its absence had a positive or negative
impact upon the added
value of the Strategy.
17. What would Majority of Stakeholder views on Key informant

be the most stakeholders what would happen in interviews
likely believe terms of continuation of
consequences of discontinuing EU youth education, Public consultation
a discontinuation (parts of) the employment/social
of the EU Youth Strategy policies in the absence of Civil society survey
Strategy? would have the Strategy. and focus groups
negative
consequences Stakeholder views on
what would happen to the
different activities under
the Strategy in the
absence of EU funding
8
made at the tender stage to split this question across each of the criterions so that they could be adequately addressed in turn.
9
33
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
2. Annex 2 - Methodological and analytical model used

Overall methodology of this interim evaluation
This evaluation encompassed five tasks, as presented below, each contributing to a
comprehensive assessment of the EUYS performance and impact.
Figure 1 Overall process and methodology of this interim evaluation
Task 1 – Inception and desk research

Task 1.1 Inception phase
Kick off
The kick-off meeting with members of the EUYS Inter-service Group (ISG) took place on 8
February 2023. During the kick-off meeting, the evaluation team introduced the objectives of
the EUYS 2019-2027 interim evaluation, the intervention logic and the evaluation framework.
Discussions with the ISG members and comments received helped to revise the stakeholder
consultation approach in view of enhancing engagement of youth with different social, political,
economic and cultural backgrounds in the youth survey and focus groups.
Scoping desk research and interviews
The scoping interviews were conducted with representatives of DG EAC, DG INTPA and
EACEA. The purpose of the scoping interviews was to better understand the EUYS and the
instruments implementation. The interviews helped to refine the intervention logic and
evaluation matrix. Scoping desk research was carried out in preparation for the Theory of
Change Workshop.
Theory of Change Workshop
34
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The Theory of Change workshop was conducted on 20 February 2023 with representatives of
DG EAC and EACEA. The purpose of the workshop was to gain better understanding to refine
the intervention logic and evaluation framework and develop detailed impact pathways linked
to the expected results and desired impacts of the EUYS. The implementation of the EUYS
relies on multiple strands of activities. At the design stage of the interim evaluation, it was
important to develop a solid understanding of the impact pathways linked to the EUYS
implementation mechanisms. During the Theory of Change workshop, the evaluation team:
• Harnessed the thoughts and reflections of seven representatives from DG EAC
working on different instruments of the EUYS;
The evaluation team documented the discussions on the intervention logic and on the policy
context of the EUYS, which allowed the team to finetune the intervention logic and develop
the impact pathways used in the evaluation.
Task 1.2 – Desk research
Under the task 1, the desk research was carried out at the EU and national level. The
methodological and analytical process for the desk research contained two phases, firstly the
scoping desk research and secondly the EU and national level desk research. The purpose of
the scoping desk research was to analyse the information that exists around the EUYS to
ensure that our understanding of the theory of change was soundly rooted in the policy context
and backed up by existing academic or grey literature about the EUYS and youth-related
policies and measures.
Desk research at the EU level

EU level desk research was based on the literature about EUYS activities, inputs and outputs.
The EU level desk research mainly analysed Staff Working Documents, Communication
documents and Reports, other documents on all the eleven instruments of the EUYS.
The study team gathered key documentation and DG EAC provided further literature which
allowed the team to revise the list of preliminary secondary data sources and create a
document repository containing over 300 documents. Analysis was carried out by analysing
documents in line with the evaluation matrix and gathering the secondary data on indicators.
The results of EU level desk research fed into identifying the EUYS implementation via its
instruments. The results were also used to contextualise the evaluation findings presented in
the final report.
Desk research at the national level

The national level desk research covered all EU Member States. The aim was to gather key
insights that could be difficult to capture with quantitative tools about potential synergies
between national youth strategies and the EUYS, and examples of EUYS effects. The national
desk research was based on documentation gathered via FNAPs, YouthWIKI, national youth
policies and strategies, national reports on youth policy area and other available documents.
National desk research was also coupled with stakeholder consultations carried out under the
task 2, such as:
• undertaking interviews with national youth policymakers in all the EU27 (described
under the task 2 – stakeholder consultation);
• follow-up focus groups with national policymakers in three countries in Denmark,
Germany and Slovakia (described under the task 2 – stakeholder consultation).
The first step was a review of available secondary data – reports and national youth strategies
and policies implemented in the context of the EUYS. On this basis, we developed the
35
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
template for the country research to collect evidence in a systematic way and the study team
carried out interviews and focus groups with the national policymakers. The researchers
elaborated country reports summarising key information from the interviews and national-
specific literature, helping build a picture of the EUYS effects at the national level across EU27.
Task 2 - Stakeholder consultations

The consultation strategy for the evaluation was based on a mapping of stakeholders and
included the following consultation activities to involve a broad range of EUYS stakeholders
and the public:
• A call for evidence open to any stakeholder and the public on the European
Commission’s 'Have Your Say' portal during 23 Sep. - 21 Oct. 2022.
• A public consultation open to any stakeholder and the public, on the European
Commission’s ‘Have Your Say’-portal during 26 Apr. - 2 Aug. 2023.
• Quantitative activities gathering data on awareness of the EUYS and engagement

with different EUYS activities and instruments, collected through two targeted surveys:
- Online survey of young people, reached through a general population sample

in 10 EU Member States10 during 10-29 July 2023;
- Online survey of youth civil society organisations, youth researchers active at
EU and national level, and youth informal groups, during 15 June - 14 Aug.
2023.
• Qualitative activities gathering perceptions of the EUYS and examples of progress

made in its implementation, collected through:
- Key informant interviews with policy makers at EU and national level and focus
groups with national policy makers, during 3 May - 20 June 2023;
- Focus groups with young people during 14 June - 8 Aug. 2023;
- Focus groups with civil society organisations, youth researchers and youth
informal groups during 14 June - 23 Aug. 2023.
The targeted consultation activities (surveys, interviews, focus groups) have involved
stakeholders based on:
• The relevance of the EUYS 2019-2027 to them;

• Their expertise in the subject;
• Their involvement in EUYS 2019-2027 activities and instruments.
Specific attention was paid to ensuring inclusion and diversity in the online survey of youth.
Respondents were selected to ensure a distribution that reflected the population of each
country in terms of age group (16-29), gender and region (NUTS 1). In addition, during the
survey implementation, the respondents were selected with respect to several characteristics
such as educational attainment, employment status, rural/urban residence and self-reported
disabilities.
The table below presents the type of stakeholders consulted through the different activities.
10
Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden
36
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Table 6 Types of stakeholders consulted
Call for Evidence and Key Focus

Online
Stakeholder group Online public informant groups
surveys
consultation interviews
General Public ✓
Youth ✓ ✓ ✓
EU institutions/bodies ✓ ✓
Authorities at national level ✓ ✓ ✓
Experts and youth researchers ✓ ✓ ✓
CSOs/NGOs, platforms and ✓

networks representing or working ✓ ✓
with youth
International organisations & bodies ✓ ✓
The total reach of the consultation activities by type of stakeholders is shown below.
Figure 2 Stakeholders’ participation in consultation activities
Call for Evidence

Prior to this interim evaluation, a Call for Evidence was carried out during 23 September until
21 October 2022 to gather opinions on the performance of the EUYS. Overall, 36 responses
were provided, a majority from NGOs (58.3%, 21 out of 36) and EU citizens (16.7%, 6 out of
37
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
36). 12 countries11 were represented across the respondents, with the largest proportion being
from Belgium (28%, 10 out of 36) and Germany (14%, 5 out of 36).
Table 7 Stakeholders consulted under the Call for evidence overview
Respondent category Number of responses % of total

Non-governmental organisation 21 58.3%
EU citizens 6 16.7%
Other 4 11.1%
Public authority 3 8.3%
Environmental organisation 1 2.8%
Academic/research institution 1 2.8%
TOTAL 36 100%
The results of the Call for Evidence was used in this interim evaluation when triangulating the
findings.
Public consultation
The primary aim of the Public Consultation (PC) was to gather valuable insights and
perspectives from a diverse range of stakeholders regarding the implementation and
effectiveness of the EUYS.
The PC was launched on 26 April 2023 and remained open until 2 August 2023. A total of 224
responses12 were received to the PC. In addition 16 stakeholders provided additional written
contributions to support their answers to the public consultation in the form of position
papers13. These respondents came from 38 countries, including 25 EU Member States.14 The
largest group (23% - 52 out of 224) being from Spain, followed by France (9% - 20 out of 224)
and Germany (8% - 17 out of 224). Out of the those that responded as EU and Non-EU
citizens, the geographical distribution broadly followed that of total group of responses, with
Spain having the highest proportion (32 out of 133 - 24%), followed by France (15 out of 133
- 11.3%) and Portugal (9 out of 133 - 6.8%). In comparison, those that did not answer as an
EU or non-EU citizen included the highest proportion of responses from Spain 22% (20 out of
91), 15% from Belgium (14 out of 91), 11% from Germany (10 out of 91).
Table 8 Public Consultation overview

EU citizens 120 53.6%
Other 16 7.1%
11
N = Belgium (10), Germany (5), France (4), Portugal (3), Switzerland (3), Slovakia (2), Italy (2), Greece (2), Finland (2), Romania
(1), Netherlands (1), Austria (1).
12
The responses were checked for the presence of campaigns or coordinated answers that could skew the overall answers per
question. No campaigns were identified. It is important to note that some sections are specific to certain stakeholder groups.
Therefore, each question has its own specific response rate (indicated by “N”) which discounts the respondents who did not
answer or where it was not relevant for them to answer.
13
Including 9 NGOs, 3 public authorities, two international organisations, one EU level network, one EU organisation and
14
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
38
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Non-EU citizen 13 5.8%

Business association 3 1.3%
Company/business 1 0.4%
TOTAL 224 100%
In addition to the profiling questions, respondents were also asked to specify their age. In the
largest group among EU and non-EU citizens were those aged between 18 and 23 years old
(34% - 51 out of 133), as shown in the figure below.
Figure 3. Age of respondents under the PC
The PC comprised a comprehensive survey structured into different sections, each tailored
to various stakeholder groups, ensuring a comprehensive assessment of the EUYS's
relevance and impact.
The survey's development involved careful considerations to strike a balance between

addressing issues on which stakeholders could easily express their views and those of utmost
importance for the evaluation. The language used in the questionnaire was made clear,
concise, and translatable into multiple languages to facilitate accessibility. The survey was
designed to be inclusive, without biases or assumptions that might exclude specific groups. It
offered clear instructions, especially for those unfamiliar with online surveys or with limited
digital literacy. The survey's mobile-friendly format accommodated access through
smartphones and tablets.
Efforts were made to prevent stakeholder consultation fatigue. The questionnaire

encompassed general questions suitable for various stakeholder groups, along with more
specific queries tailored for youth and other stakeholders, such as policy makers and civil
society/NGOs at the national level. Routing based on profiling questions ensured that
respondents only answered the most relevant questions. The public consultation questions
were also refined based on the feedback provided by DG EAC. This feedback led to
adjustments in certain questions, with the goal of enhancing coherence and delving into the
appropriate subjects within the core areas of the study.
The survey's dissemination was planned meticulously, involving promotion at events,

partnerships with youth-focused organisations, dedicated social media posts, and promotion
through relevant websites. A draft version of the online questionnaire was developed and
subsequently approved, with translation and uploading onto the "Have your Say" website
undertaken by the Commission.
As part of the analysis, data was extracted from the EU Survey platform as responses accrued.
Charts and figures were prepared in Excel to facilitate the presentation of data. The data was
39
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
evaluated for identical entries and campaigns. Following the PC's closure, a factual summary
report was produced, providing an overview of stakeholders' views and inputs received during
the public consultation process. The PC results were triangulated with evidence from other
stakeholder consultations when developing the findings for this interim evaluation.
Survey of young people and Civil Society Organisations

Survey of young people
The purpose of the survey was to collect perceptions from young people on the EUYS’
relevance in relation to their needs and perceived results of their involvement in EUYS
instruments.
An online survey was conducted among young people, aged 16-29, in 10 Member States,
between 10 July and 29 July 2023, gathering 400 responses in each Member State. The
survey covered questions relating to all evaluation criteria, except efficiency.
Target Sample size Country coverage

Survey of young people Sample of 400 Sample of 10 EU Member
aged 16-29 15 respondents 16 in each States (CZ, DE, ES, FR, IT, NL,
Member State PL, PT, RO, SE)17
The survey was completed by a diverse set of young respondents across several
characteristics including gender, age, and region of residence. The distribution across these
three characteristics follows that of the population in the 10 countries covered, ensuring
representativeness of the sample. In addition, the diversity of respondents can be
demonstrated through the distribution of the education attained by respondents, their
employment status, rural/urban residence, their or their parents’ background, and self-
reported disabilities.
Figure 4 Survey respondents’ characteristics
15
To capture the views and experiences of young people, the age group 16-29 was targeted by this survey to gather insights
from both the younger population entering adulthood, as well as the young working population navigating the opportunities
available to them.
16
Respondents were selected to ensure a distribution mirroring that of the population of each given country with respect to age
range (16-20, 21-25 and 26-29), gender, and region (NUTS 1). In addition, the pool of respondents was diverse with respect to
a number of characteristics, such as attained education, employment status, residence in a rural/urban area, and self-reported
disability. While a target of 400 respondents per country was aimed towards, in certain countries a few extra responses were
collected prior to closing the fieldwork, leaving the overall number of responses collected at 4,011.
17
These countries were selected to optimally capture the diversity of potential country effects that may affect the responses
collected. The criteria used to select countries were the level of adoption and implementation of youth strategies and action plans
at the national level, including the existence of a national youth strategy, the level of mainstreaming of youth policies in the
national and local policy environment based on our initial assessment, geographical diversity ensuring a mix of countries from
central, eastern, northern, western and southern Europe, and country size.
40
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Source: Kantar Public – Youth survey
The online survey of young people took into account two important aspects: a careful selection
of countries where the survey was carried out and respecting the inclusion and diversity
principles when consulting youth.
The countries selected for the survey – Czechia, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Sweden – were to optimally capture the diversity of
potential country effects that may affect the responses collected. Within each country, a
sample of 400 respondents (in some countries slightly more) completed the survey, which is
large enough to ensure that the multidimensional challenges are robustly captured in the data.
These 10 countries represent relevant criteria via-à-vis the EUYS, as well as geographical
balance. The criteria used to select countries were the level of adoption and implementation
of youth strategies and action plans at the national level, including:
• Existence of a youth strategy (ensuring a mix of countries that do and do not have a
dedicated youth strategy that is currently in force);
• Mainstreaming of youth policies in the national and local policy environment (based on
our initial assessment of policies in the relevant country, to ensure a mix of countries
whose policies in relation to youth are more well established and those where the
implementation of youth policies remains marginal).
• Geographical diversity, ensuring a mix of countries from central and eastern, northern
and western, and southern Europe;
• Country size: focusing on a mix of large and medium-sized countries in terms of
population.
Specific attention was paid to ensuring inclusion and diversity in the online survey of young
people. The young people targeted by the EUYS represent a complex group with
multidimensional challenges, such as unemployed, students, workers (including working
poor), people in different income brackets, living in rural or urban areas. Respondents were
selected to ensure a distribution that reflected the population of each country in terms of age
group (16-29), gender and region (NUTS 1). In addition, during the survey implementation,
the respondents were selected with respect to a number of characteristics such as educational
attainment, employment status, rural/urban residence and self-reported disability. In regard to
self-reported disability, the user need perspective was adopted which was appropriate since
it shifts the focus from labelling individuals to looking at concrete solutions for accommodating
different needs. This approach and the indicative list of user needs was taken from the
European standard for digital accessibility “Standard EN 301 549”18. It refers to: usage with
18
Harmonised European Standards EM 301 549
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/03.02.01_60/en_301549v030201p.pdf
41
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
limited vision; usage without perception of colour; usage without hearing; usage with limited
hearing; usage without vocal capability; usage with limited mobility (upper-body and/or lower-
body); usage with limited cognition: intellectual disability, ADHD / Autism spectrum, dyslexia,
mental disability. With this in mind, we attempt to include in our survey respondents who also
recognise themselves in one of these categories.
Another important element is web accessibility, which is crucial for survey design to ensure
everyone can answer the questions and have their say, including disabled people. To ensure
the survey reaches a high standard of accessibility we used the Forsta+ platform. Forsta+
conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidance (WCAG 2.1 AA). Accessibility comes as
standard, and participants do not have to opt-in. This means that the survey is rendered
responsively, providing a user-friendly experience on any device.
Another element to increase accessibility relates to the design of the questionnaire. For this
purpose, we used plain language in the questionnaire design. This plain language approach
has ensured that the survey is as clear as possible so that respondents understand the
questions. This includes:
• Keeping sentences short;

• Preferring active verbs;
• Using 'you' rather than phrasing questions in abstract terms;
• Using words that are appropriate for the intended respondents and avoiding jargon;
• Avoiding nominalizations;
• Using lists and matrices where appropriate.
To ensure that the sample of survey respondents is representative of the overall populations
targeted by the EUYS, we have included a range of hard and soft quotas on the completion
of the survey by people presenting different characteristics. Hard quotas, based on population
statistics in Eurostat, were set on:
• Age (categories 16-20, 21-25 and 26-29);

• Gender (50-50 and accepting anyone who does not wish to identify as either of these
genders); and
• Region (NUTS1).
Additionally, monitoring soft quotas were set on:

• Highest level of education attained;
• Employment status;
• Whether respondents live in rural / urban areas;
• Whether they feel engaged and able to express their opinions within their community;
• Whether they identify themselves as not having any disability or some disability.
By monitoring these variables during the fieldwork, we could act if the deviation of the
distribution of a given characteristic from its distribution in the population becomes too large
in a country.
After the master version of the questionnaire was finalised, the survey was scripted using the
scripting tool Forsta+, creating the master script.
This script was then checked several times by three researchers to detect any issues with the
scripting, text, or routing throughout the survey. When issues were detected, they were
communicated to the scripting team via a change log spreadsheet, allowing to track progress
on the changes requested. This process was iterative, as the scripting team adapted the script
42
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
based on researchers’ requests, who checked the implementation of the changes before
resuming the testing process from the start. Once all issues were cleared, the master script
was signed off by the research team.
As the survey was to be disseminated in 10 EU Member States, it was translated into the
national languages of these countries. The translation process began after the master script,
written in English, was approved and scripted in Forsta+. The delivery of all 10 translations
was managed by Kantar Public’s translation coordinators, supported by national coordinators
throughout the process. Translations were conducted on Excel files extracted from the
scripting tool, Forsta+, which were then uploaded back into the system and automatically
overlayed over the English language version. This automated process minimises the
occurrence of errors in the overlay process, and translations do not have to be transferred
manually question by question. Still, to ensure the highest standard of quality, each language
script was checked for any oversights or inconsistencies through the iterative process between
researchers and scripters described above.
To ensure the data collection is carried out to the highest quality standards, an initial test –
“data flooding” – was performed, whereby data was randomly generated as responses to the
script. This allowed the researchers to ascertain that there were no issues with the script.
When the survey went live, a “soft launch” was implemented first before the main stage of the
fieldwork. This soft launch consisted of data from the first 10 responses from each language
version being collected, compiled, and analysed for any inconsistencies in the script or oddities
within the data. In case any were found, they could have been investigated and corrected
before the full launch of the survey. However, no inaccuracies were present, and the main
stage of the survey was launched. This implies close monitoring by the Kantar Public team to
ensure not only the quality of the sample but also compliance with the survey schedule.
Intermediary files of the data will be compiled to test for codification and data consistency. Any
issues will be reported immediately and solved. Intermediary files will be taken at 30% of the
sample size and at 70% of the sample size.
The results of online survey of young people were triangulated with evidence from other
stakeholder consultation when developing the findings for this interim evaluation.
Survey of civil society organisations, experts and youth researchers
An online survey was conducted between 15 June and 14 August targeting civil society
organisations, youth researchers, and youth informal groups across the 27 Member States.
The purpose of this survey was to gather the experiences and views of civil society about the
EUYS and related instruments. The survey asked respondents to give their opinions and
evidence on the achievements, effects and potential pitfalls of the Strategy and related
instruments.
The sample of targeted respondents includes members of the European Youth Forum and
other youth organisations, including National Youth Council representatives and EU Youth
Dialogue national contact points, as well as other youth organisations who are not members
of the European Youth Forum. The survey aimed to achieve a sufficient and equal distribution
of responses across Member States. The stakeholder mapping identified 864 CSO’s, youth
research organisations and networks. These stakeholders were the key target audience of the
CSO survey and snowballing was used to engage members of these networks and
organisations.
The survey contained closed and open questions covering all evaluation criteria.
43
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Survey for CSOs, youth 144 respondents The sample covered 27 EU
researchers and youth Member States
informal groups
The respondent distribution and key characteristics are presented in the figure below.
Figure 5 Respondent distribution and key characteristics
Source: Kantar Public – Survey of CSOs, youth researchers and youth informal groups
44
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The survey results shed light on the impact of the Strategy at both EU and national levels.
Qualitative activities via interviews and focus groups

EU level interviews
The primary objective of these interviews was to gain a better understanding of the evaluation
criteria investigated as part of the Study, especially by validating the correctness of the
information previously gathered through desk research on the evaluation criteria.
A total of 21 key informant interviews with EU-level and international stakeholders were
conducted between 3 May and 20 June 2023, comprising 14 interviews with representatives
from EU institutions and bodies (including 11 from various DGs of the European Commission,
2 representatives from different units and committees of the European Parliament and one
representative from the European Economic and Social Committee), 3 interviews with EU
Agencies (specifically representatives from the European Education and Culture Executive
Agency, EACEA, and Eurofound), and 5 interviews with international organisations (namely
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, UNICEF, and the EU-CoE
youth partnerships).
Table 9. Overview of EU-level and International organisations interviews
Stakeholder group Number of interviews

EU Institutions DG CLIMA 1
DG CNECT 1
DG EAC 6
DG EMPL 1
DG ENV 1
DG INTPA 1
European Parliament 2
European Economic and Social 1
Committee
EU Agencies EACEA 2
Eurofound 1
International OECD 1
Organisations UNICEF 2
The EU-CoE Youth Partnership 2
TOTAL NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS 21
criteria investigated as part of the Study , especially by validating the correctness of the
information previously gathered through desk research on the evaluation criteria. After
concluding all the interviews, the data was assessed to identify insights, patterns, and trends,
including similarities and differences among the opinions of different types of interviewees.
The insights gathered from these interviews have been useful in providing context and
enhancing our understanding of the Strategy's impact and its value.
45
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Interviews with national level policy makers

The interviews with country level officials were part of the country research that we conducted
and presented above. The purpose was to identify the implementation of the EUYS at the
national level and progress made in field of youth across EU27 during 2019-2023.
A total of 83 interviews were conducted across 27 Member States between 3 May and 20
June 2023 with national stakeholders, including the ministries responsible for youth policy,
national youth or education agencies, national youth councils, and agencies implementing EU
youth programmes. The numbers of interviews conducted across the Member States are
presented in the figure below. In addition to the categories presented, an interview was
conducted in Italy with the National Institute for Public Policy Analysis (Istituto Nazionale per
l'Analisi delle Politiche Pubbliche).
Table 10 Interviews conducted for the country research
Number of Member States

interviews
Ministry responsible for youth policy at 39 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK,
national or regional level EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT,
LU, NL, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK
National Agency for Higher 1 DK

Governmental Education and
Agency responsible Science19
for the
National Agency for 1 FI
implementation of
Education20
youth policy
Landesjugendamt21 1 DE
Agency of Youth 1 LT
Affairs (JRA)22
Agency for 1 LV
International Youth
Programs (JSPA)23
Aġenzija Żgħażagħ24 2 MT
19
The Danish Agency for Higher Education and Science is an agency in the Ministry of Higher Education and Science and
handles tasks within preparation and administration of grants for research, higher education and research-based innovation, as
well as the State Educational Grant and Loan Scheme.
20
The Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI) is the national development agency responsible for early childhood
education and care, pre-primary, basic, general and vocational upper secondary education as well as for adult education and
training. Higher education is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education and Culture.
21
The Landesjugendamt supports the local youth welfare services, the youth welfare offices and the independent youth welfare
agencies in their work.
22
The Agency of Youth Affairs implements the established national youth policy measures which encourage young people’s
motivation to engage in active public life and take part in addressing youth problems. The key objectives of the agency include:
coordinating the activities of state institutions and agencies with regard to youth policy, developing and implementing national
youth policy programmes and instruments, and analysing the situation of youth, youth organisations and organisations working
with youth in Lithuania.
23
The JSPA is a direct administrative institution under the authority of the Minister of Education and Science, whose purpose is
to promote youth activity and mobility, participation in youth voluntary work, non-formal education and youth information programs
and projects, and non-formal education of young people in relation to lifelong learning.
24
Aġenzija Żgħażagħ provides information on services and opportunities for young people and listens to their views on issues
that impact on their lives. It participates in Eurodesk, the European Youth Card and EU programmes. It manages, implements
and coordinates the National Youth Policy, and promotes and safeguards the interests of young people. It is operating under the
Government of Malta – Ministry for Education, Sports, Youth, Research and Innovation
46
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Portuguese Institute of 2 PT
Sport and Youth25
National Institute of 1 SK
Education and Youth
(NIVAM)26
INJUVE27 2 ES
Agency for Youth and 1 SE

Civil Society28
National Agency for the implementation of 23 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE,
EU youth programmes HR, IE, IT, FR, LT, LU, PL, RO,
SI
National Youth Cyprus Youth 1 CY

Council Council29
Czech Council of 1 CZ
Children and Youth30
Bundesjugendring31 1 DE
Hellenic National 2 EL
Youth Council32
Youth and Lifelong
Learning Foundation33
Youth Council of 1 SK
Slovakia34
25
The Portuguese Institute of Sport and Youth’s is a governmental body and its mission is to implement an integrated and
decentralized policy for the areas of sport and youth, in close collaboration with public and private entities, namely with sports
bodies, youth associations, students and local authorities.
26
The National Institute of Education and Youth implements activities such as education and counselling for teaching and non-
teaching staff, methodological guidance of schools and school facilities, applied pedagogical research, organization of subject
Olympiads and competitions, external testing at schools, informal education of youth, and management of the library fund.
27
INJUVE (the Youth Institute) is a public body, attached to the Ministry of Social Rights and Agenda 2030, whose main activity
is aimed at promoting actions for the benefit of young people.
28
The Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society is a government agency that works to ensure that young people have access
to influence and welfare. It also supports the government in issues relating to civil society policy.
29
The Cyprus Youth Council aims at promoting dialogue and cooperation between youth in Cyprus and also connecting them
with youth in Europe and the world. CYC is in continuous cooperation with the European Youth Forum.
30
The Czech Council of Children and Youth concentrates on advocacy of youth interests and lobbying within institutions, as well
as involvement in the activities of the European Youth Forum, Youth Events of the European Union Presidency, and international
youth exchanges, seminars and trainings.
31
As a working group of youth organisations and regional youth councils (Landesjugendringe) in Germany, the Bundesjugendring
represents a strong network of about six million children and young people who are members of youth organisations and youth
councils. Youth organisations are places for children and young people to experience a sense of community, learn, spend leisure
time and be active.
32
The Hellenic National Youth Council is a federation of 59 youth organisations. It associates with the Greek government
concerning domestic matters and is the official representative of young Greeks in Greece and abroad. It represents young Greeks
in domestic matters by participating in the Interministerial Committee for Youth, the Organizing Committee of the Youth
Parliament, the National Committee on Volunteering, etc. Also, it participates in several networks and clusters of Greek civil
society. Abroad it participates in the European Youth Forum, the Mediterranean Youth Forum, the International French-Speaking
Youth Council, the General Assembly of the UN and the Youth Council of UNESCO.
33
The Youth and Lifelong Learning Foundation is supervised by the Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs, and
directly related to it as a provider and as contractor of the projects and programmes the Ministry assigns to the Foundation.
34
The Youth Council of Slovakia is an umbrella organisation of children and youth organisations. It cooperates actively with
partner organisations in abroad, with international governmental and non-governmental organisations and authorities involved
on behalf of children and young people. It also collaborates with state authorities and those civic associations active in the field
of interests of the Youth Council of Slovakia.
47
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
National Youth Council 1 SI

of Slovenia35
Spanish Youth 1 ES
Council36
National Council of 1 SE
Swedish Children and
Youth Organisations37
The research team has carried out the selection of stakeholders consulted based on following
selection criteria:
• size and complexity of government structure;

• national programmes for cross-border mobility and youth volunteering;
• top-level Strategies Promoting the Social Inclusion of Young People;
• initiatives fostering innovation skills through non-formal learning;
• measures furthering entrepreneurial competences through non-formal learning;
• mechanisms of quality assurance for youth work.
We used a systematic approach to develop the questionnaire for both the interviews by
structuring the questionnaire around the relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness,
efficiency, and EU added value criteria. Each question in the interview aimed to provide
relevant insights to answer the evaluation questions, such as:
• the extent of which the EUYS, at mid-term, has proven to be an effective strategic
framework at the national level, in terms of turning the objectives, priorities and actions
into concrete and sustainable achievements?
• the extent to which the strategy’s instruments have proven to be effective in supporting
the implementation at mid-term at the national level?
• how well was the strategy able to adapt to the foreseen developments and impact of
COVID19-pandemic and of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
• to what extent and how has the Strategy promoted and influenced the inclusion of
young people with fewer opportunities and facing obstacles in life?
• to what extent did the Strategy’s objectives remain relevant over the 2019-2023
period?
• how well do the Strategy’s objectives still correspond to the needs and challenges of
young people and youth stakeholders today? And to the activities of national youth
policy makers?
• to what extent and how has the Strategy’s relevance been influenced by the 2022
European Year of Youth and the legacy of the Year at the national level?
The results from these interviews as well as desk research, contributed to reply to evaluation
questions that explored the EUYS implementation at the national level.
35
The National Youth Council of Slovenia is an umbrella organization linking all national youth organisations. It represents the
opinions of Slovenian youth at the national and international level. Its key purpose is to defend the interests of young people and
to promote their participation in policy making process in the fields which have a significant impact on their lives and work.
36
The Spanish Youth Council (CJE) is a platform of more than 60 youth entities, promoting the participation of youth in the
political, social, economic and cultural development of Spain in a global environment.
37
National Council of Swedish Children and Youth Organisations is a coordinating body of 90 youth organisations, and serves
as a platform for cooperation.
48
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Focus groups with national level policy makers

Three focus groups were conducted with 15 national policy makers in Denmark, Germany and
Slovakia38 between 21 and 29 June 2023, to examine the extent to which there is alignment
between the EUYS and national youth policies. As part of this activity, qualitative data was
collected on perceptions on the relevance and effectiveness of the Strategy, success stories
on achieving its objectives, and barriers to youth engagement and inclusion in policymaking.
The table below summarises the types of stakeholders consulted for this activity. In total 15
policy makers were consulted – 4 in Denmark, 6 in Germany and 5 in Slovakia.
The table below summarises the types of stakeholders consulted for this activity in the three
Member States.
Table 11 National policy makers consulted through focus groups (DE, DK, SK)
Type of stakeholders Member States

Ministry responsible for youth policy DK, SK
National Agency for Youth / Education DK
National Youth Council / Institute DK, DE, SK
National Agency implementing EU youth DE
programmes
Youth representative in the Federal Council DE
The focus groups are structured to be a 1 to 1.5 hours and allowed to gather more in-depth
qualitative data on:
• the perceptions of the Strategy about the relevance/ effectiveness of available tools for
participation of young people, for cross-border mobility, for young people to transition
from education to work;
• success stories from national authorities on the engagement of young people in
decision, in the implementation of volunteering, and cross-border mobility
opportunities, and involvement in youth work;
• barriers in relation to mainstreaming, including the lack of meaningful youth
engagement, resources to dedicate to the inclusion of youth within policymaking, and
communication barriers;
• forward-looking aspects in relation to the need to increase young people’s engagement
in democratic processes, cross-border mobility for young people, voice for young
people within national and EU level policy making.
Focus groups with young people

The purpose of the focus groups with youth is to explore in-depth the success stories of young
people, using the available range of instruments derived from the EU Youth Strategy as well
as barriers in taking up these instruments. The focus groups examined in greater detail the
survey responses from four of the ten Member States in which the survey with youth takes
place. The four focus groups were conducted in Germany, Italy, Poland and Portugal between
14 June and 8 August. These countries a mix with regards to:
38
These three countries were selected to ensure a diversity with respect to criteria including the size and complexity of the
government structure, the presence of national programmes for cross-border mobility and youth volunteering, the presence and
prominence of a strategy promoting the social inclusion of young people, the presence of initiatives fostering innovation skills
through non-formal learning, the presence of measures furthering entrepreneurial competences through non-formal learning, and
the mechanisms of quality assurance for youth work that are in place in the country. After initially planning to conduct a focus
group with youth policy makers in Croatia as well, this was ultimately not possible due to their limited availability. They were,
nevertheless, interviewed as part of the country research on Croatia, therefore their views are reflected in the analysis of
interviews with national policy makers.
49
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
• Having and not having youth strategies in place;

• The extent to which dedicated policies for youth are mainstreamed (or marginal) in the
national policy environment; and
• The geographical spread.
Two focus groups were conducted in each country, one with “active” participants, and one with
“non-active participants”. These are characterised as:
• Young people who are socially and politically active at local, national and EU levels.
This group will be selected based on their involvement in mobility or volunteering
opportunities and participation in participatory initiatives to influence decision-making
processes (i.e., involved in Erasmus+, volunteering actions, and Youth Parliaments at
the national or EU level);
• Young people who have yet to be involved in volunteering opportunities or cross-
border mobility and decision-making at the local or EU level. At the same time, it will
be important to try to identify young people who have tried to participate in the
opportunities but faced challenges.
Table below presents the number of participants of in focus groups in each country.
Table 12 Participants to focus groups with youth
Country Total participants Active youth Non-active youth
7 4 3
DE
8 3 5
IT
6 4 2
PL
7 4 3
PT
This split was established to avoid the risk that members of the group who have not taken part
in mobility or volunteering experiences may feel intimidated by their peers who have had these
experiences, leading to the latter group dominating the discussions. The recruitment ensured
a balanced representation of participants’ educational and social background.
The recruitment of relevant participants for the focus groups was done by targeted screening
(PL) and using responses provided by respondents to the youth survey (DE, IT, PT). For
targeted screening, the screener is a central document to ensure the quality of the data
collected, as it concretely defines the criteria according to which participants should be
recruited for a qualitative study. Part of the screener is to integrate the questions necessary to
ensure the diversity of profiles as agreed upon in the set-up phase described above. In
Germany, Italy and Portugal, participants were recruited from the sample of respondents to
the youth survey having indicated an interest and availability in participating the focus groups.
These respondents were contacted by the research team, with potential participants being
recruited in a systematic way ensuring diversity with respect to their demographic and socio-
political characteristics provided in the survey.
The key areas that the focus groups address are:
• Awareness of the opportunities for youth people and participants’ perceptions of their
relevance to them;
50
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
• Among participants who have taken part in mobility or volunteering experiences we

focused on success stories on being involved in youth participation/youth dialogues,
cross-border mobility, volunteering opportunities, youth work and its recognition;
• Among participants who have not taken part in mobility or volunteering experiences,
we focused on barriers and challenges to taking part in the decision-making process
at the local level and using the opportunities of volunteering, youth work and mobility;
• Perceived gaps in existing opportunities and initiatives;
• Addressing needs of youth during crises.
The results were triangulated with evidence from other stakeholder consultations when
developing the findings for this interim evaluation.
Group interviews with civil society organisations and youth researchers

The primary aim of these focus groups was to delve deeply into the insights obtained from the
survey, offering a platform to explore concrete instances of EUYS implementation both at the
EU and national levels, including notable practices. In total, seven CSOs took part across
three group interviews. In addition, two interviews were also conducted with EU level youth
researchers. The interviews were conducted across July and August of 2023.
When selecting the participants, both for what concerns CSOs and youth researchers, we
aimed to keep a high level of representation and geographical balance and to include as many
diverse views as possible, by including different organisations. We will carefully screened all
the organisations and their activities and involvement in relation to the strategy and its
initiatives. Given potential differences between members from CSOs, experts and youth
researchers that more active and other members from CSOs, experts and youth researchers
that are categorised as less active or involved in that respect, we will split the groups into two
sub-groups (i.e. one group with more involved CSOs and another one with CSOs, experts and
youth researchers that are less involved).
A key focal point of the discussions in these groups centred around how the Strategy and
associated tools could better empower CSOs at the national level, facilitating their agendas.
Furthermore, we sought to comprehend the roles played by CSOs and youth researchers in
translating youth aspirations into tangible outcomes, while also uncovering challenges and
avenues for leveraging their contributions to the EUYS.
The interviews with youth researchers occupied an intermediary space between a focus group
and a standard interview format. Their purpose was to assess the EUYS' accomplishments in
their respective countries and identify obstacles, all from the point of view of informed
researchers capable of contextualising their observations within a broader spectrum of
approaches.
In the process of selecting participants for the group interviews and the youth researchers’
interviews, our approach involved identifying potential candidates from the pool of
respondents to the survey, encompassing CSOs and youth researchers who expressed
willingness to partake in group discussions. In ensuring a multifaceted discourse, we opted for
representatives who were not part of the National Working Group or directly engaged in EUYS
initiatives or instruments. This selection methodology guaranteed a diverse representation of
backgrounds and perspectives. In cases where initially selected participants were unavailable
due to various reasons, other members from the same organization were identified to
participate.
51
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Task 3 – Analysis and key issues for possible mid-term review

Contribution analysis
The EUYS tackles multifaceted challenges affecting young people during their transition to
adulthood, spanning education, employment, social inclusion, and more. It also addresses
broader concerns like youth unemployment, inequality gaps, and exposure to harmful content.
Moreover, unexpected events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical shifts have
significantly influenced the strategy's operating landscape.
Given the complexity of the EUYS, which encompasses a diverse array of instruments and
measures, assessing its impact demands a structured approach. In addition to the refined
intervention logic - to capture this complexity, the impact pathways were developed for each
of the EUYS instruments. The implementation of the EUYS relies on several strands of
activities or different instruments. Each of these instruments has its own logic and a set of
assumptions about key success factors.
• The following methodological steps were taken by the study team to carry out the
contribution analysis:
• developing the impact pathways for each EUYS instrument and mapping what they
were intended to achieve and under what assumptions;
• developing the assumptions associated with each instrument's activities, outputs and
outcomes;
• gathering the secondary and primary evidence from this evaluation to determine the
extent to which the intended activities, outputs and results have been achieved;
• assessing the validity of the assumptions using the evidence gathered.
Developing impact pathways and assumptions
To evaluate the EUYS, it was important to unpack the different implementation instruments,
make assumptions about their own impact and carry out the contribution analysis - an
assessment of how a given set of activities feeds into the overarching intervention logic of the
EUYS. Impact pathways help us trace the connections between the strategy's activities and
the intended outcomes, illuminating how different interventions contribute to overarching
goals.
In order to unravel the effects of the EUYS through impact pathways, we engaged in a twofold
process. First, we dissected the different instruments and actions within the strategy. Each of
these instruments functions as a unique entity, targeting specific objectives and outcomes.
Developing impact pathways for these instruments involved outlining the sequence of actions,
changes and influences that occur as a result of their implementation.
In essence, by outlining these pathways, we gain insight into how individual actions contribute
to the broader picture of youth development, empowerment, and change. Following the four
groups of activities of the EUYS, the impact pathways have been clustered, allowing us to
unpack the impacts of the EUYS across its core areas.
52
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 6 Clustering of impact pathways against four core areas of the EUYS
Secondly, impact pathways require the identification and examination of assumptions. These
assumptions are the underlying beliefs about how the instruments will lead to certain
outcomes. By scrutinising these assumptions, we ensure a clear understanding of the logical
links between activities and impacts. This process allowed us to validate the intervention logic
of the strategy, ensuring that the expected impacts are plausible and supported by evidence.
We identify the critical elements and assumptions that need to be assessed during the
evaluation. This approach allowed us to collect primary and secondary data to verify the
existence of the impact pathways outlined and the accuracy of the underlying assumptions.
Validating the assumptions

Identifying the contribution of the instruments to the EUYS requires validation of the
assumption. In order to validate the assumptions, the secondary and primary data collected
in this evaluation were used in the translation. This process was carried out in four steps
• Mapping which of the activities, outcomes and results have been achieved.
• Validating the assumptions based on the available evidence.
• Identifying the extent to which the instrument has contributed to the EUYS.
• Developing a contribution story for each instrument.
As part of the analysis, a three-pronged rubric was introduced to assess and compare the
extent to which each instrument demonstrated significance of change, level of contribution
and strength of evidence. The technique allowed the evidence to be synthesised and
presented in a comparable way. The table below shows the elements of the three-pronged
rubric.
Table 13 Three-Prong Rubric for synthesising evidence
Significance of Change
Rating Example definition
The outcome/change is important and newsworthy. New/improved element of the Strategy

High have been implemented and introduced transformational, systemic, sustainable and/or
large-scale changes.
53
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
There has been considerable progress but New/improved element of the Strategy have
not yet been fully implemented and/or they have not yet introduced transformational,
Medium
systemic, sustainable and/or large-scale changes. However, they have the potential to do
so in future.
There has been some progress, but New/improved element of the Strategy have only
been implemented in a limited manner, and they have not brought transformational,
Low
systemic, sustainable and/or large-scale changes, and it is not certain whether they have
the potential to do so in the future.
Level of Contribution
Rating Definition
High The outcome could not have happened without Instruments’ support and engagement.
Instrument made a substantial contribution to a key part of the outcome, and without its
Medium
support and efforts, the outcome would not have happened in the same way.
Low The outcome would have probably happened anyway.
Strength of Evidence
Rating Definition
High Evidence comes from multiple sources and can be externally validated.
Medium Evidence comes from more than one external source.
Low The only source of evidence is secondary data
Source: Study team
Cost-effectiveness analysis
The cost-effectiveness analysis in this evaluation was driven by a framework defined as part
of the evaluation framework describing the different categories oof costs and the different
types of benefits and results. The data used for the cost-effectiveness analysis stem from the
analysis of budget and effectiveness analysis.
The assessment of costs implied by the requirements in scope of this assignment will follow
the Better Regulation Guidelines (BRG) #Tool 58 – EU Standard cost model.
The BRG allow to focus on significant costs only. The screening of significant costs will be
carried out based on the initial scoping interviews with DG EAC staff. Budgetary data on
initiatives related to the EUYS were provided by DG EAC and the evaluation team held
discussions clarifying data issues. It was also confirmed that calculating the Commission’s
and Agencies’ staff input into the implementation of the EUYS is not possible based on
administrative data. Questions concerning required time inputs and administrative burdens
were hence incorporated into the EU-level and national-level interviews with stakeholders.
The cost-effectiveness analysis of the EUYS 2019-2027 is presented in Annex 6.
Task 4 – Systematic review

The purpose of the systematic review was to:
54
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
• produce an updated comprehensive assessment of the impact of the EUYS on the

selected topic;
• attempt to provide a systematic overview of the direction and magnitude of the impact
of EUYS on the selected topic;
• attempt to identify factors that may explain the heterogeneity of the results that have
been found in individual studies or national evaluations.
• Based on the in-depth review of the comprehensive portfolio of documents and grey
literature we have conducted, the systematic overview team together with DG EAC
have chosen the following topic for the analysis:
• Digital life and well-being of young people.
Context and research question

One of the overall objectives of the EUYS is to ‘improve policy decisions with regard to their
impact on young people across all sectors, notably employment, education, health and social
inclusion’. There has been an increasing impact of digitalisation on everyday work, education,
and social life, which was intensified by the COVID-19 Pandemic and there is a call for a
systematic overview of how this shift has impacted the well-being of young people.
Furthermore, the area of youth well-being in relation to digital life is an area within the Strategy
that needs to be strengthened, which calls for evidence feedback on the matter. The area is
identified as in need of strengthening in the context of Covid-19 Pandemic and Russia-Ukraine
War with rise in false narratives and propaganda and the difficulties for young people to
navigate and stay safe and healthy in digital life.
There is also a call for evidence feedback on the matter in connection to DG EAC and the
Commission’s initiatives on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy (through e.g.,
Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps programmes and the Guidelines for teachers and
educators39), the new initiative on virtual worlds40, the new European SALTO Digital Resource
Centre’s41 work with digital competences of young people and adults, digital pedagogy and
equipment, digital and virtual cooperation and exchanges, as well as the influence of new
technologies on education, working life and the wider society and the impact and opportunities
or risks linked to AI.42
On this behalf, it is interesting to investigate the topic further; hence, we proposed the following
research question: How has digital life impacted well-being of young people?
Limitations of the chosen topic

The topic ‘digital life and well-being of young people’ is an emerging field. Hence, it is justified
to conduct an up-to-date review of the topic. The subject is also fairly broad which provides
several different sub-topics to choose from. However, it could also be seen as a disadvantage
to select an emerging field, such as digital life and youth well-being, because of the
39
European Commission (2022). Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy
through education and training, Published: 11 Oct 2022. Retrieved from: https://education.ec.europa.eu/news/guidelines-for-
teachers-and-educators-on-tackling-disinformation-and-promoting-digital-literacy-through-education-and-training
40
European Commission (n.a.). Virtual Worlds fit for people. Retrieved from: https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/virtual-worlds.
41
The Finnish National Agency for Education (n.a.). European SALTO Digital Resource Centre. Retrieved from:
https://www.oph.fi/en/programmes/european-salto-digital-resource-centre.
42
European Commission (n.a.). Digital Education Action Plan – Action 1. Retrieved from: https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-
topics/digital-education/action-plan/action-1#Proposal, https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/action-
plan/action-10, European Commission (n.a.). Factsheet: Proposal for a Council recommendation on the key enabling factors for
successful digital education and training. Retrieved from: https://education.ec.europa.eu/document/factsheet-proposal-for-a-
council-recommendation-on-the-key-enabling-factors-for-successful-digital-education-and-training, JRC Repository. Retrieved
from: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/search?query=digital, European Commission, DG CONNECT (n.a.). The
Digital Europe Programme. Retrieved from: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/activities/digital-programme.
55
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
presumably limited access to secondary data and research conducted. Also, the restricted
availability of secondary data might be a drawback in terms of robustness, which is something
we have considered when adjusting the method to a systematic review rather than a full-scale
meta-analysis.
Conceptual framework
The concept of well-being is broadly defined as a state of “optimal psychological experience
and functioning”.43 Such definition leads to various interpretations on what aspects the well-
being encompasses. Traditionally, the well-being is associated with mental health, although
broader definitions of the well-being include the following dimensions44:
• Physical well-being – e.g., good state of (mental and physical) health and physical
capabilities;
• Cognitive well-being – e.g., successful participation in a learning process (education
and training);
• Psychological/emotional well-being – e.g., positive self-esteem, agency,
satisfaction with life; hope for the future, sadness, anger;
• Social well-being – e.g., developing healthy relationships with others, participating in
the community, and having a sense of belonging.
Such broader conceptualisation of the well-being is in line with the approach of the EU Youth
Strategy, since it aims to support the health and well-being of young people with a focus on45:
• Promoting mental and sexual health, sport, physical activity and healthy lifestyles;
• Preventing and treating injury, eating disorders, addictions and substance abuse;
• Education on nutrition;
• Promoting cooperation between schools, youth workers, health professionals and
sport organisations;
• Making health facilities more accessible and attractive for young people;
• Raising awareness of how sport can promote teamwork, intercultural learning and
responsibility.
The exposure to a digital environment does not re-define the concept of the well-being.
However, it suggests that the experience of individuals in a digital environment must be
explored separately.
Methodological approach
The theme of youth well-being and digital life was operationalized through the sub-topics
discussed above, which served as an analytical tool to analyse 318 sources connected to
the implementation of the EU Youth Strategy to answer;
43
Deci, & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian
Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 49(3).
44
Rees, G., Savahl, S., Lee, B.J. and Casas, F. (Eds.) (2020). Children’s worlds report 2020. Children’s views on their lives and
well-being in 35 countries: A report on the Children’s 115 Worlds project, 2016-19. Retrieved from:
https://isciweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/Childrens-Worlds-Comparative-Report2020.pdf.
45
European Commission (n.a.) EU Youth Strategy: Health and Well-Being. Retrieved from:
https://youth.europa.eu/strategy/health-wellbeing_en.
56
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
How is digital life and youth well-being being addressed within the implementation of
the EUYS?
To answer the question above, the analysis was structured based on the instruments of the
EUYS to clarify the possible differences between them and their connection to the subject.
Material
The material consisting of 318 sources was largely provided by DG EAC and strongly
connected to the EUYS. The sources consisted of reports, articles, council recommendations,
working documents, recommendations, reviews, work programmes, communication
documents and conference notes (European and national) describing the implementation of
the strategy. The geographical scope was mainly the European Union but in some cases the
sources included other countries in Europe as well. Another selection criteria were the date of
the sources; we did not include sources before 2018. All sources had some focus on youth
since they were related to the EUYS however the definition of youth varied since countries
have different definitions of which age group is considered as youth.
In a systematic review, the empirical evidence of which conclusions are drawn from consist of
several studies that address the same issue, where such studies are presented, compared,
synthesised and summarised in one single report. The systematic review should, however,
provide a comprehensive, unbiased synthesis of existing knowledge, this, in contrast to a
meta-analysis where new statistical analyses of the studies' primary data are conducted.
Due to resource and time constraints, as well as the fact that ‘digital life and well-being of
young people’ is an emerging topic, we have furthermore chosen the rapid review approach46,
which is a type of systematic review that can be conducted during a shorter period of time (up
to five weeks).
To conduct a systematic review with a rapid review approach, the following steps were taken47:
• Formulating a review question

• Determining database search strategy48 and defining inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Conducting the searching
• Saving your search(es) (including creating a search protocol)
• Assessing for relevance
• Critically appraise the information sources
• Analysing and synthesising the relevant studies
Since the review of this study is focusing on quantitative research the practices of the
Population, Exposure, Comparison, Outcome (PECO) framework was used as database
search strategy. When applying the practices of the PECO framework it is key to determine
the following:
• Population: describe the population of interest
46
Khangura S. et al. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach, Maureen Dobbins, RN, PhD (2017).
Rapid Review Guidebook – Steps for conducting a rapid review, Version 1.1 July 12, 2017. Retrieved from:
https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/01/a816af720e4d587e13da6bb307df8c907a5dff9a.pdf.
47
Maureen Dobbins, RN, PhD (2017). Rapid Review Guidebook – Steps for conducting a rapid review, Version 1.1 July 12, 2017.
Retrieved from: https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/01/a816af720e4d587e13da6bb307df8c907a5dff9a.pdf,
Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors) (2020). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. ISBN: 978-0-6488488-0-6. Retrieved
from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global and https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01.
48
Common practices are the following frameworks: PICO/PECO (Population, Intervention/exposure, Comparison, Outcome)
focusing on quantitative research, and PEO (Population, Exposure, Outcome) and PS (Population and Setting) focusing on
qualitative research.
57
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
• Exposure: describe what pre-existing conditions the population have or what the
population has been exposed to
• Comparison: (if relevant) describe what comparison(s) the studies should incorporate
• Outcome: describe the outcome of interest
For the case of this study, it means:
• Population: young people (between the ages of 13 and 29)

• Exposure: digital life/digitalisation/online
• Comparison: not relevant
• Outcome: well-being
Systematic overview is presented in Annex 7.
Task 5 - Reporting and dissemination

The final task consisted in the analysis and synthesis of the data in view of drafting the final
report. The report structure follows the Better Regulation Guidelines template for evaluation
reports and includes the required annexes.
58
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
3. Annex 3 - Synopsis report

Introduction
This Synopsis Report summarises all consultation activities that took place in the context of
the interim evaluation of the European Union Youth Strategy (hereafter EUYS or the Strategy)
2019-2027 and presents the main results. The interim evaluation serves as a critical
assessment to measure the progress, effectiveness and relevance of the objectives and
actions of the Strategy at the mid-point of its implementation.
The consultation activities provided information on the criteria of relevance, effectiveness,

efficiency, coherence and EU added value of the EUYS. The criterion of relevance refers to
the extent to which the EUYS objectives remained relevant over the period 2019-2023 and if
they still align with the needs and challenges of young people, youth stakeholders, and
national youth policy makers. The criterion of effectiveness refers to the extent to which the
EUYS has proven to be an effective strategic framework in achieving its objectives, priorities,
and actions at both European and national levels. The criterion of efficiency refers to the
assessment of the functionality, burden, and cost-effectiveness of EUYS instruments at both
EU and national levels. The criterion of coherence refers to the assessment of how well the
EUYS aligns with broader EU policies, international commitments like the Sustainable
Development Goals, and ensures consistency within its core areas and instruments,
considering also the impact of the 2022 European Year of Youth. Finally, the criterion of EU
added value assesses the extent to which the EUYS added value in addition to what Member
States could have achieved alone, without the EUYS.
Consultation strategy
The consultation strategy for the evaluation was based on a mapping of stakeholders and
included the following consultation activities to involve a broad range of EUYS stakeholders
and the public:
• A call for evidence open to any stakeholder and the public on the European
Commission’s 'Have Your Say' portal from 23 Sep. to 21 Oct. 2022.
• A public consultation open to any stakeholder and the public, on the European
Commission’s ‘Have Your Say’ portal from 26 Apr. to 2 Aug. 2023.
• Quantitative activities gathering data on awareness of the EUYS and engagement
with different EUYS activities and instruments, collected through two targeted
surveys:
- Online survey of young people, reached through a general population sample
in 10 EU Member States49 during 10-29 July 2023;
- Online survey of youth civil society organisations, youth researchers active at
EU and national level, and youth informal groups, from 15 June to 14 Aug.
2023.
• Qualitative activities gathering perceptions of the EUYS and examples of
progress made in its implementation, collected through:
- Key informant interviews with policy makers at EU and national level and focus
groups with national policy makers, during 3 May - 20 June 2023;
- Focus groups with young people during 14 June - 8 Aug. 2023;
- Focus groups with civil society organisations, youth researchers and youth
informal groups during 14 June - 23 Aug. 2023.
49
Czechia, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden.
59
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The stakeholders consulted were selected based on their relevance to the EUYS 2019-2027,
their expertise in the field, and their involvement in EUYS activities and instruments. Specific
attention was paid to ensuring inclusion and diversity in the online survey of youth.
Respondents were selected to ensure a distribution that reflected the population of each
country in terms of age group (16-29), gender and region (NUTS 1). In addition, during the
survey implementation, the respondents were selected with respect to several characteristics
such as educational attainment, employment status, rural/urban residence and self-reported
disabilities. The table below presents the type of stakeholders consulted through the different
activities.
Table 14 Types of stakeholders consulted

Key Focus
Call for Evidence and Online
Stakeholder group informant groups
Public Consultation surveys
interviews
General Public ✓
Youth ✓ ✓ ✓
EU institutions/bodies ✓ ✓
Authorities at national level ✓ ✓ ✓
Experts and youth researchers ✓ ✓ ✓
CSOs/NGOs, platforms and

networks representing or working ✓ ✓ ✓
with youth
International organisations & bodies ✓ ✓
Source: Kantar Public
The total reach of the consultation activities by type of stakeholders is shown below.
Figure 7 Stakeholders’ participation in consultation activities
60
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Call for Evidence

Prior to the Public Consultation, a Call for Evidence was open from the 23rd of September
until the 21st of October 2022 to gather opinions on the performance of the EUYS. Overall, 36
responses were provided, a majority from NGOs (58.3%, 21 out of 36) and EU citizens (16.7%,
6 out of 36). 12 countries50 were represented across the respondents, with the largest
proportion being from Belgium (28%, 10 out of 36) and Germany (14%, 5 out of 36).
Table 15 Call for evidence overview

EU citizens 6 16.7%
Other 4 11.1%
Environmental organisation 1 2.8%
TOTAL 36 100%
Respondents expressed their overall support for the Strategy, its aims, and its function in
promoting youth engagement, social and civic involvement, as well as providing resources for
young individuals. Recommendations for enhancing the implementation of the EUYS
encompassed broadening the range of young people in the EU Youth Dialogue (EUYD),
making cross-border mobility initiatives more accessible, and concentrating on informal
learning and youth work to empower young individuals. Emphasis was placed on amplifying
the representation of vulnerable youth groups, maintaining a focus on inclusion and diversity,
increasing the visibility of combating climate change and digital transformation, and
addressing the consequences of digital technologies on mental and physical health and well-
being of young people.
Public Consultation
The Public Consultation (PC) was launched on 26 April 2023 and remained open until 2
August 2023. The PC was based on a questionnaire, in all 24 official EU languages, and
included four sections: [1] profiling questions, [2] questions to all respondents, [3] questions to
youth, [4] questions to stakeholders (excluding youth), and [5] closing questions. The cleaned
data set obtained from the public consultation’s responses was analysed for each question,
with a focus on the distribution of responses according to the country of origin, stakeholder
category and age (where relevant to do so). Open responses were manually screened and
clustered into relevant topics.
A total of 224 responses51 were received. In addition, 16 stakeholders provided written

contributions to support their answers to the public consultation in the form of input papers 52.
The respondents came from 38 countries, including 25 EU Member States. 53 The largest
50
N = Belgium (10), Germany (5), France (4), Portugal (3), Switzerland (3), Slovakia (2), Italy (2), Greece (2), Finland (2), Romania
(1), Netherlands (1), Austria (1).
51
The responses were checked for the presence of campaigns or coordinated answers that could skew the overall answers per
question. No campaigns were identified. It is important to note that some sections are specific to certain stakeholder groups.
Therefore, each question has its own specific response rate (indicated by “N”) which discounts the respondents who did not
answer or where it was not relevant for them to answer.
52
Including 9 NGOs, 4 public authorities, two international organisations, one European network
53
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
61
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
group (23% - 52 out of 224) being from Spain, followed by France (9% - 20 out of 224) and
Germany (8% - 17 out of 224). Out of the those that responded as EU and non-EU citizens,
the geographical distribution broadly followed that of total group of responses, with Spain
having the highest proportion (24%, 32 out of 133), followed by France (11.3%, 15 out of 133)
and Portugal (6.8%, 9 out of 133). In comparison, those that did not answer as an EU or non-
EU citizen included the highest proportion of responses from Spain (22%, 20 out of 91),
Belgium (15%, 14 out of 91), and Germany (11%, 10 out of 91).
Table 16 Public Consultation overview54

EU citizens 120 53.6%
Other 16 7.1%
Non-EU citizen 13 5.8%
Business association 3 1.3%
Company/business 1 0.4%
TOTAL 224 100%
Respondents were also asked to specify their age. The largest group among EU and non-EU
citizens were those aged between 18 and 23 years old (38% - 51 out of 133), as shown in the
figure below.
Figure 8. Age of respondents under the PC
Source: Kantar Public - Public consultation
While these findings offer insights into the participating respondents, it is essential to consider
that the PC is not a representative sample of the entire EU. As the PC gathered 224
responses, the sample size is relatively small, which limits the generalisability of the results.
Furthermore, greater representation of certain countries, such as Spain, was also noted as
part of the analysis. However, given the small sample size (52 out of 224), it is not deemed
statistically appropriate to conduct a separate in-depth analysis. Indeed, taking into account
that out of the 52 responses from Spain, 32 were from EU citizens, the number of responses
from EU citizens from Spain is roughly in line with the distribution of responses from other
stakeholder categories. In other words, the responses from EU citizens in Spain are not
significantly overrepresented or underrepresented compared to other stakeholder groups.
54
As per the Better Regulation Guidelines, the responses were checked for the presence of campaigns or coordinated answers
that could skew the overall answers per question. I 10 or more responses are identical across all open questions, they were
considered to be part of a campaign. Upon review, no campaigns were identified.
62
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Throughout the analysis process, efforts were made to examine the geographical distribution
of responses, and any potential overrepresentation was taken into consideration to ensure
accurate assessment and interpretation of the data.
Summary of Public Consultation results
The following sub-section presents a summary of the results gathered from the PC. It should
be noted that the summary follows findings pertaining to five evaluation criteria used during
the evaluation of the EUYS. A full analysis of each question of the PC can be found in the
accompanying annexes.
Under the criterion of relevance, the following main points were found in the PC:
• Three issues were recognised as challenges faced by young people in 2019-2022

consistently across all respondents. These were: the cost-of-living crisis (95%55 , 213
out of 224), followed by mental health and well-being (91%, 204 out of 224), and
financial stability (90%, 197 out of 224).
• The instruments of the EUYS that respondents were most aware of56 were Erasmus+
(95%, 169 out of 178), followed by the European Solidarity Corps (80%, 143 out of
178), and the European Youth Portal (73%, 130 out of 178).
• Notably 52% (116 out of 224) of all respondents indicated that they were familiar
with the EUYS to a great/certain extent. Awareness of the Strategy was highest
among EU citizens aged 18-29 and those older than 35.
• Among the youth respondents who indicated their familiarity with the EUYS (n=71),
the three most renown EUYS instruments were the European Youth Portal (63%, 45
out of 71), Erasmus+ (48%, 34 out of 71), and evidence-based tools (25%, 18 out of
71). The primary reason for these respondents (n=6757) to participate in an EUYS
instrument was personal development (51%, 34 out of 67), followed by education
(46%, 31 out of 67), and curiosity (41%, 28 out of 67).
• Among respondents who identified themselves as public authorities (n=16), there
were mixed opinions regarding the extent to which the EUYS was relevant to their
daily work. For example, a few of them (38%, 6 out of 16) noted that the EUYS had
assisted them to a great/certain extent, while a larger portion (44%, 7 out of 16)
answered that it had assisted them to a limited extent/ not at all58.
The following results were found from the PC in relation to effectiveness:
• Regarding the contribution of the EU and the respondents’ country in mitigating the
challenges59, the PC revealed that both the EU and national authorities in the
respondents' countries have primarily helped in tackling limited access to green
transportation and to digital technologies (46%, 107 out of 230, and 48%, 108 out of
223 respectively). The primary contribution from the EU alone was found to be in
mitigating barriers to learning mobility (48%, 110 out of 239), youth participation
(43%, 105 out of 239) and education (42%, 99 out of 23260).
55
Combination of the options “strongly agree” and “agree”
56
Combination of the options ‘to a great extent’ and ‘to a certain extent’
57
Please note that the total number of respondents differs as not all respondents who identified themselves as youth and indicated
familiarity with the EUYS chose to answer all questions.
58
Three answered that they do not know
59
Including Access to public services, Barriers to education, Barriers to learning mobility, Impact of the cost-of-living crisis,
Financial stability, Job loss, Mental wellbeing, Risk of poverty, Differences in opportunities between rural and urban settings,
Social exclusion, Youth unemployment, Barriers to youth participation, Limited access to digital technologies, Limited access to
green transportation, such as public transport or bike lanes.
60
Please note that the total number of responses differs across the three challenges explained because not all respondents
expressed an opinion on the level of contribution of the EU to all challenges presented in the public consultation’s questionnaire.
63
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
• Some respondents (32%, 56 out of 178) believe that young people have been
sufficiently engaged in the implementation of the EUYS to a great/certain extent.
This was compared to 56% (101 out of 178) which believed that youth were engaged
to a limited extent/ not at all. Within this category, both EU citizens and NGOs stood
out as the two primary stakeholder groups that perceive young people's involvement
to be limited. Notably, EU citizens constitute the stakeholder group with the highest
proportion of responses indicating that young people have not been engaged at all
in the implementation of the Strategy. Within this specific group, the sentiment is
particularly strong among individuals aged 24 to 29.
• Youth policy cooperation between Member States (supported by the EUYS) was
noted to have been effective to a great/ certain extent by 44% of stakeholders (40
out of 91, excluding youth). Among the respondents that held this view, the majority
(62%, 24 out of 40) were NGOs.
The PC did not contain specific questions in relation to the efficiency of the EUYS, and only
a few respondents provided some feedback in the open questions to the PC:
• Seven respondents called for enhanced funding flexibility in different youth

programmes under the EUYS, including the possibility to transfer unused funds
between Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps, and to optimise resource
utilisation61.
• Six respondents62 acknowledged in their input papers that the role of youth
organisations in the implementation of the EUYS requires more financial support and
empowerment. Engaging young people and their organisations in various
instruments was considered essential for fostering ownership and effectiveness.
The following points were found from the PC in relation to coherence:

• Most respondents (70%, 64 out of 91, excluding youth) reported that the instruments
under the EUYS were coherent and complementary to strategies and policies at the
international/national level to a great/certain extent. Among these respondents, the
majority (62%) were NGOs.
The main points from the PC on EU added value included:
• Most respondents (68%, 62 out of 91, excluding youth) indicated that the EUYS had
provided additional value beyond what Member States could have achieved on their
own to a great/certain extent. Within this group, the majority were NGOs (56%).
Online surveys of youth and civil society organisations

Online survey of young people
An online survey was conducted among young people, aged 16-29, in 10 Member States
between 10 July and 29 July 2023, gathering 400 responses in each MS. The survey covered
questions relating to all evaluation criteria, except efficiency.
In other words, while 239 respondents chose to describe the EU's contribution to mitigate barriers to learning mobility and barriers
to youth participation, only 232 respondents chose to describe the EU's contribution to barriers to education.
61
This point was raised by 7 stakeholders: Two business associations, four NGOs and one “other”.
62
Including 5 NGOs and one International organisation.
64
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Table 17 Youth survey overview

Survey of young people Sample of 400 Sample of 10 EU Member
aged 16-2963 respondents64 in each States (CZ, DE, ES, FR, IT, NL,
Member State PL, PT, RO, SE)65
The survey was completed by a diverse set of young respondents across several
characteristics including gender, age, and region of residence. The distribution across these
three characteristics follows that of the population in the 10 countries covered, ensuring
representativeness of the sample. In addition, the diversity of respondents can be
demonstrated through the distribution of the education attained by respondents, their
employment status, rural/urban residence, their or their parents’ background, and self-
reported disabilities.
Figure 9 Survey respondents’ characteristics
63
To capture the views and experiences of young people, the age group 16-29 was targeted by this survey to gather insights
from both the younger population entering adulthood, as well as the young working population navigating the opportunities
available to them.
64
Respondents were selected to ensure a distribution mirroring that of the population of each given country with respect to age
range (16-20, 21-25 and 26-29), gender, and region (NUTS 1). In addition, the pool of respondents was diverse with respect to
a number of characteristics, such as attained education, employment status, residence in a rural/urban area, and self-reported
disability. While a target of 400 respondents per country was aimed towards, in certain countries a few extra responses were
collected prior to closing the fieldwork, leaving the overall number of responses collected at 4,011.
65
These countries were selected to optimally capture the diversity of potential country effects that may affect the responses
collected. The criteria used to select countries were the level of adoption and implementation of youth strategies and action plans
at the national level, including the existence of a national youth strategy, the level of mainstreaming of youth policies in the
national and local policy environment based on our initial assessment, geographical diversity ensuring a mix of countries from
central, eastern, northern, western and southern Europe, and country size.
65
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 10 Figure 3 Survey respondents’ characteristics in terms of education, working status and
self-reported disabilities
The survey of young people primarily explored two evaluation criteria relevant to youth:
relevance and effectiveness of the Strategy.
On the criterion of relevance over a third of respondents reported knowing about the Strategy
(38% responded ‘know very well’, ‘know a fair amount’ or ‘know a little’; 1538 out of 4011).
The national youth policies were slightly better known (43% responded ‘know very well’, ‘know
a fair amount’ or ‘know a little’; 1733 out of 4011). This is somewhat in contrast with the results
of the PC, where 35% of the young people who participated were aware of the EUYS, while
only 23% were aware of their national youth strategy. The best-known youth initiatives were:
• Erasmus+ for students, with 34% (1351 out of 4011) knowing it very well or fairly and
an additional 28% (1121 out of 4011) knowing it at least a little;
• Erasmus+ for pupils, with 27% (1101 out of 4011) knowing it very well or fairly and
an additional 27% (1083 out of 4011) knowing it at least a little;
• Erasmus+ for youth exchanges, with 26% (1026 out of 4011) knowing it very well or
fairly and an additional 27% (1083 out of 4011) knowing it at least a little;
• Erasmus+ for apprentices, with 21% (885 out of 4011) knowing it very well or fairly
and an additional 23% (907 out of 4011) knowing it at least a little;
• The European Youth Portal, with 16% (637 out of 4011) knowing it very well or fairly
and an additional 25% (1011 out of 4011) knowing it at least a little;
• Different EU information platforms, known by 39% of respondents (combined
responses ‘know very well’, ‘know a fair amount’ or ‘know a little’, 1580 out of 4011).
Despite the EU Youth Coordinator being in function only since June 2021, and with a focus
on cross-sectoral cooperation within the European Commission, 35% of respondents reported
knowing about this function (responding ‘know very well’, ‘know a fair amount’ or ‘know a little’,
1410 out of 4011).
66
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 11 Awareness of EUYS initiatives
The most important issue identified by the respondents to the youth survey was the rising cost
of living (74%, 2987 out of 4011), followed by mental health and well-being (74%, 2970 out of
4011) and public health, including access to health services (73%, 2920 out of 4011). The
overall economic situation was also an important issue according to 69% of respondents (2755
out of 4011), as well as unemployment, with 68% (2717 out of 4011) of respondents
considering it important. Many respondents also reported that there was a need in their country
to consider their concerns regarding education and training (68%, 2713 out of 4011) and to
support youth voluntary activities (67%, 2704 out of 4011). Crime, environment and climate
change, and energy supply complete the top 10 most important youth needs identified, with
between 65% and 66% of respondents considering them important (2617 to 2660 out of 4011).
Figure 12 Youth needs at country level
67
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regarding effectiveness, while the European Youth Portal was known by 41% of respondents
(1648 out of 4011; combined responses ‘know very well, ‘know a fair amount’, ‘know a little’),
42% of these indicated to have used it (698 out of 1648). Different EU information platforms
were known by 39% of respondents (1580 out of 4011), of which 38% (605 out of 1580)
indicated having used them. Given that the European Youth Portal is an EU information
platform in itself, these results suggest that it is the most known and used information platform
among the respondents. While the EU Youth Dialogue was known by 37% of respondents
(1498 out of 4011), merely 35% of these respondents (522 out of 1498) indicated having taken
part in it. Nearly half of respondents agreed that they were offered sufficient opportunities to
go abroad to learn or work through EU programmes (47%; 1894 out of 4011). No significant
differences in these participation shares were observed across countries, age groups,
genders, or rural/urban residence.
Through involvement in different organisations (CSOs, NGOs) at the local level, most
respondents agreed that they learned a lot of new skills (67%; 679 out of 1016), and a lot
about youth-related issues (64%; 652 out of 1016). This was also the case for involvement in
organisations at the national level. Through their involvement in organisations at the European
level, most respondents agreed that they contributed to improving young people's lives (59%;
225 out of 381), and that they learned a lot of new skills (58%; 221 out of 381), with 57% (216
out of 381) indicating that they were motivated to be involved in other similar projects, and
56% (215 out of 381) reporting that their opinions were listened to and taken into account.
This is illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 13 Results of involvement in organisations at European level
Most respondents (67%; 2690 out of 4011) found that CSOs were at least somewhat effective
at addressing their needs, followed by their local government (58%; 2343 out of 4011) and EU
institutions (58%; 2324 out of 4011).
Most respondents found that compared with 3 years ago, more is being done to improve young
people's education (60%; 2412 out of 4011), young people’s mental health and well-being
(58%, 2293 out of 4011), and young people’s access to work (56%, 2265 out of 4011), either
in their country or in the EU. As illustrated in the figure below, around a third of these
respondents considered that such changes had taken place in both their country as well as in
the EU.
68
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 14 Progress on youth issues
When it comes to being involved in EU programmes, the biggest benefit of taking part in
Erasmus+ was making new friends and connections, with 65% of respondents agreeing (1053
out of 1625), followed by improving competences and skills (62%; 1007 out of 1625). The
biggest benefit of participating in DiscoverEU was increased knowledge of the issues faced
by young people (64%; 603 out of 941), and the biggest benefit of participating in the
European Solidarity Corps was feeling the ability to influence what happens in Europe (64%;
574 out of 897). The biggest barrier to taking part in these opportunities was the lack of
financial means, mentioned by 41% of respondents who knew about the opportunities but did
not take part (642 out of 1552). According to the respondents, youth work was most useful for
improving skills and competences (66%; 2633 out of 4011), and for supporting people in their
communities (60%; 2402 out of 4011).
Online survey of youth CSOs, youth researchers and youth informal groups66
An online survey was conducted between 15 June and 14 August targeting civil society
organisations, youth researchers, and youth informal groups across the 27 Member States.
The survey contained closed and open questions covering all evaluation criteria.
Table 18 CSO survey overview

Survey for CSOs, youth 144 respondents The sample covered 27 EU
researchers and youth Member States
informal groups
The respondent distribution and key characteristics are presented in the figures below.
66
Group of at least four young people which does not have legal personality under the applicable national law, provided that their
representatives have the legal capacity to undertake legal obligations on their behalf. These groups of young people can be
applicants and partners in some Actions of Erasmus+ (Erasmus+ Glossary of terms – Youth: https://erasmus-
plus.ec.europa.eu/programme-guide/part-d/glossary-youth).
69
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 15 Respondent types
Figure 16 Respondents’ core areas of activity
Figure 17 Respondents’ geographical distribution
Looking into effectiveness, the EUYS instrument used most as part of respondents’ activities
is Erasmus+, with 93% of those aware of it (130 out of 140) using it (combined answer options
‘always’, ‘often’, ‘sometimes’ and ‘rarely’), and 75% (105 out of 140) using it more often
(combined answer options ‘always’ and ‘often’). Evidence-based tools were used by 90% of
70
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
respondents aware of them (78 out of 87, combined answer options ‘always, ‘often’,
‘sometimes’ and ‘rarely’)), while the European Youth Portal was used by 89% of respondents
aware of it (111 out of 125, combined answer options ‘always, ‘often’, ‘sometimes’ and ‘rarely’).
Out of the list of instruments proposed, the FNAPs were used the least by respondents who
were aware of them (76%, 29 out of 38, combined answer options ‘always, ‘often’, ‘sometimes’
and ‘rarely’).
Figure 18 Participation or use of EUYS instruments
According to most respondents (73%; 92 out of 126), the EUYS brought young people together
via learning mobility at the local, national or EU level, followed by youth work activities and
volunteering (each 67%; 85 out of 126). At the international level, youth conferences and
events are considered the most effective way in which the EUYS brought young people
together (17%; 21 out of 126).
Figure 19 EUYS activities that bring young people together
71
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EUYS activities were deemed useful for their organisation’s work by 77% of respondents who
were aware of either the EUYS or any of its instruments (110 out of 143), with 47% (67 out of
143) finding them very useful. At all levels combined, the EUYS helped respondents’
organisations most to foster the creation of new partnerships among organisations (85%; 121
out of 143), followed by fostering networking between youth organisations across Europe
(78%; 112 out of 143) and fostering an increase in the uptake of opportunities available to
youth (76%; 109 out of 143).
Figure 20 Areas of youth empowerment fostered by the EUYS
Source: Kantar Public – Surveys of CSOs, youth researchers and youth informal groups
At all levels, 71% of respondents who were aware of the EUYS or of any of its instruments
(102 out of 143) considered that the EUYS helped improve the quality of youth work, while
71% (101 out of 143) considered that it increased the recognition of youth work. Overall, most
respondents (57%; 60 out of 105) found that the EUYS improved youth policies in the countries
where they work at least moderately, with an additional 23% (24 out of 105) reporting that it
improved them slightly. However, only 18% of respondents (26 out of 143) agreed that the
EUYS adapted to rising inflation.
For all EUYS instruments except Erasmus+, the main issue associated with their
implementation is limited awareness and information on how to participate. Among those
respondents who have used or participated in these instruments, the shares of respondents
indicating that limited awareness and information on how to participate was an issue ranging
from 38% (11 out of 29) for the Future National Activities Planners to 50% (39 out of 78) for
the Evidence-based tools. In the case of Erasmus+, the main issue pertains to limited financial
resources (45%; 59 out of 130).
In terms of efficiency, the most cost-effective instrument, according to those respondents who
have participated in it or used it, is Erasmus+, as 60% (78 out of 130) indicated that the benefits
associated with it for their work outweighed the costs they incurred to a very great or great
extent. The benefits that the participation or use of the European Solidarity Corps brought to
respondents’ work were also found to greatly outweigh the costs incurred by 55% of
respondents (56 out of 102 responding ‘to a very great extent’ or ‘to a great extent’). The least
cost-effective instrument for respondents’ work, according to those having participated in or
used it, are the Mutual learning activities, the benefits of which only 29% of respondents (22
out of 77 responding ‘to a very great extent’ or ‘to a great extent’) considered to greatly
outweigh the costs they incurred. Most respondents aware of any of the EUYS instruments
(65%; 93 out of 142) found the administrative burden associated with being involved in
activities under the EUYS and using its instruments to be proportionate to their benefits
(combined responses ‘to a very great extent’, ‘to a great extent’ and ‘to a moderate extent’).
Regarding coherence, Erasmus+ is the instrument considered to be complementary to

existing initiatives at the national level by the greatest number of respondents who are aware
72
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
of it, as 61% (86 out of 140) indicated that it was complementary to a very great or great extent.
Similarly, the European Solidarity Corps is considered greatly complementary with national
initiatives by 60% of respondents (77 out of 128). Most respondents aware of the EUYS (72%;
91 out of 126) reported complementarities (combined answer options ‘to a very great extent’,
‘to a great extent’ and ‘to a moderate extent’) between the EUYS and the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. Other areas of complementary with the EUYS are policies relating to the
green transition (65%; 82 out of 126) and to employment (63%; 80 out of 126). Furthermore,
most respondents aware of the EUYS or of any of its instruments agreed that the EUYS’ core
areas and instruments complemented one another (75%; 107 out of 143). Moreover, 45% of
those aware of the EUYS (57 out of 126) agreed that the 2022 European Year of Youth created
additional support for the implementation of the EUYS and its tools.
Concerning EU added value, European -level CSOs expressed that better engagement,
increased connection, and empowerment of young people in the EU would not have happened
to the same extent without the support of the EUYS. Over half, 57% of CSOs disagreed that
increasing connectivity of young people at EU level would have been achieved without the
EUYS. The pattern was very similar for the two other core areas.
Figure 21 EUYS added value to youth engagement, connection and empowerment in the EU
On relevance, most of the respondents who are aware of the EUYS and work at the European
level or beyond considered the EUYS relevant to address youth participation (82%; 64 out of
78), followed by social exclusion or discrimination (72%; 56 out of 78), and preparing for the
green transition (68%; 53 out of 78), in the EU. Most of the respondents who are aware of the
EUYS and work at the local, regional or national level reported that the EUYS was relevant to
address youth participation (68%; 63 out of 92), followed by youth health and well-being (67%;
62 out of 92) and social exclusion or discrimination (66%; 61 out of 92) in their country. 42%
of respondents aware of any of the EUYS instruments (59 out of 142) reported that the EUYS
instruments were relevant to organisations’ needs in 2019-2022.
73
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 22 Relevance of the EUYS to address youth challenges in the EU
Most respondents aware of the EUYS found that the 2022 European Year of Youth made the
EUYS more relevant to their organisation (combined responses ‘to a very great extent’, ‘to a
great extent’, ‘to a moderate extent’ and ‘to a small extent’) (63%; 80 out of 126).
Interviews and focus groups with policy makers, young people and civil society
organisations
Key informant interviews with EU level and international organisations
conducted between 3 May and 20 June 2023, comprising 14 interviews with representatives
from EU institutions and bodies (including 11 from various DGs of the European Commission,
2 representatives from different units and committees of the European Parliament, and one
representative from the European Economic and Social Committee), 3 interviews with
representatives of EU Agencies (2 from the European Education and Culture Executive
Agency, EACEA and 1 from Eurofound), and 5 interviews with representatives of international
organisations (the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, UNICEF and
the EU-CoE youth partnership).
Table 19. Overview of EU-level and International organisations interviews

DG CNECT 1
DG EAC 6
DG EMPL 1
DG ENV 1
DG INTPA 1
Committee
EU Agencies EACEA 2
Eurofound 1
The EU-CoE youth partnership 2
74
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
criteria, especially by validating the correctness of the information previously gathered through
desk research on the evaluation criteria. After concluding all the interviews, the data was
assessed to identify insights, patterns, and trends, including similarities and differences
among the opinions of different types of interviewees. The insights gathered from these
interviews have been useful in providing context and enhancing understanding of the
Strategy's impact and its value.
Summary of results
The following sub-section presents a summary of the results gathered from interviews with
EU-level and international organisations’ representatives.
Under the criterion of relevance67, the following main points were found in the interviews with
EU-level and international organisations:
• Most interviewees were aware of the EUYS. However, 5 out of 21 interviewees

reported having limited knowledge of the EUYS and its key components. Within this
group, several representatives of DGs of the European Commission reported to be
less informed about the content of the EUYS. In contrast, it emerged that the EUYS
is well-known among interviewees from international organisations and from the
European Parliament. Interviewees who reported being more aware of the EUYS
also recognised the relevance of its core three areas of action (‘Engage’, ‘Connect’,
‘Empower’) in addressing the challenges faced by young people.
• Six out of 21 interviewees highlighted the importance of the EUYS in providing
financial support for youth organisations. These organisations were said to be
understaffed and to lack resources to implement youth activities, despite being the
primary actors closest to youth and most aware of their needs. Youth organisations
can implement activities in line with youth’s needs and desires, and by funding them
the EUYS has managed to stay relevant over time. Moreover, interviewees
highlighted that the EUYS has managed to stay relevant thanks to its comprehensive
scope, as 14 out of 21 interviewees referred to the EUYS as an umbrella
encompassing several youth related initiatives.
• Interviewees from international organisations remarked that the Strategy would
become more relevant if it ensured better alignment with human rights, which,
according to them, are not sufficiently highlighted in the current version of the EUYS.
In addition, 10 out of 21 interviewees considered that there is limited awareness of
the Strategy outside of the EU sphere, which instead would allow the EUYS to
influence youth policies internationally.
Under the criterion of effectiveness68, the following main points were found in the interviews
with EU-level and international organisations:
• Almost all interviewees uniformly agreed on the benefits of establishing the EU Youth
Coordinator, whose role in knowledge-sharing on youth needs for cross-sectoral
cooperation within the European Commission is seen as very effective. Moreover,
16 out of 21 interviewees also emphasised the effectiveness of the EUYS in
increasing Erasmus+ participation.
67
For a definition of relevance, please refer to the definition provided in the introduction of this synopsis report.
68
For a definition of effectiveness, please refer to the definition provided in the introduction of this synopsis report.
75
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
• Interviewees from the Commission considered that the Strategy, in particular

through the EU youth programmes, has been highly effective in responding to crises
and advancing the green and digital transitions among young people. Similarly,
interviewees from EU Agencies reported that the overall positive impact of the EUYS
at the European level is noticeable. In contrast, interviewees from international
organisations called for the EUYS to become more inclusive in its strategies, as to
engage youth with fewer opportunities.
Under the criterion of efficiency69, the following main points were found in the interviews
• Almost all interviewees consider that the costs linked to implementing the EUYS are
minimal and sufficient to meet the Strategy’s objectives.
• It was also highlighted that the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on the budgets
of national youth organisations for implementing youth related projects, leading
these organisations to rely more heavily on EU programmes.
• One interviewee drew attention to varying organisational capacities which can
impact the ability of organisations to take part in EUYS implementation. This could
e.g., relate to limited resources and language barriers.
Under the criterion of coherence70, the following main points were found in the interviews
• All interviewees agreed on the coherence of the EUYS instruments. For example,
the interviewees reported that the EUYS’ instruments complement each other and
offer various means to achieve common objectives, such as ensuring youth
participation through different instruments.
• 3 out of 21 interviewees noted that the Strategy would become more coherent with
international obligations if it was more aligned with UN Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). For example, an explicit link could be drawn between the European
Youth Goals (hereafter EYGs) and the SDGs.
Under the criterion of EU added value71, the following main points were found in the
interviews with EU-level and international organisations:
• All interviewees believed the EUYS offered substantial value beyond what individual
Member States could achieve on their own, fostering collaboration, knowledge
sharing, and capacity building. The EUYS was seen as enhancing transnational
exchanges, youth participation, and policy consistency, reinforcing youth's role in
policymaking.
• Interviewees also commented that a discontinuation of the EUYS could lead to
reduced investments from Member States in youth related initiatives at the national
level, which could diminish the influence and empowerment of young people.
Additionally, interviewees considered that many Member States have aligned their
national youth strategies with the EUYS. These interviewees noted that
discontinuing the Strategy might diminish the convergence that such national youth
policies achieved so far.
69
For a definition of efficiency, please refer to the definition provided in the introduction of this synopsis report.
70
For a definition of coherence, please refer to the definition provided in the introduction of this synopsis report.
71
For a definition of EU added value, please refer to the definition provided in the introduction of this synopsis report.
76
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Key informant interviews with policy makers at national level

A total of 83 interviews were conducted across 27 Member States between 3 May and 20
June 2023 with national stakeholders, including ministries responsible for youth policy,
national youth or education agencies, national youth councils, and agencies implementing EU
youth programmes. The numbers of interviews conducted across the Member States are
presented in the figure below. In addition to the categories presented, an interview was
conducted in Italy with the National Institute for Public Policy Analysis (Istituto Nazionale per
l'Analisi delle Politiche Pubbliche).
Table 20 Interviews conducted for the country research
Number of Member States

interviews
Ministry responsible for youth policy at 39 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK,
national or regional level EE, EL, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT,
LU, NL, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK
National Agency for Higher 1 DK

Governmental Education and
Agency responsible Science72
for the
National Agency for 1 FI
implementation of
Education73
youth policy
Landesjugendamt74 1 DE
Agency of Youth 1 LT
Affairs (JRA)75
Agency for 1 LV
International Youth
Programs (JSPA)76
Aġenzija Żgħażagħ77 2 MT
Portuguese Institute of 2 PT
Sport and Youth78
72
The Danish Agency for Higher Education and Science is an agency in the Ministry of Higher Education and Science and
handles tasks within preparation and administration of grants for research, higher education and research-based innovation, as
well as the State Educational Grant and Loan Scheme.
73
The Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI) is the national development agency responsible for early childhood
education and care, pre-primary, basic, general and vocational upper secondary education as well as for adult education and
training. Higher education is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education and Culture.
74
The Landesjugendamt supports the local youth welfare services, the youth welfare offices and the independent youth welfare
agencies in their work.
75
The Agency of Youth Affairs implements the established national youth policy measures which encourage young people’s
motivation to engage in active public life and take part in addressing youth problems. The key objectives of the agency include:
coordinating the activities of state institutions and agencies with regard to youth policy, developing and implementing national
youth policy programmes and instruments, and analysing the situation of youth, youth organisations and organisations working
with youth in Lithuania.
76
The JSPA is a direct administrative institution under the authority of the Minister of Education and Science, whose purpose is
to promote youth activity and mobility, participation in youth voluntary work, non-formal education and youth information programs
and projects, and non-formal education of young people in relation to lifelong learning.
77
Aġenzija Żgħażagħ provides information on services and opportunities for young people and listens to their views on issues
that impact on their lives. It participates in Eurodesk, the European Youth Card and EU programmes. It manages, implements
and coordinates the National Youth Policy, and promotes and safeguards the interests of young people. It is operating under the
Government of Malta – Ministry for Education, Sports, Youth, Research and Innovation
78
The Portuguese Institute of Sport and Youth’s is a governmental body and its mission is to implement an integrated and
decentralized policy for the areas of sport and youth, in close collaboration with public and private entities, namely with sports
bodies, youth associations, students and local authorities.
77
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
National Institute of 1 SK
Education and Youth
(NIVAM)79
INJUVE80 2 ES
Agency for Youth and 1 SE

Civil Society81
National Agency for the implementation of 23 AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE,
EU youth programmes HR, IE, IT, FR, LT, LU, PL, RO,
SI
National Youth Cyprus Youth 1 CY

Council Council82
Czech Council of 1 CZ
Children and Youth83
Bundesjugendring84 1 DE
Hellenic National 2 EL
Youth Council85
Youth and Lifelong
Learning Foundation86
Youth Council of 1 SK
Slovakia87
National Youth Council 1 SI

of Slovenia88
79
The National Institute of Education and Youth implements activities such as education and counselling for teaching and non-
teaching staff, methodological guidance of schools and school facilities, applied pedagogical research, organization of subject
Olympiads and competitions, external testing at schools, informal education of youth, and management of the library fund.
80
INJUVE (the Youth Institute) is a public body, attached to the Ministry of Social Rights and Agenda 2030, whose main activity
is aimed at promoting actions for the benefit of young people.
81
The Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society is a government agency that works to ensure that young people have access
to influence and welfare. It also supports the government in issues relating to civil society policy.
82
The Cyprus Youth Council aims at promoting dialogue and cooperation between youth in Cyprus and also connecting them
with youth in Europe and the world. CYC is in continuous cooperation with the European Youth Forum.
83
The Czech Council of Children and Youth concentrates on advocacy of youth interests and lobbying within institutions, as well
as involvement in the activities of the European Youth Forum, Youth Events of the European Union Presidency, and international
youth exchanges, seminars and trainings.
84
As a working group of youth organisations and regional youth councils (Landesjugendringe) in Germany, the Bundesjugendring
represents a strong network of about six million children and young people who are members of youth organisations and youth
councils. Youth organisations are places for children and young people to experience a sense of community, learn, spend leisure
time and be active.
85
The Hellenic National Youth Council is a federation of 59 youth organisations. It associates with the Greek government
concerning domestic matters and is the official representative of young Greeks in Greece and abroad. It represents young Greeks
in domestic matters by participating in the Interministerial Committee for Youth, the Organizing Committee of the Youth
Parliament, the National Committee on Volunteering, etc. Also, it participates in several networks and clusters of Greek civil
society. Abroad it participates in the European Youth Forum, the Mediterranean Youth Forum, the International French-Speaking
Youth Council, the General Assembly of the UN and the Youth Council of UNESCO.
86
The Youth and Lifelong Learning Foundation is supervised by the Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs, and
directly related to it as a provider and as contractor of the projects and programmes the Ministry assigns to the Foundation.
87
The Youth Council of Slovakia is an umbrella organisation of children and youth organisations. It cooperates actively with
partner organisations in abroad, with international governmental and non-governmental organisations and authorities involved
on behalf of children and young people. It also collaborates with state authorities and those civic associations active in the field
of interests of the Youth Council of Slovakia.
88
The National Youth Council of Slovenia is an umbrella organization linking all national youth organisations. It represents the
opinions of Slovenian youth at the national and international level. Its key purpose is to defend the interests of young people and
to promote their participation in policy making process in the fields which have a significant impact on their lives and work.
78
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Spanish Youth 1 ES
Council89
National Council of 1 SE
Swedish Children and
Youth Organisations90
Concerning effectiveness, the interviewed stakeholders acknowledged the positive outcome

of the EUYS to mainstream youth issues across different policy domains at the national level.
This was mainly possible via the instruments and by being used as an overarching framework
for national youth policies. While stakeholders were generally satisfied with most of the EUYS
instruments (e.g., Erasmus+, EU Youth Dialogue), they mentioned that certain instruments
could be improved, such as the EU Youth Coordinator or the FNAPs. Namely, national policy
makers endorsed the idea of the EU Youth Coordinator and suggested that, despite not having
been mandated, the EU Youth Coordinator could be used at the national level to ensure the
mainstreaming of youth between national and EU policies. National policy makers also
suggested that the format of the FNAPs could be revised to make it more user-friendly to fill
in and use. Clear progress was identified in the 3 core areas ‘Engage’, ‘Connect’ and
‘Empower’, but efforts should continue in order to leave a long-lasting effect. Policy makers
recognised the contribution of the EUYS in increasing active citizenship through the EU Youth
Dialogue, in better inclusion of youth issues in EU programmes and in promoting youth work.
The EUYS has also showed great flexibility in its implementation by adapting to different
unexpected events (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine).
National policy makers agreed that the EUYS is highly efficient but mentioned the need for
more financial resources to better implement its objectives, namely in terms of the funding
provided to various youth initiatives supported by the EUYS at the national level. Overall, no
major burdens were created by the instruments, processes, or activities of the EUYS.
Stakeholders proposed to allow greater flexibility for national agencies in managing the
budgets for programmes such as Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps, as in their
view this could lead to the achievement of greater administrative synergies. They also asked
for a simplification in the processes of application for funding under Erasmus+ and the
European Solidarity Corps to improve accessibility for organisations. Finally, a large share of
the national policy makers interviewed across most countries agree that there is a strong
proportionality in resource allocation and the implementation of the EUYS and its objectives.
The EUYS was considered to be highly coherent within its own core areas and instruments,
which, according to national policy makers, has been achieved through the EYGs and guiding
principles of the EUYS. National policy makers also expressed that the EUYS is largely
coherent with national policies in their respective countries. According to the interviewees,
national policies address the youth issues presented in the EYGs and are based on the guiding
principles.
In terms of EU added value, national policy makers mentioned that the EUYS positively
affected youth policies beyond what individual Member States could achieve on their own.
The broadness of the Strategy, its ability to be an overarching framework, and its capacity to
mainstream youth issues, were key in covering new topics in addition to those covered at
national level. In addition, the EUYS has helped foster cooperation between Member States
and across organisations working on youth issues within different policy areas. Stakeholders
believed that a discontinuation of the EUYS would have strong effects at multiple levels such
as a loss of coherence across policy areas at national level, a negative impact on youth
89
The Spanish Youth Council (CJE) is a platform of more than 60 youth entities, promoting the participation of youth in the
political, social, economic and cultural development of Spain in a global environment.
90
National Council of Swedish Children and Youth Organisations is a coordinating body of 90 youth organisations, and serves
as a platform for cooperation.
79
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
empowerment, a decrease in policy makers’ awareness of youth issues across different policy
areas, and a loss of cooperation on youth issues across Member States. National
policymakers also confirmed that the discontinuation of the EUYS could lead to more
fragmented support for youth mobility and volunteering under the EU's Erasmus+ and
European Solidarity Corps programmes.
With regards to relevance, a large share of the national policy makers interviewed across
most countries confirmed alignment between the EUYS and national strategies. The EUYS’
objectives have remained highly relevant for national policymakers. However, some
mentioned that the EUYS could only partially cover country-specific needs, such as youth
unemployment in certain Member States, and rising cost of living. However, overall, most
national policy makers held the view that the shift from specific thematic areas in the previous
Strategy to the three core areas in the current EUYS enables adaptability to various
circumstances, while maintaining a clear link with the Strategy’s objectives.
Focus groups with national level policymakers

Member States.

Ministry responsible for youth policy DK, SK
National Agency implementing EU youth programmes DE
The table below presents the overall perceptions of the EUYS, as well as how it was
incorporated into national policies, from the focus groups with national level policymakers in
the three countries.
Table 22 Overall awareness of the EUYS and influence on national policies (DE, DK, SK)
Awareness of the EUYS Influence on national policies

DE The participants are well aware of the EUYS, and The focus group participants, working in
especially knowledgeable about the EUYS instruments entities such as the National Youth Council,
they use for their work. They note that while the EUYS the national agency implementing EU youth
serves as a policy framework providing inspiration to programmes, and the Federal Council,
decision-makers, national youth initiatives and policies mentioned that by providing information on
are implemented based on the priorities of the national Youth Wiki, they could inform others working
strategy. in entities focused on youth policy
91
through non-formal learning, the presence of measures furthering entrepreneurial competences through non-formal learning, and
the mechanisms of quality assurance for youth work that are in place in the country. After initially planning to conduct a focus
group with youth policy makers in Croatia as well, this was ultimately not possible due to their limited availability. They were,
nevertheless, interviewed as part of the country research on Croatia, therefore their views are reflected in the analysis of
80
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
implementation about the main objectives

and goals of national youth policy, and how
these are being achieved through specific
initiatives. Providing this information in a
concise manner facilitates comparison with
the EUYS, which in turn facilitates alignment.
DK Depending on which entity the participants work in, they Although this was initiated nationally without
have different awareness of EUYS instruments. Each influence of the EUYS, different ministries
authority implements or uses different instruments for include youth issues into the policies they are
their work; hence they know those but are less aware of responsible for. In this sense, youth policy is
others (e.g., one authority is given the task of incorporated and mainstreamed under
implementing some of the instruments such as the different policy areas. Relevant ministries
European Solidarity Corps and Erasmus+, therefore they meet together when shaping new policies, in
are aware of those; another authority has the role of order to ensure coherence across different
developing policy and thus uses the EU Youth Report or areas, including youth.
the Youth Wiki to compare policies across countries, and
are therefore aware of that)..
SK Policy makers are most aware of the EUYD, the The national strategy is inspired by the
mobilising and monitoring of EU programmes and funds, EUYS. Disadvantaged youth is highlighted in
and evidence-based youth policy making and knowledge the national strategy, as well as mental health
building. They consider the EUYS useful for involving and cross-sectoral cooperation in the areas of
youth organisations in decision-making processes, and health, investments, regional development
indicate that the outcomes of discussions under the and digital transformation. An inter-ministerial
EUYD are applicable to youth policy in the country. They working group has been set up to encourage
mention that the priorities of EU programmes and funds youth policy mainstreaming.
influence national level policies and projects.
Source: Kantar Public – Focus groups with national policy makers
The influence of the EUYS differs in these three Member States. Interviewed national policy
makers in Denmark mostly set national youth initiatives independently of the influence of the
EUYS, while interviewed national policy makers in Germany align national initiatives with
EUYS core areas and objectives. Interviewed national policy makers in Slovakia draw
inspiration from the EUYS for the national strategy, aligning national objectives with those set
at EU level. While certain instruments, most notably the EUYD, were considered effective in
engaging young people in decision-making processes, some improvements could be made to
increase the EUYS’s effectiveness. Policy makers’ views on this are reported in the table
below.
Table 23 Policy makers’ perceptions of effectiveness of the EUYS (DE, DK, SK)
Effectiveness of the EUYS

DE Certain instruments are considered very effective in involving young people and promoting youth
participation, such as the EUYD and the 2022 European Year of Youth. However, policy makers
mentioned that the EUYD could have a greater reach, and that there could be more information about
how the results of the national processes within the EUYD are dealt with at the EU level. The application
process for funding as well as the processing of the funding, e.g., for the EUYD, were considered
challenging especially for European partner organisations, as their work is often done on a voluntary
basis. Regarding the FNAPs, policy makers mentioned that the short time given to them to provide
information on the platform rushes the process and requires them to gather feedback from various
stakeholders in a short time span. This impedes on the quality of the information collected and means
that some information is not collected when stakeholders do not provide feedback on time.
DK Policy makers consider the EUYS instruments effective for engaging with youth and making youth
engage with each other. However, they consider that there is room for improvement as some
instruments, such as the FNAPs, require a lot of reporting and administrative processes in order to use
them.
SK The outcomes of the EUYD are considered applicable to national youth policy, and data from the EUYD
were used in the creation of the national youth strategy. Youth Wiki provides inspiration for national
policymaking based on what is being done in other countries. However, policy makers mentioned that
finding participants to different youth activities requiring engagement, such as the EUYD, can be difficult
as the pool of these “active” young people is limited, and they are often overburdened by already taking
part in various other initiatives.
Source: Kantar Public – Focus groups with national policy makers
81
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Youth engagement was encouraged through a range of initiatives introduced at the country
level in Denmark, Germany, and Slovakia. These were considered successful and contributed
to the Strategy’s objectives.
In Denmark, the Youth People's Meeting (Ungdommens Folkemøde) fosters dialogue between national
decision-makers and young people. Furthermore, permanent advisory committees have been established,
which collaborate with student organisations, including students in vocational training.
In Germany, a three-year project is underway by the German Federal Youth Council (Deutscher
Bundesjugendring) with the youth councils from Austria, Croatia, and Portugal, in which the participation of
young people is to be promoted by presenting the implementation of the EYGs in European and national political
contexts, identifying effective participation methods and offering training for young people and political decision-
makers to translate this knowledge into implementation.
In Slovakia, the Pupil Advisory Committee was set up by the Youth Institute (IUVENTA) and the Pedagogical
Institute, providing a chance to young people to comment on changes in the education system. Several other
youth initiatives engaging youth: Mladí proti fašizmu (Youth against Fascism), Mladí za klímu (Youth for Climate),
the DASATO Academy – an annual program of non-formal education for high school students, and METOIKOS
n.o. – an association helping to integrate foreign students and foreigners.

Four focus groups92 have been conducted with young people in Germany, Italy, Poland, and
Portugal93 between 14 June and 8 August. The purpose was to explore in depth young
people’s stories of participating in a range of EUYS instruments and to understand the
facilitators and barriers to accessing them. The participants in each country were divided into
two groups: one composed of young people who are or have been involved in youth activities
at the local, national or EU level, and one composed of young people who had not been
involved in any youth activities. This allowed to observe how young people interact with the
EUYS and detect gaps and barriers in reaching them. Success stories were explored through
a discussion with participants who had been involved in youth activities, while barriers were
discussed with all participants.
Success stories were identified both for EU-level youth activities and national/local youth
activities. The EU-level youth initiatives in which most active participants participated were
Erasmus+, the European Solidarity Corps, and the EU Youth Dialogue. The national and local
level initiatives in which participants in Germany had participated focused on themes such as
climate change and inclusivity (e.g., “Wir raeumen auf”94 and Medienscout95 in Germany). All
participants mentioned that their participation in these national and EU-level youth activities
92
In Germany, 7 young people participated (2 aged 16-20, 3 aged 21-25, and 2 aged 26-29). In Italy, 8 young people participated
(5 aged 21-25 and 3 aged 26-29). In Poland, 6 young people participated (3 aged 21-25 and 3 aged 26-29). In Portugal, 7 young
people participated (3 aged 21-25 and 4 aged 26-29). Participants were selected to ensure diversity across a range of
characteristics, including gender, age range, involvement in a CSO or a political party, involvement in EU-level activities and
national initiatives, level of education achieved, employment status, and residence in a rural/urban area.
93
These countries were chosen to ensure a mix of countries with/without youth strategies, the extent to which dedicated policies
for youth are mainstreamed (or marginal) in the national policy environment, and geographical spread.
94
This youth initiative aimed to bring together people to clean up local areas. It was initially advertised within schools as an extra-
curricular activity, and subsequently developed into a more established initiative which also attracted people outside schools and
of different age groups.
95
The “Medienscouts” is a student committee fighting online mobbing. The initiative was founded by a teacher within the school
context, as an extracurricular form of engagement which was predominantly student-led. As it gathered high interest and strong
momentum in participation, this initiative subsequently further evolved and became more established as the “Streitsticht” initiative.
82
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
was an enriching experience that helped them feel empowered, engaged with policy making,
or connected with people from other countries and cultures. A participant to the EU Youth
Dialogue mentioned that it responded to her ambition to have an impact on her community
and mainstream youth issues. Erasmus+ was the most known instrument thanks to its strong
promotion by universities.
Concerning the barriers to accessing youth activities, the main issue mentioned across all
focus groups was the lack of awareness of the different youth opportunities. While Erasmus+
was known very well by participants, other EU-level instruments were less known, suggesting
that more external communication might be needed for some instruments. All participants
criticised a sub-optimal and inconsistent use of social media promotion of these instruments,
which limits access to a smaller group of individuals who are intrinsically more motivated to
learn about this topic and know where to look to find the information they need. Only one
participant in Germany had accessed the European Youth Portal. Another issue is the low
professional value placed on youth activities by prospective employers. In Italy and Portugal,
participants complained that volunteering was not valued in the job market and lacked proper
certification.
Many participants across the four countries experienced barriers to inclusion in youth
activities, with the conversation centring around Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps.
Participants mentioned in particular Erasmus+ student exchanges and that for example,
despite grants being offered to participate in a study exchange under Erasmus+, the
scholarship provided would not cover the cost of accommodation in most European cities.
This was the most common barrier mentioned to not taking part in Erasmus+. Another barrier
to participating in Erasmus+ student exchanges was the application procedure, which was
considered complicated by participants, particularly in cases where the university did not
provide adequate help to students in filling out various forms. Other barriers mentioned
included difficult communication with the host university (e.g., delays in answers or language
difficulties), or the fear of delays in students’ study programme as the courses taken abroad
would not always be recognised by their home institution. Furthermore, a few participants
mentioned that they encountered language barriers in accessing information about EU level
initiatives due to not being fluent in English, however they did not provide concrete examples.
In the context of mobility programmes, not being fluent in English or in the language of the
destination country was considered an important barrier by some participants. Regarding
disabilities, one participant mentioned that there are sometimes inconsistencies in the actions
taken to improve access for all. For example, in the case of volunteering under the “universal
civil service” in Italy, physical barriers for people with reduced mobility are often only partially
lifted, and organisations that take volunteers are often not prepared to host volunteers with a
disability and provide them with the necessary support, despite promoting inclusivity in theory.
All participants in the Italian focus group agreed that some disabilities impose psychological
barriers and fears that may be difficult to overcome for potentially interested participants, even
when physical barriers are lifted.
Group interviews with CSOs and youth researchers

In addition to the CSO survey, CSOs were also able to express whether they would like to
take part in a follow up interview as part of a group of CSOs. In total, 7 CSOs and youth
researchers took part in three group interviews and two individual interviews. Three out of the
7 interviewed CSOs are active at EU level, two interviewed CSOs are active in Germany, one
is active in France and one in Italy. Their areas of interest cover youth, students, and the
intersectionality between youth and climate action. The two interviewed youth researchers
work, respectively, in the United Kingdom and in Belgium, and they focus, respectively, on
European youth policy and social inclusion, and on youth policy and youth work. The
interviews were conducted across July and August of 2023.
83
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The interview notes were qualitatively coded to identify common themes across each of the
interviewee types, therefore across CSOs and across youth researchers, as well as between
the two groups. The following summary presents the main findings from this analysis for each
of the evaluation criteria.
Concerning relevance of the EUYS, the following main points were raised:
• The interviewed CSOs mentioned that the challenges currently faced by young
people relate to COVID-19 and mental health, as well as barriers to engagement in
national youth strategies for youth with fewer opportunities. There was a general
consensus among all interviewees that the EUYS has played an important role in
addressing such challenges. Two CSOs further highlighted the importance of the
EUYS in promoting youth involvement and participation in policy-making processes,
particularly in addressing issues like employment, education, health, and social
inclusion.
• All CSOs mentioned the role of the EUYS in supporting their areas of work. For
example, one CSO mentioned the role of providing funding and support for youth
projects and initiatives, while other CSOs mentioned the role of the EUYS in
promoting environmental and sustainability initiatives, and the just transition.
• According to two CSOs, two emerging needs were not yet visibly addressed by the
EUYS. One CSO highlighted the specific challenges faced by young people in rural
areas and the importance of tailor-made measures to support them, while another
CSO highlighted the need for a more inclusive approach to ensure access to
opportunities for all young people, regardless of their socio-economic background.
Concerning effectiveness of the EUYS, the following main points were raised:
• All interviewed CSOs mentioned the valuable support provided by the EUYS through
instruments such as the European Solidarity Corps and Erasmus+, which have
served as pivotal means for engaging young people in their initiatives. Furthermore,
all interviewed CSOs mentioned that they use the European Youth Goals as a
reference point to assess whether their activities align with the EUYS when engaging
with young people at the local and regional levels.
• One central theme from the interviews with CSOs and youth researchers, however,
was a lack of awareness and accessibility of the EUYS among stakeholders,
particularly among CSOs and young people themselves. Both interviewed CSOs
and the interviewed youth researchers provided that their organisations and the
youth they work with are not fully aware of the Strategy and its objectives, resulting
in a possible divergence between the EUYS' intentions and its actual impact.
Additionally, CSO interviewees noted the need for better dissemination and
communication of the Strategy to increase its visibility and awareness among target
audiences.
• All interviewed CSOs and youth researchers noted the need for better support,
collaboration, and synergies between different stakeholders, particularly at the
regional and national levels. One youth researcher, for example, suggested creating
communication platforms for various stakeholders, such as youth, CSOs and
national agencies, where clearer guidance and support for those engaging with the
EUYS would be provided. CSO interviewees also emphasised the importance of
centralised hubs and additional support from the EU level.
Concerning efficiency of the EUYS, the following points were raised:
• Perspectives on the efficiency of the EUYS instruments revealed varying viewpoints

and suggestions for improvement among interviewees. One concern shared by three
84
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
interviewed CSOs and both youth researchers was the bureaucratic burden
associated with applying for funding under the instruments of the EUYS.
• Only one CSO provided a concrete example of such bureaucratic burden, referring
to Erasmus+ projects. They mentioned that the application process often entails
filling out extensive documentation, sometimes up to a hundred pages, despite the
relatively low chance of receiving funding for the applicant. This concern about
extensive application requirements was also raised by three CSOs and one youth
researcher for programmes such as Erasmus+.
• Two CSOs put forward the suggestion that simplifying the application processes for
funding and enhancing communication on the opportunities for youth available under
the EUYS would help improve the efficiency of the EUYS overall.
Concerning coherence of the EUYS, the following main point was raised:
• All interviewed CSOs and researchers considered the EUYS coherent with
international/national policies and initiatives. Nevertheless, four CSOs highlighted
the importance of creating a strong alignment between the EUYS and national,
regional, and local youth policies. For example, one CSO noted that the EUYS's
connection with their organisation’s activities was perceived to be somewhat indirect,
and that there appears to be a lack of clear communication between the EUYS and
national strategies. Another CSO highlighted that national frameworks and the
EUYS could improve the sharing of best practices for better policy implementation,
emphasising the need for greater coherence across all levels of policy making (i.e.,
local, regional, national and EU).
Concerning EU added value of the EUYS, the following main point was raised:
• All CSOs highlighted the added value of the EUYS in fostering international
cooperation, knowledge exchange, and collaboration between various stakeholders
across the EU. Five CSOs specifically cited the benefits of learning from the best
practices of other countries, as well as promoting dialogue and the exchange of
experiences in youth work and policymaking.
• Two CSOs reiterated the value of the EUYS in providing opportunities for youth
engagement and empowerment. Through for example the European Solidarity
Corps and Erasmus+, the Strategy was considered to have facilitated the
participation of young people in various initiatives, thus positively impacting their
personal development and growth. The two CSOs noted that these opportunities
would have not been possible or as widespread without an intervention from the EU
level – notably in the form of the EUYS.
• Finally, one CSO and one youth researcher mentioned the EUYS's added value in
promoting and improving the implementation and coherence of youth policies across
Member States. By offering a common framework and guidelines, the EUYS was
seen to have enabled countries to align and adapt their national youth strategies with
a set of shared goals and objectives, thus facilitating more coordinated and effective
implementation of youth programmes across Europe.
Cross-synthesis of results
The following section aims to synthesise and triangulate the findings across each of the
stakeholder consultation activities with regards to each of the evaluation criteria. While the
number of stakeholders consulted differs significantly across the different levels of
governance, a concerted effort was made to consult all relevant stakeholder groups.
85
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Effectiveness
The role of the EUYS in supporting youth empowerment and skill development was
highlighted across consultation activities. For example, both the CSO survey and focus
groups, as well as the youth survey, corroborate this finding. Respondents across each of the
consultation activities consistently report that their involvement in EUYS activities has resulted
in the acquisition of new skills and a deeper understanding of youth-related issues. This
positive trend points towards evidence of an impact of the EUYS in building capacities and
awareness among young people.
The effectiveness of the EUYS in addressing social and economic disparities among
youth and ensuring inclusivity of youth with fewer opportunities was also raised as
another important theme across consultations. While EU level interviews indicated that the
EUYS has been notably adept in responding to crises and advancing the green and digital
transitions among young people, concerns were raised about its effectiveness in engaging
those with fewer opportunities. This feedback is primarily sourced from EU Agencies and
international organisations, which suggested that more targeted efforts could be required to
ensure that the Strategy reaches all segments of the youth population. For example, it was
noted that the EUYS could include more inclusive strategies to better involve young people
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. However, this concern expressed by policy makers
at EU level was not confirmed or expressed by national policy makers and CSOs. This
suggests that the perceptions of policy makers at EU level, while relevant, may not necessarily
be experienced by youth policy makers and CSOs at national level.
The consultations also underscored the important role of the EUYS in fostering
collaboration and partnerships. The CSO survey and focus groups highlighted that the
EUYS has been pivotal in fostering the creation of new partnerships among organisations.
Respondents at the EU level further affirmed that the EUYS has played a crucial role in
facilitating networking between youth organisations across Europe. This thus points to the
EUYS’s potential in building a cohesive network of stakeholders dedicated to addressing
youth-related challenges. For instance, CSO respondents pointed to specific instances where
partnerships formed under the EUYS have led to joint initiatives that significantly amplified
their impact.
Efficiency
With regards to the cost-effectiveness of EUYS instruments, the CSO survey outlined
disparities in the perceived cost-effectiveness of various instruments. Erasmus+ was
identified as the most cost-effective instrument, with 60% of respondents (86 out of 144)
indicating that its benefits significantly outweighed the costs incurred for their work. In contrast,
mutual learning activities were considered less cost-effective, with only 29% of respondents
(22 out of 77) sharing the same perspective. This thus indicates varying perceptions of the
impact of different EUYS instruments on organisations' work. The CSO interviews highlighted
further concerns about the bureaucratic burden associated with applying for funding under the
Erasmus+ programme. CSOs suggested that simplifying the application processes and
enhancing communication would streamline and improve the efficiency of the EUYS. National
level interviews with policy makers echoed these sentiments, emphasising the need for greater
financial resources to support EUYS objectives through the instruments. It is important to
caveat that the views pertaining to the administrative burden for individual funding
programmes do not necessarily speak to the efficiency of the EUYS as a whole.
86
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Coherence
Stakeholders unanimously agree that there is strong internal and external coherence.
Interviews at EU level confirmed the coherence of the EUYS with other EU policies. National
stakeholders expressed that the EUYS, through the EYGs and the guiding principles, is
aligned with national level policies and that there are synergies between EU and national
policies. The CSOs consulted also confirmed that coherence is also ensured through EU
programmes. Stakeholders particularly highlighted the increased influence of the EUYS in
ensuring the coherence of EU policies with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and
Council of Europe youth-related initiatives. Nevertheless, several stakeholders interviewed at
the international level stressed that more could be done to further integrate the SDGs into the
EUYS - placing more emphasis on promoting global issues such as sustainable development,
hunger, poverty, peace and security, and strengthening its international dimension.
EU added value
Policymakers at EU and national level expressed the added value of the EUYS in terms of its
benefits in generating exchanges on youth-related issues at EU and national level, and in
mainstreaming youth policy. The breadth of the Strategy, its ability to be an overarching
framework and its capacity to mainstream youth issues were key in covering new issues in
addition to those covered at national level. Civil society organisations in the PC and online
survey also confirmed that the EUYS provides added value that Member States could not
achieve on their own.
Relevance
Among the different respondents consulted, the EUYS has received broad support and
recognition for its positive results in addressing the challenges faced by young people in the
EU.
CSOs confirmed that the EUYS has been instrumental in addressing the challenges faced
by young people, particularly in areas such as employment, education, health and social
inclusion. CSOs who were aware of the EUYS also found it highly relevant for youth
participation, social exclusion and the green transition. Awareness of the EUYS among young
people was limited but varied by age group. Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps
were among the most recognised initiatives. When young people were aware of the EUYS
instruments, they often recognised them as relevant. CSOs highlighted the role of the EUYS
in providing funding and support for youth projects and initiatives, including environmental and
sustainability programmes.
Some emerging needs of young people were identified in different consultation activities.
The Public Consultation highlighted that young people's main concerns were related to the
cost of living, mental wellbeing, and financial stability. This was also confirmed by the young
people and CSOs consulted via the online survey. CSOs emphasised the importance of tailor-
made measures to support young people in rural areas and the need for a more inclusive
approach.
87
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
4. Annex 4 – Analysis of the results of surveys among

CSOs and young people
Data collected from both surveys was analysed with Excel. Complete survey questionnaires,
including the routing employed, can be found in Annex 10.
Online survey with young people

Engagement of young people
Figure 23 Knowledge of EU Youth Strategy and youth policies in respondent’s country
Figure 24 Source of knowledge of the EU Youth Strategy and the national youth policy
88
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 25 Knowledge of EU youth initiatives
Figure 26 Source of knowledge of EU youth initiatives
89
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 27 Participation, use or consultation of EU youth initiatives
Figure 28 Awareness of EU and best-known national youth initiatives
Figure 29 Participation or use of EU and best-known national youth initiatives
90
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 30 Awareness of EU support of best-known national youth initiatives
Figure 31 Involvement in organisations at local, national and EU level
91
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 32 Type of involvement in organisations at EU, national and local level
Figure 33 Topics covered by activities of organisations at EU, national and local level
92
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 34 Results of involvement in organisations at EU, national and local level
Figure 35 Involvement in decision-making process at local, national and EU level
93
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 36 Results of involvement in the decision-making process at EU, national and local level
Connecting youth across Europe

Figure 37 Awareness of youth opportunities to study or work abroad
94
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 38 Involvement in youth opportunities to study or work abroad
Q3.2b If you were involved in Erasmus+ for another reason, please indicate it below.
Other purposes for which respondents indicated getting involved in Erasmus+ included
fundraising activities, helping others, simply for pleasure, to discover working from another
point of view, travel, local missions, mental health, or they were students at a school that was
involved in Erasmus+. Four respondents reported that they were obliged to participate in
Erasmus+ by either their parents or other entities. Three respondents claimed that they were
involved in Erasmus+ through school projects, and three others mentioned getting involved to
socialize with their peers. Two respondents indicated that they or their family received
incoming exchange students as part of Erasmus+, and two others mentioned that they
engaged in the programme out of curiosity.
Q3.2b If you were involved in DiscoverEU for another reason, please indicate it below.
Four respondents mentioned that they took part in DiscoverEU because they won the Interrail
pass that allowed them to travel through Europe for free. Four respondents indicated that they
took part out of curiosity and interest. Four other respondents indicated that they participated
in DiscoverEU to travel and discover Europe better, and to participate in cultural exchange.
Two respondents reported that they participated to help others, and two more mentioned that
they did it to engage in volunteering. Other reasons mentioned included encouraging positive
changes for youth in the future, working in another country, communicating with other young
people, and for professional reasons.
Q3.2b If you were involved in European Solidarity Corps for another reason, please
indicate it below.
Five respondents indicated that they got involved to engage in volunteering, while five others
reported participating in order to study or learn new things. Four respondents participated in
European Solidarity Corps to help others, especially those who need it the most, and to show
solidarity. Other reasons mentioned include curiosity, feeling involved, meeting new people,
and getting work experience. A respondent reported being encouraged to participate by their
family, while another one took part after receiving a recommendation from a friend.
95
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 39 Results of involvement in Erasmus+, the European Solidarity Corps and DiscoverEU
Figure 40 Barriers to taking part in youth opportunities to study or work abroad
96
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 41 Perception of sufficient opportunities to study or work abroad through EU programmes
Empowering youth via youth work

Figure 42 Awareness of youth work opportunities
Figure 43 Looking for youth work opportunities
97
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 44 Involvement in youth work
Figure 45 Validation of learning outcomes of youth work
98
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 46 Usefulness of youth work
99
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Needs of young people in your country

Figure 47 Youth needs at the national level perceived by young people
Figure 48 Effectiveness of organisations in addressing youth needs
100
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 49 Youth needs addressed by different institutions
Figure 50 Importance of issues to youth
101
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 51 Factors affecting youth
Figure 52 Perception of the EU’s response to possible consequences of the war in Ukraine
102
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 53 Extent to which youth issues were addressed during the COVID-19 pandemic
Figure 54 Initiatives that helped youth during the COVID-19 pandemic
103
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 55 Progress in initiatives to address youth needs
Online survey with CSOs, youth researchers and youth groups

Awareness and use of the EU Youth Strategy and its tools
Figure 56 Awareness of the EU Youth Strategy and existing national youth policies
104
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 57 Awareness of the EU Youth Strategy’s tools and instruments
Figure 58 Participation and use of EUYS instruments
105
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 59 Complementarity between EUYS instruments and national initiatives
Figure 60 Main issues associated with the implementation of EUYS activities
Q2.5b Please specify what other issues were associated with the implementation of:
• The Mutual learning activities: two other issues associated with the implementation
of the Mutual learning activities, according to the survey respondents, were limited
human resources, and a difficulty for young users to use this tool.
106
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
• The EU-CoE youth partnership: two other issues associated with the implementation
of the EU-CoE youth partnership related to difficult admission to the networks, as well
as a lack of support for the sustainability of organisations.
• The EU Work Plans for youth: an issue mentioned by a respondent related to a lack
of knowledge and awareness of the plans, as they viewed that these plans only
remained on paper and it was not clear how they could be implemented. Another issue
reported related to a considerable gap between the local and EU dimensions of youth
policy.
• The EU Youth Dialogue: one other issue mentioned regarding the implementation of
the EU Youth Dialogue related to the inability of non-EU countries to participate or
being able to participate in only a very limited capacity. On another note, a respondent
reported that the system does not properly consider the needs of international youth
organisations, as they do not receive funding, and there are no clear avenues to make
an impact. Another respondent pointed out that the awareness of EU policies, as well
as the perception of the importance of youth participation, vary greatly across young
people, and are considerably lower among young people coming from disadvantaged
areas. Furthermore, they indicated that involving policy makers can take significant
time, resources, and energy, and yield disappointing results. Lastly, a respondent
mentioned a general lack of interest from young people to participate in the EU Youth
Dialogue.
• The European Youth Portal: several additional issues were identified by survey
respondents, such as an overwhelming number of platforms, difficulties with accessing
the portal as well as with using it due to its non-intuitive nature, it not being up-to-date
or used by all players, it not matching the needs of young people, as well as it not
encouraging direct action from civil society and other organisations. A respondent
indicated that the platform often malfunctions. Respondents also mentioned a lack of
understanding by young people of the activities that they are trying to participate in, as
well as little awareness of the opportunities available and a hesitancy to participate in
them. Furthermore, respondents noted language barriers, as sub-pages are not
always available in all languages and translations are not always accurate. A
respondent reported that the portal was more focused on youth with higher
qualifications, meaning that it does not always apply to their activities.
• The EUYS Platform: one other issue mentioned by a respondent was a lack of
coordination and use of this platform by the European Commission.
• The Evidence-based tools: the main additional issue mentioned by respondents with
respect to the implementation of the Evidence-based tools was the lack of awareness
among the population, as well as experts in the field, of their existence. Moreover, a
respondent reported that information about undergoing activities was difficult to find
and often not up to date, in addition to the outcomes and results of this activity not
being fully clear.
• The Future National Activities Planners: regarding other issues with the
implementation of the Future National Activities Planners, a respondent reported that
while the FNAPs contain a lot of information, it does not get used. In their view, this is
particularly frustrating because it requires a lot of work from Member States and the
organisations consulted to fil in the FNAPs. Furthermore, they considered the tool in
which the FNAPs get filled in as user unfriendly, as the format was difficult to read and
overloaded with information.
• The EU Youth Coordinator: some additional issues mentioned by a respondent with
regards to the implementation of the EU Youth Coordinator included challenges in
coordinating policies across different Member States, ensuring effective
communication with diverse youth groups, and securing sufficient funding for youth
programs and initiatives. Moreover, the respondent expressed concerns about the EU
107
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Youth Coordinator’s ability to balance the priorities of various stakeholders and

ensuring that the role had adequate authority to make meaningful changes.
• Erasmus+: some other issues associated with the implementation of Erasmus+
mentioned by respondents included very limited resources, too little participation from
underprivileged groups, difficulty to access the funds even for well-structured
organisations, difficult financial management, improper use of funds and unclear goals
of the projects, and a need for better mechanisms to support member organisations in
non-Erasmus+ countries. A respondent reported that there was an uneven distribution
of funds between partners, while two others indicated that partners were unreliable or
that some partnerships lacked quality. Another respondent mentioned that Erasmus+
remained problematic in their country because it was viewed differently by the state
than by higher education institutions. Furthermore, a respondent pointed out that while
Erasmus+ decision makers used their knowledge of pedagogy, they often failed to
understand the special needs associated with working with poor, unemployed or
disabled young people, or those with mental health issues, who require a different
approach. Lastly, a respondent indicated that young people often considered youth
exchanges as a holiday opportunity, while group leaders often lacked the necessary
experience.
• The European Solidarity Corps: other issues mentioned by survey respondents
regarding the implementation of the European Solidarity Corps included an improper
use of the funds, projects without proper goals, as well as a need for better
mechanisms to support member organisations and people from partner countries. A
respondent reported that there were insufficient resources for training the volunteers
on useful skills for their future, as only costs for the volunteers themselves were
funded. Another respondent pointed out that some volunteers only participated in the
programme to fill in time and discover themselves, without a strong commitment for
the cause or a strong willingness to learn. Finally, a respondent mentioned
administrative delays, difficulties in matching volunteers with suitable projects, and
challenges in ensuring the quality and impact of the projects. They also expressed
concerns about funding and resource allocation to support the program effectively.
• The European Youth Work Agenda: respondents mentioned the lack of a national
framework for youth in their country, low commitment at national level and low interest
in implementing the agenda at national level, as well as a lack of opportunities
dedicated to processing it. One respondent indicated that it was a top-down process
requiring a lot of work, with little to no practical value for stakeholders on the ground.
Figure 61 Difficulties with grant management under Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps
108
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 62 Extent to which the benefits associated with EUYS instruments outweighed the costs
Figure 63 Proportionality of the administrative burden associated with involvement in activities

under the EUYS to their benefits
Q2.8 If relevant, please specify the factors that have helped or hindered you, in your
work, from using any of the initiatives and tools of the EU Youth Strategy in your
country.
Respondents mentioned several factors that hindered them in their work from using the
initiatives and tools of the EU Youth Strategy in their country. These included:
• limited human, financial and time resources;
• limited awareness and low visibility of the tools at the EU or national level, sometimes
even for experts in the field;
• limited interest;
• language barriers for those not entirely fluent in English;
109
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
• a bureaucratic approach to youth;

• a high level of prior knowledge or experience being required for project applications;
• a high administrative burden that is hardly feasible for one-time applicants;
• low availability of information on participation opportunities and their benefits;
• a lack of good advice on the application process;
• the rigidity of the campaigns, which makes it more difficult to obtain funds for projects;
• low user-friendliness of the IT tools, websites and online platforms associated with
some of the initiatives;
• low adherence to deadlines stated in the project guides by the European Commission
and National Agencies, which puts organisations in a difficult position due to delays,
information not being available on time, access to beneficiary tools not being provided
on time, and funding not being available on time;
• limited involvement of youth NGOs, as most of the rules and regulations cut small
NGOs out of the programmes;
• the funding granted often not being representative of the real costs of the project, and
not adapted to the staff costs and salaries in some countries;
• a lack of national funding for NGOs developing youth activities;
• fragmented databases leading to administrative burdens;
• a complicated application process which many young people may find too difficult to
navigate, especially when competing with experienced organisations; and
• a lack of support from national governments or national agencies that would
complement the funding provided under these programmes by the EU.
Factors that have helped the respondents in using the initiatives and tools of the EU Youth
Strategy in their country included:
• being active in public administration, as this was helpful in obtaining and accessing
information about the programmes, their tools and their aims;
• the topics, organisation and professionalism of the EU-CoE youth partnership;
• supportive local governments that are open to youth work and make projects easier to
manage by e.g., providing free space for activities;
• helpful and supportive national agencies;
• a positive approach of the national administration towards the EU Youth Strategy; and
• being contacted by the European Commission and other stakeholders to participate in
some of the activities.
work, from using any of the initiatives and tools of the EU Youth Strategy in the EU or
beyond.
The factors that have hindered respondents from using the initiatives and tools of the EU Youth
Strategy in the EU or beyond included:
• limited human, financial and resources, as well as the uncertainty of return on the time
invested in applications;
• language barriers and complicated formulations in the documentation, which some
organisations do not have the resources to invest in understanding;
• difficult financial management systems;
• high administrative burdens for small organisations;
• low visibility, awareness and information on the different opportunities;
• hostility of national governments towards the programmes;
• rigid budgets that only allow spending on certain things (e.g., flights instead of train
travel);
• Member States not following up on the initiatives they have committed to, creating a
barrier to trust and involvement;
110
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
• a lack of national engagement in youth policy and youth work;

• the funding provided not being representative of the real cost of the projects, especially
so when related to projects with disadvantaged types of youth, e.g., those with a
disability;
• low funding provided by the national agencies to complement the funds provided at
EU level;
• complicated and faulty monitoring and reporting platforms;
• difficulty in finding trustworthy and devoted partners beyond the EU;
• little support at the implementation phase and almost none at the reporting phase; and
• a lack of interest by young people to participate in political processes, which hinders
organisations from investing time to research opportunities.
Respondents also mentioned some factors that helped them in using the initiatives and tools
of the EU Youth Strategy in the EU or beyond. These included:
• bilateral support from Member States;
• support and positive assistance at national level, especially from national agencies;
• the introduction of the Quality Label and Accreditation system, which guaranteed
organisations funding, allowing them to provide their staff with comfortable working
conditions and long-lasting contracts;
• local stakeholders and sponsors;
• national agencies or other entities giving information sessions or discussion forums
providing information on the initiatives;
• exchange of practices and knowledge;
• clear information on existing platforms and guides;
• the online systems in place;
• a high interest among young people for volunteering and exchanges; and
• receiving direct communication from the European Commission to raise awareness
about specific initiatives and tools.
111
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Relevance of the EU Youth Strategy

Figure 64 Relevance of the EU Youth Strategy for addressing the challenges faced by young people
in the EU and in their country
112
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 65 Issues important to young people in the EU and in their country
Q3.4 What do you think are the future challenges for young people in the EU, based on
your experience or research?
The survey respondents reported several future challenges for young people in the EU. These
included:
• climate change, green transition and nature protection (mentioned by 33 respondents);
• mental health (mentioned by 25 respondents);
• poverty and cost of living, including affordable housing (mentioned by 14 respondents);
• digital transition and AI, including online privacy, cyber security and web consumption
(mentioned by 14 respondents);
• youth unemployment (mentioned by 12 respondents);
• youth professional fulfilment, including quality work for youth, good salaries, and no
unpaid internships (mentioned by 10 respondents);
113
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
• youth participation in politics and involvement in decision-making processes

• social cohesion and inclusion (mentioned by 9 respondents);
• rise of extremism, radical movements and polarisation (mentioned by 8 respondents);
• discrimination (mentioned by 8 respondents);
• education, including discrimination and segregation in education, as well as building
flexible skillsets (mentioned by 7 respondents);
• inflation and economic stability (mentioned by 6 respondents);
• migration (mentioned by 5 respondents);
• unequal distribution of wealth and increasing inequality (mentioned by 4 respondents);
• rule of law, social justice, free speech and human rights, including LGBTQ rights
• peace and security at home, in Europe and in the world (mentioned by 3 respondents);
• public health (mentioned by 3 respondents);
• social contact and behaviour offline, e.g., lack of social skills, building healthy
relationships (mentioned by 3 respondents);
• intergenerational divide (mentioned by 3 respondents);
• disinformation (mentioned by 2 respondents);
• democratic backsliding (mentioned by 2 respondents);
• welfare systems, including pensions and disability allowances (mentioned by 2
respondents);
• losing sense of identity (mentioned by 2 respondents);
• gender inequality;
• overconsumption;
• increase in monopolies;
• shrinking civic space;
• mother tongue literacy;
• rural / urban divide; and
• food and energy security.
Q3.6 What do you think are the future challenges ahead for young people in your
country, based on your experience or research?
According to the survey respondents, the following items represent future challenges for young
people in their country:
• climate change, green transition and nature protection (mentioned by 36 respondents);
• mental health (mentioned by 30 respondents);
• youth unemployment (mentioned by 23 respondents);
• poverty, cost of living and financial stability, including affordable housing (mentioned
by 18 respondents);
• migration, both into and out of the country (mentioned by 13 respondents);
• education, including recognition of competences, as well as building flexible skillsets
• digital transition and AI, including online privacy, cyber security, web consumption and
the digital divide (mentioned by 9 respondents);
• youth professional fulfilment, including quality work for youth, good salaries, and no
unpaid internships (mentioned by 8 respondents);
• rise of extremism, radical movements and polarisation (mentioned by 8 respondents);
• social cohesion and inclusion (mentioned by 8 respondents);
• youth participation in politics and involvement in decision-making processes
• public health (mentioned by 7 respondents);
• demographic change, including aging of society (mentioned by 6 respondents);
114
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
• inflation and economic stability (mentioned by 6 respondents);

• welfare systems, including pensions (mentioned by 4 respondents);
• social contact and behaviour offline, e.g., lack of social skills, building healthy
relationships (mentioned by 4 respondents);
• peace and security at home, in Europe and in the world (mentioned by 4 respondents);
• discrimination (mentioned by 4 respondents);
• energy security (mentioned by 3 respondents);
• intergenerational divide (mentioned by 3 respondents);
• disinformation (mentioned by 2 respondents);
• losing sense of identity (mentioned by 2 respondents);
• corruption (mentioned by 2 respondents);
• rule of law, social justice, free speech and human rights, including LGBTQ rights
• brain drain (mentioned by 2 respondents);
• unequal distribution of wealth and increasing inequality;
• rural / urban divide;
• quality of life; and
• gender-based violence.
Figure 66 Adaptability of EUYS instruments to evolving contexts
115
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Perceptions on results stemming from the EU Youth Strategy

Figure 67 Extent to which EUYS instruments achieved the European Youth Goals
Figure 68 Extent to which the European Youth Strategy fostered youth principles in the EU and at
the national level
116
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 69 EUYS activities bringing young people together
Figure 70 Usefulness of EUYS activities for work with young people
Figure 71 Youth engagement fostered by the EU Youth Strategy
117
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 72 The EU Youth Strategy’s help in fostering youth empowerment
Figure 73 Usefulness of the EUYS’ results for work with young people
118
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 74 The EUYS’ support of youth empowerment through quality, innovation and recognition of
youth work
Figure 75 Usefulness of the EUYS’ support of youth empowerment for work with young people
EU Youth Strategy supporting other EU or national policies

Figure 76 Complementarities between the EUYS and other areas
119
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 77 Complementarity of the EUYS’ core areas and instruments
Figure 78 Contribution of the EUYS to improved youth policies at national level
120
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 79 Complementarities and overlaps between the EUYS and the 2022 European Year of
Youth
Figure 80 Contribution of the 2022 European Year of Youth to the relevance of the EUYS
Figure 81 Relevance of EUYS instruments to the needs of (research) organisations
121
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
EU added value of the EU Youth Strategy

Figure 82 Additional support provided by the EUYS for work with young people across the EU and at
national level
Figure 83 Degree to which better engagement, increasing connection and empowerment of youth
could have been achieved in the EU or at national level without the support of the EUYS
122
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 84 Extent to which the support provided through EUYS instruments has supported
cooperation on youth issues
Figure 85 Additional support provided by the EUYS to engage and motivate stakeholders in youth
policies at national level
Figure 86 Extent to which the 2022 European Year of Youth boosted the EUYS’ aims to engage,
connect and empower young people in the EU and at national level
123
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
5. Annex 5 - Public Consultation Analysis
Objectives of the consultation

As part of the interim evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy 2019 – 2027, a Public Consultation
(PC) was designed and carried out. The PC was launched on 26th of April 2023 and remained
open for responses until the 2nd of August 2023. A total of 224 responses were received.
As per the Better Regulation Guidelines96, the responses were checked for the presence of
campaigns or coordinated answers that could skew the overall answers per question. Upon
review, no campaigns were identified. It is important to note that some sections are specific to
certain stakeholder groups therefore each question has its own specific response rate
(indicated by “N”) which discounts the respondents who did not answer or was not relevant for
them to answer. Therefore, not all respondents (224) answered all of the questions.
The PC was structured across five main categories – [1] profiling questions, [2] questions open
to all respondents, [3] questions for youth, [4] stakeholder-specific questions and, finally, [5]
closing questions. The following sections will provide a summary of the responses across each
section.
Profiling questions
This section aims to explore the key information on the demographics of the respondents.
Namely, questions relate to the type of stakeholder they are and their country of origin, paired
with some questions that are stakeholder-specific, such as questions on the respondents’ age,
gender, employment status, or on their organisation’s level of governance or size.
Language of contributions
Respondents were able to complete the survey in any EU language. The largest respondent
group chose to answer in English (27% - 61 out of 224), followed by Spanish (20% - 46 out of
224) and French (12% - 26 out of 224).
96
BRG Tool Box, Tool #54. As a rule of thumb, the minimum threshold should be 10 or more identical responses (across all the
closed questions) to count as a ‘campaign’
124
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 87 Language of contribution (N=224)
Type of stakeholder
Respondents were asked to indicate the type of stakeholder they represent. Two main groups
emerged from the responses: those answering as EU citizens (54% - 120 of 224) and those
answering as a non-governmental organisation (20% - 45 out of 224). The smallest group
stakeholder comprised company/business (one response).
Figure 88 Stakeholder categories (N=224)
Scope
Respondents identifying as a public authority were asked to further indicate the scope of their
public authority’s jurisdiction. The largest segment (37% - six out of 16) reported their
authority’s activity at the local level, followed by those whose public authority operates at the
national level (31% - five out of 16).
125
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 89 Scope (N=16)
Level of governance
Respondents who specified their public authority’s activity at the local level were subsequently
asked about the authority’s governance structure. Most respondents (67% - four out of six
respondents) answered as a local authority, while the remaining (33% - two out of six
respondents) indicated that they were a local agency. Those who answered as a public
authority at the local level were also asked about their level of governance. The majority of
them (62% - 5 out of 8) indicated they worked at the Parliament level.
Figure 90 Level of governance 1 (N=6) and 2 (N=8)
Organisation size
Respondents identifying themselves as stakeholders from NGOs, public authorities,

academic/research institutions, business associations, companies, or those who selected the
‘other’ option were asked to specify their organisation’s size. The larger portion (31% - 28 out
of 91) indicated membership/working in organisations having 1 to 9 employees, followed by
respondents (26% - 24 out of 91) indicating membership/working in organisations with 250 or
more employees.
126
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 91 Organisation size (N=91)
Geographic coverage
Respondents were requested to specify their country of origin. The largest group (23% - 52
out of 224) comes from Spain, followed by France (9% - 20 out of 224) and Germany (6% -
17 out of 224).
Figure 92 Geographic coverage (N=224)
Respondents who identified themselves as EU/non-EU citizens (133 respondents) were

presented with an additional background question on their age.
127
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Age
In terms of their age, 38% (51 out of 133) of respondents reported being between 18 and 23
years old, followed by 26% (24 out of 133) of respondents who are between 24 and 29 years
old. Notably, only 4% (5 out of 133) of respondents who completed the survey are between
13 and 17 years old.
Figure 93 How old are you? (N=133)
As an additional subset, respondents who chose all age options between 13 years old and 35
years old (76% - 101 out of 133) were presented with the following questions about gender,
highest level of education attained at the time of survey completion, and their current
employment status.
Gender
Within the respondents there was an even gender split between females (48% - 49 out of 101)
and males (45% - 45 out of 101). Only 7% (7 out of 101) of respondents preferred not to say
or identified in another way.
Figure 94 I identify as… (N=101)
Level of education
The highest level of education attained by respondents at the time of survey completion is for
the majority (60% - 60 out of 101) university studies (comprising bachelor’s and master’s
degrees). This is followed by respondents who have achieved post-secondary education (18%
- 18 out of 101) and secondary education (16% - 16 out of 101).
128
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 95 What is the highest education level you have achieved to date? (N=101)
Employment status
Most of the respondents (49% - 49 out of 101) were students, followed by full-time workers
(22% - 22 out of 101). Additionally, there were equal numbers of unemployed respondents
(8% - 8 out of 101) and part-time workers (8% - 8 out of 101). Business owners/self-employed
freelancers represent the minority (2% - 2 out of 101).
Figure 96 What is your current working status? (N=101)
As emerged from the previous figures, it is important to note three considerations within the
survey's context that could potentially impact the results: firstly, EU citizens constitute the
majority of respondents across stakeholder types (54% - 120 out of 224); secondly, there is a
significant number of respondents from Spain (23% - 52 out of 224); lastly, in terms of
education level, there is a notable representation of university students (60% - 49 out of 101).
Questions open to all respondents

This section is designed to explore general questions concerning the challenges encountered
by young people, the roles played by both the EU and individual countries in addressing these
challenges, respondents' familiarity with the EU Youth Strategy, their awareness of the
instruments within the Strategy and, finally, their perceived level of youth involvement in its
implementation. It is important to note that this section is open to all respondents.
Challenges faced by young people
The challenge most frequently cited as facing young people between 2019 and 2022 was the
impact of the cost-of-living crisis (95% - 213 out of 224 respondents identified it as a
challenge). It was followed by mental well-being (91% - 204 out of 224) and financial stability
(90% - 197 out of 224). While these three issues were recognised as challenges faced by
129
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
young people consistently across all stakeholder groups, without significant variations based
on respondent types, EU citizens, constituting 54% (120 out of 224) of all respondents,
demonstrated the highest levels of agreement with all three challenges.
Given the substantial number of EU citizens, this stakeholder group also displayed the
greatest proportions of disagreement and strong disagreement. Notably, the two options that
ranked as the least likely challenges faced by youth — limited access to green transportation,
such as public transport or bike lanes and limited access to digital technologies — were
identified as such mostly by EU citizens. Specifically, 54% (120 out of 224) of the
disagreements regarding limited access to green transportation were expressed by EU
citizens, while 68% of the disagreements (152 out of 224) about limited access to digital
technologies also came from EU citizens.
Figure 97 Do you agree that the options stated below were challenges that young people faced
between 2019 and 2022? Multiple choices possible (N=224)
EU and national contribution in mitigating the listed challenges
Regarding the contribution of the EU and the respondents’ respective countries in mitigating
these challenges, the survey revealed that both the EU and the respondents' respective
countries have primarily helped in tackling the challenge of limited access to green
transportation, such as public transport or bike lanes and limited access to digital technologies
(24% - 54 out of 224 of total responses for both challenges), followed by access to public
services (22% - 50 out of 224) and youth unemployment (21% - 48 out of 224).
Conversely, the primary contribution from the EU alone was found to be in mitigating barriers
to learning mobility (19% - 46 out of 239), closely followed by barriers to youth participation
(14% - 38 out of 224). Regarding respondents’ types, the effectiveness of the EU's efforts in
alleviating barriers to learning mobility was particularly acknowledged by EU citizens (41% -
97 out of 239) and NGOs (37% - 88 out of 239).
130
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 98 Do you believe that the EU or your country have helped to mitigate the challenges that
young people faced between 2019 and 2022? Multiple choices possible (N=224)
Familiarity with the EU Youth Strategy
In terms of respondents’ familiarity with the EU Youth Strategy, 45% (60 out of 132) of
stakeholders indicated that they were familiar with it, followed by stakeholders who were
familiar with it to a limited extent only (28 - 38 out of 132). Respondents who were familiar with
the Strategy to a great extent mostly pertained to the stakeholder group of NGOs (46% - 8 out
of 19). The stakeholder group most familiar with it to a certain extent and to a limited extent
comprised EU citizens (respectively, 49% - 20 out of 41, and 63% - 24 out of 38).
Within EU citizens, awareness of the strategy was most prominent among stakeholders
between 18 and 23 years old, as well as between 24 and 29 years old, and those above 36
years old. While the majority of stakeholders between 18 and 23 years old and between 24
and 29 years old were familiar with the Strategy to a limited extent, most respondents above
36 years old were acquainted with it to a certain extent.
Figure 99 How familiar are you with the EU Youth Strategy? (N=132)
131
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 100 Familiarity of the EU Youth Strategy by stakeholder (N=101) and age (N=101)
Awareness of the instruments of the EU Youth Strategy
The instrument of the EU Youth Strategy that respondents were most aware of is Erasmus+
(95% - 169 out of 178 respondents were aware of it to a great/ certain extent). It is followed
by the European Solidarity Corps, (57% - 143 out of 178 respondents were aware of it to a
great extent) and the European Youth Portal, (49% - 130 out of 178 respondents were aware
of it to a great extent).
Both Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps were mostly known to a great extent
among EU citizens, (respectively, 47% - 82 out of 178, and 42% - 75 out of 178). Within EU
citizens, they were predominantly recognised by the age group between 18 and 23 years old.
By contrast, evidence-based tools and the EU Youth Coordinator were mostly known to a
great extent by NGOs, (respectively, 36% - 64 out of 178, and 47% - 84 out of 178).
Figure 101 How aware are you of the following instruments associated with the EU Youth Strategy?
(N=178)
Engagement of young people in the implementation of the EU Youth Strategy
Most respondents (41% - 74 out of 178) believe that young people's engagement in the
implementation of the EU Youth Strategy has been limited. Within this category, both EU
citizens and NGOs stand out as the two primary stakeholder groups that perceive young
people's involvement to be at a limited extent. Notably, EU citizens constitute the stakeholder
group with the highest proportion of responses indicating that young people have not been
132
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
engaged at all in the implementation of the EU Youth Strategy (70% - 18 out of 27). Within
this specific group, the sentiment is particularly strong among individuals aged 24 to 29.
Conversely, those aged between 18 and 23 tend to believe that young people have been
involved to a limited extent.
Figure 102 Do you think that young people have been sufficiently enaged in the implementation of
the EU Youth Strategy? (N=178)
Questions for youth

This section was open only to respondents who identified themselves as EU/non-EU citizens
and who indicated to be within one of the four age groups between 13 and 35 years old. The
purpose of this section is to determine whether respondents participated in the instruments of
the EU Youth Strategy, the reasons therefor, and whether they are aware of/participated in
the national youth strategy in their respective country. If they participated in it, the section also
aims to ascertain whether it was in the context of the 2022 European Year of Youth.
Participation in instruments of the EU Youth Strategy
Respondents mostly took part/made use of the European Youth Portal (63% - 45 out of 71),
followed by Erasmus+ (49% - 43 out of 71) and Evidence-based tools (25% - 18 out of 71).
Across all instruments, the age groups most actively involved were those between 18 and 23
years old, followed by individuals aged 24 to 29. The EU Youth Coordinator, the instrument
with the lowest utilisation (4% - 3 out of 71), is exclusively used by individuals within the age
group of 18 to 23 years old.
133
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 103 Have you taken part in or made use of any of the EU Youth Strategy instruments you are
familiar with? (N=71)
Respondents indicated that they mostly took part in/made use of the aforementioned EU Youth
Strategy instrument(s) for personal development (51% - 34 out of 67), followed by education
(46% - 33 out of 71), and curiosity (42% - 23 out of 71).
Figure 104 If you took part in/made use of any of the above EU Youth Stratagey instrument(s), why
did you do so? Multiple choices possible (N=67)
National youth strategies
Most respondents (62% - 63 out of 101) reported that they have not heard of a youth strategy
in their respective countries, while only 23% of respondents (23 out of 101) reported that they
have heard of it, and up to 15% of respondents (15 out of 101) did not know.
Among the stakeholders who have heard of the strategy, it is primarily individuals in the age
group between 24 and 29 years old who have heard of their respective national strategies
(40% - 40 out of 101). In comparison, as detailed in Figure 100, only 8% (8 out of 101) of
respondents who identified as EU citizens were aware of the EUYS to a great extent. This
percentage rises to almost 35% (35 out of 101) if EU citizens who indicated partial awareness
of the EUYS were also included. Therefore, proportionally, EU citizens displayed a greater
awareness of national youth strategies that they did of the EUYS.
134
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Furthermore, awareness of the EUYS stood out notably among stakeholder aged 18 to 23 and
24 to 29. This signifies that while individuals ages 24 to 29 equally recognise both national
strategies and the EUYS, the EUYS has also made a mark in terms of recognition among
stakeholders aged 18 to 23, distinguishing itself from national youth strategies.
Figure 105 Have you ever heard of a youth strategy in your country? (N=101)
The majority of respondents (56% - 57 out of 101) did not participate in any youth-focused
and/or youth work-focused initiatives/activities organised in their country. Among the
respondents who have participated in such initiatives/activities (32% - 32 out of 101), most of
them are in the age group between 18 and 23 years old (50% - 50 out of 101), while the
remaining participants are almost evenly divided between respondents between 24 and 29
years old and respondents between 30 and 35 years old.
Figure 106 Did you participate in any youth-focussed and/or youth work-focussed
initiatives/activities organised in your country, region or local area in 2022? (N=101)
For respondents who answered that they participated in youth-focused and/or youth work-
focused initiatives/activities organised in their country, the survey further inquired about
whether said initiative/activity took place in the context of the 2022 European Year of Youth.
28% (nine out of 32) of respondents took part in the activity in the context of the 2022 European
Year of Youth, whilst 53% (17 out of 32) of respondents did not take part in it in the context of
the 2022 European Year of Youth. The remaining respondents (19% - six out of 32) did not
know whether they took part in it in the context of the 2022 European Year of Youth.
135
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 107 Was the activity you took part in connected with the European Year of Youth 2022?
(N=32)
Stakeholder-specific questions
This section was open only to stakeholders who did not identify themselves as EU/non-EU
citizens. The purpose of this section is to determine whether respondents are aware of
whether their countries have national youth strategies, whether the EU Youth Strategy has
assisted national or regional policymakers in their work, youth policy cooperation between
Member States, coherence and complementarity of the instruments of the EU Youth Strategy
with other instruments at the international and national levels, and the EU added value of the
EU Youth Strategy.
National youth strategies
For this question, which was open only to respondents who indicated they are public
authorities, twelve of them indicated that their country currently has a youth strategy. Among
public authorities responding that their country has a national youth strategy, five of them are
located at the national level. Among the remaining respondents, three of them did not know
whether their country has a national youth strategy, while one of them responded that their
country does not have a national youth strategy.
Figure 108 Does your country currently have a national youth strategy? (N=15)
Regarding the awareness of national youth strategies among public authorities, only 9
countries had public authorities who are knowledgeable about the presence of such strategies
in their respective nations. Notably, Spain stands out in this context, with 3 stakeholders
136
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
confirming the existence of a youth strategy. However, it is worth noting that Spain is unique
in that another public authority within the country indicated the absence of a youth strategy.
Figure 109 Country variations on Figure 108 (N=15)
Assistance of the EU Youth Strategy to national or regional policymakers
For this question, which was open only to respondents who indicated that they are public
authorities, 37% of respondents (six out of 16) found that the EU Youth Strategy has assisted
them as national or regional policymakers in their daily work to a great/certain extent. Those
respondents who found this assistance were evenly distributed among public authorities at
the local, national, regional, and international levels.
Figure 110 How much has the EU Youth Strategy assisted you as a national or regional policymaker
in your daily work? (N=16)
In terms of countries where the EU Youth Strategy is considered to have aided national or
regional policy makers in their daily work, Spain stood out, with two stakeholders indicating it
has helped them to a great/certain extent. Belgium had two public authorities reporting
assistance of the EU Youth Strategy only to a certain extent, while Italy and Georgia each had
one stakeholder acknowledging a certain degree of support. Additionally, Portugal and
Switzerland each counted one public authority stating that the Strategy provided limited
assistance. In the case of Finland, one public authority mentioned that the EU Youth Strategy
has not helped them at all.
137
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 111 Country variations on Figure 109 (N=15)
Youth policy cooperation between Member States
Most of the respondents (44% - 40 out of 91) reported that youth policy cooperation between
Member States has been effective to a great/certain extent. Among these respondents, the
majority (54%, 60 out of 91) were NGOs. Conversely, 33% (30 out of 91) of respondents found
youth policy cooperation between Member States effective only to a limited extent. The
majority of these respondents were also NGOs (63% - 69 out of 101).
Figure 112 How effective has youth policy cooperation between member States (supported by the
EU Youth Strategy) been over 2019-2022? (N=91)
In terms of countries where youth policy cooperation between Member States (supported by
the EU Youth Strategy) over 2019-2022 was found to be effective to a great extent, France,
Portugal and Romania each had one public authority endorsing the significant efficacy of youth
cooperation among Member States, while for Spain two public authorities expressed this view.
Regarding a moderate level of effectiveness, 11 public authorities from Spain expressed this
view, followed by Belgium with seven, and Germany with four. Similarly, Austria and Portugal
each had two public authorities asserting the same view point. For cases where effectiveness
was perceived as limited, six public authorities from Spain shared this perception, followed by
Italy with four instances. Lastly, in instances where no effectiveness was perceived, a single
public authority from Germany held this viewpoint.
Coherence and complementarity of the instruments of the EU Youth Strategy
Most of the respondents (70% - 63 out of 91) reported that the instruments of the EU Youth
Strategy are coherent and complementary to instruments and strategies at the
138
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
international/national level to a great/certain extent. Among these respondents, the majority

(62% - 56 out of 91) are NGOs.
Figure 113 To what extent are the instruments of the EU Youth Strategy coherent with and
complementary to instruments and strategies at international/national level? (N=91)
The respondents who found that the instruments of the EU Youth Strategy to be coherent and
complementary to other instruments and strategies at the international/national level to a great
extent came from Spain (four respondents), Sweden (three respondents) and Belgium,
Germany, Hungary, Portugal and Romania, (one respondent each).
For what concerns public authorities that only saw the instruments of the EU Youth Strategy
to be complementary to international/national level strategies and instruments to a certain
extent, 12 of them came from Spain, 11 from Belgium, six from Austria, four from Germany,
three from France, while several other countries counted one or two public authorities
asserting the same. A limited extent of complementarity between the instruments of the EU
Youth Strategy and national and international instruments and strategies was also recognised
by the remaining respondents from Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Serbia
and Spain, (almost one public authority each). Finally, the EU Youth Strategy’s instruments
were found not to be complementary at all with national and international strategies and
instruments by two public authorities, respectively one from Croatia and one from France.
EU added value of the EU Youth Strategy
Most of the respondents (46% - 41 out of 91) of respondents indicated that the EU Youth
Strategy has provided additional value beyond what Member States could have achieved on
their own to a certain extent. Within this group, the majority (57% - 52 out of 91) are NGOs.
139
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Figure 114 To what extent has the EU Youth Strategy provided additional value to what Member
States could have achieved on their own? (N=91)
Closing questions
Finally, all stakeholders were asked some concluding questions, most notably regarding their
ideas on how the EU Youth Strategy could be improved to better support the needs and
aspirations of young people in Europe. They were also invited to provide any further comments
within the scope of the survey. Different common themes emerged among youth and all other
stakeholders. The figure below presents the top three overarching themes which were raised
by respondents to the final closing question of the public consultation.
Figure 115 Three top overarching themes from respondents
Common themes that emerged from youth
The youth stakeholders brought forth several key themes and areas for improvement.
‒ Youth underlined the necessity for tailored support programmes, shedding light
on the crucial task of meeting the diverse needs of disadvantaged and
marginalised youth, including minorities, migrants, and LGBTQ+ individuals. They
advocated for specific measures that would enhance their access to education,
employment, healthcare, and social services. Youth also called for meaningful
140
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
representation and participation of all young individuals, particularly those from

vulnerable and marginalised groups. They stressed the need of engaging a diverse
spectrum of young voices to ensure inclusivity. Moreover, the need to bridge
geographical and communal gaps was acknowledged, with a focus on dismantling
barriers to access information, resources, and opportunities, especially in rural locales.
‒ Youth emphasised their desire for the strategy to provide increased avenues for
honing active citizenship skills. They proposed initiatives encompassing educational
programs on democratic participation, human rights, civil society engagement,
environmental protection, and social justice. They also stressed the importance of
addressing mental health, stress management, relationship skills, and bullying
prevention, and suggested incorporating programs aimed at nurturing their emotional
and social well-being.
‒ Youth also underscored the importance to foster environmental awareness and
sustainability, calling for educational programs, opportunities for engagement in
environmental projects, and promotion of eco-friendly practices.
‒ Additionally, the respondents recommended the expansion of job and internship
opportunities to elevate the employability of youth. They advocated for collaborative
efforts with employers to enhance work experiences and offer avenues for professional
growth.
‒ The youth stakeholders also proposed the seamless integration of the EU Youth
Strategy with existing youth programmes, such as Erasmus+ and European
Voluntary Service. There should be stronger thematic coherence between the EU Youth
Strategy and the EU youth programs Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps, which
serve as implementation instruments for the youth strategy. This coherence would
involve aligning the programs, sometimes in terms of content, with the Strategy's
priorities. These priorities address topics of significant relevance for young people,
including inclusion and diversity, digitization, environmental and climate protection, and
participation. Creating synergies with existing programs like Erasmus+ and European
Voluntary Service can effectively broaden the array of opportunities available to young
people and enhance the overall coherency of the EU's youth policies.
‒ The significance of effective communication and marketing strategies to heighten
awareness of the EU Youth Strategy among their peers was also raised. The
importance of adaptability to evolving circumstances and emerging developments was
emphasised, with a view to ensuring the continued relevance and effectiveness of the
strategy over time.
Common themes that emerged from other stakeholders
A series of themes also emerged from the responses of all other stakeholders.
‒ Several respondents highlighted the need to elevate awareness and

communication about the EU Youth Strategy. Their suggestions encompassed the
importance of better promotion, particularly targeting young individuals and using youth-
friendly language, initiating outreach through schools and youth centres, and enhancing
141
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
online accessibility to information97. The involvement of young people directly in the

Strategy's development and execution also surfaced as a compelling theme98.
‒ Flexibility in fund utilisation emerged as a notable concern, as stakeholders called
for enhanced funding flexibility within different youth programs to ensure effective
resource allocation. Proposals included transferring unused funds between initiatives like
Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps, aiming to prevent wastage and optimize
resource utilization99.
‒ The inclusion of marginalised groups, (with a focus on migrants and individuals
facing social exclusion), also stood out as a prominent consideration, underlining
the significance of ensuring the representation and involvement of these groups in the
Strategy's objectives and activities100.
‒ Respondents also underscored the potential of cross-sector collaboration,
emphasising the importance of integrating the youth perspective into broader
policy areas. This idea encompassed the need for more cross-sectoral dialogue
between various sectors, such as businesses, academia, and the public sector, with the
intent of infusing youth perspectives into wider policy discussions 101.
‒ Amidst global challenges like climate crises and conflicts, a call for prioritising
mental health and well-being emerged from some stakeholders. They
recommended the development and support of projects promoting mental health
awareness and providing resources for young people102.
‒ Furthermore, a few stakeholders highlighted the value of broadening international
exchanges beyond the EU, envisioning enhanced cultural relations and a global outlook
among young individuals103. Empowering marginalised youth was another theme that
found resonance, with two respondents stressing the importance of tailored support and
resources for these groups104. Some more respondents advocated for mainstreaming
youth perspectives across various policy domains beyond traditional youth policy,
signifying a broader integration of youth concerns into infrastructure, social, and
economic policies105.
‒ Finally, a call for a stronger role for the EU Youth Coordinator was voiced by a few
stakeholders. In this context, it was highlighted that the role of the EU Youth Coordinator
has the potential to represent the interests of young people both within and outside the
European Commission. Therefore it should be strengthened, underscoring the
significance of youth representation and participation both within and beyond the
European Commission106.
Additional written contributions
Overall 16 stakeholders provided additional written contributions to support their answers to
the public consultation. Almost all of the stakeholders highlighted the significance of fostering
97
This point was raised by 10 stakeholders.
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
This point was raised by 1 stakeholder.
142
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
economic growth, promoting innovation, and enhancing collaboration among EU Member

States. Within this context, stakeholders emphasised the crucial role of the Strategy in
addressing various challenges, including climate change, digital transformation, migration,
and social inequality.
The following points list other common themes which emerged from an analysis of the
contributions provided:
‒ A common theme was the reiteration of the importance of consistent engagement

with arts and cultural activities, especially in the extracurricular settings where the
benefits were observed more significantly. The development of creative skills and the
positive impact of arts on mental health, self-esteem, and self-control were considered
essential. Indeed, several stakeholders advocated for prioritising mental health and
wellbeing by adopting systems approaches to mental health issues, promoting healthy
food environments, encouraging physical activity, and integrating health-promoting
approaches in education.
‒ Another common theme was the impact of the Strategy on minority groups. The
importance of addressing vulnerable groups, such as the Roma population and youth in
outermost regions (ORs), for example, was emphasised by some stakeholders, urging
for comprehensive and inclusive approaches in policy design to promote equal
opportunities and social advancement for young people in these areas.
Several recommendations were put forward for improvements to the current EUYS:
‒ Adoption of a holistic approach, addressing health and well-being while

considering social, emotional, and digital aspects relevant to young people.
Stakeholders also called for improved youth participation in EU policymaking, with
stronger instruments for enforcing EUYS implementation, enhanced transparency, and
better monitoring processes.
‒ To update the EUYS to consider new trends and challenges, such as climate
change, digitalisation, and the COVID-19 impact on youth. Consistent with this, there
were calls for improved flexibility, better alignment with other international strategies, and
the integration of annual thematic priorities.
‒ Stakeholders acknowledged the role of youth organisations in the implementation
of the European Youth Strategy and called for more financial support and
empowerment for these organisations. Engaging young people and their
organisations in various phases of implementation was considered essential for fostering
ownership and effectiveness.
‒ The need for transparency, accessibility to data, and streamlined collaboration
among stakeholders at all levels within the EU was a recurrent theme in the
contributions. Some stakeholders suggested fostering more creativity in the content of
programs, providing tailored mental health support, and involving key stakeholders and
young people with lived experience in decision-making processes.
Overall, the stakeholders' contributions emphasised the need for a more comprehensive,
inclusive, and adaptable European Youth Strategy that addresses the diverse needs and
challenges faced by European youth, ultimately fostering better opportunities, growth, and
social inclusion for future generations.
The following table presents a summary of each of the written contributions.
143
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Table 24 Summary of written contributions (n=16)
Stakeholder Key points from the written contribution

characteristics
Stakeholder: Non- The stakeholder outlined a comprehensive analysis of the EUYS,

governmental organisation emphasising its key components and underlying objectives. They
(NGO) highlighted the significance of fostering economic growth,
promoting innovation, and enhancing collaboration among EU
Organisation size: Large Member States. The stakeholder emphasised the crucial role of
(250 or more employees) the Strategy in addressing various challenges, including climate
change, digital transformation, migration, and social inequality.
Country: Germany Furthermore, they accentuated the importance of strengthening
the EU's global presence while preserving regions' unique
Title: Stellungnahme, Eine identities, ultimately underscoring the Strategy's potential to build
Jugendstrategie für alle a stronger, more cohesive union for its citizens.
jungen Menschen in Europa
Stakeholder: Non- Key recommendations provided in the document include

governmental organisation prioritising mental health and wellbeing by adopting systems
(NGO) approaches to mental health issues, promoting healthy food
environments, and encouraging physical activity; integrating
Organisation size: Small (10 health-promoting approaches in education while considering
to 49 employees) social, emotional, and digital aspects relevant to young people;
and emphasizing the need for a just and inclusive green transition
Country: Belgium driven by youth-led climate movements. Overall, the document
calls for a more holistic approach in policymaking, addressing
Title: EU Youth Strategy health, well-being, and inclusivity for European youth.
2019-2027 – interim
evaluation
Stakeholder: Other – EU The stakeholder analysed the future of European Solidarity Corps'
Level network Networking Activities (NET) and found that interviewees
expressed several wishes for improvement. These included
Organisation size: Micro (1 strengthening the role of NET activities and officers, enhancing
to 9 employees) communication and networking among colleagues, adopting a
more strategic approach for planning activities, and increasing the
Country: Austria visibility of the European Solidarity Corps programme.
Suggestions for future scenarios involved focusing on practical
Title: An analysis of activities, such as study visits, offering shorter activities, and
European Solidarity Corps’ utilising both non-formal training methods and evidence-based
Networking Activities (NET) activities. Some participants also desired more creativity in activity
2020-22 content.
Stakeholder: Non- This document introduces a survey conducted by the European

governmental organisation Network of Social Integration Enterprises (ENSIE) which
(NGO) highlighted the low rate of youth employment in Work Integration
Social Enterprises (WISEs) across 13 European countries. The
Organisation size: Micro (1 lack of efficient policies and support systems for disadvantaged
to 9 employees) youth integration into the labour market was identified as a
significant factor in this issue. To address these challenges,
Country: Belgium ENSIE recommends that the EU and Member States work
together to improve national and European policies for youth
Title: Youth Employment by support, increase public awareness of social economy actors like
Work Integration Social WISEs, and foster the transition to a clean and circular economy.
Enterprises (WISES) Furthermore, emphasis should be placed on the development and
implementation of relevant local programs, involvement of WISEs
in policy decision-making, and ensuring accessibility to digital
144
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

characteristics
tools and resources for all young people, including those with
disabilities.
Stakeholder: Non- The stakeholder offered various critiques and recommendations

governmental organisation regarding the EU Youth Strategy. An emphasis was placed on the
(NGO) need for greater flexibility and adaptability to emerging challenges
like the COVID-19 pandemic and digitalization. There is a clear
Organisation size: Small (10 call for improved youth participation in EU policymaking, with
to 49 employees) stronger instruments to enforce EU Youth Strategy
implementation, increased transparency, and better monitoring
Country: Belgium processes. Additionally, the stakeholder advocated for a holistic
approach to address youth poverty, housing, and energy crises,
Title: Contribution to the as well as the recognition of skills acquired from non-formal and
review of the EU Youth informal learning. Finally, the stakeholder suggested
Strategy interim evaluation improvements in several areas, including the role of student
organizations, access to psychological counselling, digitalization,
gender equality, and involving young people in the recovery
process for Ukraine.
Stakeholder: Public authority The stakeholder provided suggestions to amend the European
Youth Strategy 2019-2027, aiming to promote the active
Organisation size: Large participation of young people in democratic life, ensure access to
(250 or more employees) resources for societal participation, and support social and civic
engagement. The approach focused on the comprehensive well-
Country: Spain being of young people, addressing aspects such as physical and
mental health, social participation, education and training,
Title: Estrategia De La Ue personal development, and emotional health. The strategy
Para La Juventud 2019-2027 emphasized the importance of recognizing youth services and
professionals as essential agents for supporting young people.
Additionally, it highlighted the need for streamlined collaboration at
all levels within the EU, as well as enhancing accessibility to
information on opportunities offered by Europe for learning,
working, volunteering, and participating. The stakeholder also
encouraged engaging youth in activities fostering democratic life
principles, fundamental rights, and critical thinking skills.
Stakeholder: Non- The stakeholder emphasised the need for a holistic approach to
governmental organisation mental health in the EU Youth Strategy by adopting a
(NGO) psychosocial model, which recognises the influence of social
determinants, structural barriers, and tailored support. They
Organisation size: Micro (1 advocated for co-creating initiatives with young people, those with
to 9 employees) lived experience, and key stakeholders in order to develop more
understanding and acceptance for differences, and to engage in
Country: Belgium meaningful cooperation. The stakeholder also stressed the
importance of targeted mental health support for young people,
Title: Mental Health Europe ensuring accessibility, affordability, and coordination between
– EU Youth Strategy 2019- various services. They suggested that the Strategy should further
2027 – interim evaluation. integrate tailored mental health support into existing evidence-
based tools to adapt to the changing needs of the youth
population.
Stakeholder: Non- The stakeholder presented various studies and reports in the
governmental organisation consultation, focusing on the Roma population in Spain. They
(NGO) brought attention to a comparative study on the Roma
population’s employment and poverty situation in 2018, an
exploratory pilot study concerning school segregation of Roma
145
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

characteristics
Organisation size: Large students in 2022, and the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the
(250 or more) Roma population in 2020. Additionally, the stakeholder had
shared information on the living conditions of individuals in slum
Country: Spain and substandard housing settlements in Spain, with an English
version to be published soon. These studies aimed to provide
Title: FSG studies mentioned insights into the prevailing challenges faced by the Roma
in the consultation community in Spain, with the EU’s support.
Stakeholder: Non- The stakeholder emphasised the need for addressing country and
governmental organisation regional specificities, enhancing the European Youth Dialogue,
(NGO) building a bridge to the European Pillar of Social Rights,
addressing post-crisis challenges, implementing monitoring and
Organisation size: Micro (1 evaluation and improving communication within the EUYS in their
to 9 employees) statement. They stressed the importance of recognising the
diversity among young people within EU member states and
Country: Germany urged for reactivated monitoring efforts, transparent
documentation, and easily accessible data for assessing the
Title: Statement on the strategy’s effectiveness. By adhering to these suggested
Public consultation on the measures, the stakeholder believed it would be possible to foster
mid-term evaluation of the a more i’clusive youth strategy, ultimately supporting the social
EU Youth Strategy (2019- inclusion and betterment of European youth.
2027)
Stakeholder: Non- The stakeholder appreciated the connectivity and information

governmental organisation dissemination enabled by the EU Youth Strategy; however, they
(NGO) highlighted areas for improvement. They noted that more financial
support and empowerment should be provided to youth
Organisation size: Medium organisations. Additionally, they emphasised the Strategy’s need
(50 to 249 employees) to ensure that young people and their representative organisations
are involved In its various phases of implementation. Th’
Country: France stakeholder also mentioned their European’s Youth networ’'s
contribution to the Strategy by connecting young Europeans,
Title: Contribution – EU engaging them in environmental commitments, and empowering
Youth Strategy their voices on all levels. They considered the interim evaluation
as an opportunity to revisit the Strategy for 2024-2027 and involve
more European organisations working directly with youth.
Stakeholder: Public authority The stakeholder presented a set of documents including a city
youth council procedure and youth strategy. The primary aim was
Organisation size: Large to increase opportunities for children and young people to
(250 or more employees) influence decisions concerning city development. Emphasis was
placed on dialogue with other municipal committees, boards, and
Country: Sweden companies. The strategy employed by the EU also played an
essential role in promoting democratic principles and transparency
Title: Gothenburg Cit’'s throughout the governance process.
Child Rights Plan, 2022-
2024
Stakeholder: Other – The stakeholder provided input for the mid-term review of the
International organisation EUYS The stakeholder applauded the Strateg’'s focus on
engaging, connecting, and empowering young people, while
Organisation size: Large recommending enhancements for meaningful youth engagement,
(250 or more employees) greater flexibility, and updated priorities based on lessons learned
from COVID-19. The EUYS was praised for its effectiveness in
raising awareness of youth-related issues, but further attention
146
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

characteristics
Country: Belgium was called for towards vulnerable groups and the collection of
disaggregated data for comprehensive evaluation. Despite the
Title: Contribution to the assessment of the Strateg’'s instruments as efficient, concerns
European Commission’s call were raised about the burden on stakeholders and the necessity
on European Youth Strategy of adequate financial resources. The stakeholder suggested better
2019-2027 Interim alignment of the EUYS with other international strategies and
Evaluation highlighted the added value of the Strategy in driving EU Member
States towards systemic actions addressing youth challenges.
Lastly, several recommendations were made to strengthen
partnerships, enhance communication and visibility, and establish
youth-focused structures within the EU and UN.
Stakeholder: Other – The stakeholder shared their insights on the interim evaluation of
European organisation the EU Youth Strategy and expressed their role as both a
mediator of its content and goals and an implementer of related
Organisation size: Medium activities and measures. They commended the concrete
(50 to 249 employees) formulation of Youth Goals and highlighted the significant role of
EU youth programs in the strateg’'s implementation. However, the
Country: Germany stakeholder also recommended that the Strategy be updated to
consider new trends and challenges faced by young people, such
Title: Zwischenevaluierung as climate change, digitalisation, and the pandemic. They further
der EU- Jugendstrategie suggested enhancing flexibility by incorporating annual thematic
(2023) priorities.
Stakeholder: Other – The stakeholder highlighted the various crises faced by children
International network and adolescents in the EU, including the COVID-19 pandemic,
climate crisis, war, inflation, and poverty, which negatively impact
Organisation size: Micro (1 their mental health. To protect the mental well-being of young
to 9 employees) people and prevent mental disorders, the stakeholder had
recommended measures such as implementing preventive
Country: Germany services in education, ensuring access to mental healthcare for
all, fostering collaboration between healthcare and youth welfare
Title: Public Consultation: services, and combatting poverty to reduce socioeconomic
EU Youth Strategy 2019- disparities. They expressed hope that the EU Commission would
2027 – interim evaluation take these recommendations into account in interim evaluation of
the Strategy.
Stakeholder: Public Authority The stakeholder contributed to the consultation by focusing on the
specific needs of the outermost regions (oRs). They highlighted
Organisation size: Large the particular situation of youth in these regions, who face high
(250 or more employees) levels of youth unemployment, school drop-outs, illiteracy, and
other social issues. The stakeholder noted the importance of
Countr y: Spain designing European policies with a territorial perspective and
adapting them to the realities of the oRs. They acknowledged the
Titl e: Contribution dans le efforts made by the EU to support the youth in oRs but pointed out
cadre de ’'évaluation that significant gaps and disparities still remain, requiring a more
intermédiaire de la Stratégie comprehensive and inclusive approach to promote equal
de ’'UE en faveur de la opportunities and social advancement for young people in these
jeunesse 2019-2027. regions.
Stakeholder: The stakeholder presented three pieces of evidence which

Academic/research discussed the significant role arts and cultural activities play in
institution supporting the development and wellbeing of children and young
people. The findings suggested that participation in these activities
led to reduced hyperactivity, inattention, and antisocial
147
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

characteristics
Organisation size: Large behaviours, while promoting prosocial behaviours, lower likelihood
(250 or more employees) of substance use, and enhanced creativity. Extracurricular access
to arts activities was found to be crucial in fostering healthy
Country: United Kingdom psychological and social behaviours. The benefits were observed
across all demographic groups, but it was highlighted that more
Title: Cross‑sectional deprived areas may benefit to a greater extent from arts
and longitudinal associations engagement, in line with the E’'s Strategy to address health
between arts engagement, inequalities. The stakeholder recommended consistent and
loneliness, and social accessible engagement with arts and culture throughout
support in adolescence childhood, both within and outside of schools.
148
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
6. Annex 6 - Additional evidence about cost-

effectiveness analysis
The table below summarises findings on costs and benefits associated with the EU Youth
Strategy as identified in the evaluation. As explained in the main report, separating between
costs and benefits of individual instruments of the EUYS and the Strategy itself is typically not
straightforward. The specific sources of information and assumptions behind calculations are
provided directly in the table.
The attribution has not identified measurable potential for simplification and burden reduction,
hence no table summarising this aspect is provided in this annex. It should be noted that due
to interactions, overlaps and impossibility of precise attribution of costs to individual
instruments, the data presented in the table cannot be used to precisely compare cost-
effectiveness of various instruments.
The following table presents the breakdown of costs per year, per instrument, as specified in
the 2019-2020 and 2021-2023 work programmes107.
107
It should be noted that this includes the Annual Work Programmes of the Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps
programmes.
149
Confidential
Table 25. Budgetary commitments(in EUR) in relation to the Strategy under the 2019-2020, 2021-2022 work programmes
Work Programme Item Implementing Body Budget 2019 Budget 2020 Budget 2021 Budget 2022
European Youth Portal108 EAC-DIGIT 390,913 1,238,965 906,028 1,900,658

Support to better knowledge in EACEA 1,353,386 1,098,928 1,013,985 2,239,798
youth policy
Studies EAC 281,415 600,000 0 650,000
Presidency events in the field of EAC 498,004 399,370 494,265 500,000
youth: conferences, meetings of
ministers and directors-general
Cooperation with the Council of EAC 600,000 600,000 600,000 1,600,000
Europe
EU Youth dialogue: support to EACEA 2,108,599 n/a 1,028,292 3,539,590
National Working Groups
Dialogue: Meetings between young EAC-NA 7,868,227 8,029,769 10,784,276 19,361,344
people and decision-makers in the
field of youth109
Youth events EAC 587,189 0 12,445 3,385,766
Networking and communication EAC 399,373 24,827 12,250 487,759
activities and events organised at
European level
Source: Compiled by Kantar Public, 2023. N.B. Budget committed for some of the instruments of the EU Youth Strategy under Erasmus+ Youth and European Solidarity Corps. There may be minor
inconsistencies due to disaggregation for some items.
108
It should be noted that budget for the European Youth Portal also includes costs related to the ‘European Solidarity Corps Portal’ as it is hosted within the European Youth Portal.
109
It should be noted that “Dialogue: meetings between young people and decision-makers in the field of youth” was replaced by “Youth participation activities” as of 2021, and that the latter is a
broader action.
Confidential
Assessment typology
The table below provides a typology which has been applied across each of the instruments
under the EUYS so to classify the overall cost-effectiveness at the level of instruments. The
EUYS instruments considered here are the same as presented in impact pathways.
Table 26 Assessment typology for the cost-effectiveness per instrument
Assessment Description
typology
High (+) cost A high (+) cost effectiveness assessment suggests that the EU
effectiveness Youth Strategy is achieving positive outputs and outcomes at a
relatively low cost. The strategy's implementation is efficient,
resulting in positive impacts for youth. Resources are being utilised
better than one could have expected.
Adequate (/) cost An adequate (/) cost effectiveness assessment indicates that the EU
effectiveness Youth Strategy is achieving positive outputs and outcomes that
correspond to the resources invested. The benefits obtained from
the strategy's implementation align reasonably well with the costs
incurred.
Low (-) cost A low (-) cost effectiveness assessment implies that the EU Youth
effectiveness Strategy is not generating outputs and outcomes that justify
associated costs. The strategy's implementation might be inefficient
or misaligned, resulting in benefits that fall short of the resources
invested. Adjustments to resource allocation, design, or
implementation practice may be needed to enhance its cost-
effectiveness.
Undetermined (~) An undetermined (~) cost effectiveness assessment arises when

information gaps on either cost or benefit size make it challenging to
definitively evaluate whether the EU Youth Strategy/ its individual
instruments are cost-effective. This could be due to a lack of
sufficient data or conflicting information. Further assessment and
data collection may be necessary to determine the strategy's
efficiency.
Confidential
Table 27 Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation
Instrument Anticipated output Anticipated results/ Costs Benefits Cost effectiveness

impact assessment
EU Youth Strategy Individual: Results Type–- Recurring Type – Output and Assessment
Work Plans Stakeholders and Results
policy makers at EU Activities outlined in At the EU level: High CEA (+)
and national level are the EU Work Plans some 0.33 FTE. Published work plans
aware of workplan for Youth contribute – creating an Rationale
and activities to to reaching the At Member State opportunity to help
reach EUYS goals in overarching goals of level: some 0.7 FTE focus and co- The instrument
a specific working the EUYS during for all countries ordinate efforts of incurred limited
period each working period combined various stakeholders associated costs,
hence cost benefit
Product: EU Work Impact The calculations are Stakeholders’ ratio can be
Plans for Youth, based on an awareness of assessed as high
including priorities Youth active assumption of inputs planned actions: despite limited
and actions for citizenship, social in a range of around results from the evidence on actual
working periods inclusion and 1 FTE at the EU level Public Consultation impact of the Plans.
solidarity enabled in a year when a showed that 52% of
through policies, work plan is prepared respondents were Among the CSOs
promotion and (i.e. every three aware of the work that expressed a
support years) and some 15- plans to a great/ view in a targeted
20 working days per certain extent, with survey question on
Member State in a more than half of cost-effectiveness of
year when a work CSOs and Public EU Work Plans, a
plan is prepared (i.e. Authorities having majority (60% of
every three years). the highest degree of respondents with a
These calculations awareness. view) considered
use FTE as benefits to outweigh
equivalent of around costs to a moderate
220 working days. or a great extent.
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
Future National Individual: Member Results Type–- Recurring Type – Output and Assessment
Activities Planners State policy makers Results
learn from peers and Member States refer At the EU level: Adequate CEA (/)
engage strategically back to and/or some 0.07 FTE Reference source
with them integrate objectives annually. exists creating a Rationale
or tools of the EUYS possibility to learn on
Product: FNAP in youth policies, At Member State (planned) actions by Overall costs are
connecting national plans & programmes level: some 1.4 FTE other countries limited. Effectiveness
and EU priorities, at national level annually for all across a broad range described as not fully
including funding countries combined of youth-relevant satisfactory by
programmes for Impact policy areas; large stakeholders from
youth Borne primarily by number of countries several countries –
Youth voices, needs public authorities at chose to participate benefits are limited
of and impact on the Member State and prepared FNAP as the format of
young people level. Country-level FNAP outputs is not
systematically taken research suggests Incentive to user-friendly for
into account in policy inputs in the range of systematically reflect users looking for a
development on both 20-25 days per on national level reference source. On
national and EU Member State per youth polices in a the other hand, a
levels round of FNAP format comparable majority among an
development (i.e. across the EU; overall small number
once every two of CSOs that replied
years) with the Limited evidence that to a question on cost-
associated EU level FNAP was actually effectiveness of
input of some 30 used by Member FNAPs in an on-line
working days. This State administrations survey considered
adds up to around to integrate EUYS that benefits
1.5 FTE in total on an objectives and tools outweigh costs to a
annual recuring into national level great or very great
basis, of which extent
around 1.4 FTE falls
153
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
at Member State youth policies and

level (all countries actions.
combined).
Mutual learning and Individual: Results No information Type – Output and Assessment –
dissemination Participants in the available enabling Results Undetermined (~)
working group and Participating precise estimate.
peer learning organisations report Costs are primarily Different outputs of Rationale
activities learn about positive influence of falling on organisers expert groups, e.g. a
best/good/promising the guidelines/peer and participants of proposal for a Cost-effectiveness
practices learning the expert groups, revision of the difficult to assess
activities/practices on peer counselling, etc. Council given small scale and
Product: Guidelines national policies and Limited evidence Recommendation on dispersed character
or principles at EU measures gathered suggests mobility of young of actions
level that overall costs are volunteers across the
New or strengthened likely to be low. European Union. Surveyed CSOs that
networks between Learning at individual expressed opinions
policy makers and level by participants on the balance of
other stakeholders of activities. costs and benefits of
mutual learning
Impact activities were fairly
sceptical about
Youth active benefits significantly
citizenship, social outweighing the
inclusion and costs. The prevailing
solidarity enabled view was that
through policies, benefits outweighed
promotion and the costs to a
support moderate extent.
154
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
Increased levels of
youth participation
Evidence-based Quantitative and Results Type - Recurring Type – Output and Assessment
youth policymaking qualitative data on Results Adequate CEA (/)
and knowledge young people at the Youth policies are Borne by EU budget
building EU and national level developed based on (at the EU level): Maintenance and Rationale
the evidence EUR 2.8 million updates of EU Youth
Research and data gathered at EU and annually (calculated Wiki https://national- Among the CSOs
available on youth national level as average of policies.eacea.ec.eur that responded to a
via EU Dashboard of committed funds opa.eu/youthwiki survey question on
youth indicators, Data is used to feed during 2020-2022 for cost-effectiveness of
Youth Wiki and other into policy work programme Knowledge Hub: evidence-based
platforms deliberation through items: Support to COVID-19 impact on tools, a majority
participatory better knowledge in the youth sector considered benefits
governance youth policy; Studies https://pjp- to outweigh costs to
& EU-CoE youth eu.coe.int/en/web/yo a moderate or a
Inputs & information partnership). uth- great extent
gathered from youth partnership/covid-19-
influence Member States’ impact-on-the-youth- The
policymaking Administrations – sector difficulty155ttributeg
generally small effects makes the
Evidence-based human resources Easier access to assessment cost
monitoring and inputs to update evidence for design, effectiveness
evaluation of EUYS Youth Wiki and implementation and challenging.
oversee or contribute evaluation of youth
Impact to analytical and policies: youth-
information sharing related data gathered
Voices of youth are efforts. together and
systematically taken presented on the
into account in EU platforms; an
155
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
and national overview of national

policymaking level policies and
assessments related
Increased levels of to youth; references
youth participation to studies and
analyses gathered
together. The
completeness and
updates of some
data and information
on the platforms
remains uneven. It
remains difficult to
assess to what
extent policy makers
use data provided on
Youth Wiki and
similar platforms
rather than relying on
original sources of
data (e.g. Eurostat).
30% of youth
responding to the
public consultation
were of the view that
young people had
been sufficiently
involved in the
EUYS. Of this group
156
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
47% were aware of

evidence-based tools
to a great/certain
extent.
Participatory Individual: Policy Results Type–- Recurring Type – Results Assessment

Governance makers, young Adequate CEA (/)
people and Mainstreaming of Small costs overall, Policy-related
stakeholders learn youth into other EU mainly related to time initiatives and Rationale
and exchange and Member State of preparing and declarations related
information about policy areas participating in the to EU Youth Strategy Cost-effectiveness
policy developments EU Youth Strategy Platform activities. appears to be
Identifying and Platform. Examples include the broadly satisfactory,
Product: EU Youth shaping specific Council Conclusion mainly due to low
Strategy Platform, initiatives in the youth on a Sustainable costs.
civic dialogue, sector Future for Youth
dedicated meetings (May 2023) and The perception of
offer opportunities to Impacts Conclusions of the cost-effectiveness
exchange Council and the among CSOs is
Voices of youth are representatives of somewhat negative.
systematically taken the Governments of Around half of
into account in EU the Member States surveyed CSOs that
and national meeting within the expressed a view,
policymaking Council on promoting indicated that
the intergenerational benefits outweigh
Youth active dimension in the costs to a small or
citizenship, social youth field to foster moderate extent.
inclusion and dialogue and social
solidarity enabled cohesion (December
through policies, 2022).
157
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
promotion and 30% of youth

support responding to the
public consultation
were of the view that
young people had
been sufficiently
involved in the
EUYS.
6 out of 16 Public
authorities answering
to the Public
Consultation believed
that the EUYS
assisted them as a
national or regional
policymaker in their
daily work, to a great/
certain extent.
EU Youth Dialogue Individual: Young Results Type–- Recurring Type – Results Assessment
people, policy Adequate CEA (/)
makers and Dialogue between Borne by EU budget Three dialogue
stakeholders youth and (at the EU level): cycles completed Rationale
participate in the stakeholders EUR 1.5 million since 2019. Tens of
dialogue annually (calculated thousands of Among the CSOs
The priorities are as a sum of grants participants (a that responded to a
Product: Set of reflected in national under Erasmus+ combination of in- survey question on
recommendations Youth to the national person and virtual cost-effectiveness, a
working groups of ca. engagements) with a majority considered
158
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
and priorities are and EU decision EUR 1 million large share of benefits to outweigh
identified making annually and participants from costs to a moderate
Presidency grant of minority groups (well or a great extent.
Impact EUR 0.5 million that above shares in the
covers the costs of total population).
Voices of youth are the EU Youth Diverse set of
systematically taken Conference). activities.
into account in EU
and national Thematic focus of
policymaking successive cycles
created a forum for
dialogue between
youth and policy
makers. Several
activities also aimed
at capacity building
hence contributed to
empowering young
people to have a say,
while no data have
been identified to
quantify the strength
of that impact.
It is impossible to
determine the extent
to which youth
dialogue helped in
having their priorities
reflected in national
159
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
and EU-level
decision making.
7thcycle Youth
Dialogue
participants: 56 287
More than half, 58%

of respondents to the
youth survey
declared knowing
Youth Dialogue at
least by name.
Among respondents
who indicated
knowing the
instrument at least a
little, 35% declared
having taken part in a
Youth Dialogue, a
high figure which
suggests caution in
interpretation
(respondents may
have had in mind
other initiatives of a
similar character or
name). .
160
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
EU Youth Individual: EU policy Results Type–- Recurring Type – Results Assessment

Coordinator makers participate in Adequate CEA (/)
cooperation and Mainstreaming of 1 full time position, A single contact point
exchange with other youth into other EU Brussels-based or a platform for Rationale
COM services policy areas European sharing information;
Commission official increased visibility of Small costs suggest
Product: Cross- Knowledge youth policies, also favourable cost-
sectoral cooperation development and from Member States effectiveness, given
on youth is exchange on youth perspectives; the output/results
established, Platform issues within the contribution to from one FTE.
of sharing European mainstreaming of However, evidence
information Commission youth topics into from interviews at EU
services other EU and level suggests that
Member State policy an increase of
Alignment of areas; successful resources allocated
activities within the coordination within to this function could
EU services the Commission improve benefits
services, primarily more than
Coordination through the proportionally, i.e.
between different EU development of the improve cost
activities Youth Network and effectiveness
the 2022 European
Impact Year of Youth CSOs that expressed
National an opinion in a
Youth active Coordinators’ and survey, a majority of
citizenship, social Stakeholder Group. responses indicated
inclusion and benefits to outweigh
solidarity enabled 65% of surveyed costs to a moderate
through policies, youth had heard of or a great extent.
the EU Youth
161
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
promotion and Coordinator by name

support only/ not at all.
40% of stakeholders
responding to the PC
were aware of the
EU Youth
Coordinator role.
Communicating the Individual: Relevant Result Type–- Recurring Type – Results Assessment
EU Youth Strategy stakeholders are
aware of the EU New and positive No precise Multilingual material Undetermined (~)
Youth Strategy and narrative of EU youth information identified; promoting the
ongoing work policy and costs are expected to strategy prepared in Rationale
implementation Youth Work in be small 2019; The primary
Europe channels used for Cost-effectiveness is
Product: communication difficult to assess due
Comprehensive and Impact include the European to time lag between
youth-friendly Youth Portal, various more intensive
communication Youth active social media information campaign
outputs around the citizenship, social platforms such as and measurement of
EU Youth Strategy inclusion and Facebook, Twitter, effects. Small costs
(e.g. posts, videos) solidarity enabled Instagram, websites would suggest
through policies, of National Agencies, broadly favourable
promotion and Eurodesk, and cost-effectiveness.
support Support, Advanced
Learning and
Training
162
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
Opportunities
(SALTO).
Relevant
stakeholders are
generally aware of
the EUYS. Indeed,
63% of respondents
to the survey of youth
indicated knowledge
of the EUYS at least
by name, including
13% declaring
knowing very well or
a fair amount about it
(these figures are
broadly similar to
figures reflecting
knowledge about
national level youth
policies declared by
respondents).
Indeed, 88% of
surveyed CSOs were
also found to be
aware of the EUYS
and its instruments.
Mobilising and Individual: Better Result Type–- Recurring Type – Results Assessment
monitoring EU understanding of EU
finding by policy
163
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
programmes and makers and Effective use of EU Close to zero. EU programmes and High CEA (+)
funds stakeholders programmes and Gathered evidence funds are
funds to tackle youth suggests that the consistently found to Rationale
Product: Better needs at EU, relevant mapping have comparably
design of EU, national, regional and and monitoring high levels of Favourable cost-
national, regional and local level activities take place awareness by effectiveness given
local level funding as part of stakeholder and the successful
programmes for Impact programmes such as youth. utilisation of EU
youth initiatives Erasmus+ and is not programmes and
Youth active an additional element In turn, those who funds to support the
citizenship, social brought by the attended Strategy and youth
inclusion and Strategy programmes such as initiatives, and no or
solidarity enabled Erasmus+ were negligible costs.
through policies, found to have
promotion and increased knowledge
support of the issues young
people face and
Youth transitioning allowed them to feel
into adulthood and that they could
working life through influence what
increased and happens in Europe
inclusive (PC and Youth
opportunities in Survey)
learning mobility,
education and
training and labour
mobility.
Youth information Individual: Youth are Result Type–- Recurring Type – Outputs/ Assessment
and support aware of their rights Results
164
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
and opportunities Equal access to The EUYS platform Information available Undetermined (~)
available to them quality information on is covered under at EU Youth Portal,
youth rights, different activities EU Youth Strategy Rationale
Product: EU Youth opportunities, mentioned above Platform, DiscoverEU
Portal, DiscoverEU, services and EU (e.g. EU Youth and used by the Cost-effectiveness
and EUYS platform is programmes Coordinator). youth. cannot be reliably
developed and used assessed based on
by youth Impact The average cost per On average 22% of existing evidence.
year for the surveyed youth were Evidence however
Youth transitioning implementation of the aware of available suggests youth are
into adulthood and European Youth youth resources (e.g. broadly aware of
working life through Portal was EUR EU Youth Portal, available resource,
increased and 1,109,141110. This is DiscoverEU and and that the
inclusive paired with an EUYS platform) by European Youth
opportunities in average annual cost name only. On Portal and Eurodesk
learning and labour EUR 1.4 million for average 14% knew network provided
mobility support to better of the resources very information about
knowledge in youth well or a fair amount. opportunities for
policy young people and
45 out of 71 (63%) encouraged their
youth responding to participation, leading
the Public to more active
Consultation had citizenship,
used the European enhanced skills, and
Youth Portal, while personal fulfilment.
only 8 (11%) had
used the EUYS
platform.
110
This figure also includes the costs related to the ‘European Solidarity Corps’ portal as it is hosted on the European Youth Portal.
165
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
European youth Individual: Young Results Type - Recurring Type – Outputs/ Assessment
work agenda people are able to Results
strengthen key skills Youth people are Negligible. Gathered High CEA (+)
and qualifications equipped with key evidence suggests Improved skills of
obtained through skills and that activities take participants of Rationale
non-formal learning qualifications place as part of activities and their
allowing them to programmes such as recognition by Favourable cost-
Product: Recognition transition to Erasmus+ or qualifications (the effectiveness given
and quality tools are adulthood European Solidarity scale of this is no or negligible
provided Corps and do not difficult to assess). costs. The
Impacts require additional contribution analysis
resources at the Several policy also found that the
Youth transitioning EUYS level. documents: Council EYWA has
into adulthood and conclusions (e.g. on strengthened the
working life through raising opportunities youth work policy
increased and for young people in framework in
inclusive rural and remote conjunction with
opportunities in areas (December other EU
learning and labour 2020)) and Council developments such
mobility Resolutions (e.g. on as the SALTO
a EU Youth Work network and EU
Agenda (June 2020). youth funding
programmes.
The implementation
of the European
Youth Work Agenda
was also seen as the
second most relevant
topic for cooperation
in the 2021 FNAP,
only quality youth
166
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

impact assessment
work was viewed as

more important.
A part of the
European Youth
Work Agenda
occurred through the
Sub-Group on Youth
Work that met six
times between 2021
–2022.
167
The table below provides the costs and benefits that were identified in this evaluation study.
The table essentially summarises all the costs and benefits that are identified in the evaluation.
The main source for the quantitative indications is the results from the cost-effectiveness
analysis. Where quantitative indications are not available, we have used information from all
other sources used in this evaluation (interviews, desk research, focus groups, case studies)
to give a more qualitative view on the costs and benefits for different actors.
The evaluation has not identified measurable potential for simplification and burden reduction,
hence no table summarising this aspect is provided in this annex. It should be noted that due
to interactions, overlaps and impossibility of precise attribution of costs to individual
instruments, the data presented in the table cannot be used to precisely compare cost-
effectiveness of various instruments.
The table is broken down to the level of the individual instruments under the EUYS.
Confidential
Table 28 Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation
Relevant stakeholders CSOs/ NGOs National authorities European Institutions

Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative
Costs and benefits
EU Youth Strategy Work Plans
Cost: EU Work Recurring This cost is not This cost is not relevant At Member State level: N/A Average annual costs N/A
Plans for Youth, cost relevant to this to this stakeholder some 0.7 FTE (calculated were estimated at around
including priorities stakeholder based on an assumption 0.33 Full Time
and actions for of inputs of 15-20 Equivalents (FTE) at the
working periods working days per EU level. The
Member State in a year calculations are based on
when a work plan is an assumption of inputs
prepared (i.e. every three in a range of around 1
years). These FTE at the EU level in a
calculations use FTE as year when a work plan is
equivalent of around 220 prepared (i.e. every three
working days. years). These
calculations use FTE as
equivalent of around 220
working days.
Benefit: Activities Recurring N/A Among the CSOs that N/A N/A N/A The instrument incurred
outlined in the EU expressed a view in a limited associated costs,
Work Plans for targeted survey hence cost benefit ratio
Youth contribute to Expected question on cost- can be assessed as
reaching the result effectiveness of EU high despite limited
overarching goals of Work Plans, a majority evidence on actual
the EUYS during (60% of respondents impact of the Plans.
each working period with a view) considered
benefits to outweigh
costs to a moderate or
a great extent. 51% of
respondents also
indicated they
participated in or used
the EU Work Plans for
Youth at least
sometimes
Future National Activities Planners (FNAPs)
Cost: Development Recurring This cost is not This cost is not relevant Borne primarily by public N/A At the EU level: some N/A
of FNAPs cost relevant to this to this stakeholder authorities at the Member 0.07 FTE annually based
connecting national stakeholder State level. Country-level 30 working days to
Confidential
EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Costs and benefits
and EU priorities, research suggests inputs prepare and implement
including funding in the range of 20-25 the FNAP survey,
programmes for days per Member State analyses results and
youth per round of FNAP organise any follow-ups
development (i.e. once required. No cost data
every two years). This was available to quantify
adds up to around 1.5 this.
FTE in total on an annual
recuring basis, of which
around 1.4 FTE falls at
Member State level (all
countries combined).
Benefit: Member Recurring N/A Evidence of the FNAPs N/A Incentive to N/A Reference source exists
States refer back to not be fully useful: 69% systematically reflect on creating a possibility to
and/or integrate of respondents to the national level youth learn on (planned)
objectives or tools Expected CSO survey indicated polices in a format actions by other
of the EUYS in youth result that the benefits of comparable across the countries across a broad
policies, plans & FNAPs outweighed the EU. Limited evidence that range of youth-relevant
programmes at costs at least to a small FNAP was actually used policy areas; large
national level extent. 47% of by Member State number of countries
respondents to the administrations to chose to participate and
CSO survey indicated integrate EUYS prepared FNAP.
they participated in or objectives and tools into
used the FNAPs at national level youth
least sometimes policies and actions.
Effectiveness described
as not fully satisfactory by
stakeholders from several
countries – benefits are
limited as the format of
FNAP outputs is not user-
friendly for users looking
for a reference source.
Mutual learning and dissemination
Cost: Working group Recurring This cost is not This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant N/A No information available
and peer learning cost relevant to this to this stakeholder to this stakeholder to this stakeholder enabling precise
activities which stakeholder estimate; total cost
exchange assessed as low. Costs
best/good/promising are primarily falling on
© Kantar Public 2023 170

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Costs and benefits
practices leading to organisers and
the development of participants of the expert
guidelines or groups, peer
principles at EU counselling, etc.
level
Benefit: Recurring N/A Surveyed CSOs that N/A N/A N/A Different outputs of
Participating expressed opinions on expert groups, e.g. a
organisations report the balance of costs proposal for a revision of
positive influence of Expected and benefits of mutual the Council
the guidelines/peer result learning activities were Recommendation on
learning fairly sceptical about mobility of young
activities/practices benefits significantly volunteers across the
on national policies outweighing the costs. European Union.
and measures. New The prevailing view Learning at individual
or strengthened was that benefits level by participants of
networks are made outweighed the costs to activities.
between policy a moderate extent.
makers and other
stakeholders
Evidence-based youth policymaking and knowledge building
Cost: Research and Recurring This cost is not This cost is not relevant N/A Member States’ Borne by EU budget (at N/A
data consolidation cost relevant to this to this stakeholder Administrations generally the EU level): EUR 2.8
on youth via EU stakeholder face small human million annually
Dashboard of youth resources inputs to (calculated as average of
indicators, Youth update Youth Wiki and committed funds during
Wiki and other oversee or contribute to 2020-2022 for work
platforms analytical and information programme items:
sharing efforts. Accurate Support to better
estimates were note knowledge in youth
possible due to a lack of policy; Studies & EU-CoE
data. youth partnership).
Benefit: Youth Recurring N/A Among the CSOs that N/A Easier access to N/A Benefits at EU level
policies are responded to a survey evidence for design, primarily correlate with
developed based on question on cost- implementation and those presented in the
the evidence Expected effectiveness of evaluation of youth Member State column.
gathered at EU and result evidence-based tools, policies: youth-related
national level. Data a majority considered data gathered together
is used to feed into benefits to outweigh and presented on the

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Costs and benefits
policy deliberation costs to a moderate or platforms; an overview of
through a great extent. 60% of national level policies and
participatory respondents to the assessments related to
governance CSO survey indicated youth; references to
they were aware of studies and analyses
evidence-based tools. gathered together. The
78% of respondents to completeness and
the CSO survey updates of some data
indicated they and information on the
participated in or used platforms remains
evidence-based tools uneven. It remains
at least sometimes difficult to assess to what
extent policy makers use
data provided on Youth
Wiki and similar platforms
rather than relying on
original sources of data
(e.g. Eurostat).
Participatory Governance
Cost: EU Youth Recurring This cost is not This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant N/A It was estimated that
Strategy Platform, cost relevant to this to this stakeholder to this stakeholder to this stakeholder small costs are brought
civic dialogue, stakeholder about overall, mainly
dedicated meetings related to time of
offer opportunities preparing and
to exchange participating in the EU
Youth Strategy Platform.
No cost data was
available.
Benefit: Recurring N/A The perception of cost- N/A 6 out of 16 Public N/A Policy-related initiatives
Mainstreaming of effectiveness among authorities answering to and declarations related
youth into other EU CSOs is somewhat the Public Consultation to EU Youth Strategy
and Member State Expected negative. Around half believed that the EUYS Platform activities.
policy areas and result of surveyed CSOs that assisted them as a Examples include the
identification and expressed a view, national or regional Council Conclusion on a
shaping of specific indicated that benefits policymaker in their daily Sustainable Future for
initiatives in the outweigh costs to a work, to a great/ certain Youth (May 2023) and
youth sector. small or moderate extent. National level Conclusions of the
extent. 44% of policy makers also noted Council and the
respondents to the the role of the EUYS in representatives of the

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Costs and benefits
CSO survey agreed increasing the weight and Governments of the
that the EUYS visibility of youth policy at Member States meeting
mainstreamed youth national level as well as within the Council on
issues across different mainstreaming. promoting the
policies in the EU intergenerational
dimension in the youth
field to foster dialogue
and social cohesion
(December 2022). EU-
level interviews found
that the EUYS played a
role in the facilitation of
the mainstreaming of
youth participation in the
green and digital
transitions.
EU Youth Dialogue
Cost: Young people, Recurring This cost is not This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant The annual average N/A
policy makers and cost relevant to this to this stakeholder to this stakeholder to this stakeholder costs of EUR 1.5 million
stakeholders stakeholder is calculated as a sum of
participate in EU grants under Erasmus+
level dialogues Youth, to the national
working groups of ca.
EUR 1 million annually
and Presidency grant of
EUR 0.5 million that
covers the costs of the
EU Youth Conference.
Benefit: Dialogue Recurring N/A Among the CSOs that N/A Evidence of benefits: At N/A Three dialogue cycles
between youth and responded to a survey national level, national completed since 2019.
stakeholders. The question on cost- policy makers generally Tens of thousands of
priorities are Expected effectiveness, a expressed awareness of participants (a
reflected in national result majority considered the EUYD. National combination of in-person
and EU decision benefits to outweigh stakeholders interviewed and virtual
making costs to a moderate or expressed that the EUYD engagements) with a
a great extent. 51% of provided young people large share of
respondents to the with a valuable platform participants from
CSO survey indicated for co-creating. However, minority groups (well
they participated in or above shares in the total

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Costs and benefits
used the EUYD at least the visibility of its results population). Diverse set
sometimes. 68% of was limited. of activities. Thematic
respondents to the focus of successive
CSO survey indicated cycles created a forum
that the EUYS fostered for dialogue between
youth engagement in youth and policy
democratic decision- makers. Several
making at the local, activities also aimed at
national, EU or capacity building hence
international level contributed to
empowering young
people to have a say,
while no data have been
identified to quantify the
strength of that impact.
EU-level interviews
uncovered that the
EUYS’ emphasis on
inclusion has led to an
increased diversity in
the EUYD, with stronger
requirements for
inclusivity
Cost: An EU level Recurring This cost is not This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant The costs entailed one N/A
coordinator to cost relevant to this to this stakeholder to this stakeholder to this stakeholder FTE per year at the EU
participate in stakeholder level as of June 2021.
cooperation and
exchange with other
COM services
Benefit: Knowledge Recurring N/A CSOs that expressed N/A N/A N/A A single contact point or
development and an opinion in a survey, a platform for sharing
exchange on youth a majority of responses information; increased
issues within the Expected indicated benefits to visibility of youth
European result outweigh costs to a policies, also from
Commission moderate or a great Member States
services. extent. 45% of perspectives;
Alignment of respondents to the contribution to
activities within the CSO survey indicated mainstreaming of youth

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Costs and benefits
EU services and they were aware of the topics into other EU and
coordination EU Youth Coordinator. member state policy
between different This indicates a areas. EU-level
EU activities generally favourable interviewees highlighted
perception of the EU that the appointment of
Youth Coordinator's the EU Youth
role in promoting Coordinator brings more
knowledge coherence and visibility
development and to youth policies.
exchange on youth
issues.
Communicating the EU Youth Strategy
Cost: Recurring This cost is not This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant No precise information
Comprehensive and cost relevant to this to this stakeholder to this stakeholder to this stakeholder identified; costs are
youth-friendly stakeholder expected to be small
communication
outputs around the
EU Youth Strategy
(e.g. posts, videos)
Benefit: New and Recurring The evidence indicates At a national level, Multilingual material
positive narrative of that communicating the national policy makers promoting the strategy
EU youth work EUYS has successfully expressed awareness of prepared in 2019;
policy and Youth Expected contributed to the the EU Youth Portal and information available on
Work in Europe result establishment of a new the EU Youth Strategy the European Youth
and positive narrative Platform. Portal. Relevant
for EU youth work stakeholders are
policy and Youth Work generally aware of the
in Europe, with a high EUYS. Indeed, 63% of
awareness rate among respondents to the
surveyed CSOs and a survey of youth
significant portion indicated knowledge of
utilising the EU Youth the EUYS at least by
Strategy Platform on a name, including 13%
regular basis. 88% of declaring knowing very
surveyed CSOs were well or a fair amount
also found to be aware about it (these figures
of the EUYS and its are broadly similar to
instruments. 62% of figures reflecting
respondents to the knowledge about

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Costs and benefits
CSO survey indicated national level youth
they used the EU policies declared by
Youth Strategy respondents).
Platform at least
sometimes.
Mobilising and monitoring EU programmes and funds
Cost: Better design Recurring This cost is not This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant Gathered evidence
of EU, national, cost relevant to this to this stakeholder to this stakeholder to this stakeholder suggests this the
regional and local stakeholder relevant mapping and
level funding monitoring activities take
programmes for place as part of
youth initiatives programmes such as
Erasmus+ and is not an
additional element
brought by the Strategy.
Accurate cost
information was not
available. As monitoring
activities are already
undertaken as part of
initiatives such as
Erasmus+ and the
European Solidarity
Corps, no additional
resources are needed
by the EUYS
Benefit: Effective Recurring 80% of respondents to Based on focus groups EU programmes and
use of EU the CSO survey with youth, Erasmus+ is funds are consistently
programmes and indicated that the the most popular found to have
funds to tackle Expected benefits of the programme, and is comparably high levels
youth needs at EU, result European Solidarity greatly mainstreamed of awareness by
national, regional Corps outweighed the across universities. stakeholder and youth.
and local level costs at least to a small National policy makers Those who attended
extent. 67% of that were interviewed programmes such as
respondents to the noted that project funding Erasmus+ were found to
CSO survey agreed via EU programmes have increased
that EUYS instruments increased the scale of knowledge of the issues
achieved equal access connection among young young people face and
to youth organisations people allowed them to feel that

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Costs and benefits
and European youth they could influence
programmes for young what happens in Europe
people (PC and Youth Survey)
Youth information and support
Cost: EU Youth Recurring This cost is not This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant The EUYS platform is
Portal, DiscoverEU cost relevant to this to this stakeholder to this stakeholder. to this stakeholder covered under different
and EUYS platform stakeholder activities mentioned
above (e.g. EU Youth
Coordinator).
The average cost per
year for the
European Youth Portal
was EUR 771,999. This
is paired with an
average annual cost
EUR 1.4 million for
support to better
knowledge in youth
policy
Benefit: Equal Recurring The high awareness At a national level, Evidence suggests
access to quality levels among surveyed stakeholders expressed youth are broadly aware
information on CSOs suggests an awareness of the EU of available resource,
youth rights, Expected impact of EUYS Youth Portal and the EU and that the European
opportunities, result promoting equal Youth Strategy Platform Youth Portal and
services and EU access to crucial Eurodesk network
programmes information for young provided information
people. 87% of about opportunities for
respondents to the young people and
CSO survey indicated encouraged their
they were aware of the participation, leading to
European Youth Portal. more active citizenship,
enhanced skills, and
personal fulfilment.
European youth work agenda

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Costs and benefits
Cost: Recognition Recurring This cost is not This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant This cost is not relevant Negligible. Gathered
and quality tools cost relevant to this to this stakeholder to this stakeholder to this stakeholder evidence suggests that
stakeholder activities take place as
part of programmes
such as Erasmus+ or
European Solidarity
Corps and do not
require additional
resources at the EUYS
level. No accurate cost
data was available.
Benefit: Youth are Recurring 57% of respondents to The implementation of Improved skills of
equipped with key the CSO survey the European Youth participants of activities
skills and indicated they were Work Agenda was also and their recognition by
qualifications Expected aware of the European seen as the second most qualifications (the scale
allowing them to result Youth Work Agenda relevant topic for of this is difficult to
transition to activities. 73% of cooperation in the 2021 assess). The
adulthood respondents to the FNAP, only quality youth contribution analysis
CSO survey indicated work was viewed as more also found that the
that the EUYS was at important. National policy EYWA has strengthened
least somewhat makers expressed the youth work policy
relevant in addressing awareness of the framework in
the risk of poverty, 82% European Youth Work conjunction with other
youth unemployment, Agenda. A focus group EU developments such
and 90% social with national level as the SALTO network
exclusion, in the EU stakeholders has shown and EU youth funding
that the European Youth programmes. Several
Work Agenda is seen as policy documents were
an important initiative to produced: Council
promote youth conclusions (e.g. on
empowerment. raising opportunities for
young people in rural
and remote areas
(December 2020)) and
Council Resolutions
(e.g. on a EU Youth
Work Agenda (June
2020). EU-level
interviewees reported
that the EUYS elevated
the importance of social

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Costs and benefits
inclusion in EU
programmes and
policies, and supported
youth with fewer
opportunities.

7. Annex 7 - A systematic overview
A systematic overview of digital life and youth

well-being within the EU Youth Strategy
Introduction
This report presents a systematic overview of how the European Youth Strategy (EUYS)
addresses digital life and youth well-being. The report is part of the interim evaluation of the
EUYS 2019-2027 aiming to assess the effectiveness of the measures taken to achieve the
Strategy’s objectives, the efficiency of the instruments, internal and external coherence,
including with other EU-level policies and strategies with similar or complementary objectives.
The objectives of the systematic overview are to:
• produce an updated comprehensive assessment of the impact of the EUYS on youth’s

digital health and well-being;
• provide a systematic overview of the direction and magnitude of the impact of EUYS
on youth’s digital health and well-being;
• identify factors that may explain the heterogeneity of the results that have been found
in individual studies or national evaluations.
The conceptual and theoretical framework serving as the basis to the systematic overview
builds on a review of scientific publications on the topic. Eight relevant publications were
identified for the overview which collectively provide a relatively comprehensive definition of
the topic.
To assess the impact by the EUYS on the specific topics, over 300 reports, articles, Council
recommendations, working documents, recommendations, reviews, work programmes,
communication documents and conference notes (both European and national) describing the
implementation of the Strategy were reviewed. This was done to understand how youth’s digital
health and well-being is addressed.
Background
A significant and increasing number of young people across Europe are expressing their
concern at the prevalence of mental health issues amongst their peers, such as high stress,
anxiety, depression, and other mental illnesses. Young people cite the immense societal
pressures they face today and express a need for enhanced provision of youth mental
health.111 Improving young people’s mental and physical health and well-being is considered
the most important shared priority for the 2022 European Year of Youth in 16 of the 27 EU
Member States.112
Simultaneously, technologies and digital services have changed the lives of youths. Digital
technology access, including tablets and smartphones, along with social media platforms and
messaging apps, has changed the way young people form and uphold friendships, how they
spend their leisure time, and their engagement within society. The COVID-19 pandemic further
increased the digital impact on young peoples’ lives, including work, education, and social life.
111
Youth Goals, n.d. Available at: https://youth-goals.eu/youthgoals
112
European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Flash Eurobarometer 502 – Youth and
Democracy in the European Year of Youth. Publications Office of the European Union, 2022. Available at:
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2282
180
A working paper113 published by the EU-funded DigiGen project finds that digital technology
usage has increased young people’s civic participation and awareness of social issues, despite
their decreasing engagement in mainstream politics. According to the paper, social media
affects young people’s norms, values, attitudes, and behaviours in relation to democracy,
power, politics, policymaking. It also impacts their social and political participation, both online
and offline, as well as the organisation of economic, social and private life114. These factors
need to be understood in the light of the three core areas of action in the EUYS; ‘Engage’,
‘Connect’ and ‘Empower’.
Concerns have been raised about how digital technology affects young people’s mental health.
Evidence suggests moderate use of digital technology can be beneficial to youth's mental well-
being, whereas excessive use can be detrimental. Young people's social relationships seem
to be enriched by digital technology, especially since most of their social circle is now online,
but further research is still needed in this area..115
Digital life and youth well-being is related to mental health and well-being which is one of the
11 European Youth Goals (EYGs), summarising the issues impacting young people in Europe
and the political priorities that are important to them. The EYGs highlight which areas are still
in need of change for young people in Europe to fully realise their full potential.116
One of the overall objectives of the EUYS is to ‘improve policy decisions with regard to their
impact on young people across all sectors, notably employment, education, health and social
inclusion’. These elements are all affected by digitalisation.
Digital life and youth well-being is an emerging field. The topic is fairly broad, providing several
different sub-topics to choose from and is characterised by qualitative research as well as
limited access to secondary data and research conducted. Conducting a robust systematic
overview is thus challenging. However, digital life and youth well-being is nevertheless
assumed to be key in motivating young people to engage and become active citizens involved
in democracy and society, explaining why the topic is of great relevance for a systematic
overview.
Furthermore, the area of youth well-being in relation to digital life is an area within the EU
Youth Strategy that needs to be strengthened,. The need for reinforcement in this area was
determined in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war against Ukraine,
because of the rise of false narratives and propaganda, and the difficulties for young people to
navigate and stay safe and healthy in their digital life. There is also a call for evidence feedback
extending to various areas connected to DG EAC and the Commission’s initiatives on tackling
disinformation and promoting digital literacy. These include Erasmus+ and European Solidarity
Corps programmes, the Guidelines for teachers and educators,117 the new initiative on virtual
worlds,118 and the work of the new European Support, Advanced Learning and Training
Opportunities (SALTO) Digital Resource Centre.119 The centre focuses on the digital
competences of young people and adults, digital pedagogy and equipment, digital and virtual
113
Ayllón, S. et al, 2020, ICT usage across Europe A literature review and an overview of existing data. Available at:
https://www.digigen.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/DigiGen_ICT-usage-across-Europe_a-literature-review-and-an-overview-of-
existing-data.pdf
114
European Commission, CORDIS, Exploring the effect of digital technologies on youthhttps://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/423100-
exploring-the-effect-of-digital-technologies-on-youth
115
Unicef, 2018, Growing up in a digital world: benefits and risks. Available at: https://gdc.unicef.org/resource/growing-digital-
world-benefits-and-risks
116
Youth Goals, n.d., #5 Mental Health & Well-being. Available at: https://youth-goals.eu/yg5
117
European Commission (2022). Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy
through education and training, Published: 11 Oct 2022. Retrieved from: https://education.ec.europa.eu/news/guidelines-for-
teachers-and-educators-on-tackling-disinformation-and-promoting-digital-literacy-through-education-and-training
118
European Commission (n.a.). Virtual Worlds fit for people. Retrieved from: https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/virtual-worlds.
119
The Finnish National Agency for Education (n.a.). European SALTO Digital Resource Centre. Retrieved from:
https://www.oph.fi/en/programmes/european-salto-digital-resource-centre.
181
cooperation and exchanges, the influence of new technologies on education, working life and
the wider society, and the impact, opportunities and risks linked to AI.120
Digital well-being definition

The concept of well-being is broadly defined as a state of “optimal psychological experience
and functioning”.121 Such a definition leads to various interpretations on what aspects well-
being encompasses. Traditionally, well-being is associated with mental health, although
broader definitions include the following dimensions122:
Figure 116 Dimensions of well-being
This more expansive conceptualisation of well-being aligns with the approach of the EU Youth
Strategy, since it aims to support the health and well-being of young people, focusing on123:
• Promoting mental and sexual health, sport, physical activity and healthy lifestyles;
• Preventing and treating injury, eating disorders, addictions and substance abuse;
• Education on nutrition;
• Promoting cooperation between schools, youth workers, health professionals and sport
organisations;
• Making health facilities more accessible and attractive for young people;
• Raising awareness of how sport can promote teamwork, intercultural learning and
responsibility.
120
European Commission (n.a.). Digital Education Action Plan – Action 1. Retrieved from: https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-
topics/digital-education/action-plan/action-1#Proposal, https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/action-
plan/action-10, European Commission (n.a.). Factsheet: Proposal for a Council recommendation on the key enabling factors for
successful digital education and training. Retrieved from: https://education.ec.europa.eu/document/factsheet-proposal-for-a-
council-recommendation-on-the-key-enabling-factors-for-successful-digital-education-and-training, JRC Repository. Retrieved
from: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/search?query=digital, European Commission, DG CONNECT (n.a.). The
Digital Europe Programme. Retrieved from: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/activities/digital-programme.
121
Deci, & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian
Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 49(3).
122
Rees, G., Savahl, S., Lee, B.J. and Casas, F. (Eds.) (2020). Children’s worlds report 2020. Children’s views on their lives and
well-being in 35 countries: A report on the Children’s 115 Worlds project, 2016-19. Retrieved from:
https://isciweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/Childrens-Worlds-Comparative-Report2020.pdf.
123
European Commission (n.a.) EU Youth Strategy: Health and Well-Being. Retrieved from:
https://youth.europa.eu/strategy/health-well-being_en.
182
The exposure to a digital environment does not re-define the concept of well-being. However,
it suggests that the experience of individuals in a digital environment must be explored
separately.124
Digital well-being is a term used to describe the impact of technologies and digital services on
people's mental, physical, social, and emotional health. It is a complex concept that can be
viewed from a variety of perspectives and across different contexts and situations. The current
research on the topic is limited, although emerging. There is a growing body of literature on
how youths’ mental health and well-being is affected by the digital transformation. The concept
of digital well-being emerged as a postmodern concept, characterising the constant influx of
information and numerous social networking avenues that we encounter every day. The
existing theoretical frameworks concerning digital skills do not comprehensively address
certain proficiencies required to effectively navigate these overwhelming daily interactions.
Currently, these frameworks portray two contrasting facets of the digital well-being narrative:
firstly, as an individual achievement attainable through personal digital well-being skills and
capabilities; and secondly, as a shared attribute within a social community. In the latter context,
this attribute is shaped by the community's values, norms, and aspirations, collectively
contributing to the safety, comfort, self-contentment, and socio-psychological satisfaction of its
members125. The definition of the concept of digital well-being used in this report stems from
current scientific literature on the topic which is described further in the following section.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework around the topic was developed stepwise. Initially, a review of
scientific publications on the topic was made using academic search engines. Eight research
articles describing digital life and youth well-being where chosen.
The following articles were selected for the theoretical framework:
1. A Qualitative Meta‑Study of Youth Voice and Co‑Participatory Research Practices:

Informing Cyber/Bullying Research Methodologies D. M. Green, C. M. Taddeo, D. A. Price,
F. Pasenidou, B. A. Spears, 2022
2. Youth in the Digital Age- Youth well-being and digital media Kate C. Tilleczek, Brandi L.
Bell, and Matthew Munro, 2019
3. Youth Sustainable Digital Well-being, Edgar Demeter and Dana Rad, 2019
4. The Race Towards Digital Well-being: Issues and Opportunities, Luigi De Russis and
Alberto Monge Rofarello, 2019
5. Mapping the Field of Digital Well-being Education: A Compendium of Innovative Practices
and Open Educational Resources Chryssa Themelis and Julie-Ann Sime Lancaster
University, 2019
6. Digital Life and Youth Well-being, Social Connectedness, Empathy, and Narcissism Carrie
James, Katie Davis, Linda Charmaraman, Sara Konrath, Petr Slovak, PhD, Emily
Weinstein, Lana Yarosh, 2017
7. Digital The social media see-saw: Positive and negative influences on adolescents’
affective well-being, Emily Weinstein, 2018
8. Well-being as a Dynamic Construct Mariek M. P. Vanden Abeele, 2018
124
Statistics:https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Being_young_in_Europe_today_-
_digital_world&oldid=581923#Youth_online:_a_way_of_life
125
D. Rad & E. Demeter (2019) Youth Sustainable Digital Well-being, Postmodern Openings 2019, Volume 10, Issue 4, pages:
104-115
183
The articles were chosen based on the usage of the term digital well-being to narrow down the
theme of digital life and youth well-being. Articles only focusing on digital well-being connected
to the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded. Further criteria were geographical scope where
studies relevant to the EU context were prioritised, as well as publication year, where a more
current date of publication was prioritised. All eight articles chosen focus on digital well-being,
especially related to youth, and were selected based on their relevance regarding the chosen
topic.
The term digital well-being was operationalised by compiling keywords used for the description
of digital well-being in the eight articles. The 20 keywords further described as sub-topics to
digital well-being include different aspects and contexts of the topic and were used as analytical
categories in the analysis. In the subsequent step, the keywords/sub-topics identified were
divided into categories based on commonalities. This categorisation facilitated the analysis of
the relationship between these categories to develop the main findings.
Figure 117 shows which sub-topics belong to which dimension of well-being. Each sub-topic
will be discussed in more detail in later sections.
Figure 117 The four dimensions of well-being and their respective sub-topics
The discussion below explores how the sub-topics impact digital life and youth well-being and
their connection to the four dimensions of well-being. These four dimensions are not mutually
exclusive, hence should be comprehended as dynamic. Table 29 illustrates which research
articles we analysed and what dimensions of well-being they covered.
Table 29 Occurrence of the four dimensions of well-being in the reviewed research articles
Research article Psychological/ Cognitive Social well- Physical

emotional well- well-being being well-being
being
1. A Qualitative Meta-Study of Youth Voice

and Co-Participatory Research Practices:
Informing Cyber/Bullying Research Methodologies
2. Youth in the Digital Age - Youth well-being and
digital media
3. Youth Sustainable Digital Well-being
4. The Race Towards Digital Well-being: Issues and

Opportunities, Luigi De Russis and Alberto Monge
Rofarello
5. Mapping the Field of Digital Well-being

Education: A Compendium of Innovative Practices
184
and Open Educational Resources

6. Digital Life and Youth Well-being, Social
Connectedness, Empathy, and Narcissism
7. The social media see-saw: Positive and negative

influences on adolescents’ affective well-being
8. Digital Well-being as a Dynamic Construct
Cognitive well-being
Digital literacy means having the skills needed to live, learn, and work in a society where
communication and access to information increasingly takes place via internet platforms, social
media, mobile devices, and other digital technologies. According to Tilleczek, Bell, and Munro
(2019), these skills are crucial for youth well-being in the digital age,126 They underscore the
importance of digital wellness, as their study showcases how digital literacy competencies
affect aspects like marginalisation, relationships, media use, education, employment, and time
management.
Digital literacy is mentioned in correspondence to many other sub-topics, such as

internet/online/technology access, from a health-related perspective. The previously
mentioned study127 presents a model of youth well-being in the digital age, encompassing
seven domains: health, relatedness, equity, education and employment, youth engagement,
affordable living conditions, and space and environment. This model underscores the
importance of technology access, including accessible online spaces for youth engagement.
Moreover, the study illustrates that internet access is not always a good thing, since it
sometimes reduces productivity and health.
As underlined in the EUYS, digital technologies have revolutionised young people’s lives in
many ways and policies need to consider both opportunities and challenges. This entails
harnessing the potential of social media, providing young people with digital skills, and
nurturing the capacity for critical thinking and media literacy.128 Both media literacy and social
media are mentioned in relation to several other sub-topics. As presented in one study by
Weinstein129, the effects of social media on adolescents’ well-being are predominately positive.
The “affect experiences” (i.e., pleasant, and unpleasant moods and emotions) can be
organised across four functional dimensions: Relational interactions; self-expression; interest-
driven exploration; and browsing. Other studies suggest that social media aids in maintaining
relationships, making friends, and forming new connections. However, it also impacts
narcissism and media literacy, among other things.130 131
Moreover, the topicality of artificial intelligence presents both opportunities and risks on
society. The opportunities include enabling human self-realisation, enhancing human agency,
increasing societal capabilities, and cultivating societal cohesion. The risks, on the other hand,
include devaluing human skills, removing human responsibility, reducing human control and
126
Kate C. Tilleczek, Brandi L. Bell, and Matthew Munro (2019). Youth well-being and digital media. Chapter 3
127
Ibid.
128
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Engaging,
Connecting and Empowering young people: a new EU Youth Strategy. Available at : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0269
129
Emily Weinstein (2018). The social media see-saw: Positive and negative influences on adolescents’ affective well-being.
130
Chryssa Themelis and Julie-Ann Sime. (2019). Mapping the Field of Digital Well-being Education: A Compendium of Innovative
Practices and Open Educational Resources.
131
Carrie James, Katie Davis, Linda Charmaraman, Sara Konrath, Petr Slovak, Emily Weinstein, Lana Yarosh. (2017). Digital Life
and Youth Well-being, Social Connectedness, Empathy, and Narcissism.
185
eroding human self-determination – all of which impact human health and well-being to varying
degrees132.
Professionals, from paediatrician health/social services to educators and youth workers,

can support youth well-being. Paediatricians can guide parents on digital platforms133, and
educators can attend media literacy workshops, aiding students' online well-being.134 Another
sub-topic, related to the cognitive well-being of youth, is digital footprint, which connects to
the trail of data one leaves behind when using the internet. For example, many parents post
photos of their children on social media, which can violate their children’s privacy rights. It can
be considered a personal responsibility to be aware of threats to digital well-being, maintaining
an ethical presence online and upholding digital citizenship, while monitoring personal
values, feelings and health.135
Social well-being
Digital citizenship encompasses both respectful and tolerant online conduct, as well as
engagement in online civic activities, such as seeking information to support the community or
other youth, and sharing skills.136 Youth engagement, as defined in research by Tilleczek and
Campbell (2019)137, includes youth activities, participation in decision making, youth spaces
and youth contributions. Regarding digital well-being, youth engagement comprehends
accessible online spaces and inclusive media, while also highlighting that overconsumption
and unhealthy use of digital media negatively impacts well-being, which is crucial for youth
engagement.
Physical well-being
As indicated above, youths’ dependency on technology poses another challenge for well-
being. Some young people express a sense of loss of control regarding their constant use of
digital media. This sense of dependency and reliance is shaping young lives and their sense
of well-being.138
Online safety is a broad term, including other terms such as cybersecurity, disinformation,
cybercrime, cyber violence, online hate speech, online consumer protection, as well as cyber
bullying. A meta-study139 explores various studies on the impact of cyberbullying on well-
being. The discussion highlights that cyberbullying triggers intense negative emotions like fear,
personal distress, disrupted relationships, a feeling of helplessness, overall pain and suffering,
humiliation, anger, and a sense of violation and vulnerability.
Psychological/emotional well-being
Psychological/emotional well-being refers to positive self-esteem, agency, satisfaction with life,
hope for the future, sadness and anger. A sub-topic encompassed within this dimension are
psychological effects including emotional regulation, empathy and narcissism. In the
literature emotional regulation is defined as part of all conscious and unconscious behaviour
that individuals use to reduce, maintain or optimise positive or negative emotions.140 Empathy
and narcissism are personality traits concerning the relative focus on others versus the self.
132
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M. et al. AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks,
Principles, and Recommendations. Minds & Machines 28, 689–707 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
133
Carrie James, Katie Davis, Linda Charmaraman, Sara Konrath, Petr Slovak, Emily Weinstein, Lana Yarosh (2017). Digital Life
and Youth Well-being, Social Connectedness, Empathy, and Narcissism.
134
135
Themelis, C., Sime, J.A., (2019), Mapping the Field of Digital Well-being Education: A Compendium of Innovative Practices
and Open Educational Resources.
136
Kate Tilleczek, Valerie Campbell (2019). Youth in the Digital Age Paradox, Promise, Predicament.
137
Kate Tilleczek, Valerie Campbell (2019). Youth in the Digital Age Paradox, Promise, Predicament.
138
139
A Qualitative Meta-Study of Youth Voice and Co-Participatory Research Practices: Informing Cyber/Bullying Research
Methodologies
140
Rad, D., & Demeter, E. (2019). Youth Sustainable Digital Well-being. Postmodern Openings, 10(4), 104-115.
doi:10.18662/po/96
186
Existing research suggests that narcissistic people use social networking sites more frequently
and in more self-promoting ways than less narcissistic people.141
The relationship between helpfully perceived network and youth digital emotional regulation
difficulty is mediated by youth online duality.142 Online duality refers to the two contrasting
elements of behaviour displayed online and in face-to-face communication. This duality can
impact emotional well-being.143 Online duality is also related to digital balance, an approach
promoting digital well-being, focusing on monitoring habits and fostering healthy behaviours
by balancing digital tool usage with other aspects of life.144 The definition of digital balance
intersects with the concept of digital well-being as “a subjective individual experience of optimal
balance between the benefits and drawbacks obtained from mobile connectivity”.145
The sub-topic of connecting with friends touches upon well-being, in terms of social
connection as a fundamental human need. Children and teenagers develop social skills as
they grow and practice strategies to fulfil their needs for family, friendship and intimacy.146
Under the sub-topic of consumerism, the connection between digital media, marketing, and
consumerism is discussed as a daily feature of digital capitalism (i.e., a phase of capitalism
developed over the internet, creating a wide network economy supporting corporate business
processes). Youth reported that they felt targeted when their internet searches were used to
populate the advertising spaces on websites and in apps. Some youth also recognised that
not only were advertisers selling to the youth market through online advertisements, but the
technology itself was being marketed to youth, creating a ubiquitous culture of technological
consumption.147
Methodology
The theme of youth well-being and digital life was operationalised through the sub-topics
discussed above, which served as an analytical tool to analyse 318 sources connected to the
implementation of the EU Youth Strategy. The question this analysis seeks to answer is:
How is digital life and youth well-being being addressed within the implementation of
the EUYS?
In order too answer the above question, the analysis was structured based on the instruments
of the EUYS to clarify the potential differences between them and their connection to the
subject.
Material
The material, which consists of 318 sources, was largely provided by DG EAC and strongly
connected to the EUYS. The sources consisted of reports, articles, Council recommendations,
working documents, recommendations, reviews, work programmes, communication
documents and conference notes (both European and national) describing the implementation
of the Strategy. The geographical scope was mainly the European Union but in some cases
the sources included other countries in Europe as well. Another selection criteria was the date
of the sources; sources before 2018 were not included. All sources focused on youth to a
141
James, D et al., (2017). Digital Life and Youth Well-being, Social Connectedness, Empathy and Narcissism, Pediatrics, 140(2).
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758F
142
doi:10.18662/po/96
143
doi:10.18662/po/96
144
Themelis, C., Sime, J.A., (2019), Mapping the Field of Digital Well-being Education: A Compendium of Innovative Practices
and Open Educational Resources.
145
Mariek M P Vanden Abeele (2021), Digital Well-being as a Dynamic Construct, Communication Theory, 31(4), 932–955,
https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaa024
146
Kate C. Tilleczek, Brandi L. Bell, and Matthew Munro (2019). Youth well-being and digital media. (Chapter 3)
147
Kate C. Tilleczek, Brandi L. Bell, and Matthew Munro (2019). Youth well-being and digital media. (Chapter 3)
187
different extent since they were related to the EUYS. However the definition of youth varied,
as countries have their own categorisation of which age group is considered as youth.
Systematic overview
In a systematic overview, conclusions are drawn from empirical evidence consisting of several
studies that address the same issue. These studies are presented, compared, synthesised,
and summarised in one single report. In contrast to a meta-analysis where new statistical
analyses of the studies' primary data are conducted, the systematic overview should provide
a comprehensive, unbiased synthesis of existing knowledge.
Due to resource and time constraints, and because ‘digital life and youth well-being’ is an
emerging topic, we have furthermore chosen the rapid review approach148. This is a type of
systematic overview that can be conducted during a shorter period, up to five weeks.
To conduct a systematic overview with a rapid review approach, the following steps were
taken149:
• Formulating a review question

• Determining database search strategy150 and defining inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Conducting the searching
• Saving the search(es) (including creating a search protocol)
• Assessing for relevance
• Critically appraising the information sources
• Analysing and synthesising the relevant studies
Since the review of this study is focusing on qualitative research, the practices of the
Population, Exposure, Comparison, Outcome (PECO) framework were used as the database
search strategy. When applied on this systematic overview, that means:
• Population: youth
• Exposure: digital life/digitalisation/online
• Comparison: not relevant
• Outcome: well-being
The purpose of the systematic overview was to:
• produce an updated comprehensive assessment of the impact of the EUYS on the

selected topic;
• attempt to provide a systematic overview of the direction and magnitude of the impact
of EUYS on the selected topic;
• attempt to identify factors that may explain the heterogeneity of the results that have
been found in individual studies or national evaluations.
148
Khangura S. et al. (2012). Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach, Maureen Dobbins, RN, PhD (2017).
Rapid Review Guidebook – Steps for conducting a rapid review, Version 1.1 July 12, 2017. Retrieved from:
https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/01/a816af720e4d587e13da6bb307df8c907a5dff9a.pdf.
149
Maureen Dobbins, RN, PhD (2017). Rapid Review Guidebook – Steps for conducting a rapid review, Version 1.1 July 12, 2017.
Retrieved from: https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/01/a816af720e4d587e13da6bb307df8c907a5dff9a.pdf,
Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors) (2020). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. ISBN: 978-0-6488488-0-6. Retrieved
from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global and https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01.
150
Common practices are the following frameworks: PICO/PECO (Population, Intervention/exposure, Comparison, Outcome)
focusing on quantitative research, and PEO (Population, Exposure, Outcome) and PS (Population and Setting) focusing on
qualitative research.
188
Based on the in-depth review of the comprehensive portfolio of sources and grey literature we
have conducted, the team conducting the systematic overview together with DG EAC chose
the following topic for the analysis:
• Digital life and well-being of young people.
The material described above was inserted into an excel file and then categorized using the
analytical framework consisting of the 20 identified sub-topics. To avoid any differences of
interpretation, several people were involved in the analysis of each source. Furthermore, each
source was categorised as yes or no in the analysis, depending on whether the sup-topic was
brought up. By “brought up” we mean that a part of the text referred to the definition of the sub-
topic, not that the word itself had to be mentioned. For instance, regarding the sub-topic
paediatrician health/social services, a yes could be coded if interventions such as online
therapy were mentioned, when discussing digital life and youth mental health. The
contextualisation thus provided the base for the coding. Moreover, the description of a sub-
topic in the outcomes section does not necessarily entail that the sub-topic has been explicitly
mentioned. For instance, the term online-safety might be included in a discussion about online
hate.
189
Outcomes from the Systematic Overview
Implementation instruments of the EUYS

To assess how the EUYS has addressed digital life and youth well-being we chose to map the
sub-topics identified and defined in the theoretical framework, against the literature describing
the implementation of the Strategy. This might provide an indication of how frequently the topic
is discussed and the various dimensions it is viewed from .
The implementation of the EUYS was made through several instruments. To structure the
overview and assess whether some instruments can be seen as more successful than others
in addressing the topic, an analysis has been conducted on each of the instruments:
• Mutual learning and dissemination,

• Future National Activities Planner,
• EU Youth Dialogues,
• Evidence-based youth policymaking and knowledge building,
• EU Youth Coordinator,
• Participatory governance mechanisms,
• EU Youth Work Agenda,
• Communicating the EUYS & Youth Information and Support,
• Mobilising and monitoring EU programmes and funds,
• EU Work Plans for Youth,
• The partnership with the Council of Europe.
The table below presents the occurrence of sub-topics used to describe digital life and youth
well-being for each of the instruments implementing the Strategy. However, the frequency of
occurrence in the reviewed sources has not been taken into consideration. In addition, the
number of reviewed sources related to each respective instrument varies significantly. The
occurrence should therefore be seen in relation to the number of sources reviewed. The ratio
between the number of sub-topic occurrences and the total number of sources reviewed
produces the occurrence index. A high occurrence index indicates a more extensive focus on
the topic, assumably discussed from different angles. Conversely, a low index indicates a
narrower focus, which is of less interest for the overview.
As the table indicates, the EU Youth Coordinator is the instrument showing the highest
occurrence index. On average, seven of the sub-topics are discussed in each of the sources
related to the instrument. This can be compared with, on average, 0.7 sub-topics being
discussed in sources related to the EU Youth Dialogue. It is important to consider that a
high(er) occurrence index can also indicate a broader focus, covering different aspects of the
topic, while a low(er) index can indicate a more in-depth focus. To determine whether that is
the case or not, the following sections present a more in-depth analysis of the outcome for
each of the instruments.
The total number of sources reviewed was 318, which does not correspond to the number of
sources specified in the table below. This is because there is an overlap between the different
instruments. Thus, some of the reviewed sources relate to several instruments. Consequently,
there is a possibility that the quantitative analysis is skewed in some cases. The quantitative
aspect of the analysis is therefore combined with qualitative examples. However, some
instruments have a very clear categorisation of sources, such as the Future National Activities
Planner (FNAP) and the partnership with the Council of Europe (EU-CoE youth partnership).
190
Table 30 Occurrence index
Instrument Number of sources Mentions of sub-topics Occurrence index

reviewed
EU Youth Coordinator 3 21 7
EU-Council of Europe youth partnership 22 93 4,2
Evidence-based youth policymaking and 133 494 3,7

knowledge building
European Youth Work Agenda 9 30 3,3
Monitoring and mobilising EU programmes and 144 355 2,5

funds
Communicating the EUYS & Youth Information 47 109 2,3
and Support
EU Work Plans for Youth 2 4 2
Mutual learning and dissemination 6 10 1,7
Participatory governance mechanisms 38 61 1,6
FNAP 43 55 1,3
EU Youth Dialogue 18 12 0,7
Total (including overlapping sources) 318 924 2,9
The figure demonstrates the breakdown of the concept of digital life and youth well-being into
the different dimensions identified to define the topic, as mentioned in the theoretical
framework. Each of the dimensions can be seen as an aspect from which digital life and youth
well-being are discussed. More specifically the figure shows in how many of the reviewed
sources the dimensions of digital life and youth-well-being occur. As illustrated, cognitive well-
being, e.g., successful participation in a learning process (education and training), is the most
occurring dimension followed by social well-being, e.g., youth engagement and digital
citizenship. Psychological or emotional well-being, e.g., balance, online duality and
empathy is discussed less frequently.
Figure 118 Occurrence of well-being dimensions in the reviewed sources
Cognitive wellbeing
Social wellbeing
Physical wellbeing
Psychological/emotional wellbeing
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
191
Figure 119 below shows a breakdown of the dimensions into 20 sub-topics. Each sub-topic
belongs to one dimension. The colour indicates the dimension to which the sub-topic belongs;
blue is cognitive well-being, orange is social well-being, pink is physical well-being and
turquoise is psychological/emotional well-being.
Digital literacy (including digital skills), youth engagement and internet access are the sub-
topics mentioned in most sources relating to the EUYS. This is not particularly surprising as
these sub-topics are not only coherent with but to some extent a prerequisite for the Strategy's
three core business areas: ‘Engage’, ‘Connect’ and ‘Empower’. More abstract terms such as
empathy are mentioned less in the sources. Narcissism, which was one of the sub-topics
identified through the scientific publications, is not mentioned in any of the sources in the
review.
Digital literacy is discussed in 36 percent of the sources reviewed, often in terms of the need
to strengthen the digital literacy among young people to equip them with abilities and skills
helping them to fulfil their potential in education, work and social life. For example, the Digital
Education Action Plan mentions that in 2019 a fifth of young people lacked basic digital skills,
preventing them from fully participating in the labour market.151
Digital literacy is also mentioned in conjunction with youth engagement, which is the second
most occurring sub-topic in the literature. To illustrate this, digital skills is discussed in 64
percent of the reviewed sources where youth engagement is mentioned as well. The sub-topic
also occurs in discussions on new indicators which demonstrates an increased importance. A
summary of the outcomes from the 2022 European Year of Youth mentions 23 new indicators
in the EU Youth Dashboard of which digital skills as well as health and well-being are two.152
Moreover, while cognitive well-being is the most occurring dimension in the sources reviewed,
this is not the case for all its sub-topics. Digital footprint is for example one of the least
occurring sub-topics in the reviewed sources, only being discussed in seven percent of the
sources. This can probably be ascribed to digital footprint being a very a narrow sub-topic,
which could hypothetically be covered to some degree by digital literacy, which is instead used
in a wide range of areas such as strategies and policies.
The occurrence of sub-topics related to the physical well-being dimension, e.g., online
safety, cyber bullying and technology addiction, is more spread out. Online safety is the
fourth most common (emerging) sub-topic, occurring in 27 percent of the sources reviewed.
The sub-topic encompasses other areas such as fake news, cyberbullying and appropriation
of personal data. A commission staff working document from 2021 on the implementation of
the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2021, describing the situation of young people in the European
Union, discusses online safety as closely connected with media literacy. It delves into the
need to increase young people’s resilience to online threats and to support their safety, security
and privacy.153 This also appears to be the case in other sources, such as the Youth Wiki.
Lately, it seems like online safety is more often discussed in relation to disinformation and fake
news, which might be a consequence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, showcasing the
importance of the sub-topic. Technology addiction is instead only mentioned in six percent
151
The European Commission, COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Digital
Education Action Plan 2021-2027 Resetting education and training for the digital age, COM/2020/624/final. Available at:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0624&from=EN
152
The European Commission, European Year of Youth in numbers, 2022
153
The European commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2021: The
situation of young people in the European Union, 2021
192
of the sources reviewed and occurs mainly in EU-CoE youth partnership research and working
documents from the European Commission on the implementation of the EUYS.154
Figure 119 Occurrence of well-being sub-topics in the reviewed sources
Educators/ Youth workers

Digital literacy (including digital skills)
Youth engagement
Internet/online/technology access
Media literacy
Online safety
Cyber bullying
Online duality
Pediatrician/ health/ Social Services
Digital citizenship
Balance
Social Media
Connecting with friends
AI
Digital footprint
Technology addiction
Consumerism
Emotional regulation
Empathy
Narcissism
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Mutual learning and dissemination

Mutual learning activities are events or initiatives where policymakers and stakeholders
exchange best practices and experiences on youth-related policies and issues. These include
expert groups such as the one on EU indicators in the youth field and peer learning activities
(PLA) such as the PLA on a rights-based approach to youth policies. In the reviewed literature
a total of six sources related to this instrument. As can be seen in the figure below, only a few
of the sub-topics were discussed, with digital literacy (including skills), educators/youth
workers and media literacy being the most frequently occurring ones. The sub-topics
discussed in the reviewed sources were on the other hand done so to a fairly high degree, with
the three top-mentioned sub-topics being discussed in a third of the sources. Moreover, all top-
mentioned sub-topics belong to the dimension of cognitive well-being, indicating that
concerning the topic of digital life and youth well-being, this instrument mainly implemented
such aspects within the EUYS.
To give an example, the meeting report for the PLA on a rights-based approach brought up
good practice examples for the promotion and implementation of this approach in youth
policies. One such example was youth information services providing media literacy for young
154
See for example the meta-analysis of research on the impact of Covid-19 on the youth sector (2021), the compendium of
background readings on navigation transitions – adapting policy to young people’s changing realities (2022), Council of Europe
and European Commission research study on Social Inclusion, Digitalisation and Young people, (2020) and Commission staff
working document on the situation of young people in the European Union, which is accompanying the Report from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions on the implementation of the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2021, (2021).
193
people in and out of the school context in Belgium.155 Another example is the proposal for an
updated dashboard of EU youth indicators where digital skills of young people, media
literacy and safe use of new media where proposed indicators in the EUYS core area
‘Connect’.
The PLA on a rights-based approach to youth policies also discussed two of the lesser-
mentioned sub-topics, online safety and youth engagement. It stated that in line with the
objectives of the PLA, meaningful youth participation is crucial for a healthy democracy. It also
implied, among other things, the need for safe spaces for young people, both physical and
virtual. The PLA thus illustrates that they relate to each other to some degree. In other words,
it shows that online safety is needed for good youth engagement.156
Figure 120 Occurrence of well-being sub-topics in the reviewed sources connected to mutual learning
and dissemination
Youth engagement
Media literacy
Online safety
Cyber bullying
Online duality
Digital citizenship
Balance
Social Media
AI
Digital footprint
Consumerism
Empathy
Narcissism
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Future National Activities Planner (FNAP)

The FNAP allows Member States to share their priorities on a voluntary basis in line with the
EU Youth Strategy. So far, two rounds of the FNAP have occurred, one in 2019 and another
in 2021. Out of the 318 sources analysed for the systematic overview, 43 concerned the
FNAPs. As can be seen in the figure below, the frequency for which the sub-topics are
155
PLA on RBA to youth policies, 2021.
156
194
mentioned follows a rather similar pattern as for Figure 120 which shows the total amount of
sources. However, the sub-topics are occurring less frequently, with for example digital
literacy being discussed in 21 percent of the sources compared to 36 percent for the analysis
of all sources. Moreover, many sub-topics are not mentioned at all.
As the FNAP is related to the national level and their input on the EUYS, Figure 121 sheds
light on the focus Member States places on digital life and youth well-being. As can be seen,
there is a strong focus on both social and cognitive well-being and a lesser focus on
psychological/emotional well-being.
One example of the strong focus on youth engagement is the French community of Belgium,
which discussed this in both FNAP rounds. In the 2019 FNAP they emphasised the need for
an expert group to identify how to engage young people, as well as evidence and research on
how to promote the engagement of young people regarding digital democracy tools. In the
2021 FNAP they also emphasised youth participation, particularly in relation to the COVID-19
pandemic, illustrating the health aspect of youth engagement.157158
The only Member States that mentioned sub-topics relating to psychological/emotional well-
being were Germany and Poland. For example, Poland stated in the 2021 FNAP that one of
the main challenges young people faced in their country was that the COVID-19 pandemic had
resulted in mental health issues for young people as many aspects of life switched online,
giving them very limited opportunities to connect with their peers in real life and engage in
social life. The fact that this dimension was only discussed in relation to the pandemic, and
that the pandemic-related restrictions have ended, indicate that future FNAPs might have an
even smaller focus on the psychological/emotional dimension of well-being.159
157
FNAP 2021, Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/publication/FNAPSurvey2021
158
FNAP 2019. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/publication/FNAP
159
FNAP 2021, Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/publication/FNAPSurvey2021
195
Figure 121 Occurrence of well-being sub-topics in the reviewed sources connected to the FNAP
Youth engagement
Media literacy
Online safety
Cyber bullying
Online duality
Digital citizenship
Balance
Social Media
AI
Digital footprint
Consumerism
Empathy
Narcissism
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
EU Youth Dialogue
The EU Youth Dialogue is a process of consultations with young people and youth
organisations to inform policymaking and improve youth policies in the EU or the Member
States. The number of reviewed sources relating to the EU Youth Dialogue was 18. As
illustrated in the figure below, the sub-topics are discussed in fewer sources compared to
Figure 119, which contains all reviewed sources. This indicates that the EU Youth Dialogue,
compared to other instruments, has implemented digital life and youth well-being in the EUYS
to a lesser degree.
The sub-topics educators/youth workers and youth engagement stand out in being
mentioned in most sources. It is not surprising that these two sub-topics stand out. Firstly, as
previously mentioned, the EU Youth Dialogue is a process of consultations and thus youth
engagement, and secondly, youth workers are involved in the instrument.
The two sub-topics that occur in most sources related to the EU Youth Dialogue, youth
engagement and educators/youth workers, seem to be discussed in the same context within
the instrument. An indication of this is that in all the sources connected to the EU Youth
Dialogue where youth engagement is discussed, educators/youth workers are as well, and in
196
66 percent of the sources where educators/youth workers are discussed, youth engagement
is as well. Another example illustrating this connection is the conference report connected to
the EU Youth Conference which in turn was organised as part of the EU Youth Dialogue.160
The sub-topics related to the physical dimension of digital life and youth well-being are
mentioned to a lower degree within the EU Youth Dialogue compared to many other
instruments. Online Safety is the only mentioned sub-topic related to this dimension and is
only discussed in six percent of the sources. In comparison, among the sources related to
evidence-based youth policymaking and knowledge building, online safety is discussed in 36
percent of them. This indicates that the physical dimension of well-being is less prioritised
within the EU Youth Dialogue. Online safety is however discussed in the above-mentioned
conference report. Under target five connected to EYG 9 Space and Participation for All, it is
stated that the participants of the EU Youth Conference request that the European
Commission focus their attention on the creation of safe digital spaces for young people in all
programmes. They also request that the support and funding for developing digital literacy
activities be made a top priority, along with prioritising it horizontally at a European level. This
indicates that there is a connection between online safety and digital literacy within the EU
Youth Dialogue.161
Figure 122 Occurrence of well-being sub-topics in the reviewed sources connected to the EU Youth
Dialogue
Youth engagement
Media literacy
Online safety
Cyber bullying
Online duality
Digital citizenship
Balance
Social Media
AI
Digital footprint
Consumerism
Empathy
Narcissism
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%
160
Conference Report – EU Youth Conference 2-5 October 2020, 2020. Available at :
https://www.dbjr.de/fileadmin/Publikationen/EUYC-conference-report.pdf
161
197
Evidence-based youth policymaking and knowledge building

With evidence-based youth policymaking and knowledge building, we refer to tools or
resources that provide data, information, or research regarding the situation of young people,
youth policies and programmes. This includes Youth Wiki, Knowledge Hub, Dashboard of
indicators, Youth progress index, Eurostat, Eurobarometer, European Commission studies or
reports on youth policy, along with reports from the EU-CoE youth partnership. A total of 133
of the reviewed sources belonged to one or more of these categories. As indicated in the figure
below, discussions regarding all sub-topics except for narcissism occurs in these sources.
The sub-topics occurring in most sources are youth engagement, digital literacy (including
skills), media literacy and online safety. Moreover, the figure shows that sub-topics
belonging to the cognitive well-being dimension are the most frequently occurring, while sub-
topics belonging to psychological/emotional well-being occur in fewer sources. Moreover,
compared to all reviewed sources, the sub-topics tend to be mentioned to a higher degree in
the sources relating to this instrument. Sub-topics such as online safety are mentioned in 36
percent of the sources connected to this instrument, compared to being discussed in 27
percent of all sources. This is furthermore the case for most sub-topics, illustrating that
evidence-based youth policymaking and knowledge building has a larger focus on digital life
and youth well-being compared to other instruments.
As mentioned, the Youth Wiki is a part of this instrument. The Youth Wiki is an online platform
presenting information on European countries' youth policies and thus sheds light on what
focus individual countries have on digital well-being. The Youth Wiki shows that although most
European countries have policies concerning various aspects of youths’ digital life, there is a
tendency to focus on the cognitive dimension of well-being in many countries’ policies and
interventions (i.e., youths’ successful participation in education and employment). However,
many European countries also make a connection between digital life and the physical
dimensions of well-being through policies and interventions that aim to promote online safety.
The information provided on the Youth Wiki platform indicates that most European countries
have policies concerning digital- and media literacy. In these policies, there is an emphasis
on strengthening skills related to digital- and media literacy to enable youths’ successful
participation in education and employment. There is thus a connection between digital- and
media literacy and the cognitive dimension of well-being in most European countries’ policies
and interventions regarding the digital life of youth.
Many European countries also relate digital- and media literacy to online safety in their
policies and interventions. One such example is Saferinternet.at, which is an Austrian initiative
for the safe use of digital media through the promotion of media literacy. It supports internet
users, with a special focus on children, youth, parents, and educators, in safer use of digital
media.162 In the Belgium-Flemish-Community, the Knowledge Centre on Media Literacy has
the task of ensuring that all Flemish citizens have the necessary knowledge, insights and skills
to safely use media, with specific attention to vulnerable groups such as children and young
people. It provides knowledge and insights about specific and diverse media themes such as
cyberbullying, online privacy and gaming.163 The connection between media literacy and online
safety is obvious. In the Youth Wiki database, where online safety was discussed, media
literacy was also discussed in 89 percent of the sources. As the examples above show, this
indicates that the cognitive and physical dimensions of well-being relate to each other.
162
European Commission (2021), Youth Wiki – Austria 6.8 Media literacy and safe use of new media. Available at : https://national-
policies.eacea.ec.europa.eu/youthwiki/chapters/austria/68-media-literacy-and-safe-use-of-new-media
163
European Commission (2021), Youth Wiki – Belgium-Flemish-Community 6.8 Media literacy and safe use of new media.
Available at : https://national-policies.eacea.ec.europa.eu/youthwiki/chapters/belgium-flemish-community/68-media-literacy-and-
safe-use-of-new-media
198
By raising digital- and media literacy, many European countries aim to develop sound and
secure digital habits to combat issues such as cybercrime and digital fraud, as well as
disinformation and political manipulation. In addition, concerning youth specifically,
cyberbullying is often mentioned in relation to online safety. As such, there is a connection
between many European countries’ policies and interventions regarding digital life and the
physical dimensions of well-being.
The expansion of information communication technologies (ICT) has given young people
increased opportunities for expression and participation in political life. This has encouraged
the use of ICT to strengthen youth engagement and participation by public authorities and
NGOs in several European countries. In France, for example, the Ministry of Education has
supported the launch of the Isoloir.net project, in partnership with local authorities, digital
associations and scientific institutions. Isoloir.net is a participatory digital tool that aims to
promote awareness and civic action among young people and to bring their opinions on major
debates in society to the public arena.164 However, although several European countries
consider e-participation as a great way to involve young people in politics and society, many
lack concrete policy measures focusing on promoting young people’s e-participation. This
could potentially have a negative effect on the social dimension of digital life and youth well-
being.
An example of a source that covers several sub-topics is the EU initiative on Web 4.0 and
virtual worlds: a head start in the next technological transition. In addition to the sub-topics
mentioned above, digital footprint and AI are discussed. It mentions that both the Data
Governance Act and the Data Act establish horizontal rules for data sharing and give users
control over the data generated by their connected devices, while the proposed AI Act will
tackle risks emerging from artificial intelligence and promote innovation in trustworthy AI. As
such, this also relates to online safety, as giving users control over their data increases online
safety.165
164
European Commission (2023), Youth Wiki – France 5.9 E-participation. Available at: https://national-
policies.eacea.ec.europa.eu/youthwiki/chapters/france/59-e-participation
165
The European commission (2023), COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS - An EU
initiative on Web 4.0 and virtual worlds: a head start in the next technological transition, COM/2023/442/final, Available at:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023DC0442
199
Figure 123 Occurrence of well-being sub-topics in the reviewed sources connected to evidence-based
youth policymaking and knowledge building
Youth engagement
Media literacy
Online safety
Cyber bullying
Online duality
Digital citizenship
Balance
Social Media
AI
Digital footprint
Consumerism
Empathy
Narcissism
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
The EU Youth Coordinator is a function to enhance cross-sectoral cooperation, knowledge
development and exchange on youth issues within the European Commission and coherent
communication towards young people. Out of all the reviewed sources only three were related
to the EU Youth Coordinator to a degree that made them relevant to include, which is good to
have in mind when analysing the figure below. Moreover, not every part of these sources
concerned the EU Youth Coordinator, indicating that the figure should be interpreted with some
caution. Nevertheless, some sub-topics stand out in relation to the pattern of most other
instruments. This is for example the case with the sub-topics belonging to the
psychological/emotional well-being dimension, which are mentioned to a much higher
degree compared to other instruments. Both online duality and balance are mentioned in two
out of the three sources related to the EU Youth Coordinator. In comparison, only eight percent
of all sources discuss online duality and balance. Thus, it seems that the EU Youth Coordinator
has an especially strong focus on the psychological/emotional dimension of well-being.
Moreover, unlike most other instruments, cognitive well-being is not the most and
psychological/emotional well-being not the least occurring dimensions in the reviewed
literature.
An example of the use of online duality is the peer learning activity on a rights-based
approach to youth policies which highlights the EU Youth Coordinator. The peer learning
activity was organised in a hybrid format similar to what is referred to by online duality, i.e., two
200
contrasting elements of behaviour displayed online and in face-to-face communication.166

However, no perspective on well-being has been included.
The sub-topic mentioned in most of the reviewed sources, youth engagement, is emphasised
as something which the EU Youth Coordinator itself contribute to. The preliminary take-away
from the call for evidence for the interim evaluation of the EUYS, made clear that the creation
of the EU Youth Coordinator function was welcomed by many respondents. Additionally,
further strengthening was advocated to enable the channelling of more voices of young people
in the EU into policy making.167
Youth engagement in the context of the EU Youth Coordinator is often discussed together with
other sub-topics such as educators/youth workers. A report from the partnership between
the Council of Europe and the European Commission reflects on the role of the EU Youth
Coordinator in connection with the covid-19 pandemic, as well as the importance of
strengthening cross-sectoral cooperation. The pandemic revealed the close connection
between policy areas such as education, employment, health, democracy, and youth work and
made clear that there is an overlap between the social and cognitive dimensions of youth well-
being.168
166
167
Preliminary take-away from Call for Evidence for the interim evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027, 2022.
168
Hoffman van de Poll, F. European Youth Strategies – A reflection and analysis, Partnership between the European Commission
and the Council of Europe in the field of youth, 2021. Available at: https://pjp-
eu.coe.int/documents/42128013/101043895/European+Youth+Strategies+-+reflection+paper.pdf/ba2cb002-9705-620d-3ddb-
bc4939c6d3b4
201
Figure 124 Occurrence of well-being sub-topics in the reviewed sources connected to the EU Youth
Coordinator
Youth engagement
Media literacy
Online safety
Cyber bullying
Online duality
Digital citizenship
Balance
Social Media
AI
Digital footprint
Consumerism
Empathy
Narcissism
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Participatory governance mechanisms

Participatory governance mechanisms are instruments where policymakers, young people and
stakeholders learn and exchange information about policy development. These mechanisms
include youth councils, the EU Youth Coordinator, the EU Youth Dialogue, the EU Youth
Strategy Platform and the 2022 European Year of Youth Stakeholder and National
Coordinators’ Group. 38 sources relating to this instrument was reviewed. As can be seen in
the figure below, the dimensions and their respective sub-topics discussed in most sources
follow a similar pattern as the figure above, which shows all sources aggregated. The most
frequently occurring dimension for participatory governance mechanisms is cognitive well-
being followed by social well-being, physical well-being and lastly psychological well-being.
However, some of the narrower sub-topics related to cognitive well-being – digital footprint,
AI and social media – are mentioned less frequently.
The focus on youth engagement can be seen in youth councils. An example of this is Poland
mentioning on Youth Wiki that in 2018-2019 the Association for Establishing the Youth Council
of the Republic of Poland developed a document, together with 600 young people called
202
“Assumptions for the National Youth Strategy 2020-2030”. Two strategic areas are health and
digitisation, which illustrates the digital well-being aspect of youth engagement.169 Another
strategic area is the internet, indicating the relationship between youth engagement and sub-
topics such as internet access. Regarding to this instrument, internet access is discussed in
75 percent of the sources where youth engagement is discussed. As with the other
instruments, the cognitive and social well-being dimensions within this instrument seem to be
interconnected.
The connection between different sub-topics can also be seen in one of the biggest
participatory governance mechanisms, the EU Youth Dialogues. The conference report for the
EU Youth Conference came up with seven targets for Youth Goal 9, Space and Participation
for All. One of these targets stated: “Ensure safe virtual youth spaces are accessible to every
young person which provide access to information and services as well as ensure opportunities
for youth participation.” This included the political requirement by the European Commission
for creating safe digital spaces for young people, along with the support and funding of
developing digital literacy activities. This sheds light on the connection between sub-topics
such as online safety and youth engagement, but also between online safety and digital
literacy.170
Figure 125 Occurrence of well-being sub-topics in the reviewed sources connected to participatory
governance mechanisms.
Youth engagement
Media literacy
Online safety
Cyber bullying
Online duality
Digital citizenship
Balance
Social Media
AI
Digital footprint
Consumerism
Empathy
Narcissism
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
169
European Commission (2023), Youth Wiki – Poland overview. Available at: https://national-
policies.eacea.ec.europa.eu/youthwiki/chapters/poland/overview
170
203
Communicating the EUYS & Youth Information and Support

The Communicating the EUYS & Youth Information and Support instrument targets
stakeholders and organisations, while the Youth Information and Support instrument aims to
inform young people about the opportunities available to them. Relevant sources for these
instruments include sources connected to the European Youth Portal, the EUYS Platform, the
EU Youth Coordinator, Eurodesk, The European Youth Information and Counselling Agency
(ERYICA), the European Youth Card Association (EYCA), the national agencies connected to
Erasmus+ and SALTO. The number of reviewed sources relating to this instrument was 47.
As the figure below shows, youth engagement is the most discussed sub-topic and occurs in
a third of the sources. The European Year of Youth Country Fiches are examples of sources
relating to this instrument. While the 2022 European Year of Youth is technically not a part of
the EUYS, it considers the EUYS to be the EU's leading policy commitment in the area of youth
and that it is thus important that the 2022 European Year of Youth is closely related to the
strategy.171 It appears from Dutch Country Fiche that their aim for the 2022 European Year of
Youth is to encourage all young people, especially those with fewer opportunities, to become
active and engaged citizens. Moreover, it is central to their approach to put young people in
the lead, to listen to their needs, and to support their voices and their own initiatives. In line
with the EUYS, the European Youth Goals and the priorities of the 2022 European Year of
Youth focus their activities on the following themes: 1. inclusion, 2. policy dialogues and
participation, 3. digital society and media literacy, 4. (mental) health well-being, 5. Climate
and sustainability and 6. Sense of citizenship. As such, both a digital- and health aspect is
included. Furthermore, youth engagement is discussed in the context of other sub-topics such
as media literacy. An illustration of this is that 90 percent of the sources that discuss media
literacy within this instrument also discuss youth engagement.172
The reviewed sources also illustrate the EU Youth Coordinator's connection to youth
engagement. The Consultation document about a preliminary take-away from Call for
Evidence for the interim evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027, mentions that the
creation of the EU Youth Coordinator function was welcomed by many respondents and further
strengthening was advocated to enable it to channel more voices of young people in the EU
into policy making.173
The link between digital skills and educators/youth workers is clear in this instrument, which
is illustrated by, for example, a position paper by EYCA, ERYICA and Eurodesk, where a range
of examples of best practices for reaching out to young people through digital tools are
presented. One example that illustrates this is the German Open Badges – Digital recognition
of skills and achievements. Open Badges are the digital, visual representation of an
achievement or skill and a digital standard for recognising learning. The Badges were
recommended as an instrument for youth work.174
The position paper also highlights the relationship between online safety and youth
engagement through a best practice example in Finland, the Sekasin-chat. The Sekasin-chat
offers an opportunity for young people to discuss anything that’s on their mind: mental health
issues, crises, life events, school, work, or relationships, indicating the connection to both
online safety and youth engagement.175
171
European Economic and Social Committee, 2021, Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a
European Year of Youth 2022, COM/2021/634/final. Available at: https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-
reports/opinions/european-year-youth-2022
172
NL – 2022 European Year of Youth Country Fiche (n.d),
173
Preliminary take-away from Call for Evidence for the interim evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027, 2022.
174
EYCA, ERYICA & Eurodesk (2019), Engage, Inform, Empower - A collection of best practices from the main European youth
information and mobility networks on enhancing youth service promotion and outreach. Available at: https://eurodesk.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/Engage.-Inform.-Empower-2nd-ed.-Best-Practice-Booklet.pdf.pdf
175
EYCA, ERYICA & Eurodesk (2019), Engage, Inform, Empower - A collection of best practices from the main European youth
information and mobility networks on enhancing youth service promotion and outreach. Available at: https://eurodesk.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/Engage.-Inform.-Empower-2nd-ed.-Best-Practice-Booklet.pdf.pdf
204
In a report by SALTO Participation and Information on the digital transformation in the youth
sector, they discuss how digital transformation in the youth field can be supported by providing
trainers, youth workers and other multipliers with an accessible and easy-to-read summary of
existing tools, methodologies, training resources, good practice examples, studies etcetera.
The report discusses several sub-topics, both the most occurring ones such as youth
engagement and digital skills and the less occurring ones such as online duality and AI.
Regarding AI, the report states that there is a need for practical resources (e.g., tools, inspiring
practice) on how to approach the topics of AI and algorithms. Examples of such resources
might include toolkits or lesson plans focusing on AI and robotics. Regarding online duality,
the report uses “virtual and blended mobility” as a measure for this. In the mapping, both AI
and virtual and blended mobility gets the result medium as an indication of the availability of
resources. This is unlike other sub-topics, such as youth work, which has a good availability of
resources according to the report.176
Figure 126 Occurrence of well-being sub-topics in the reviewed sources connected to

communicating the EUYS & youth information and support
Youth engagement
Media literacy
Online safety
Cyber bullying
Online duality
Digital citizenship
Balance
Social Media
AI
Digital footprint
Consumerism
Empathy
Narcissism
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Monitoring and mobilising EU programmes and funds

The monitoring and mobilising of EU programmes and funds are made through several
initiatives connected to the EUYS such as the dashboard of indicators on youth, the expert
group on EU indicators, the Future National Activities Planner, the Youth Wiki database and
other general sources related to the mobilisation of EU funds through programmes such as
176
Pawluczuk, A. (2022), Digital Transformation in the Youth Sector: Mapping and Gapping of Existing Resources. Available at:
https://participationpool.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/MappingGapping_web22.pdf
205
Erasmus+. In total, we analysed 144 sources relating to this instrument. The figure below
illustrates the occurrence of the different sub-topics of digital life and youth well-being in the
sourced reviewed in relation to this instrument. As can be seen, the figure differs to some
degree compared to the figure containing all sources, as media literacy is the most commonly
occurring sub-topic and sub-topics relating to physical well-being are occurring more
frequently. A possible explanation for this is the strong focus expressed by European countries
on both media literacy and online safety through the Youth Wiki database. As earlier
mentioned, the instruments overlap to some degree, and the Youth Wiki database is thus
included in several of them. What it states about media literacy and online safety has thereby
largely been discussed. For example, the information on Youth Wiki indicates that most
European countries have policies concerning digital- and media literacy, and that there is an
emphasis on strengthening these skills to enable youths’ successful participation in education
and employment. Digital- and media literacy are also often related to online safety in the
policies mentioned, and cyberbullying was in turn mentioned specifically in relation to online
safety.
The updated Dashboard of EU Youth indicators is perhaps the best example of the monitoring
aspect within this instrument. In the core area of ‘Connect’, digital skills, media literacy, the
internet use and safe use of new media of young people are proposed indicators. In the core
area ‘Engage’, youth participation has eight proposed indicators connected to it, one of which
is youth active citizenship, indicating the inclusion of both sub-topics connected to the social
well-being dimension. In the core area ‘Empower’, there is a total of 15 indicators and sub-
indicators just for youth work. One of these was participative youth work, i.e., whether and how
national authorities foster the participation of young people in the design of youth work
programmes and initiatives. Thus, youth work and youth engagement are connected within
this instrument.177
Sources related to the second aspect of the instrument of mobilisation, in some respects, follow
a different pattern compared to sources such as the Youth Wiki and the Dashboard of
indicators which are related to monitoring. Among these sources, media literacy is not
mentioned to the same extent, with 19 percent of these sources discussing the sub-topic.
Instead, digital literacy is the sub-topic occurring in most sources. Both cyber bullying and
online safety are also occurring less frequently, indicating the role of the Youth Wiki in
highlighting these sub-topics. An example of the role of digital skills within this instrument is
the online platform for the European Solidarity Corps annual work programmes. The platform
mentions that regulation 2021/88 which set out the legal framework for the European solidarity
corps programme and confirmed the new generation of the European Solidarity Corps for
2021-2027 with a budget of EUR 1.009 billion. The regulation itself, among other things,
highlights the need for online training, indicating the role of the sub-topic digital skills. However,
the connection to well-being is indirect, e.g., better online training leads to better labour market
prospects which likely leads to better well-being.178
177 European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Petkovic, S., Proposal for an updated
dashboard of EU youth indicators : support services to Expert Groups and mutual learning activities in the field of youth policy
(June 2020-December 2021) : final report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2021,
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/357817
178 European Solidarity Corps, Reference document & resources. Available at:
https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity/organisations/reference-documents-resources_en
206
Figure 127 Occurrence of well-being sub-topics in the reviewed sources connected to monitoring
and mobilising EU programmes and funds
Youth engagement
Media literacy
Online safety
Cyber bullying
Online duality
Digital citizenship
Balance
Social Media
AI
Digital footprint
Consumerism
Empathy
Narcissism
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
EU Work Plans for Youth

The EU Work Plans for Youth set 3-year priorities and actions, aiming to guide Member States,
the European Commission and all stakeholders towards achieving the objectives of the EU
Youth Strategy. As illustrated in the figure below, only two of the sub-topics are mentioned in
the sources related to the EU Work Plans for Youth; youth engagement and educators/youth
workers. However, only two sources were reviewed in relation to this instrument.
The role of youth engagement within the EU Work Plans for Youth can be illustrated through
the revision of the 2022-2024 EU Work Plan for Youth. One planned activity in the revised
Work Plan was the Council conclusions to promote a European Youth Agenda, ensuring the
full enjoyment of young people’s rights and placing them at the heart of European engagement.
The revised EU Work Plan for youth also states that the Commission can support and
complement actions by Member States set out in this EU Work Plan for youth, particularly by
encouraging cooperation, supporting the mobility of young people and youth workers, and
encouraging the participation of young people in democratic life. This indicates a focus on
youth workers. Several of the activities presented in the source are also related to the
207
European Youth Work Agenda. This is the case for a total of 15 activities, also indicating the
focus on youth work within the Agenda.179
Figure 128 Occurrence of well-being sub-topics in the reviewed sources connected to the EU Work
Plans for Youth

Youth engagement
Media literacy
Online safety
Cyber bullying
Online duality
Digital citizenship
Balance
Social Media
AI
Digital footprint
Consumerism
Empathy
Narcissism
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
EU-CoE Youth Partnership

The EU-CoE youth partnership in the field of youth, functions as an instrument supporting the
implementation of the EUYS at the European level. The EU-CoE youth partnership aims to
foster synergies between the priorities and programmes pursued by the two partner institutions
in the youth field, and in the case of the EU, this is the EUYS. Out of the analysed sources, a
total of 22 relate to the EU-CoE youth partnership. As can be seen in the figure below, the sub-
topics representing digital life and youth well-being are mentioned more frequently compared
to both other instruments and the figure with all sources. To illustrate this, five sub-topics are
mentioned more frequently than the most mentioned sub-topic in the figure with all sources. A
possible explanation for this is that one tool which the instrument has implemented is the
Knowledge Hub, focusing on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on young people and the
youth sector. Thus, this gives the instrument a clear connection to health, digitalisation and the
combination of the two. Moreover, the fact that educators/youth workers are mentioned the
most could be explained by the fact that a specific part of the EU-CoE youth partnership is
179
Resolution of the Council of the European Union and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting
within the Council on the revision of the EU Youth Strategy Work Plan 2022-2024 (2023/C 185/05), Official Journal of the
European Union. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:42023Y0526(02)
208
directed towards youth work. Thus, this instrument has contributed to digital life and youth well-
being to a high degree, especially regarding youth work.
An example of the focus on youth work is given in a report on youth services during the COVID-
19 pandemic. The report states that the most common analysis of the civil society associations’
work focused on practices undertaken by the youth organisations in view of the crisis;
diversifying tools to reach young people, strengthening digital youth work, along with fighting
financial instability and shrinking space for civil society. A shrinking space for civil society also
highlights youth engagement, as civil society during the pandemic had to move online to a
large degree.180
Youth work was also to a large degree discussed in relation to other sub-topics. One meeting
report where researchers discussed a range of topics concluded that there is a general need
to identify what support youth workers need in the context of AI, indicating that these sub-
topics are connected.181 Another report mentioned that a challenge for youth workers during
the pandemic was digital access, as this was out of the control of youth workers. Youth
engagement is also mentioned in the report as something that was an issue for youth workers
during the pandemic for the very same reason. This indicates that social and cognitive
dimensions of well-being overlap to some degree within this instrument.182 To illustrate this
overlap, in 89 percent of the sources connected to the Partnership with the Council of Europe
where youth engagement is mentioned educators/youth workers are as well.
The reviewed literature connected to this instrument also shows that the most mentioned sub-
topic within the physical well-being dimension, online safety, strongly relates to another sub-
topic within that dimension, cyber bullying. In all sources where cyber bullying is discussed,
online safety is as well. This is however not a surprise as cyber bullying could be viewed as a
sub-topic of online safety.
A meta-analysis of research on the impact of COVID-19 on the youth sector furthermore states
that there are risks related to online youth participation, including greater polarisation,
harassment, bullying and hate speech, disinformation and limited privacy. This also indicates
a connection between online safety, media literacy and digital footprint as disinformation and
online privacy are central aspects of these sub-topics.183
180
Potocnik, D., Ivanian, R. Youth services during the Covid-19 pandemic – a patchy net in need of investment, Partnership
between the European Commission and the Council of Europe in the field of Youth, 2022. Available at: https://pjp-
eu.coe.int/documents/42128013/72351197/Access+to+youth+services+during+Covid-19.pdf/f8c8274e-475f-c50d-fe01-
e51d07ba6fa5?t=1652370832000
181
Tumėnaitė, N. EKCYP-PEYR Annual Meeting, Partnership between the European Commission and the Council of Europe in
the field of Youth, 2022. Available at: https://pjp-
eu.coe.int/documents/42128013/47261131/Final+Report_ECKYP+PEYR.pdf/2c0f46ae-4f53-1356-19ae-
eb04d19f2d3c?t=1668704519000
182
Escamilla, A et al. Meta-analysis of research on the impact of Covid-19 on the youth sector, Partnership between the European
Commission and the Council of Europe in the field of Youth, 2021. Available at: https://pjp-
eu.coe.int/documents/42128013/72351197/Meta+analysis+of+research+on+the+Impact+of+Covid-
19+on+the+youth+sector%2C+12-2021.pdf/de8544e4-a246-3b14-580b-7bbdb1d27973?t=1646326182000
183
Escamilla, A et al. Meta-analysis of research on the impact of Covid-19 on the youth sector, Partnership between the European
Commission and the Council of Europe in the field of Youth, 2021. Available at: https://pjp-
eu.coe.int/documents/42128013/72351197/Meta+analysis+of+research+on+the+Impact+of+Covid-
19+on+the+youth+sector%2C+12-2021.pdf/de8544e4-a246-3b14-580b-7bbdb1d27973?t=1646326182000
209
Figure 129 Occurrence of well-being sub-topics in the reviewed sources connected to the partnership
with the Council of Europe
Youth engagement
Media literacy
Online safety
Cyber bullying
Online duality
Digital citizenship
Balance
Social Media
AI
Digital footprint
Consumerism
Empathy
Narcissism
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
European Youth Work Agenda

The European Youth Work Agenda is a strategic framework aiming to strengthen and further
develop youth work practices and policies and one of the main goals of the ‘Empower’ strand
of the EU Youth Strategy (2019-2027). In December 2020, the Council adopted a Resolution
on the Youth Work Agenda, which invites the European Commission to set up an expert group
to facilitate the development and implementation of the Agenda. Nine of the reviewed sources
are related to the European Youth Work Agenda.
The resolution brings up several sub-topics such as youth workers, technology access and
engagement and one can assume there is an indirect impact of the implementation of the
Agenda on digital life and youth well-being. However, the role of youth work is not discussed
once, from a well-being perspective within the resolution.
Regarding educators/youth workers, The European Youth Work Agenda emphasise the need
for developing smart and digital youth work. The European Youth Work Agenda also invites
the European Commission to “consider developing an open and multilingual dedicated
European digital platform on youth work in close cooperation with the youth work community
of practice to share information, knowledge and good practices, engage in cooperation and
peer-learning”. This illustrates a connection between educators/youth workers and youth
210
engagement, as the aim of such a digital platform on youth work is to engage stakeholders.
The European Youth Work Agenda also claims that “the participation of young people in the
design and delivery of youth work is essential to guarantee that organisations, programmes
and activities are responsive and relevant to their needs and aspirations of young people.”
which showcases the relationship between educators/youth workers and youth engagement.
However, it should be emphasised that youth work is not explicitly discussed from a well-being
perspective, even if it is reasonable to assume that there is an indirect impact. For example,
the engagement of young people in the youth work community might increase the sense of
belonging, i.e., social well-being.184
Another example of the connection between youth engagement and educators/youth workers
is given in the final report by the European Academy of Youth Work, which contribute to the
implementation of the European Youth Work Agenda. The report for example mentions the
Participation Resource Pool which enables youth workers, youth leaders and
trainers/educators to have access to the most up-to-date online tools for fostering young
people’s critical thinking as an important pre-condition for increasing the level of meaningful
youth participation. This indicates that within the subject youth work, there is a connection
between the cognitive and social dimensions of digital life and youth well-being.185
The agenda further states that the restrictions on social contacts during the pandemic had a
severe impact on the way youth work operates, and hence on young people, particularly those
with fewer opportunities. Since youth work is quintessentially a social practice, working with
young people and the societies in which they live, facilitating young people’s active
participation and inclusion in their communities and in decision-making,186 there is a link
between the sub-topic youth workers and sub-topics such as connecting with friends.187
184
Council of the European Union, Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member
States meeting within the Council on the Framework for establishing a European Youth Work Agenda, 13185/20, 2020.
Available at: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13185-2020-INIT/en/pdf
185
Stankovski, B. European Academy on Youth Work – Innovation, Current Trends and Developments in Youth Work, Second
edition, 2022. Available at: https://www.eayw.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/report-2023-interactive-one-pager_FINAL.pdf
186
Description from the Recommendation CM/Rec (2017)4 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member
States on Youth Work
187
Council of the European Union, Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member
States meeting within the Council on the Framework for establishing a European Youth Work Agenda, 13185/20, 2020.
Available at: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13185-2020-INIT/en/pdf
211
Figure 130 Occurrence of well-being sub-topics in the reviewed sources connected to the European
Youth Work Agenda
Youth engagement
Media literacy
Online safety
Cyber bullying
Online duality
Digital citizenship
Balance
Social Media
AI
Digital footprint
Consumerism
Empathy
Narcissism
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Concluding Reflections
The figure below gives a visual illustration of the conclusions of the analysis of how digital life
and youth well-being is being addressed within the implementation of the EUYS. It is clear that
the EUYS addresses the topic through the several sub-topics and dimensions of well-being in
a clear way and through all the instruments used to implement the EUYS. However, while there
is a strong focus on the cognitive and social dimensions of well-being, the
psychological/emotional dimension is only addressed to a small extent. For the EUYS to fully
address digital life and youth well-being, a stronger focus is needed on the
psychological/emotional dimension and to some degree also on the physical dimension of well-
being.
212
Figure 131 Visual illustration of the occurrence of the sub-topics and dimensions
The number of documents the sub-topics were 140
120
100
discussed
80
60
40
20
The analysis suggests that the instruments used to implement the EUYS to a varied extent
enable for countries to focus on digital life and youth well-being. The countries’ addressing
digital life and youth well-being more actively seem to be able to fit their efforts and
interventions to the instruments used to implement the EUYS. Meanwhile, the countries
addressing the topic less actively, at least to some extent, get a reason to do so through the
instruments. The instrument which appears to be the most successful in bringing attention to
digital life and youth well-being, in terms of the number of times the sub-topic(s) are mentioned
in the sources linked to the instrument, is Evidence-based youth policymaking and
knowledge building, followed by Monitoring and mobilising EU programmes and funds.
The latter seem to offer a lot of opportunities through the different indicators linked to
monitoring.
The EU Youth Dialogue brought up digital life and youth wellbeing to a lesser extent than the
other instruments. Still, it is the biggest single participatory process for young people in the EU,
reaching more than 50 000 young people during every cycle, and an enabler for addressing
the topic.
As previously mentioned, the EUYS seem to preferably address digital life and youth well-
being preferably from a cognitive and social dimension, with a strong education and labour
market perspective. Internet access, digital literacy, media literacy and youth engagement,
which are the most frequently occurring sub-topics in the reviewed sources, are of great
importance from an educational or/and labour market perspective. However, the analysis
suggests that the sub-topics related to the physical dimension of well-being are emerging,
especially the sub-topic online-safety, which seem to have been even more emphasised after
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In the sources, online safety is not seldom discussed in relation
to different angles of disinformation. Online safety is also discussed in terms of digital and
media literacy. One could however claim that there should be an even clearer connection
between online safety and youth engagement since online safety could be seen as one of the
preconditions to increase youth engagement.
213
Technology addiction is an emerging (sub)-topic and the analysis is requesting evidence on

its relation to all the dimensions of well-being. The link between technology addiction and the
physical dimension, and especially the potential consequences on physical training is quite
clear. However, there is a need for more evidence on technology addiction and its potential
consequences on the cognitive and social dimensions.
The EUYS has, through its instruments, to a high extent focused on digitalisation and digital
life. However, the relation between digital life and well-being is still quite vague and the topics
are often addressed separately. Digital skills are (correctly) assumed to increase education
and labour market opportunities and outcomes with well-being as an indirect result of that.
Nonetheless, the EUYS could, as part of their evidence-based youth policymaking and
knowledge building benefit from an approach in which digital life and youth well-being is
addressed as one topic, not two separates.
In summary, the EUYS should consider including a stronger focus on all the dimensions
of digital life and youth well-being, applied specifically through the Evidence-based
youth policymaking and knowledge building, Monitoring and mobilising EU
programmes and funds and the EU Youth Dialogues. This includes ensuring indicators
covering the cognitive, social, physical and psychological/emotional dimensions of
digital life and youth well-being.
To increase the understanding of, and to develop policies and interventions aiming to support
digital life and youth wellbeing the EUYS should:
• Extend the well-being concept with the digital life aspect.

• Focus on digital life and youth well-being as one topic instead of two separates.
• Support knowledge building on the different dimensions of digital life and youth
wellbeing and how they are interlinked.
• Apply the instruments Evidence-based youth policymaking and knowledge building,
Monitoring and mobilising EU programmes and funds and the EU Youth Dialogue to
further approach digital life and youth well-being.
• Develop indicators to monitor digital life and youth well-being.
214
Annex 1 Occurrence of sub-topics in the sources reviewed in the

systematic overview
1 = Cyber bullying
2 = Internet/online/technology access
3 = Connecting with friends
4 = Social Media
5 = Digital footprint
6 = Media literacy
7 = Digital literacy (including digital skills)
8 = Online safety
9 = AI
10 = Youth engagement
11 = Consumerism
12 = Technology addiction
13 = Narcissism
14 = Pediatrician/health/Social Services
15 = Emotional Regulation
16 = Online duality
17 = Citizenship/digital literacy
18 = Educators/Youth workers
19 = Empathy
20 = Balance
Pink=Physical dimension
Blue= Cognitive dimension
Turquoise =Physiological/emotional dimension
Orange=Social dimension
Purple=Sub-topics occuring most in the reviewed sources
215
Table 31 Sources reviewed in the systematic overview including the occurrence of sub-topics identified in each source
ID Title of source Year published 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1 Resolution of the Council of the European 2018 X X X X X X X X

Union and the Representatives of the
Governments of the Member States
meeting within the Council on a framework
for European cooperation in the youth field:
The European Union Youth Strategy 2019-
2027, (2018)
2 Communication From the Commission to 2018 X X X X X X X

The European Parliament, The European
Council, The Council, The European
Economic and Social Committee and The
Committee of The Regions - Engaging,
Connecting and Empowering Young
People: A New Eu Youth Strategy, (2018)
3 European Commission staff working 2018 X X X X X X X X X X

document on the results of the open
method of coordination in the youth field
2010-2018 - Accompanying the document:
Communication from the Commission to
The European Parliament, The European
Council, The Council, The European
Economic and Social Committee and The
Committee of The Regions, (2018)
4 Resolution of the Council and of the 2020 X X X X X

Representatives of the Governments of the
Member States meeting within the Council
on the Framework for establishing a
European Youth Work Agenda, (2020)
5 Report from the Commission to the 2021 X X X X X X X X X X

European parliament, the council, the
European economic and social committee
and the committee of the regions on the
implementation of the EU youth strategy
(2019-2021), (2021)
216
6 Commission staff working document on the 2021 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

situation of young people in the European
Union Accompanying the document Report
from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on the
implementation of the EU Youth Strategy
2019-2021, (2021)
7 Youth Wiki: The online platform presenting n.d X X X

information on European countries' youth
policies, (n.d)
8 Resolution of the Council of the European 2021 X X

Union and the representatives of the
meeting within the Council on the EU
Youth Strategy Work Plan 2022-2024,
(2021)
9 Regulation (EU) 2021/888 of the European 2021 X X X X

Parliament and of the Council of 20 May
2021 establishing the European Solidarity
Corps Programme and repealing
Regulations (EU) 2018/1475 and (EU),
(2021)
10 Online platform on European Solidarity n.d X X X

Corps annual work programmes and
reports, (n.d)
11 Implementation guidelines - Erasmus+ and 2021 X X X X X X X X X X

European Solidarity Corps Inclusion and
Diversity Strategy, (2021)
12 Commission Implementing Decision - 2021

framework of inclusion measures of
Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps
2021-27, (2021)
13 Decision document by the European 2021

Commission, Annex to Commission
Implementing Decision COM-2021-7493 –
Guidance, (2021)
217
14 COMMUNICATION FROM THE 2020 X X

COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF
THE REGIONS on achieving the European
Education Area by 2025, (2020)
15 Council Resolution on a new European 2021

agenda for adult learning 2021-2030,
(2021)
16 Council conclusions on a European 2022 X X

strategy empowering higher education
institutions for the future of Europe 2022,
(2022)
17 COMMUNICATION FROM THE 2020 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

THE REGIONS Digital Education Action
Plan 2021-2027 Resetting education and
training for the digital age, (2020)
18 Council conclusions on Young People and 2019 X

the Future of Work, (2019)
19 Conclusions of the Council and of the 2019 X X X X X X X X X

on Digital Youth Work, (2019)
20 Draft Conclusions of the Council and of the 2019 X X

on Education and training of youth
workers, (2019)
21 Raising Opportunities for Young People in 2020 X X X X X

Rural and Remote areas - Conclusions of
the Council and of the Representatives of
the Governments of the Member States
meeting within the Council, (2020)
218
22 Resolution of the Council and of the 2020

on the Framework for establishing a
European Youth Work Agenda, (2020)
23 Conclusions of the Council and of the 2021 X X X X X X X X X X

on Strengthening the multilevel
governance when promoting the
participation of young people in decision-
making processes, (2021)
24 Council Recommendation on the mobility 2022 X

of young volunteers across the European
Union, (2022)
25 Proposal for a COUNCIL 2022 X X X X X X

RECOMMENDATION on learning for the
green transition and sustainable
development, (2022)
26 Study on the landscape of youth 2020

representation in the EU
27 Final report, Study on removing obstacles 2020

to cross-border solidarity activities, (2020)
28 Final report, Study on youth work in the 2021 X X X X X X X

EU, (2021)
29 COMMUNICATION FROM THE 2022

PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 2022
Strategic Foresight Report Twinning the
green and digital transitions in the new
geopolitical context, (2022)
30 COMMUNICATION FROM THE 2022 X X X X X

219
THE REGIONS A New European

Innovation Agenda, (2022)
31 Online platform about NextGenerationEU, n.d X X X X

(n.d)

PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN
COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE
THE REGIONS The European Green
Deal, (2019)
33 Online platform about European Pillar of n.d

Social Rights, (n.d)
34 Proposal for a Decision of the European 2022

Parliament and Council on a European
Year of Skills 2023, (2022)
35 Press release, Commission adopts its 2022

Work Programme for 2023: Tackling the
most pressing challenges, while staying
the course for the long-term, (2022)
36 Political guidelines for the next 2019 X X X X

Commission (2019-2024) - "A Union that
strives for more: My agenda for Europe",
(2019)

PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN
COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE
THE REGIONS CONFERENCE ON THE
FUTURE OF EUROPE Putting Vision into
Concrete Action, (2022)
220

THE REGIONS On the European
democracy action plan, (2020)
39 Research study, MEANINGFUL YOUTH 2021 X X X X X

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN EUROPE:
CONCEPTS, PATTERNS AND POLICY
IMPLICATIONS, (2021)
40 A strategy for enhancing youth 2020

participation in democratic life through the
Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps
programmes, (2020)
41 Report, Employment and Social 2022

Developments in Europe 2022 report
shows young people most affected by job
losses to economic impact of COVID-19,
(2022)
42 Press release, Commission presents 2021

Action Plan to boost the social economy
and create jobs, (2021)

THE REGIONS: A Union of equality: EU
anti-racism action plan 2020-2025, (2020)
44 COMMUNICATION FROM THE 2020 X X X X X

THE REGIONS A Union of Equality:
Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025,
(2020)
221
45 Report by the European Youth Forum, 2022 X X X X X X X X X X X X

Safeguarding Civic Space for Young
people in Europe, (2022)
46 Report by the European Youth Forum, 2022

Youth Progress Report 2021, (2022)
47 International Civic and Citizenship 2022

Education Study, (2022)
48 Report| Youth & Employment 2022 X

Opportunities in EU Cooperation 2014-
2020, (2022)
49 Cooperation document, Publication I 2022 X

Stories of European Cooperation -
Youngsters building together a better
Europe, (2022)
50 Online platform about EUSALP Youth n.d

Council EU Strategy for the Alpine Region,
(n.d)
51 European Commission strategy document, 2022

Danube Youth Council Role, (2022)
52 Declaration by the Council of the Baltic 2022

Sea States (CBSS), Baltic Sea Youth
Declaration 2022 EU Strategy for the Baltic
Sea Region, (2022)
53 Final report by the European Commission, 2018 X X X X X

Study on the impact of the internet and
social media on youth participation and
youth work, (2018)
54 Research report by the European 2019 X

Commission. Exploring the implementation
of the European Solidarity Corps during its
first year, (2019)
222
55 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING 2020 X X X X X X X

DOCUMENT: Accompanying the
document - Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions : Digital Education Action Plan
2021-2027 Resetting education and
training for the digital age, (2020)
56 Council of Europe and European 2020 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Commission research study, Social
Inclusion, Digitalisation and Young people,
(2020)
57 European Institute for Gender equality 2020 X X X

report, Gender Equality Index 2020:
Digitalisation and the future of work, (2020)
58 European Commission report, Insights into 2022 X X X X X X X X X X X

Digital Transformation in the Youth Field
Supported by the EU Youth Programmes
(2022)
59 European Commission report, Digital 2022 X X X X X X X X

Transformation in the Youth Sector:
Mapping and Gapping of Existing
Resources, (2022)
60 Comparative research report, Generation 2020 X X X X X X

and educational science institute Vienna,
Effects and outcomes of the Erasmus+
Youth in Action Programme from the
perspective of project participants and
project leaders, Transnational Analysis
2014-2020, (2020)
61 Transnational research report, Generation 2021 X X X X X X X X X X

and educational science institute Vienna,
Participation and citizenship education and
learning in European Youth Programmes,
Transnational Research Report, (2021)
223
62 Research report, Generation and 2020 X X X

educational science institute Vienna
Exploring inclusion in Erasmus+ Youth in
Action: Effects of inequalities on learning
outcomes, research report, (2020)
63 European Youth Forum report, Making 2022 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Digitalisation Work for Young People,
(2022)
64 IEA, International Computer and 2022

Information literacy study, (2022)
65 European Commission, European Youth 2021 X X X X X X X X X X

Strategies - A reflection and analysis,
(2021)
66 European Commission impact study, The 2022 X X X X X X X X X X

impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the
mental health of young people, (2022)
67 European Commission implementation 2018 X X X X X X X

decision, 2019 annual work programme for
the implementation of “Erasmus+”: the
Union Programme for Education, Training,
Youth and Sport, (2018)
68 European Commission & Council of 2020 X X X X X

Europe in the field of Youth, Briefing 1: An
Introduction to Research on the Impact of
Covid-19 on the Youth Sector, (2020)
69 European Commission & Council of 2020 X X X X X X X X X X X

Europe in the field of Youth, Briefing 2: An
Introduction to Research on the Impact of
Covid-19 on the Youth Sector, (2020)
70 European Commission & Council of 2021 X X X X

Europe in the field of Youth, Briefing 3:
Review of research on the impact of
COVID-19 on young people and their
access to services, (2021)
224
71 Research report by Prof. dr. Tomaž 2022 X X X X X

Deželan, Covid-19 impact on youth
participation and youth spaces, (2022)
72 Seminar report by Adina Marina Serban, n.d X

Perspectives on Youth Young people’s
autonomy, (n.d)
73 Literature review by Stefanos 2022 X X X X

Mastrotheodoros & Mette Ranta, The
effects of Covid-19 on young people’s
mental health and psychological well-
being, (2022)
74 Study by Ivana Bošković, Lutjona Lula & 2022 X X X X X X

Özgehan Şenyuva, The impact of Covid-19
on young people and the youth sector in
South-East Europe, (2022)
75 Briefing 4: Review of research on the 2021 X X X X X X X X

impact of COVID-19 on the youth work,
youth organisations and the digitalisation
of services and activities for young people,
(2021)
76 Briefing on COVID-19 impact of on NEET 2021 X X

youth in rural areas, (2021)
77 Policy recommendation by the European 2022 X X X X X X X X X

Youth Forum, Charter of Youth and
Democracy, (2022)
78 Desk research study by Krzaklewska, E & 2020 X X X X X X X X X X X

Şenyuva, O on Covid-19 and Learning
Mobility: A Desk Research Study
79 Report by Boskovic, I. and O’Donovan, J. 2021 X X X X X X X

on Covid-19 Impact and Looking Forward
Report based on surveys carried out in
spring and autumn, (2021)
80 Position paper by Eurodesk, European 2019 X X X X X X X X X X X

Youth Information and Counselling Agency
(ERYICA) and the European Youth Card
225
Association (EYCA), Engage, Inform,

Empower, (2019)
81 Article on the ESN contributions to the EU 2019

Youth Strategy 2019-2027 Interim
Evaluation, (2019)
82 REGULATION (EU) 2021/817 OF THE 2021 X X X X X

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL establishing Erasmus+: the
Union Programme for education and
training, youth and sport and repealing
Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013, (2021)
83 Report, Generation Austerity: When 2022

governments cut budgets young people
suffer. Don't do it again, (2022)
84 Report about the impact of Covid-19 on 2021 X X X X X X

young people in Europe, (2021)
85 Report by the Directorate-General for 2022 X

Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion,
improving collaboration to support the
integration of long-term unemployed and
inactive people: a mini-toolkit, (2022)
86 Report by the Directorate-General for 2022 X

Employment, social affairs and inclusion,
Learning from experience: integrating
disadvantaged young people through
mobility schemes, (2022)
87 Report by Eurofund-ETF, Living, working 2022 X

and COVID-19 in the European Union and
10 EU neighbouring countries, (2022)
88 Position paper by the European Youth 2022

Forum, Mainstreaming youth rights in the
UN human rights mechanisms, (2022)
226
89 Report by Pets, I. Promoting hands-on 2022 X X X

approaches to make VET, education and
life-long learning more inclusive, (2022)
90 Study by Devaux, A., Dunkerley, F., Koch, 2019 X X X X X X

N., Bruckmayer, M., Phillips, W. and
Jordan, V., Research for CULT Committee
– Education and Youth in the European
Union - Current challenges and future
prospects, (2019)
91 Resolution of the Council and of the 2020 X

on the European Union Work Plan for
Sport (1 January 2021-30 June 2024), OJ
C 419, 4.12.2020.
92 Report by the c, The contribution of youth 2019

work in the context of migration and
refugee matters, (2019)
93 Report by Petsa, I. and Alonso, O, The 2022 X

value of learning mobilities in a post-
pandemic context, (2022),
94 Report by Pantea, M.-C. and Makharadze, 2021 X X X X X X X X X X X X

Towards a better understanding of COVID-
19 impact on young people and on the
youth sector in Eastern Europe and South
Caucasus, (2021)
95 Report by O’Donovan, J.and Zentner, M., 2021 X X X X X X X

Towards a better understanding of the
impact of Covid-19 on the youth sector,
(2021)
96 Report by Moxon, D., Bacalso , C. and 2023

Dolidz, S., Unpaid Internships cost
youngsters over €1000 per month,
deepening inequalities, (2023)
227
97 JOINT COMMUNICATION TO THE 2022 X X X X X X X

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL Youth Action Plan (YAP) in EU
external action 2022 – 2027 Promoting
meaningful youth participation and
empowerment in EU external action for
sustainable development, equality and
peace, (2022)
98 X Forum report on youth and social work 2022 X

and the covid-19 pandemic: impact and
perspectives, (2022)
99 Report by Lavchyan, Z. and Williamson, H. 2019 X

Youth policy, The essentials, (2019)
100 Article by Magdelina Kitanova, Youth 2020

political participation in the EU: evidence
from a cross-national analysis, (2020)
101 Report by Petkovic, S. et al. Youth 2019 X

Research: The Essentials, (2019)
102 Eurostat. "Statistics on young people 2021

neither in employment nor in education or
training", (2021)
103 Conference paper by Craciun, D., Orosz, 2020 X X X

K., Proteasa, V. Does Erasmus Mobility
Increase Employability? Using Register
Data to Investigate the Labour Market
Outcomes of University Graduates, (2020)
104 Report by the Council of Europe on the 2020 X X X X

YOUTH SECTOR STRATEGY 2030-
Engaging young people with the Council of
Europe’s values, (2020)
105 Report by Souto-Otero, M. et al. Erasmus+ 2018

higher education impact study, (2019)
106 EU Youth Strategy Platform, (n.d) n.d X X
228
107 Proposal for an updated dashboard of EU 2019 X X X X X X X

youth indicators - Support services to
Expert Groups and mutual learning
activities in the field of youth policy (June
2020-December 2021) : final report, (2019)
108 COMMUNICATION FROM THE 2021 X X X X X X X X X X X X

THE REGIONS EMPTY - EU strategy on
the rights of the child, (2021)
109 COMMUNICATION FROM THE 2020 X X X X X X X

PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL - A
Union of Equality: EU Roma strategic
framework for equality, inclusion and
participation, (2020)
110 COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 12 2021 X X

March 2021 on Roma equality, inclusion
and participation, (2021)
111 Communication on a LGBTIQ Equality 2020 X X X X

Strategy 2020-2025, COM/2020/698 final,
(2020)
112 European Commission, Strategy for the 2021 X

Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-
2030, (2021)

THE REGIONS A Union of equality : EU
anti-racism action plan 2020-2025
229
114 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO 2020 X X X X X X X X X X X

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU
Citizenship Report 2020 Empowering
citizens and protecting their rights, (2020)
115 JRC technical Report, Mapping 2022 X X X X

international data on youth, (2022)
116 JRC Science for Policy Report, Youth in 2022 X X X

external action, bridging policies and data,
(2022)
117 Report by the Youth Sounding Board , 2022 X X

Meaningful Inclusion of Youth: A Promising
Future, (2022)
118 News announcement by the Directorate 2022 X

General for International Partnerships,
Africa-Europe Week: Strengthening cross-
continent, people-to-people and business
relations between both continents, (2022)
119 Council Recommendation of 30 october 2020 X X X X X X

2020 on A bridge to jobs - Reinforcing-
Reinforcing the Youth Guarantee and
replacing the Council Recommendation of
April 22 2013 on establishing a Youth
Guarantee, (2020)

THE REGIONS -– Youth Employment
Support: a Bridge to Jobs for the Next
Generation, (2020)
121 ILO Report, Youth & COVID-19: Impacts 2020

on jobs, education, rights and mental well-
being, (2020)
230
122 ILO Report, Promoting youth employment 2022

during COVID-19: A review of policy
responses, (2022)
123 ILO Monitor on the world of work. 10th 2022

edition, (2022)
124 ILO Report, Global Employment Trends for 2022

Youth 2022, (2022)
125 UN article, COVID-19 and Youth: The n.d

Future of Work for Young People, (n.d)
126 European Commission, Proposal for a 2021

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Establishing a European Child Guarantee,
(2021)
127 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING 2021 X X

DOCUMENT Accompanying the document
Proposal for a Council Recommendation
establishing a European Child Guarantee,
(2021)
128 Council Recommendation 2021/1004 of 14 2021 X X X X

June 2021 establishing a European Child
Guarantee, (2021)
129 European Commission, Study on the 2021

economic implementing framework of a
possible EU Child Guarantee Scheme
including its financial foundation, (2021)
130 Assessment of the existing Support, 2023 X X X X X X X X

Advanced Learning and Training
Opportunities (SALTO) structures’
effectiveness, relevance and EU adde
value
131 Draft Resolution of the Council and of the 2019

representatives of the Member States
meeting within the Council establishing
guidelines on the governance of the EU
Youth Dialogue, (2019)
231
132 European Union Youth Strategy 2019- 2019

2027 - Draft Resolution of the Council and
of the representatives of the Member
States meeting within the Council
establishing guidelines on the governance
of the EU Youth Dialogue, (2019)
133 Graphics summary, Youth Dialogue, The 2020

7th Cycle of EU Youth Dialogue: Summary
of findings, (2020)
134 Report from a Pool of European Youth 2020 X X

Researchers, Youth Dialogue : Creating
Opportunities for Youth; Outcomes of the
7th Cycle of EU Youth Dialogue, created at
the EU Youth Conference 2020, Zagreb,
Croatia, (2020)

representatives of the Governments of the
on the Outcomes of the 8th Cycle of the
EU Youth Dialogue, (2021)
136 Implementation report, Space for 2021

democracy and participation: Report on the
implementation phase of the 8th Cycle of
the EU Youth Dialogue, (2021)
137 EXPLANATORY NOTE, 8th cycle of the n.d

EU Youth Dialogue Trio Presidency
Germany-Portugal-Slovenia, (n.d)
138 Joint recommendations by the Slovenian n.d

presidency of the Council of the European
Union of the 8th Cycle of the EU Youth
Dialogue Youth for Europe and Europe for
YOU, (n.d)
232
139 Survey report by the Slovenian Ministry of 2021

Education, Science and Sport, the
Slovenian National Youth Council and The
European Steering Group, 8th Cycle of the
EU Youth Dialogue process SPACE AND
PARTICIPATION FOR ALL Youth survey
report Under the Trio Presidency
Germany-Portugal-Slovenia, (2021)
140 Summary of the final report on the national 2022

consultations under the 9th Cycle Of The
EU Youth Dialogue, (2022)
141 Report, EUYD9 Results of the consultation 2022 X X X X

phase: Engaging together for a sustainable
inclusive Europe, (2022)
142 Guidance document, 7th Cycle of EU 2019

Youth Dialogue Guidance for Youth
Dialogue Events, (2019)
143 Guidance document, 7th Cycle of EU 2019

Youth Dialogue Guiding Questions, (2019)
144 Guidance document, Introduction to the 2019

7th cycle of the EU Youth Dialogue 2019-
2020 Creating opportunities for youth,
(2019)
145 Conference Report Eu youth conference 2- 2020 X X X X X X

5 October 2020
146 EUYD9 Final conference report: 2022

deliberations on sustainability and
Inclusion, (2022)
147 Report on the European Youth Conference 2022

Virtual conference January 24-26,2022
233
148 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING 2021 X X X X X X X X

DOCUMENT Accompanying the document
Report from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions on the
implementation of the EU Youth Strategy
(2019-2021), (2021)
149 EC (DG EAC) document about a Proposal 2021 X X X X

for an updated dashboard of EU youth
indicators - Support services to Expert
Groups and mutual learning activities in
the field of youth policy (June 2020-
December 2021): final report, (2021)
150 First to sixth meeting reports of the expert

group on EU indicators in the youth field,
(2019-2020)
151 Minutes of the first to sixth meeting of the

Expert Group in the Youth Policy fields
(E02547) Sub-group on mobility of young
volunteers and cross-border solidarity,
(2019-2020)
152 Meeting reports on the meetings of the

Sub-Group on Youth Work, (2021-2022)
153 PLA on complementary and synergy 2022

between national/regional volunteering
schemes for youth and the European
Solidarity Corps, meeting report, (2022)
154 Peer learning activity (PLA) on a rights- 2021 X X X X X X

based approach (RBA) to youth policies,
meeting report 22-23 June 2021
155 Consultation document about a preliminary 2022 X X X X X

take-away from Call for Evidence for the
interim evaluation of the EU Youth
Strategy 2019-2027, (2022)
234
156 Presentation by the EC on the Future 2019 X X

National Activities Planners – Synthesis of
Member States Contributions, (2019)
157 Published results: FNAP – Croatia (2019) 2019
158 Published results: FNAP – Germany, 2019 X X X

(2019)
159 Published results: FNAP – France (2019) 2019
160 Published results: FNAP – Italy, (2019) 2019
161 Published results: FNAP – Slovenia, 2019

(2019)
162 Published results: FNAP – Cyprus, (2019) 2019 X X X
163 Published results: FNAP – Estonia, (2019) 2019 X
164 Published results: FNAP – Ireland, (2019) 2019
165 Published results: FNAP – Bulgaria, (2019) 2019
166 Published results: FNAP – Finland, (2019) 2019
167 Published results: FNAP – Portugal, (2019) 2019
168 Published results: FNAP – Belgium 2019 X X X

(Flemish community), (2019)
169 Published results: FNAP – Sweden, (2019) 2019 X
170 Published results: FNAP – Poland, (2019) 2019
171 Published results: FNAP – United 2019

Kingdom, (2019)
172 Published results: FNAP – Slovakia, 2019

(2019)
235
173 Published results: FNAP – Malta, (2019) 2019 X X X
174 Published results: FNAP – Luxembourg, 2019

(2019)
175 Published results: FNAP – Belgium 2019

(German-speaking community), (2019)
176 Published results: FNAP – Czechia, (2019) 2019
177 Published results: FNAP – Belgium 2019 X X X

(French Cmmunity), (2019)
178 Published results: FNAP – Austria, (2019) 2019 X X X
179 Published results: FNAP – Netherlands, 2019

(2019)
180 Published results: FNAP – Beglium 2021 X X X X X

(Flemish Community, (2021)
181 Published results: FNAP – Malta, (2021) 2021 X
182 Published results: FNAP – Portugal, (2021) 2021
183 Published results: FNAP – Cyprus, (2021) 2021
184 Published results: FNAP – Belgium, 2021 X

French Community, (2021)
185 Published results: FNAP – Estonia, (2021) 2021 X X X
186 Published results: FNAP – Slovenia, 2021 X X X

(2021)
187 Published results: FNAP – Germany, 2021 X X X X X X X

(2021)
188 Published results: FNAP – Lithuania, 2021

(2021)
236
189 Published results: FNAP – Denmark, 2021

(2021)
190 Published results: FNAP – Poland, (2021) 2021 X X X X
191 Published results: FNAP – Sweden, (2021) 2021 X X
192 Published results: FNAP – Netherlands, 2021

(2021)
193 Published results: FNAP – Croatia, (2021) 2021 X
194 Published results: FNAP – Finland, (2021) 2021 X
195 Published results: FNAP – Luxembourg, 2021 X X X

(2021)
196 Published results: FNAP – Austria, (2021) 2021 X X X
197 Published results: FNAP – France, (2021) 2021 X
198 Published results: FNAP – Czechia, (2021) 2021
199 Published results: FNAP – Belgium, 2021

German-speaking Community, (2021)
200 Presentation by the EC on National 2023

Agencies Event January 2023: 2022
European Year of Youth (2023)
201 Budget allocation document by the EC on 2022 X X

Programmes and activities mobilised in the
context of the European Year of Youth
2022, (2022)
202 EC document on European year of youth 2022 X X X X X X

flagship initiatives, (2022)
203 EU document on the European Year of 2022 X

Youth in numbers, (2022)
237
204 EC meeting document on the Legacy of 2022 X X X X X X

the European Year of Youth 2022, (2022)
205 Document about a Stakeholders and n.d

National Coordinators event, (n.d)
206 DECISION (EU) 2021/2316 OF THE 2021

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL of 22 December 2021 on a
European Year of Youth (2021)
207 Report by the European Commission on 2022 X X X

Youth and Democracy in the European
Year of Youth, (2022)
208 EC communication document, EU Strategy 2021 X X X X X X

on combating antisemitism and fostering
Jewish life (2021-2030), (2021)
209 Online Platform, Flash Eurobarometer 502 2022 X X X

Youth and Democracy in the European
Year of Youth (n.d)
210 Document on 2022 European Year of n.d

Youth Thematic one-pager - The European
Year of Youth Legacy/Closing conference,
(n.d)
211 Austria – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

Thematic Country Fiche, (n.d)
212 Activities in Austria & Niederösterreich 2022

during the 2022 European Year of Youth,
(2022)
213 Belgium – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

214 Activites Ostbelgien, (n.d) 2022 X
215 Bulgaria – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

238
216 Croatia – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

217 Cyprus – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

218 Czech Republic – 2022 European Year of 2022

Youth Thematic Country Fiche, (n.d)
219 Denmark – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022 X

220 Estonia – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

221 Finland – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

222 Document on updated project plan for the 2022

2022 European Year of Youth Finland,
(2022)
223 Document on the European Year of Youth 2022 X X X X X X

2022, (2022)
224 France – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

225 Germany – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

226 Document on DE Yearly Conference 2022 X X X X X X

Erasmus+ 2022
227 Greece – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022 X

228 Hungary – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

Thematic one-pager, (n.d)
229 Ireland – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

239
230 European Year of the Youth 2022 in 2022

Ireland, (n.d)
231 Italy – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

232 Lativa – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022 X

233 Lithuania – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022 X

234 Luxembourg – 2022 European Year of 2022

235 Malta - 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

236 The Netherlands – 2022 European Year of 2022 X X

237 Poland – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

238 Online meeting on The Future of Poland 2022

Campus, (n.d)
239 Portugal – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

240 Romania – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

241 Document on activities included in the 2022

Grant Application – Romania, (n.d)
242 Slovenia – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

243 Spain – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

240
244 Sweden – 2022 European Year of Youth 2022

245 European Year of Youth – Solidarity with 2022 X X

Ukraine, (n.d)
246 Briefing on EU-Western Balkans leaders' 2022

meeting with the 27 EU and 6 Western
Balkan leaders back-to-back with the
European Council, (2022)
247 Document on Council of Europe - Youth 2022

Action Week, (n.d)
248 Youth Wiki - Austria n.d X X X X
249 Youth Wiki – Belgian-Flemish Community n.d X X X X X X X X X X
250 Youth Wiki – Belgian-French Community n.d X
251 Youth Wiki – Belgian- German-Speaking n.d X

Community
252 Youth Wiki – Bosnia and Herzegovina n.d
253 Youth Wiki - Bulgaria n.d X
254 Youth Wiki – Croatia n.d X X
255 Youth Wiki – Cyprus n.d X X X X
256 Youth Wiki – Czech Republic n.d X X X X X
257 Youth Wiki – Denmark n.d X X X X X X
258 Youth Wiki – Estonia n.d X X X X X
259 Youth Wiki – Finland n.d X X X
260 Youth Wiki – France n.d X X X X X
241
261 Youth Wiki – Germany n.d X X X X X
262 Youth Wiki – Greece n.d X X X X X X X
263 Youth Wiki – Hungary n.d X X X X X X X
264 Youth Wiki - Iceland n.d X X X
265 Youth Wiki – Ireland n.d X X X X X X X
266 Youth Wiki - Italy n.d X X X X X
267 Youth Wiki - Latvia n.d X X
268 Youth Wiki – Lithuania n.d X X X X
269 Youth Wiki – Luxembourg n.d X X X X X X
270 Youth Wiki – Malta n.d X X X X X X X X
271 Youth Wiki – the Netherlands n.d X X X X
272 Youth Wiki – Norway n.d X X X X
273 Youth Wiki – Poland n.d X X X X
274 Youth Wiki – Portugal n.d X X X X X X X X X
275 Youth Wiki - Republic of North Macedonia n.d X X
276 Youth Wiki – Romania n.d X X X
277 Youth Wiki – Serbia n.d X X X X X
278 Youth Wiki – Slovenia n.d X X X X X X
279 Youth Wiki – Slovakia n.d X X X X X X X
280 Youth Wiki – Spain n.d X X X X X
242
281 Youth Wiki - Sweden n.d X X X
282 Youth Wiki – Türkiye n.d X X X
283 Navigating Transitions: adapting policy to 2022

young people’s changing realities
284 Compendium of background readings - 2022 X X X X X X X X

symposium - NAVIGATING TRANSITIONS
– ADAPTING POLICY TO YOUNG
PEOPLE’S CHANGING REALITIES
285 Navigating transitions - adapting policy to 2022

young peoples changing realities
286 Youth services during the Covid-19 2022 X X X

pandemic – a patchy net in need of
investment
287 Symposium final report - navigating 2022 X X X X X X X X X

transitions - adapting policy to young
peoples changing realities
288 visual - Symposium final report - navigating 2022 X X X X

transitions - adapting policy to young
peoples changing realities
289 EKCYP-PEYR Annual Meeting 2022 X X X X X X X X X X X X X
290 INSIGHTS INTO YOUTH KNOWLEDGE 2021 X X X X

NETWORKS AND RESOURCES IN
EUROPE
291 Meta-analysis of research on the impact of 2021 X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Covid-19 on the youth sector
292 Towards a better understanding of the 2021 X X X X X X X

impact of Covid-19 on the youth sector -
Policy Brief 2
293 Youth services during the Covid-19 2022 X X X X

pandemic – a patchy net in need of
investment
243
294 infographic to the above row X X X
295 The impact of Covid-19 on the youth sector 2022 X X X X X

and relevance of the EU recovery and
resilience plans
296 Multimedia n.d X X X X X X X X X
297 Research on Artificial Intelligence and n.d X X X X X X X

young people
298 Perspectives on Youth n.d X X
299 Perspectives on Youth seminar: Young 2022

people’s autonomy
300 Surviving (and even thriving) during a n.d X X

crisis: the experiences of youth
organisations during the Covid-19
pandemic
301 The role of youth work in supporting young n.d

refugees and their political participation:
education, social capital and agency
302 Young people’s financial capability Taking 2022

care of your finances is taking care of
yourself
303 E-library of youth sector evaluation n.d
304 Evaluation of participant inclusion levels 2023

within the EU Youth Dialogue
305 Erasmus Generation in Action: ESN 2023

launches flagship initiative for the
European Elections 2024
306 ESN Contributes to the EU Youth Strategy 2022

2019-2027 Interim Evaluation
307 Engaging young people around the world 2023

through international opportunities
244
308 European Academy on Youth Work - First 2019

Edition:: Innovation, Current Trends &
Developments in Youth Work
309 EAYW – STUDY ON INNOVATION IN 2021

YOUTH WORK
310 European Academy on Youth Work - 2022 X X X X X X X

Second edition - Final Report
311 European Commission - Daily News 2023
312 European Citizens’ Panel on Learning 2023

Mobility - Final recommendations
313 Resolution of the Council of the European 2023 X X

Union and the representatives of the
meeting within the Council on the revision
of the EU Youth Strategy Work Plan 2022-
2024

representatives of the Governments of the
on the outcomes of the 9th Cycle of the EU
Youth Dialogue
315 COMMUNICATION FROM THE 2023 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

THE REGIONS on a comprehensive
approach to mental health
316 Eurobarometer - EP Spring 2023 Survey: 2023

Democracy in action - One year before the
European elections
245
317 COMMUNICATION FROM THE 2020 X X X

THE REGIONS Shaping Europe's digital
future
318 COMMUNICATION FROM THE 2023 X X X X X X X X

THE REGIONS An EU initiative on Web
4.0 and virtual worlds: a head start in the
next technological
transition COM(2023) 442/final
246
8. Annex 8 – Analysis of group interviews and focus
groups
Group interviews with CSOs and individual interviews with youth researchers
CSOs and youth researchers were consulted through group interviews and individual
interviews, respectively. Specifically, three group interviews were held with seven CSOs in
total, while two individual interviews were held with two youth researchers. The interviews were
conducted across July and August of 2023. Following the completion of each of the group
interviews with CSOs and youth researchers, the interview notes were qualitatively coded to
identify common themes across each of the interviewees. The following summary presents the
main findings from this analysis across each of the evaluation criteria.
With regards to interview questions pertaining to the relevance of the EUYS, the interviewed
CSOs generally agreed that the EUYS has managed to address the main challenges faced by
young people in the EU. For example, one CSO highlighted that a new challenge faced by
young people relates to metal health struggles arising out of COVID-19, and that the EUYS
has been flexible enough to adapt to this emerging need. Two CSOs also emphasised the
significant role played by the EUYS in encouraging and facilitating the active engagement of
young people in the policymaking arena, especially in relation to critical matters such as
employment, education, healthcare, and social inclusivity. Moreover, all interviewed CSOs
noted the role of the EUYS in supporting their areas of their work. For example, one CSO
mentioned the role in providing funding and support for youth projects and initiatives, while
other CSOs discussed the role of the EUYS in promoting environmental and sustainability
initiatives, and just transition.
However, two CSOs also pointed out an emerging need that, in their view, has not yet been
adequately addressed by the EUYS. One CSO highlighted the specific obstacles that youth
residing in rural areas face and stressed the significance of tailoring measures to assist them.
Specifically, it was further noted that rural areas often experience depopulation as young
people are drawn to urban centres due to the perceived lack of opportunities in their
hometowns, which, in turn, diminishes the vitality of small towns and disrupts local
communities. Thus, the CSO noted a potential for the EUYS to undertake more initiatives
aimed at providing opportunities for people in rural areas to strengthen their communities,
fostering growth within their regions. Additionally, another CSO emphasised the need for a
more inclusive approach to guarantee that all young people have equal access to
opportunities, regardless of their socio-economic backgrounds. This was reiterated by one of
the two youth researchers interviewed, which highlighted a notable disparity between the
challenges the EUYS seeks to address and the actual needs of young people. For instance,
he observed that while the EUYS focuses on promoting increased participation in Erasmus+,
young individuals are increasingly struggling with the pressing issue of the cost of living.
With regards to interview questions on the effectiveness of the EUYS, one of the key points
emerging among interviewed CSOs is the significant assistance offered by the EUYS in
engaging youth. As some of the interviewed CSOs actively promote initiatives within the
framework of the European Solidarity Corps or Erasmus+, they reported that these two
programmes have served as pivotal means for involving young people in their initiatives.
Moreover, some of the interviewed CSOs highlighted their use of the Youth Goals as a
reference framework for effectively engaging with young individuals in their activities. For
instance, one CSO explained that to assess the efficacy of their projects, they evaluate the
alignment of their initiatives with the Youth Goals.
Conversely, one of the two youth researchers interviewed offered a different perspective on
the effectiveness of Erasmus+, the European Solidarity Corps and the Youth Goals. While
Confidential
acknowledging positive aspects within Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps, the
researcher expressed that the core of youth policy seems overly abstract when it comes to
addressing the specific concerns of young individuals. For this reason, the youth researcher
stressed the need to implement more concrete strategies, rather than spending time to devise
a values-based approach such as the 11 Youth Goals. The youth researcher also questioned
how to translate the three pillars of the EU Youth Strategy (‘Engage’, ‘Connect’, ‘Empower’)
into actionable instruments. Within this context, the youth researcher emphasised the vital role
played by local efforts and initiatives, advising that the EUYS should focus on implementing
solutions at the local level, rather than placing emphasis on problem analysis.
A key point that came out of the group interviews with CSOs and individual interviews with
youth researchers is the insufficient knowledge of the EUYS among CSOs and young
individuals. Both the interviewed CSOs and youth researchers mentioned that the
organisations and the youth they engage with are not well-informed about the EUYS and its
goals, which could lead to a gap between what the EUYS’ aims and its real-world influence.
For instance, one CSO pointed out that numerous organisations involved in Erasmus+ often
lack a strong awareness of the EUYS, even though their initiatives are in alignment with the
EUYS and the Youth Goals. Several factors contribute to this situation. For example, two CSOs
explained that youth organisations, being non-profit, typically experience frequent turnover.
This turnover poses challenges in transmitting knowledge about the EUYS internally within the
CSOs. The interviewed CSOs added that if the EUYS is already relatively unfamiliar, this high
turnover issue can exacerbate the problem. Similarly, one CSO emphasised that their
organisation’s members are appointed for a one-year term only, leading to gaps in knowledge
about the EUYS. Another CSO added that while the EUYS’ instruments are listed on the
Strategy’s website, the understanding of the information available can be challenging and
unclear, and it appears limited to experts directly involved in applying these instruments.
To address these issues, the CSOs interviewed stressed the importance of improving the
dissemination and communication of the EUYS, also through the help of the EU Youth
Coordinator. A common opinion among CSOs was the need for the EUYS to establish more
collaboration across different stakeholders. For instance, one of the two interviewed youth
researchers proposed the creation of centralised platforms that facilitate collaboration and
communication among various stakeholders while offering clearer guidance and support for
those involved with the EUYS. Similarly, many of the interviewed CSO stressed the need for
centralised hubs to share information and knowledge among stakeholders.
Concerning the efficiency of the EUYS, three of the interviewed CSOs and both youth
researchers shed light on the bureaucratic complexity associated with applying for funding
opportunities under the EUYS. For instance, one of the CSOs pointed out that, especially in
the case of Erasmus+ projects, organisational participation can be burdened by complexity.
The process often necessitates the completion of an extensive 150-page application form, with
the project's chances of receiving funding being as low as 25%. This is perceived as inefficient,
and it often requires CSOs to divert funds from other projects to cover application costs.
However, it should be noted that this statement does not address the efficiency of the EUYS,
because each of the funding programs is not directly administered by the EUYS itself.
Interviewees frequently found it difficult to distinguish between funding that originates directly
from the EUYS, and funding obtained through programs that function as components or
instruments operating within the framework of the EUYS.
For what concerns coherence, none of the interviewed CSOs or youth researchers identified
any areas of incoherence between the EU Youth Strategy and international or national policies
and initiatives. However, four CSOs interviewed highlighted the importance of streamlining
efforts under the EUYS and national, regional, and local youth policies. In this context, one
CSO elaborated that the Commission does not harmonise its initiatives together with national
policies, which leaves potential opportunities for further action untapped. Furthermore, another
248
CSO pointed out that the connection between the EUYS and their organisation's activities was
perceived as somewhat indirect. For instance, the interviewed CSO pointed out that even
though they make use of available youth-related funding both from national and EU budgets,
they rarely receive feedback on their projects from public authorities at either level. This lack
of communication decreases chances of collaboration and alignment among different
stakeholders, impairing coherence across various efforts to advance youth policy. To tackle
this problem, another CSO interviewed proposed that the national youth strategies and the
EUYS should improve the exchange of best practices to enhance the effectiveness of policy
implementation. This CSO underscored the importance of achieving greater alignment across
all levels of policy development, encompassing local, regional, national, and EU levels.
All of the interviewed CSOs underlined the EUYS's role in promoting international cooperation,
knowledge sharing, and collaboration among diverse stakeholders throughout the EU.
Specifically, five CSOs highlighted the advantages of learning from the best practices of other
countries and fostering dialogue and the exchange of experiences in youth work and
policymaking. Additionally, two CSOs reiterated the value of the EUYS in providing
opportunities for youth involvement and empowerment. Through initiatives like the European
Solidarity Corps and Erasmus+, the CSOs noted that the Strategy has enabled young people
to engage in various activities, positively impacting their personal growth and development.
Finally, with regard to the EU added value of the EUYS, all of the interviewed CSOs
highlighted the EUYS's role in promoting international cooperation, knowledge sharing, and
collaboration among diverse stakeholders throughout the EU. Specifically, five CSOs noted
the advantages of learning from the best practices of other countries and fostering dialogue
and the exchange of experiences in youth work and policymaking. Additionally, two CSOs
reiterated the value of the EUYS in providing opportunities for youth involvement and
empowerment. Through initiatives like the European Solidarity Corps and Erasmus+, the
CSOs highlighted that the Strategy has enabled young people to engage in various activities,
benefitting their personal growth and development. All CSOs noted that, without the EU-level
interventions initiated by the strategy, these opportunities would have not been widespread.
One CSO and a youth researcher also acknowledged the added value of the EUYS in
enhancing the implementation and coherence of youth policies among Member States. By
providing a unified framework and guidelines, they reported that the EUYS was observed to
have empowered Member States to tailor their national youth strategies according to a set of
common goals and objectives, facilitating a more efficient implementation of youth programs
across Europe. In contrast, one of the national youth researchers in the interview contended
that the EUYS has not proven effective on a global scale. For instance, this youth researcher
noted that they did not come across any instances where the EUYS had influenced countries
beyond the EU. This youth researcher noted that achieving global influence presents a unique
challenge that necessitates a different approach, (particularly in terms of building trust and
connections). They indicated that the EUYS does not currently emphasise these aspects,
which limits the added value of the Strategy.
Focus groups with national level policymakers

188
through non-formal learning, the presence of measures furthering entrepreneurial competences through non-formal learning,
and the mechanisms of quality assurance for youth work that are in place in the country. After initially planning to conduct a
focus group with youth policy makers in Croatia as well, this was ultimately not possible due to their limited availability. They
249
Member States.

Ministry of Youth / Children / Education DK, SK
National Agency implementing EU youth programmes DE
The table below presents the overall perceptions of the Strategy, as well as how it was
incorporated into national policies, from the focus groups with national level policy makers in
the three countries. Generally speaking, policy makers were aware of at least some of the
EUYS and its instruments, particularly those they use for their work. Knowledge of instruments
unrelated to their work was typically superficial. Certain initiatives at national-level resemble
those under the EUYS, showing that the Strategy has either inspired national-level activities,
or at least that it is aligned with activities taking place at national level.
Table 33 Overall awareness of the EUYS and influence on national policies (DE, DK, SK)
Awareness of the EUYS Influence on national policies

DE The participants are well aware of the EUYS, and The focus group participants, working in
especially knowledgeable about the EUYS instruments entities such as the National Youth Council,
they use for their work. They note that while the EUYS the national agency implementing EU youth
serves as a policy framework providing inspiration to programmes, and the Federal Council,
decision-makers, national youth initiatives and policies mentioned that by providing information on
are implemented based on the priorities of the national Youth Wiki, they could inform others working
strategy. in entities focused on youth policy
implementation about the main objectives
and goals of national youth policy, and how
these are being achieved through specific
initiatives. Providing this information in a
concise manner facilitates comparison with
the EUYS, which in turn facilitates alignment.
DK Depending on which entity the participants work in, they Although this was initiated nationally without
have different awareness of EUYS instruments. Each influence of the EUYS, different ministries
authority implements or uses different instruments for include youth issues into the policies they are
their work; hence they know those but are less aware of responsible for. In this sense, youth policy is
others (e.g.,one authority is given the task of incorporated and mainstreamed under
implementing some of the instruments such as the different policy areas. Relevant ministries
European Solidarity Corps and Erasmus+, therefore they meet together when shaping new policies, in
are aware of those; another authority has the role of order to ensure coherence across different
developing policy and thus uses the EU Youth Report or areas, including youth.
the Youth Wiki to compare policies across countries, and
are therefore aware of that).
SK Policy makers are most aware of the EUYD, the The national strategy is inspired by the
mobilising and monitoring of EU programmes and funds, EUYS. Disadvantaged youth is highlighted in
and evidence-based youth policy making and knowledge the national strategy, as well as mental health
building. They consider the EUYS useful for involving and cross-sectoral cooperation in the areas of
youth organisations in decision-making processes, and health, investments, regional development
indicate that the outcomes of discussions under the and digital transformation. An inter-ministerial
EUYD are applicable to youth policy in the country. They working group has been set up to encourage
mention that the priorities of EU programmes and funds youth policy mainstreaming.
influence national level policies and projects.
were, nevertheless, interviewed as part of the country research on Croatia, therefore their views are reflected in the analysis of
250
The influence of the EUYS differs in these three Member States. Interviewed national policy
makers in Denmark mostly set national youth initiatives independently of the influence of the
Strategy, while interviewed national policy makers in Germany align national initiatives with
EUYS core areas and objectives. For example, they involve young people in national-level
policy making through participation in a youth action plan. Interviewed national policy makers
in Slovakia draw inspiration from the EUYS for the national strategy, aligning national
objectives with those set at EU level. Young people’s views are taken into account through
the Pupil Advisory Committee, providing an opportunity to share their opinions on education
policies. While certain instruments, most notably the EUYD, were considered effective in
engaging young people in decision-making processes, some improvements could be made
to increase the Strategy’s effectiveness. These included a greater reach and transparency of
instruments, simplified applications for funding and better functioning application platforms.
Policy makers’ views on this are reported in the table below.
Table 34 Policy makers’ perceptions of effectiveness of the EUYS (DE, DK, SK)
Effectiveness of the EUYS

DE Certain instruments are considered very effective in involving young people and promoting youth
participation, such as the EUYD and the 2002 European Year of Youth. However, policy makers
mentioned that the EUYD could have a greater reach, and that there could be more information about
how the results of the national processes within the EUYD are dealt with at the EU level. The application
process for funding as well as the processing of the funding, e.g., for the EUYD, were considered
challenging especially for European partner organisations, as their work is often done on a voluntary basis.
Regarding the FNAPs, policy makers mentioned that the short time given to them to provide information
on the platform rushes the process and requires them to gather feedback from various stakeholders in a
short time span. This impedes on the quality of the information collected and means that some information
is not collected when stakeholders do not provide feedback on time.
DK Policy makers consider the EUYS instruments effective for engaging with youth and making youth engage
with each other. However, they consider that there is room for improvement as some instruments, such
as the FNAPs, require a lot of reporting and administrative processes in order to use them.
SK The outcomes of the EUYD are considered applicable to national youth policy, and data from the EUYD
were used in the creation of the national youth strategy. YouthWiki provides inspiration for national
policymaking based on what is being done in other countries. However, policy makers mentioned that
finding participants to different youth activities requiring engagement, such as the EUYD, can be difficult
as the pool of these “active” young people is limited, and they are often overburdened by already taking
part in various other initiatives.
Youth engagement was encouraged through a range of initiatives introduced at the country
level in Denmark, Germany, and Slovakia. These were considered successful and contributed
to the Strategy’s objectives. They include different types of dialogues between young people
and policy makers, aiming to foster participation and incorporate youth needs into new and
existing policies.
In Denmark, the Youth People's Meeting (Ungdommens Folkemøde) fosters dialogue between national
decision-makers and young people. Furthermore, permanent advisory committees have been established,
which collaborate with student organisations, including students in vocational training. In addition, during the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Children and Education held weekly meetings between student
organisations and the Minister to address the concerns and experiences of students during shutdowns. Activities
under the 2022 European Year of Youth attracted many young people who do not usually participate in such
activities, as many organisations in rural areas – generally targeting youth that are less likely to engage – applied
for funding under the Year.
In Germany, a three-year project is underway by the German Federal Youth Council (Deutscher
Bundesjugendring) with the youth councils from Austria, Croatia, and Portugal, in which the participation of
young people is to be promoted by presenting the implementation of the EYGs in European and national political
contexts, identifying effective participation methods and offering training for young people and political decision-
makers to translate this knowledge into implementation. Furthermore, the German Youth Check has been put
in place, examining the effects of new policies on young people, and an equivalent will soon be set up at the
level of the federal states. In addition, the Youth Advisory Council was established at the national agency Youth
for Europe, and an advisory board was introduced in the Ministry of Family Affairs (BMFSFJ), as well as other
ministries. Lastly, young people have been involved in national strategic processes such as the development of
251
the National Action Plan for Child and Youth Participation and, represented by youth organisations, in the
development of quality standards for child and youth participation by the Bundesjugendring.
In Slovakia, the national youth strategy was created in participation with young people, through round tables
with young people and youth organisations. Furthermore, the Pupil Advisory Committee was set up by the Youth
Institute (IUVENTA) and the Pedagogical Institute, providing a chance to young people to comment on changes
in the education system. Several other youth initiatives are engaging youth: Mladí proti fašizmu (Youth against
Fascism), Mladí za klímu (Youth for Climate), the DASATO Academy – an annual program of non-formal
education for high school students, and METOIKOS n.o. – an association helping to integrate foreign students
and foreigners.

Four focus groups189 have been conducted with young people in Germany, Italy, Poland, and
Portugal190. The purpose was to explore in depth young people’s stories of participating in a
range of EUYS instruments and to understand the facilitators and barriers to accessing them.
The participants in each country were divided into two groups: one composed of young people
who are or have been involved in youth activities at the local, national or EU level, and one
composed of young people who had not been involved in any youth activities. This enabled us
to observe how young people interact with the EUYS and detect gaps and barriers in reaching
them. Success stories were explored through a discussion with participants who had been
involved in youth activities, while barriers were discussed with all participants.
As detailed in the table below, all participants possess a certain level of awareness regarding
youth initiatives at both the national and EU levels. Some programs, such as Erasmus+ and
major national initiatives, enjoy higher recognition. The degree of awareness varies depending
on the participant's level of engagement. Except for a few participants who had acquired
knowledge about the national youth strategy, or the EUYS, through their studies or work, most
were unaware of them.
Table 35 Awareness of youth opportunities at national or EU level
▪ ▪
Country ▪
EU/national level Active youth ▪ Non-active youth
▪ DE, IT, ▪ EU and national ▪ Most participants were not aware of the EUYS or of national youth
PL, PT level strategies but knew various programs at EU-level (mostly
Erasmus+) and national level when prompted. There is a general
perception that awareness should be improved.
“I think there's a lack of publicity. In an academic context, we do
have Erasmus+, but then there are volunteering initiatives and
other support initiatives that come from the state that I'm not
aware of at all”. (PT)
IT, PT ▪ EU and national ▪ Only a small number of participants ▪

level were informed about the EUYS and/or
the national youth strategy through
their university studies or work.
189
In Germany, 7 young people participated (2 aged 16-20, 3 aged 21-25, and 2 aged 26-29). In Italy, 8 young people
participated (5 aged 21-25 and 3 aged 26-29). In Poland, 6 young people participated (3 aged 21-25 and 3 aged 26-29). In
Portugal, 7 young people participated (3 aged 21-25 and 4 aged 26-29). Participants were selected to ensure diversity across a
range of characteristics, including gender, age range, involvement in a CSO or a political party, involvement in EU-level
activities and national initiatives, level of education achieved, employment status, and residence in a rural/urban area.
190
These countries were chosen to ensure a mix of countries with/without youth strategies, the extent to which dedicated
policies for youth are mainstreamed (or marginal) in the national policy environment, and geographical spread.
252
IT, PL ▪ EU level ▪ Participants were aware of Erasmus+ ▪ Participants were aware
and some other initiatives like the of Erasmus+ and
European Solidarity Corps, the EURES superficially of the
portal, DiscoverEU and the EUYD European Solidarity
Corps
IT, PT ▪ National level ▪ There was a widespread awareness of some national level
programmes, but participation in these initiatives varied, primarily
due to differences in access to information on how to take part.
Participants’ motivations for participating in various youth initiatives were diverse. Common
incentives include personal and professional growth, acquisition of new skills, dedication to
specific social causes, or simply taking part in something they would enjoy. Other motivations
are more pragmatic, linked to fulfilling school requirements or supplementing their income. As
for the perceived outcomes, they align with participants’ reasons for participating to a certain
extent. Participants further highlight that engagement in these activities increased their sense
of autonomy, empowered them to address social issues, fuelled their continued participation,
fostered a feeling of inclusion, and played a significant role in forming a supportive social
network, among other advantages detailed in the table below.
Table 36 Motivations to participate in youth activities and perceived results
▪ Type of ▪ ▪
Country EU/national▪ Motivation to join ▪ Perceived results
activities level
▪ Exchange▪ DE, IT ▪ Erasmus+ ▪ Cultural exchange (DE, IT, Gained autonomy (IT,
(for students PL): “It is important to gain an PL)
and understanding of different
Improved language
apprentices) cultures and experience how
skills (IT, PL)
people from different cultures
Expanded horizons
live.” (DE)
and perspectives
▪ Learning a language (DE, IT, (culturally and
PL) academically) (IT, PL)
▪ Personal and professional ▪ Motivation to
development (IT) participate in similar
initiatives (DE)
▪ Fun (PL)
Personal
development (IT)
Professional
development (IT, PL)
Inspired engagement
in similar
experiences (IT)
Shared their own
culture abroad (PL)
Social inclusion (DE)
▪ Social networking
(IT, PL)
253
Social commitment (DE, IT):
▪ Volunteer▪ DE, IT ▪ National and ▪ Development of
“We are the ones who need to
work EU level social skills (DE)
do something about it (climate
change) as it doesn’t concern Empowerment to
our parents’ generation. We assume
are responsible for our responsibility for
environment, so it is up to us tackling social
to be engaged, also across issues (e.g., climate
countries.” (DE) change) (DE)
To develop personal skills Expanded horizons

(DE) and perspectives
(culturally and
Academic requirements (DE) academically (PL)
Fun (DE): “It started off as the
▪ Fostering a sense of
teacher’s idea to initiate the
solidarity (DE)
group and then following a few
gatherings we realised it was Gained autonomy
also really fun and the word and professional
spread, so more and more development (IT,
people joined.” (DE) PL)191
Professional development
(IT)
Extra revenue (IT)
Learning a language (PL)
Desire to be an active citizen▪
▪ Political ▪ PL ▪ National and Empowerment (PL)
(PL)
participati EU level
▪ Gaining knowledge
on (e.g., EUYD) Social commitment (PT):
and skills related to
“Because it's extremely deep
politics (PL)
down and it's not recognised,
(…) I think we're becoming ▪ Social networking
more and more disconnected (PL)
from humanity. (…) I think it's
important for volunteering to
play a major role in our lives so
that we're more empathetic
and everything. Basically,
helping people, people need to
be helped and I think it really
should be more recognised.”
(PT)
▪ Sports DE, IT ▪ National Gained autonomy

initiative and confidence (IT)
When considering the impact of activities at various levels, as outlined in the table below, most
participants highlight individual gains. These include, among others, forming social
191
Although some programs, mainly at the national level, were seen as not contributing to professional development.
254
connections, having a good time, boosting their sense of autonomy, and broadening their
academic and cultural perspectives. Additionally, some participants note community-level
effects, such as nurturing a sense of solidarity, acquiring knowledge, and fostering intercultural
exchanges. At the organisational level, certain participants mentioned that their involvement in
youth programs resulted in benefits for the organisation itself. Some of the advantages were
the increase in the programme’s visibility and the attraction of more participants. Finally, at the
EU level, some participants indicated that youth participation in certain activities served to
promote EU values.
Table 37 Outcomes of participating in youth activities
Type of Country Outcomes (individual level, community level, organisation level,

activities EU/national level)
Youth DE Individual level Access to a support system (DE)

groups
Fun (DE)
(general)
Personal and professional development (DE):
“It helps one grow while being supported
throughout. Also, you receive a certificate that
helps for your professional development.” (DE)
EU/national level Promoting EU values (DE)
Volunteering DE, IT, Individual level ▪ Development of social skills (DE)

PL
Empowerment to assume responsibility for
tackling social issues (e.g., climate change)
(DE)
Expanded horizons and perspectives
(culturally and academically) (PL)
▪ Fostering a sense of solidarity (DE)

Gained autonomy (IT)
Professional development (IT, PL)192
Community level ▪ Fostering a sense of solidarity (DE)

▪ Addressing social challenges in the
community (DE)
Exchanging knowledge (e.g., language) (PL)
▪
Organisation level Youth participation facilitated the
organisation's expansion by attracting more
participants (DE)
▪ Enhanced organisational performance (IT)
▪ Increased programme visibility (IT)
192
Although some programs, mainly at the national level, were seen as not contributing to professional development.
255
Exchange DE, IT, Individual level Gained autonomy (IT, PL)
(Erasmus+) PL, PT
Improved language skills (IT, PL)
Expanded horizons and perspectives

(culturally and academically) (IT, PL)
▪ Motivation to participate in similar activities
(DE)
Personal development (DE, IT)
Professional development (DE, IT, PL): “It
broadens your mind to experience living in a
different environment, speaking a different
language and adapting to a different culture.
When applying for jobs abroad, the Erasmus
experience is also valuable as it serves to prove
future employers that the job applicant has lived
in another country beforehand.” (DE)
Inspired engagement in similar experiences
(IT)
Shared their own culture abroad (PL)
Social inclusion (DE)

▪ Social networking (IT, PL)
Community level ▪ Fostered cultural exchange (i.e., exchanging

knowledge from culture of origin) (PL): “As part of
this English study, I gave a lot of presentations
about Poland or Warsaw. Students learned a lot
about the history of Warsaw. This is what Poland
looks like, that we have mountains, that we have
the sea, that we have lakes, and curiosities.” (PL)
▪ “As I mentioned about this polyglot cafe, it's very
good, especially for local students, to open up to
new languages.” (PL)
▪ Fostered tolerance towards diversity (PT):
“Having a person of another nationality in my
house allowed me to be more curious and
involved in these projects. They also end up
making us more aware of the other, reflect and
have more social awareness. I think it makes me
a more empathetic person to put myself in
another's shoes, and maybe more tolerant of
differences. That is, the exchange of cultures is
positive.” (PT)
EU/national level ▪ Promoting EU values (DE)
256
▪ Enhanced mobility (DE)
Sports IT Individual level Gained autonomy (IT)

Gained confidence (IT)
▪
Organisation level Enhanced organisational performance (IT)
Political PL Individual level ▪ Empowerment (PL)

participation
▪ Gained knowledge and skills related to
politics (PL)
Social networking (PL)
Community level Empowered young people to become

involved in political issues (PL)
The main barrier mentioned for participation was the accessibility of information. Across the
different focus groups, there was a consensus that many young people are unaware of existing
initiatives and find that information is presented in an inaccessible way. Other barriers included
complex application processes, financial concerns, and the perception that youth activities like
volunteering or going abroad do not provide significant value to participants.
Table 38 Barriers to participation in youth activities and their perceived effects
▪ Barriers ▪ ▪
EU/national Perception of effects of barrier
level ▪ (if mentioned)
▪ Access to information: Many people ▪ EU and ▪ Presenting information in this way makes it
are not aware of youth opportunities. national less accessible to young people (DE, PL,
Moreover, the presentation of level PT)
information is deemed overly formal,
“They give the impression of not being very
procedures are seen as too
accessible. A lot of people, even if they
bureaucratic, there is limited adequate
were aware of it, would be lacking, maybe
guidance, and information is often
not so much confidence, but would think
provided in a foreign language,
they were not up to it. Because there is no
typically English (DE, IT, PL, PT)
one in their family who deals with such
“Until now it seems that (the EUYS) is things, no knowledge related to the
not very established, as I was not at European Commission or Parliament. It
all aware of it, and that the topic seems like such a high threshold, such a
hasn’t received sufficient attention.” big world, that if you have no one in your
(DE) family or among your friends, it is difficult to
find such contacts. Because it seems that
“The EU offers a lot of opportunities,
we are too small, we don't know enough?”
but it seems that people are not aware
(PL)
of them.” (DE)
“The person managing social media should
“It (the EU) feels like a distant reality.” be a young person. Our mentality is different
(DE) from someone who's older than us.” (PT)
257
▪ Lack of identification with the ▪ EU and ▪
target group (PL) national
level
“- What is the target group?
- You guys are.
- Because I, at 26, don't feel that I am
the “young people”.
- Well, young citizens.
- As a young citizen, what does that
mean?” (PL)
▪ Complicated application procedure▪ National ▪

for certain participants (DE, PL) (e.g., level
complicated website, procedure
dependent on external coordinators)
“Generally, this whole application
process, because a large group of my
friends were going at the same time. I
was the person embracing the whole
process, to put it modestly, because
really so many of my friends were
struggling to fill it in, because at my
university there were also two people
for the whole university, and the
university is very big, who were
dealing with it. After the pandemic, the
process moved online which was
worse, because often these people
didn't reply to emails.” (PL)
▪ Lack of time to participate (DE) ▪ EU and ▪

national
level
▪ Financial concerns (DE, IT, PL) ▪ EU and ▪ Participants believe they won’t be able to
national cover the extra costs not covered by the
▪ Non-active participants were more
level scholarship (IT, PL)
aware of private organisations
organising stays abroad, which makes “Impossible to participate, still from a
them believe that mobility comes at a financial angle. Because we take into
great expense for participants (IT) account that we are in Warsaw, where most
of the universities participate in Erasmus+.
▪
There are other smaller universities near
Warsaw, and I am not convinced that
Erasmus+ works and functions there. For
such a person who works and studies part-
time paying for her studies and at the same
time has to support themselves, it is not
possible to participate.” (PL)
258
▪ Volunteering work activities seen ▪ EU and ▪
as exploitative (DE, IT) national
level
▪ "One goes to (volunteer) work and is
sometimes really exploited, you have
to do the dirty work, so to speak, and
you spend money on travel expenses
to get there." (DE)
▪ Experience seen as adding little ▪ EU and ▪ Regarding volunteering activities: Since

value to participants (IT, PL, PT) national some of these activities are not officially
level recognized in a professional setting,
▪
participants prefer to engage in activities
▪ that will have recognition in the future (IT)
▪ Regarding international exchanges:
Erasmus+ seen as having a potential
negative effect academically and financially
due to (potentially) extending the student’s
academic career (IT). A student mentioned
their university would have them re-take the
semester if they participated in Erasmus+,
as they don’t take the programme seriously.
(PL)
▪ General appraisal: “I would have to have a
person to get me to do it and show me what
the benefits are and what the opportunities
are. Because now I wouldn't be interested
in it because I'm 26 and have different
expectations. Now I prefer to devote my
energy to my career and not to participating
in such projects, and if I had four years less
and someone proposed it to me there
would be better chances than at the
moment.” (PL)
“If we go into it in depth, volunteering in
Portugal isn't recognised, in other words,
unlike other countries that have a much
higher rate of participation in formal
volunteering. Portugal doesn't culturally
recognise the practice of volunteering and
that's why it's more difficult to publicise and
recognise the skills that you acquire when
you volunteer.” (PT)
▪ Participants not meeting ▪ EU and ▪

requirements for participation (IT) national
level
259
▪ E.g., work experience, university
degree, high grades, high language
skills
Participants of the focus groups agreed that one of the most pressing youth needs is improved
access to information to facilitate greater engagement with existing initiatives. Additional needs
that were identified encompass political participation, overall well-being, economic support and
autonomy, and the opportunity to gain valuable work experience.
Analysis of EU-level interviews

conducted between 3 May and 20 June 2023 (see overview table below). The findings from
the interviews are presented following the five evaluation criteria used in the course of the
evaluation.
Table 39 Overview of EU-level and International organisations interviews

DG CNECT 1
DG EAC 6
DG EMPL 1
DG ENV 1
DG INTPA 1
Committee
EU Agencies EACEA 1
Eurofound 1
The EU-CoE Youth Partnership 2
In terms of relevance, not all interviewees were well-acquainted with the EUYS. Specifically,
out of the 21 interviewees, five indicated limited knowledge of the EUYS and its essential
components. Within this group, it was observed that DGs within the European Commission
had a lesser grasp of the EUYS details. In contrast, international organisations and members
of the European Parliament's Working Committees were well-informed on the EUYS. Those
interviewees with a stronger grasp of the EUYS also recognised the importance of its three
core action areas (‘Engage’, ‘Connect’, ‘Empower’) in addressing youth-related issues. For
example, one of the interviewed international organisations pointed out that the three
overarching areas of ‘Engage’, ‘Connect’, ‘Empower’ have demonstrated their adaptability,
enabling the EUYS to stay relevant in addressing emerging challenges faced by young people
stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis.
Another international organisation noted that the EUYS has managed to remain relevant
through both direct and indirect means. In terms of direct means, the international organisation
noted that the EUYS provides essential funding and direct financial support to various youth-
related programs and initiatives, such as the European Solidarity Corps and Erasmus+. These
programs offer young people direct opportunities for activities like volunteering, studying
abroad, and acquiring valuable skills. For what concerns indirect means, the international
organisation reported that the Youth Goals and the objectives of the EUYS encourage Member
260
States to harmonise their national youth policies. This indirect influence creates a common
framework guiding and shaping national policies.
Six interviewees, (drawing both from international organisations and interviewees from the
European Commission), stressed the pivotal role of the EUYS in providing financial support to
youth organisations. They noted that these organisations often find themselves constrained by
limited staffing and insufficient resources, which can pose significant challenges when it comes
to executing activities to foster youth participation. However, these organisations play a pivotal
role as they are the frontline actors closely connected to the youth demographic, possessing
a deep understanding of youth’s unique needs. The financial support extended by the EUYS
has served as a lifeline for these youth organisations, helping them to implement several
initiatives that align closely with the desires and needs of young people.
Furthermore, many interviewees noted that the EUYS maintains its relevance due to its
comprehensive nature. Fourteen out of the 21 interviewees reported that the EUYS functions
as an overarching framework that encompasses numerous youth-related initiatives. For
instance, one of the interviewed international organisations noted the benefits of the EUYS's
cross-sectoral approach, exemplified by the 11 Youth Goals. They highlighted that these goals
address various areas, (including mental health, employment, and the environment), ensuring
that the needs of young people are acknowledged across diverse policy domains extending
beyond conventional youth policies.
However, interviewees representing international organisations pointed out that the EUYS
could enhance its relevance by incorporating a more robust focus on human rights, which they
believe is somewhat lacking in the current version of the EUYS. They suggest that by placing
a stronger emphasis on human rights principles within the Strategy, the EUYS would better
align with the evolving needs and aspirations of young people, who are increasingly seeking
recognition and safeguarding of their fundamental rights. Furthermore, ten out of the 21
interviewees expressed that there is limited awareness of the EUYS beyond the EU’s sphere.
They believe that this presents an opportunity for the EUYS to exert influence on youth policies
at an international level.
Under the criterion of effectiveness, nearly all interviewees expressed unanimous agreement
on the merits of establishing the EU Youth Coordinator role. They noted the role's effectiveness
in conveying youth needs to the broader European Commission. In particular, several DGs
viewed the appointment of the EU Youth Coordinator as a notable success of the strategy,
emphasising its role in promoting coherence and demonstrating the Commission's
commitment to youth matters. One of the interviewed DGs added that the institutionalisation
of the EU Youth Coordinator was considered effective in strengthening the focus on youth
across policies and enhancing the visibility of the EUYS. Moreover, 16 out of 21 interviewees
also emphasised the effectiveness of the EUYS in increasing Erasmus+ participation.
Several of the interviewed DGs also highlighted the EUYS’ effectiveness in responding to
crises and leading the green and digital transition among young people. They viewed the
Strategy as an example of youth self-empowerment, demonstrating the EUYS’ ability to
prioritise the concerns of young people. For instance, one DG pointed out that this dynamic
was notably evident in the youth-led emphasis on the green transition. There, the EUYS
effectively leveraged the pre-existing youth interest in this area by providing more funding
support for sustainable initiatives.
However, a notable challenge reported by EU Agencies and international organisations

concerning building up on the environmental momentum was that sustainability may not
necessarily align with the priorities of the most economically disadvantaged youth. As such,
while the EUYS was recognised for addressing this concern to some extent, the DG referred
261
that statistical data suggests that engagement and participation among youth from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds remain relatively low, and it used this information to encourage
the Strategy to further enhance its efforts.
In terms of efficiency, all of the interviewees agreed that the expenses associated with
implementing the EUYS are considered to be low and adequate for achieving the Strategy's
goals. One of the interviewed from the Commission pointed out that resource allocation has
proven effective, particularly in the case of Erasmus+ projects, as there have been no specific
complaints regarding the adequacy of funding in this context. When it comes to volunteering
initiatives, the same interviewee reported a recognised need for additional resources for
volunteering projects. Similarly, one of the interviewed international organisations noted that
an increase in funds for volunteering initiatives, which play a pivotal role in skill building, would
be beneficial. However, another interviewee from the Commission highlighted that the
responsibility for funding extends to the Member States, since budget decisions and allocation
within the EU occur through the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). While the
Commission plays a role in providing input and proposals, the ultimate budget decision rests
with the Member States. The interviewee reported that this limits the Commission's ability to
effectively address the issue of how to allocate funds and for what purposes.
Moreover, in the interviews with international organisations, it was brought to attention that the
COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial impact on the financial resources of national youth
organisations responsible for managing youth development projects. The pandemic's
repercussions were particularly severe for these organisations, with smaller entities being
disproportionately affected. Consequently, these organisations began to seek financial support
from their respective Member States, shifting their reliance away from EU programs. This shift
in funding sources was a direct response to the budgetary constraints imposed by the global
health crisis, compelling national youth organisations to explore alternative means of
sustaining their initiatives.
When discussing whether the implementation of the EUYS has imposed costs or created
burdens for stakeholders, one of the interviewed DGs raised concerns regarding disparities
among organisations at different geographical levels. It was noted that organisations operating
at the EU or national levels typically have more substantial resources dedicated to youth
activities. On the contrary, organisations operating at the local or regional level may encounter
challenges stemming from language barriers and limited resources, (particularly if they operate
in countries with comparatively poorer socio-economic conditions). These varying
organisational capacities, especially in terms of preparing proposals for European projects
under EU programmes, significantly affect their ability to secure projects for EUYS
implementation. International organisations also reported that the implementation of the EUYS
was also noted to create expenses, especially of an administrative nature, for various
stakeholders. Nevertheless, these costs are generally seen as modest when compared to their
benefits.
Interviewees unanimously agreed on the coherence of the instruments within the EUYS.
Specifically, all participants from both EU-level and international organisations affirmed that
the various instruments of the Strategy work well together. They noted that these instruments
provide diverse approaches to achieve common objectives, particularly in promoting youth
participation through different means. For instance, one international organisation highlighted
that the EUYS is highly coherent, particularly in raising awareness among European
stakeholders. It aligns with the idea that youth policy should be comprehensive, spanning
across various sectors and encompassing all policy areas.
Out of the 21 interviewees, three interviewees from three DGs pointed out that the EUYS could
enhance its coherence with international obligations by aligning more closely with the SDGs.
262
These interviewees emphasised that establishing a clear connection between the European
Youth Goals and the SDGs would contribute to greater coherence. For instance, one DG noted
that they had concerns from the outset about the EUYS not being closely aligned with the
SDGs. They highlighted that many cities and regions across Europe actively work toward the
SDGs at the local level, making the lack of connection between the EUYS and the SDGs a
missed opportunity. On the other hand, many other DGs emphasised that while the SDGs have
a cross-sectoral relevance, the EUYS may only focus one those SDGs that are relevant for
youth policy, such as ensuring quality education (SDG #4). Additionally, as previously provided
in the analysis of EU-level interviews within the context of the relevance evaluation criterion,
international organisations participating in the interviews noted that a stronger emphasis on
human rights within the EUYS would enhance the external coherence aspect of the Strategy.
Within the context of evaluating the EU added value, insights from interviews with both EU-
level and international organisations revealed several key points. Firstly, the interviewees
unanimously recognised that the EUYS has provided significant value beyond what individual
Member States could achieve on their own. The value of the EUYS was acknowledged for
what concerns promoting collaboration, knowledge sharing, and capacity building, facilitating
transnational exchanges and strengthening youth participation. Furthermore, the EUYS
contributed to maintaining policy consistency and reinforcing the role of youth in the
policymaking process.
From a political standpoint, one of the international organisations reported that discontinuing
the EUYS would be unfavourable due to the persistent challenges faced by young people.
Another international organisation emphasised the substantial efforts made by the
Commission in establishing effective practices and mechanisms, such as the Youth Dialogue.
Consequently, the international organisations interviewed reported that discontinuing the
EUYS would send a negative signal, making its continued existence crucial, particularly for
communication and awareness-raising.
Two of the interviewed DGs also expressed that discontinuing the EUYS could result in
reduced investments from Member States in national-level youth-related initiatives. This
reduction in support could lead to unequal assistance for young people across Europe and
undermine the principle of youth empowerment, which the Strategy aims to promote.
Furthermore, it was noted that discontinuing the Strategy might jeopardise the alignment
achieved among Member States, as some of them had synchronised their national youth
strategies with the EUYS.
9. Annex 9 – Mapping of national policies

Effectiveness of the EUYS 2019-2027
The following table presents the typology of EU countries’ national youth strategy and their
alignment with the EUYS.
Table 40 Typology of countries national youth strategy and their alignment with the EUYS
Member States that have Member States that Member States that do
a youth strategy, whose have a youth strategy, not have a youth
objectives and priorities whose objectives and strategy, but whose
are closely aligned with priorities are somewhat policies have objectives
the ones of the EUYS aligned with the ones of and priorities in some
the EUYS
263
way aligned with those
of the EUYS
AT X
BE X
BG X
CY X
CZ X
DE X
DK X
EE X
EL X
ES X
FI X
FR X
HR X
HU X
IE X
IT X
LT X
LU X
LV X
MT X
264
NL X
PL X
PT X
RO X
SE X
SI X
SK X
The following table describes the existence of national strategies before and after the adoption
of the EUYS 2019-2027.
Table 41 Existence of national strategies before and after the adoption of the EUYS 2019/2027
Existence of
Existence of a youth
Member a youth Period Period
strategy after adoption of
States strategy covered covered
EUYS 2019/2027
before 2019
AT X 2013-2020 X 2020-2024
BE
X 2015-2019 X 2020-2024
(Flemish)
BE 2023
X 2016-2022 X
(German) onward
BE No period
X 2014-2019 /
(French) covered
BG X 2010-2020 X 2021-2030
A policy in force without a

CY X 2017-2022 2019-2022
strategy as of 2022
No period
CZ X 2014-2020 /
covered
265
Existence of
EUYS 2019/2027
before 2019
2019 at
DE X 2015-2018 X federal
level
No period No period
DK / /
covered covered
EE X 2014-2020 X 2021-2035
No period
EL / X 2022-2024
covered
2014 national
ES X bill / 2015 X 2021-2024
strategy
FI X 2017-2019 X 2020-2023
2013-2017; A policy framework is in 2017

FR X
2017 onwards force, but no strategy onwards
HU X 2009-2024 X 2009-2024
No period
HR X 2014-2017 /
covered
No period
IE X 2014-2020 /
covered
Attempt in
2013 but
government Since 2019, there is a 2019
IT /
fell and it was youth plan every year onwards
not
implemented
LT X 2011-2019 X 2022-2024
266
Existence of
EUYS 2019/2027
before 2019
2012-2014;
LU X X 2022-2025
2017-2020
LV X 2009-2020 X 2021-2027
MT X 2015 onwards X 2021-2030
No period No period
NL / /
covered covered
No period
PL X 2003-2012 /
covered
2013 strategic
guidelines; 2022
PT X X
2018 first onward
youth plan
No period
RO X 2013-2022 /
covered
2020
SE X 2013-2020 X
onward
SK X 2014-2020 X 2021-2028
SI X 2014-2020 X 2023-2032
The following table presents the Member States without a youth strategy and reasons for the
absence of an overarching strategy, as well as ongoing developments.
Table 42 Member States without a youth strategy: Reasons for the absence of an overarching
strategy and ongoing developments
Member Reason for absence of overarching strategy and ongoing developments

States
Countries without an overarching strategy
267
BE-FR There is currently no youth strategy. As an alternative, for the period 2019/2024,
the government has indicated its priorities in the field of youth in the
Community's political declaration.
No specific measures are planned to develop an overarching strategy, but some

policy developments have taken place, such as a consultation process
launched in 2021 with French-speaking Belgian youth about their feelings on
the crisis.
CZ There has been no national youth strategy since 2021. The lack of such a
strategy was linked to the end of the period of the previous strategy and the lack
of specific measures for the next period after 2021. Youth was then addressed
within the overall education strategy. The Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sports decided in December 2022 to develop a new national youth strategy in
the course of 2023.
The priorities for further development are marked in the government

declaration: maintaining and expanding support for youth work and linking
formal and non/formal education.
DK There is currently no youth strategy in Denmark, nor any ongoing debate about
the governance of youth policy.
HR At the time of the desk research for this evaluation (spring 2023), there was no
youth strategy. The new national strategy was in the process of being adopted.
IE There is currently no youth strategy for 2020. The absence of such a strategy is
linked to the end of the period of the previous strategy and the lack of specific
measures for the period after 2020.
The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth

(DCEDIY) stated in its Strategy Statement (2021-2023) its intention to develop
and launch a new youth strategy. The next policy framework for children and
young people is currently being developed.
NL There is currently no youth strategy. The absence of such a strategy is linked to

the decentralised governance of youth policy. However, ongoing developments
show that there is a push for an overarching strategy.
On 6 June 2023, the House of Representatives unanimously approved a motion

by CDA (Christian Democrats) MPs calling on the government to draw up an
integrated youth strategy.
PL Currently, there is no strategy in Poland directly related to young people.
No specific actions are planned to develop an overarching strategy, but some

policy developments have taken place, such as the Government Plenipotentiary
268
for Youth Policy (Pełomocnik Rządu ds. Polityki Młodzieżowej) and the
Dialogue Council with the Young Generation (Rada Dialogu z Młodym
Pokoleniem) launching a consultation on the "Strategy for the Young
Generation" ("Strategii RP na rzecz Młodego Pokolenia") in 2021.
RO A national youth policy strategy covering 2015-2020 (Strategia Nationala în

domeniul politicii de tineret 2015/2020) was adopted by the Romanian
Government through a Government Decision in 2015. A new youth strategy for
the following period was not adopted in 2022.
Ongoing debates in the youth field currently (2022) focus on a major reform of
the administrative structure of the main elements of youth policy, such as the
decentralisation of most youth activities currently carried out by the Ministry of
Family, Youth and Equal Opportunities.
Countries with a youth policy but no overarching strategic framework
CY A policy is in force since 2022, without a dedicated strategy. The absence of

such a strategy is linked to the end of the period of the previous strategy and
the lack of specific measures for its development for the period after 2022. The
Youth Council of Cyprus, in cooperation with all stakeholders, has initiated the
process of drafting the new national strategy for youth after 2022. Specific
measures for the development of an overarching strategy have not yet been
identified.
FR A policy is in force without a dedicated strategy. Around 40 ministerial

departments are active in the field of youth, with each one responsible for its
own area. The coherence between youth policies is based on the
Interministerial Youth Committee (created in 1982), the law article 54 which
provides for the strengthening of the regions in youth policies (2017) and the
Youth Policy Orientation Council (created in 2016 with 3 main tasks: to be
consulted on draft laws, to make proposals to the government, to submit an
annual activity report to the government). In addition, the Interministerial
Delegate for Youth, attached to the Prime Minister, is in charge of implementing
the country's youth policy and translating it into coherent and clear
interministerial actions.
The interministerial document "Youth policy 2022" describes the interministerial,

partnership-based youth policy in France, which includes 5 main axes to
support young people on their way to independence, as well as sub-axes and
performance targets. This document represents a review of actions rather than
a strategy or roadmap. Although there will not be a transversal youth policy
document for 2023, the Youth Budget 2023 will be published, accompanied by
some elements on the Youth Priority Goals 2023.
The following table presents the effects of the EUYS on national policies identified in the
mapping of national policies.
269
Table 43 Type of effects of the EUYS on national youth policies
EUYS EUYS EUYS EUYS Example of the effects identified

as as a expand creati
backbo guidin ing the ng
ne of g scope syner
the new policy of gies
strateg docum policy
y ent
AT X The EYGs helped to focus on young

people’s need and formulate the goals
accordingly at the national level.
BE X The EUYS was used to provide guidance

and direction for Flemish youth policies and
strategies
BG X No specific examples provided or identified
CY X The main policy actions of the national

youth strategy are informed by the EUYS.
Furthermore, there is collaboration on youth
policies with the Ministry for Agriculture in
relation to rural youth
CZ X Civil society is using the EUYS as an

advocacy tool to call for a renewed strategy
DE X X The results of the EUYS continue to serve

as an important policy input. Dialogue exists
and is encouraged, for example through the
Youth Policy Days. The EUYS has inspired
national policy makers to think about better
integrating EUYD activities at national level
into policymaking.
DK X Authorities find inspiration from peer-to-peer

learning under the EUYS to develop youth
policies under different policy areas. EU
programmes have been an effective tool to
bring national policies become closer to the
EUYS
EE X The national youth strategy is aligned,

informed, and inspired by the EUYS to
streamline youth policy at all levels of
governance. Estonia has implemented
270
ne of g scope syner
y ent
initiatives covering all three core areas of

the EUYS
EL X The EUYS guiding principles have

contributed to ensuring the effectiveness of
the Strategy in Greece. By promoting
equality and non-discrimination, the EUYS
helped to reduce social inequalities and
enhance social cohesion among young
people in Greece. By prioritising inclusion,
the EUYS has helped address the
challenges faced by marginalised or
disadvantaged youth (Roma, rural youth), or
with disabilities.
ES X The national youth strategy is heavily

informed by the EUYS
FI X Youth participation is a core element of the

national youth policy, as well as other
policies, inspired by the EUYS
FR X France has a long-standing youth policy

framework, with the goals of its national
policies very coherent with the EUYS.
Several actions and programmes were
launched after the EUYS for better
alignment: “1jeune 1solution” informing and
facilitating access to recruitment, training,
and financial aid for young people in need,
“1jeune1mentor” promoting equal
opportunities, and “Rural Educational
Areas” developing educational ambition and
mobility among youth in rural and remote
areas
HR X The main influence of the EUYS is seen in

an increase in youth’s participation in
democratic life and in informing the new
271
ne of g scope syner
y ent
national strategy that will be adopted in

2023
HU No specific examples provided or identified
IE X The EUYS is a key tool of support in the

lobbying efforts at national level to put youth
on the agenda. The EUYS is mentioned
briefly in the Young Voices programme,
which is part of the implementation
infrastructure of the national framework
IT X The EUYS has influenced synergies within

youth policies at national and regional level,
providing a framework that allows for the
alignment of different activities. Since 2022
there is a national agreement to reduce the
number of NEETs, promote the participation
and social inclusion of youth, counteract
negative post-pandemic effects on youth
wellbeing, promote national and regional
youth cards, and welcome youth from
conflict regions in Ukraine
LT X X The national youth strategy aims to support

and achieve the aims of the EUYS
LU X Youth policy took the EUYS into account

and underlined its alignment with it. EU-
level cooperation in the field of youth policy
is presented as one of the three pillars of
the National Action Plan for Youth 2022-
2025. The national strategy identifies the
EUYS as the current framework for EU-level
cooperation in the field of youth policy and
stresses the importance of mutual learning
and exchange at EU level in this field
LV X In putting together the Guidelines for

Children, Youth and Family Development
272
ne of g scope syner
y ent
2022-2027, the Ministry of Education and

the National Youth Council used the
development processes used in the EUYS,
including the EYGs
MT X Previously, youth work was not well defined

and lacked a clear scope, but now there is a
clear alignment in this regard between the
EUYS and the national youth strategy, and
youth work has been incorporated into
national policies.
NL X The EUYS will be used as an example to

draw inspiration from in the creation of the
national youth strategy. The EUYS has also
led to an increased participation rate of
youth in activities funded by Erasmus+ and
the European Solidarity Corps, as well as in
the decision of policymakers from various
ministries to convene more frequently, at
least in an annual meeting, to discuss
progress in youth-related activities
PL X Progress towards the EUYS objectives,

priorities and actions has been recorded
since 2019, with a favourable situation
concerning youth in relation to educational
attainment and employment compared to
the EU average
PT X No specific examples provided or identified
RO X The preparation of the upcoming strategy

2023-2027 has been influenced, at least to
a certain extent, by the EUYS. The National
Competition for Youth and Student Projects
annually adapts the competition
methodology to the guiding principles and
core areas of the EUYS
273
ne of g scope syner
y ent
SE X The Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil

Society (MUCF) has launched Prata EU
(Talk EU), an online training in EU
knowledge, disseminated information about
the Conference on the Future of Europe and
organised six local conferences on this
theme, as well as produced a handbook on
the EUYS
SI X The new national youth strategy 2023-2032

being developed will be modelled on the
existing national strategy, and informed by
the EUYS 2019-2027
SK X National policy makers reported that the

national youth strategy was modelled after
the EUYS
The following table presents the effects and specific examples of change at national level
across the EUYS three core areas – ‘Engage’, ‘Connect’, and ‘Empower’.
Table 44 Specific policy changes at national level along the three core areas of the EUYS
‘Engage’ ‘Connect’ ‘Empower’ Example of the effects identified
AT X X Increased participation of youth and their

representatives in policy making through
EUYD national events and support for the
professionalisation of youth work
BE No effects identified specific to core areas
BG No effects identified specific to core areas
CY X X The activation of the General Advisory Body

of the Youth Board of Cyprus (YBC) aims to
ensure youth participation in policy making,
and the work of EYWA empowered the
creation of a broad team of relevant
274
stakeholders, including voluntary
organisations, to promote youth work
CZ X The ministry in charge of youth policy uses

some of the themes of the EYGs related to
the core area ‘Empower’, particularly on youth
work and supporting youth in transitioning into
adulthood, as specific annual criteria when
awarding grants
DE X X X The level of youth engagement was

strengthened through the EU Youth Dialogue
events organised since 2020. Examples of
actions in the youth field include projects
under the 'Europe and the World' strand of the
national youth strategy, such as the
multilateral cooperation project 'Generation
Europe'. It promotes engagement and new
links between 30 youth organisations from 14
European countries
#jump / young multipliers programme: a team

of at least 23 people across Germany visiting
youth organisations to gather their opinions,
develop ideas together and hand them over to
the EU Youth Representatives
Establishment of the Transfer Office for the

implementation of the EYWA. Between
December 2022 and September 2024, 10
events or actions of different types were
carried out (e.g., digital discussions, thematic
discussions, networking events, survey)
DK X Rethinking the co-creation element in national

youth policy: allowing young people to shape
the peer-to-peer instrument in a strategy to
develop youth policy within the area of
responsibility of each ministry
EE X X Strengthening consultation measures to

involve young people: Youth Parliaments and
Youth Councils make the voices of young
people heard in policy making through the
Estonian National Youth Council and Local
Youth Participation Councils
275
Absorbing the EU funds available for youth
work for local and grassroot level youth
organisations. Using these funds to further
build capacity through trainings and best
practice exchange
EL X With a focus on inclusion, the EUYS has

helped national policy makers to address the
challenges faced by marginalised or
disadvantaged young people in Greece (e.g.,
Roma, rural youth) or young people with
disabilities;
Encouraging the establishment of youth

councils, youth forums and youth-led
initiatives that give young people a voice in
shaping policies that affect them
ES X X The national youth strategy was developed

through a participatory process involving
ministries, the Directorates-General for Youth
of the different Autonomous Communities
(through the Inter-Territorial Youth Council)
and youth civil society (made up of the
Spanish Youth Council (Consejo de la
Juventud de España, CJE) and more than 40
national youth organisations or those with a
direct interest in youth).
Implementation of CEX Vives as an

innovative training project which contributes to
the internationalisation of Spanish companies
by connecting them with young talent at no
cost to the company. ICEX Vives plans to
offer 2000 paid internships with a duration of
6 to 12 months
FI X Youth participation is a core element of the

national youth policy and participation issues
has been also addressed in other policy
areas. This focus on youth participation in
different policy areas has been inspired by the
EUYS.
FR X X The launch and implementation of the

Universal National Service (UNS) in 2019
aims to reinforce youth engagement, even if
there are some doubts and a slowdown in its
276
development (EUR 140 million in 2023, +
EUR 20 million compared to 2022)
The “1jeune 1solution” plan was launched in

2020 to inform and facilitate access to
recruitment assistance, training and financial
support for young people in need. Other
programmes have been launched since 2019
(“1jeune 1mentor”, “Boussole des jeunes”,
and specific programmes for rural youth),
aiming to empower young people with skills
and competences. Similarly, the Contrat
d'Engagement Jeune (CEJ) (Youth
Engagement Contract), launched in 2022, is
directly targeted at French NEETS
Strengthening programmes such as

Erasmus+, ALMA and the European Solidarity
Corps are also achievements in this field in
France
HR No effects identified specific to core areas
HU X Supporting the national offer to increase

participation. In Hungary, youth dialogues,
parliament, women's participation
programmes, official training, digital protection
strategy, and the youth guarantee programme
have been implemented to increase
participation
IE X Including digitalisation and the participation of

rural youth. Inclusion in the Structural
Dialogue of issues such as child poverty, child
homelessness, mental health and well-being,
prevention and early intervention, and
education
IT X Inclusion of mental health and well-being

issues in the National Dialogue
LT X X National Youth Dialogue events organised in

line with the EUYD cycles and extending the
themes discussed at national level
Establishing the governance for youth

engagement, the Lithuanian Youth Bureau
277
was set up to lead the process of EUYD
events from 2019
Launched the programme “Funding of Youth

Volunteering Programmes in Kaunas and
Telšiai Districts 2023-2024”, which provides
funding to youth volunteering organisations to
support their activities involving young people
in volunteering (total funding of EUR 47,232).
The programme targets 2 out of 10 Lithuanian
counties. Furthermore, launched the “Youth
Summer Employment and Labour Market
Integration Programme”, as well as funding
for the programmes “Youth
Departments/Councils of Municipal Councils”,
“Development of Practical Skills of Youth”,
and “Youth Coordination Activities and
National Organisations”.
LU X Addressing issues in the EUYD and other

events with young people, such as promoting
well-being at school, promoting well-being
within youth structures, and socio-educational
work
LV No effects identified specific to core areas
MT X Implemented a series of events voicing youth

needs at national level beyond the national
events of the EUYD, implemented actions in
line with the EYGs
NL X Establishment of an annual meeting of youth

stakeholders and policy makers to discuss
progress and developments in youth-related
activities
PL No effects identified specific to core areas
PT No effects identified specific to core areas
RO X Implementation of a project under the EUYD

model for consulting young people on relevant
issues and continuous partnership for
governance at local and national level (DUET)
278
SE X The Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil
Society (MUCF) has developed and
disseminated models of how municipalities
can work strategically to strengthen young
people's participation in democracy
SI X X X Promoting the conventional political

participation of young people through a public
call for the co-financing of youth work in 2020
and 2021
Implementation of projects such as

scholarships for international mobility (e.g., Ad
Futura); increasing the visibility of Erasmus+
mobility for students from socially weaker
backgrounds, and in the framework of the
European Solidarity Corps, implementation of
initiatives focusing on solidarity, employment,
internships and volunteering projects at local
and national level
SK No effects identified specific to core areas
The following table shows the contribution made by the 2022 European Year of Youth to the
EUYS and its objectives at national level.
Table 45 Contribution of the 2022 European Year of Youth to achieve EUYS objectives
Extent of
contribution Examples of contribution made by the 2022 European Year of
identified at Youth to EUYS at national level
national level
The 2022 European Year of Youth has helped promoting the ideas of
AT X
the EUYS and raised awareness among youth and youth stakeholders
The 2022 European Year of Youth created many opportunities to learn,

BE XXX share perspectives, meet other people and take part in activities across
Europe. As such, the Year gave additional visibility to the EUYS.
BG / No information available
279
The 2022 European Year of Youth increased the visibility of the
CY XX Strategy but overall, the impact was to a moderate extent, without
substantial policy changes
CZ / No information available
HR / No information available
DE / No information available
The 2022 European Year of Youth has contributed to the objectives of

DK XXX the EUYS by enabling the Agency and DUF (Danish Youth Council) to
develop and implement projects that meet the needs of Danish youth
The 2022 European Year of Youth and its legacy have greatly
influenced the relevance of the EU Youth Strategy in Estonia. The Year
EE XXX has strengthened youth activities at national level. It has shaped the
policy discussion at national level in line with the strategic objectives of
the EUYS
The 2022 European Year of Youth has greatly contributed to bridging

the gap created by the COVID-19 pandemic, bringing young people
EL XXX together and creating opportunities, according to Greek stakeholders.
For Greece, the 2022 European Year of Youth 2022 was the initiative
that re-launched the youth sector in the country
The 2022 European Year of Youth helped to focus attention on youth

ES X
and to raise awareness of the funds available for youth initiatives
The 2022 European Year of Youth contributed to the EUYS by raising

FI XXX awareness of youth issues, thereby inadvertently contributing to the
objectives of the EUYS
The 2022 European Year of Youth combined with the Erasmus+ 35th
anniversary program and the French presidency of the Council of the
FR XXX EU have contributed towards EUYS objectives by raising awareness
and bringing policy makers beyond the youth policy sector to work on
youth issues and enhance mainstreaming
Grants under the 2022 European Year of Youth enabled small-scale

organisations to implement youth events that helped the country to
HU XX
achieve the minimum standards in terms of participation of youth in
2022
280
Stakeholders describe the that the 2022 European Year of Youth, to
HR XX some extent, was an important catalyst in intensifying targeted actions
in closer collaboration with other Member States
Interviewees suggested that the events organised as part of the 2022

European Year of Youth helped to engage people by providing tangible
IE XX and relatable experiences rather than relying on EU jargon. Small
gestures, such as the distribution of EU flags during events, served as
starting points for increased engagement
IT / No information available
Although the timing with the 2022 European Year of Youth was not
planned, it allowed to give an international dimension to planned
activities. According to the Lithuanian Agency for Youth Affairs, the
LT XX official plans for the Lithuanian Year of Youth included: 6 videos
presenting activities of the 2022 European Year of Youth, 10 videos
presenting best practices of EU programmes, and 5 workshops on best
practices in EU programmes
Stakeholders mentioned that efforts have been made to plan events to

LU X
raise the visibility of the EUYS and EU programmes
The 2022 European Year of Youth helped to raise awareness of the

objectives of the EUYS to some extent. The Year was announced at
LV XX short notice, but nevertheless many events were organised and were
successful. However, the war in Ukraine became an issue of higher
priority
MT / No information available
The 2022 European Year of Youth has played an important role in

promoting the objectives of the EUYS. It has facilitated increased
involvement of national stakeholders through initiatives such as the EU
NL XXX Youth Dialogue, which provides a platform for young people to express
their views and contribute to policy discussions. In addition, the 2022
European Year of Youth has led to an increased allocation of funds to
the relevant national ministries
The 2022 European Year of Youth contributed mainly in raising

PL XX awareness on the importance of the youth agenda and thus indirectly
contributing to the objectives of the EUYS
PT / No information available
281
The 2022 European Year of Youth have achieved some priorities for
young people in relation to the objectives of the EUYS: ensuring equal
RO XX access to rights, youth participation and autonomy, promoting young
people's active participation in decision-making and their involvement in
the development of inclusive activities
The 2022 European Year of Youth led to more resources being made
available to disseminate information on EU youth policy and, by
extension, the EUYS. The 2022 European Year of Youth brought youth
SE XXX
issues to the forefront, giving them a higher profile during the Swedish
Presidency of the Council of the EU. The Year also promoted the EU
Youth Dialogue and strengthened its link with the EUYS
SK / No information available
SI / No information available
As shown in the table below, youth issues have been mainstreamed in almost all countries to
some extent. Countries that claim that there is a strong mainstreaming of youth issues at
national level explain that this is due to ministries in other policy sectors horizontally taking into
consideration youth issues. Only Ireland refers to the EUYS to partly explain the mainstreaming
of youth issues in the country. Other countries that mentioned a moderate and limited
mainstreaming often refer to national policies and strategies to explain youth mainstreaming
rather than the EUYS. Only Lithuania and Latvia explain that the moderate level of
mainstreaming at national level can be attributed partly to the EUYS. For example,
stakeholders in Lithuania explained that while the youth field has grown in importance within
the Lithuanian policy framework, it was still important that there be a European level example
(EUYS) to demonstrate to national policymakers the importance of youth. Finally, countries
that believed that there was no mainstreaming generally failed to provide information.
Table 46 Mainstreaming of youth issues in other policy fields at national level
Level of Evidence
mainstreaming193
AT XXX Stakeholders mentioned that youth issues have

been mainstreamed in other policy fields at national
level to a very large extent. The Austrian Youth
Strategy has its main goal of establishing youth as a
horizontal topic in all policy fields. In Austria all laws
have to have a youth check of the impact they have
on young people.
193 XXX: strong mainstreaming; XX: moderate mainstreaming; X: limited mainstreaming. No information in BE, CZ, DE, FR, HR,
HU, IT, NL, PT, RO.
282
BG X Stakeholders mentioned that youth issues have
level to little to no extent.
CY X All stakeholders interviewed mentioned that youth

issues have been mainstreamed in other policy
fields at national level to some extent.
DK XXX Stakeholders mentioned that youth issues have

level to a large extent.
EE XXX Youth issues have largely been mainstreamed into

other policy areas. In each possible policy area
related to youth, the state has identified specific
services and policies needed to support young
people.
EL XX Stakeholders mentioned that youth issues have

level to some extent.
ES XX Stakeholders mentioned that youth issues have

level to a certain extent. As mentioned above, the
Spanish youth strategy is an inter-ministerial
initiative promoted by the Ministry of Social Rights
and the 2030 Agenda, in collaboration with all the
ministries through the Inter-ministerial Commission
for Youth. Thus, there is a constant interaction
across ministries as ministries take part in “round
tables” to discuss aspects under their competence
which affect youth.
FI XXX Stakeholders mentioned that youth issues have

level to a large extent. Both interviewees agree on
youth policy being taken into consideration in other
policy fields.
IE XXX In Ireland, youth issues have been mainstreamed to

a large extent in other policy fields. There is a
noticeable tendency to reference the EUYS in policy
documents and frameworks, indicating the
integration of youth concerns into various policy
domains. The EUYS has garnered attention and
283
highlighted the importance of youth issues, which
encourages more comprehensive action at the
national level.
LT XX Stakeholders mentioned that youth issues have

level to some extent. The youth field has grown in
importance within the Lithuanian policy framework.
However, it is still important that there is a European
level example (EUYS) to demonstrate to national
level policy makers the importance of the youth field.
LU XX Stakeholders mentioned that youth issues have

level to some extent. The amended youth law of
2008 is based on the principle of an inter-ministerial
and cross-cutting youth policy. This requires
consultation and regular collaboration with other
ministries; the amended law of 2008 foresees the
establishment of an Inter-ministerial Committee on
Youth.
LV XX Stakeholders mentioned that youth issues have

level to some extent. The EUYS has a
comprehensive list of policy areas that reflect EU
and national policy priorities. Thus, youth have been
incorporated into different policy areas. However,
youth are still not a priority in Latvia, given other
more urgent issues.
MT X The national youth policy places a focus on "youth

proofing" to ensure that all ministries consider the
potential impact on young people when formulating
policies. This indicates a recognition of the need to
integrate youth perspectives and address youth-
related issues across different policy areas.
PL XX In terms of processes there is rather little

mainstreaming of youth perspectives in policy
making. This is partly a result of the lack of a single
institution responsible for the youth policy agenda. In
contrast, individual ministries appear to often
consider the youth perspective in policy design.
284
SK X Stakeholders mentioned that youth issues have
level to some extent.
SI XX Stakeholders mentioned that youth issues have

level to some extent. Youth policy is part of other
sectoral policies (e.g., education, health,
employment) and therefore falls within the
competence of different ministries.
SE XX Youth issues have been mainstreamed in other

policy fields in Sweden to some extent. This is a
policy priority identified in the Swedish Government’s
youth policy bill 'With youth in focus – a policy for
good living conditions, power and influence'.
Efficiency of the EUYS 2019-2027

The following table shows national policy makers' perceptions of the proportionality of the costs
and benefits and the burden of implementing the EUYS.
Table 47 National policy makers perceptions on proportionality of its cost and benefits and burden
of the EUYS implementation
Proportionality The Additional comments on the administrative

of resources administrative burden
allocated to burden of the
the EUYS to EUYS
its benefits* instruments**
AT XX X Considered proportionate, and burden identified

was linked to the usefulness of the FNAPs.
BE X / The costs of the EUYS are considered

proportionate in relation to its overall benefits.
The implementation of Erasmus+ and European
Solidarity Corps requires significant investment
from national authorities in terms of human
resources. Policy makers expressed that the
funding provided by the EU only partially covers
the human resources needed to implement EU
programmes.
BG XXX / Considered proportionate and no burden

identified.
285
CY / X Policy makers expressed a burden associated
with the 2022 European Year of Youth to deliver
activities on time, but reported a high
proportionality of benefits compared to these
costs.
CZ XX XX Burden identified linked to the usefulness of the

FNAPs.
DE / XX Stakeholders reported a certain burden caused

by EU programmes, as the administrative
procedures for applying for and distributing
funding from EU programmes are extensive,
both for applicants and for national agencies.
Burden identified linked to the usefulness of the
FNAPs.
DK XXX X Considered proportionate. Burden identified

linked to the usefulness of the FNAPs.
EE XXX X Burden identified linked to the usefulness of the

FNAPs.
EL XX / Considered proportionate and no burden

identified.
ES / XX Burden linked to the difficulty of accessing

microgrants or other funding sources to start a
project for youth.
FI XXX / Considered proportionate and no specific

burden identified.
FR XXX / Considered proportionate and no burden

identified.
HR / XX The large number of instruments of the EU

Youth Strategy can lead to confusion about how
to inform Croatian youth.
HU / / No information available
IE / XX Considered proportionate but certain

organisations were more adept at applying for
and benefiting from Erasmus+ than others,
286
suggesting potential disparities in the
administrative burden experienced by different
stakeholders.
IT XX / Considered proportionate and no specific

burden identified.
LT XX X Considered proportionate. The administrative

requirements for two separate programmes
(Erasmus+ and the European Solidarity Corps)
cause additional administrative requirements,
particularly managing the different funding
streams for the programmes. Burden identified
linked to the usefulness of the FNAPs.
LU / XX Considered proportionate and burden identified

in relation to resources allocated at national
level, as 1 FTE is not sufficient to manage the
implementation of relevant instruments.
LV XX / Considered proportionate and no burden

identified.
MT / / No information available
NL XXX X Considered proportionate burden identified in

relation to participation in various youth work
group meetings.
PL XXX / Considered proportionate and no burden

identified.
PT / / No information available
RO / XX Considered proportionate and that simplified

funding could be useful to reduce the
administrative burden for managing authorities
and for beneficiaries implementing youth
projects under EU programmes.
SE / / No information available
SI XXX / Considered proportionate and no burden

identified.
287
SK XX XX Considered proportionate and that simplified
funding could be useful to reduce the
administrative burden for managing authorities
to implement EU programmes.
* ‘XXX’ reported high proportionality, ‘XX’ – medium proportionality, ‘X’ – limited

proportionality, ‘/’ – no information
** ‘XXX’ – Strong burden, ‘XX’ – Medium burden, ‘X’ – limited burden, ‘/‘– no
information/no burden
The table below shows the estimated number of FTEs allocated at national level to the
implementation of the EUYS, as reported by national policy makers.
Table 48 Annual FTE for the implementation for the EUYS
Country Annual estimated FTE
1.25 FTE are in charge for the Austrian Youth Strategy in the Federal
AT Chancellery, but no information on FTEs is available in other ministries for the
implementation of the Austrian Youth Strategy, nor for the EUYS
1 FTE (in 2022) was dedicated to the EUYS implementation at the responsible
BE
Ministry in the French community
Difficult to provide an estimate of EUYS-specific FTE. The figures provided refer

to staff working in the field of youth policy:
• Department for youth policy: 14 persons (within the public administration

BG
there are in total around 30 people responsible for youth policy)
• Human Resources Development Centre (responsible for the
implementation of the Erasmus+ programme and the European
Solidarity Corps): 35 people
CY 0.2 and 0.1 FTE respectively for youth issues
CZ Consultancy and implementation activities: approx. 25 FTE
At the Bundesjugendring, 3 people work on the implementation of the EU Youth

Dialogue, but no information is available on the exact FTE. A further 3 people
DE
work in the European and international youth policy unit, which covers more
than just work on the EUYS
A total of 31.9 FTE are dedicated to the direct implementation of the whole of
DK
Erasmus+
288
EE No information available
EL 20 FTE
ES No information available
FI 15 FTE
FR No information available
HR No information available
HU No information available
IE No information available
IT No information available
A total of 40 FTE, of which 16 FTE are in the national youth policy department
LT
and 18 FTE in the international youth policy department
LU No information available
The organisations responsible for youth have not assigned/recruited staff

LV specifically to the implementation of the EUYS. Therefore, it is not possible to
indicate annual FTE
MT No information available
NL No information available
No aggregated information available; estimates for individual stakeholders

PL consulted: up to 1.5 FTE in the Ministry of Education & a fraction (~0.25) FTE in
the FRSE & up to 1.5 FTE in the FIM (this mainly for youth dialogues)
PT No information available
RO No information available
Within the framework of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports and Science
SK of the Slovak Republic, two employees are directly involved in youth issues for
almost all of their working time. This was the situation in 2022. From 15 June
2023, three employees will be dedicated to youth policy and thus to the
289
implementation of the national youth strategy. (However, this number is not
final, as the Slovak Youth Strategy for 2021-2028, which is largely based on the
EUYS, is interdepartmental in its complexity, and several tasks and measures
are handled by other departments, such as the Ministry of Culture, Ministry of
Health, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of the Interior, Minitry of
Investment, Regional Development and Digitalisation, as well as other public
administration bodies. In view of the above, it is not possible to determine the
exact number of employees from these ministries working on the
implementation of the national youth strategy.)
NIVAM states 6.5 FTE, its National Agency for EU Youth Programmes 9 FTE.
However, not all of these are dedicated to the implementation of the EUYS, but
rather to the implementation of, and cooperation with, EU programmes.
According to RMS (the National Youth Council), around 0.75 FTE are dedicated
to the EUYD.
The Office for Youth employs 11 staff, of which 8-9 are involved in the
implementation of youth policy. There are more than 20 additional staff
members from organisations such as NA MOVIT, MaMa and NYC.
SI In NA MOVIT there are 32 people working in the organisation, of which 9 FTE

are dedicated to EUYS activities.
In NYC, about 1.5-2 FTE work on youth policy and advocacy, out of a total of 8
staff.
SE No information available
Coherence of the EUYS 2019-2027

The table below demonstrates the extent to which national youth policies are coherent with the
EUYS, its core areas and instruments.
Table 49 Extent to which national youth policies are coherent with the EUYS, its core areas and
instruments.
Coherence of national Coherence of national Coherence of national

youth policies/strategies policies with three core policies with
with the EUYS* areas* instruments*
AT XXX XXX XXX
BE XXX XX XX
BG XX XXX XXX
290
CY XXX XXX XXX
CZ XXX / /
DE XXX XXX XXX
DK XXX XXX XXX
EE XXX XXX XXX
EL XX XXX XXX
ES XXX XXX XXX
FI XXX XXX XXX
FR XXX XXX XXX
HR / X X
HU / / /
IE / / /
IT XXX XXX XXX
LT XXX XXX XXX
LU XXX X X
LV XXX XXX XXX
MT / X X
NL X / /
PL XXX XX XX
PT XXX / /
RO XXX XX XX
291
SE XXX XXX XXX
SI XXX XX XX
SK XXX / /
* ‘XXX’ – Strongly coherent, ‘XX’ – Somewhat coherent, ‘X’ – Coherent to a limited

extent, ‘/‘– No information/no burden
The table below demonstrates the number of actions in national youth strategies and policies
(or equivalent) which align with the three core areas of the EU Youth Strategy: ‘Engage’,
‘Connect’ and ‘Empower’.
Table 50 Number of national level policy actions in national youth strategies and policies (or
equivalent) which align with the three core areas of the EU Youth Strategy: ‘Engage’, ‘Connect’,
and ‘Empower’
‘Engage’ ‘Connect’ ‘Empower’ No information provided/No

national youth policy
AT There are policy actions related to all three core

areas, and to all 11 European Youth Goals.
However, the policy makers interviewed could not
enumerate the exact number of policy actions that
are coherent with the objectives of the EUYS.
BE 4 7 10
(NL)
BE 6 5 6
(DE)
BE 4 5 5
(FR)
BG 1 1 6
CY X
CZ X
DE 4 4 4
DK X
292
EE 6 3 3
EL At least five priorities of the national youth strategy

align with the three core areas of the EUYS.
ES 2 2 6
FI 2 2 1
FR A total of 15 national level actions align with the

three core areas of the EUYS.
HR X
HU X
IE 12 9 6
IT 2 1 5
LT 12 9 7
LY X
LV 12 sections of the Latvian Youth Law and four

goals of the Guidelines for Children align with the
three core areas of the EUYS.
MT 3 6 8
NL X
PL X
PT In the National Youth Plan there are several goals,

measures and activities that align with the three
core areas of the EUYS.
RO The three pillars of the EUYS are aligned with

national youth policies in Romania. However, no
specific number of actions was provided.
293
SE 17 19 42
SI 1 5 1
SK All the actions of the national youth strategy are

aligned with the three core areas of the EUYS.
However, no specific number was provided.
EU added value of the EUYS 2019-2027

Overall, countries expressed a positive view on the EUYS’s coverage of new issues and
priorities, as well as target groups. The large coverage of the EUYS, linked to the broadness
of its objectives, allows countries to adapt to their own national context and focus on specific
issues. Stakeholders mentioned mental health, digital transition, inclusion, and youth work as
good examples of how the EUYS can help to expand youth issues in crosscutting themes at
national level. The clustering in the table below is done between countries that stated that the
EUYS had a large coverage, countries that believed that it only had a moderate or limited
coverage, and countries that said that the EUYS did not cover new issues or could not provide
any information.
Table 51 Extent to which the EUYS covers new issues, priorities, and target groups
Level of Evidence
coverage194
AT XXX The EUYS plays an important role in focusing on certain

topics and lifting them up at European level (e.g., EYGs on
rural youth, or equality for all genders). National priorities and
objectives are not so much affected by the EUYS.
BE XXX BE-FR: The EUYS has increased the consideration of

specific important values/themes (e.g., inclusion, mobility and
empowerment of young people, sustainable development,
digitalisation), although the youth policy in the French
community was developed independently of the EUYS.
BG X The Strategy helped focus the attention on some areas, such

as sustainability and EU values.
CZ XXX There is currently practically no strategic approach to the

issues young people are facing. The EUYD is framing topics
which would otherwise not get discussed enough (such as
geographically disadvantaged young people or those from the
LGBTQIA+ community).
194 XXX: large coverage; XX: moderate coverage; X: limited coverage. No information in CY, FR, HR, LU, NL, PT, RO, SE, SI,
SK.
294
DE X One stakeholder reported that the EUYS has broadened the
perspective by giving visibility to youth policies in other
countries. European values are more explicitly considered at
national level.
DK XX Stakeholders have reported that the Strategy has shown to

be relevant and flexible in adjusting to new issues of priority
to different target groups.
EE XXX The EUYS and the mainstreaming of youth across different

programmes has enabled the country to increase support to
youth work organisations and to promote quality youth work.
EL XXX The EUYS has played a crucial role in broadening the

coverage of new issues, priorities, and target groups beyond
what is typically covered at the national and regional levels by
incorporating crosscutting themes that go beyond individual
countries' priorities (e.g., youth work, social inclusion, youth
participation, intercultural dialogue, sustainable
development).
ES XX One interviewee highlighted the importance of the Strategy

concerning the inclusion of mental health in the agenda. The
Strategy and youth initiatives at EU level supported their calls
to include youth mental health in the agenda in Spain.
FI XXX The EUYS has allowed new issues to be addressed in the

national youth policy programme. Indeed, when deliberating
on which issues to include in the national youth policy
programme, issues that are also addressed or brought to light
by the EUYS are given more credence and credibility on the
national stage and thus are more likely to be included in the
national policy.
HU XX Mental well-being has become more important, therefore

groups who suffer from depression or anxiety are more
highlighted.
IE XXX The EUYS has played a role in addressing new issues,

priorities, and target groups beyond what is typically covered
at the national level. Initiatives like Erasmus+ and the
European Solidarity Corps, made possible by the EU, have
brought unique opportunities and experiences for young
people.
295
IT XX Mirroring the central platform of the EUYS at the national
level, combined with a youth card, has enabled to reach a
broad target group both in terms of users and partners.
LT XX The inclusion of the digital and green transitions in national

youth policy has been massively promoted by the EUYS.
LV XXX As previously mentioned, the EUYS has given way for new
issues and priorities to be set at national level. Before the
EUYS there was no priority to directly engage with youth, now
it is a widespread national priority.
MT XXX The EUYS was broadly found to address new issues and
priorities, and to target specific groups, complementing what
is covered in national and/or regional strategies. It adds a
European and global dimension to youth-related matters.
PL X Stakeholders reported indirect effects of strengthened

international cooperation and peer learning.
Stakeholders strongly believe that the legacy of the 2022 European Year of Youth has a
positive impact on the added value of the EUYS. They mentioned the ability of the 2022
European Year of Youth to mainstream youth issues and policies at national level. It has also
helped to foster cooperation and peer learning between different groups of youth stakeholders
at national and European level. Finally, the 2022 European Year of Youth succeeded in
engaging with young people who are usually outside of the range of youth policies (e.g., youth
with fewer opportunities) through targeted initiatives. Only a few countries believed that the
2022 European Year of Youth’s legacy had no impact on the added value of the EUYS either
because they failed to formulate an opinion, or because they did not see long-lasting effects
of the Year in their country. No country mentioned a negative impact of the 2022 European
Year of Youth on the EUYS’s added value. The clustering in the table below is done between
countries that believe that the 2022 European Year of Youth had a strong, moderate, or limited
positive impact on the EUYS’s added value, and countries that believe that the Year had no
impact on the EUYS’s added value.
Table 52 Extent of the impact of the 2022 European Year of Youth on the EUYS’s added value for
the stakeholders consulted
Level of impact195 Evidence
AT X Stakeholders mentioned that national initiatives set up under

the 2022 European Year of Youth helped to promote the
EUYS objectives.
195 XXX: strong positive impact; XX: moderate positive impact; X: limited positive impact. No information in BE, ES, HU, LU, MT,
NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SK.
296
BG XX The stakeholders were generally positive about the 2022
European Year of Youth and its value for young people taking
part in the activities.
CY X Stakeholders maintain that it is premature to evaluate the

impact of the 2022 European Year of Youth, though it served
to boost the visibility of youth issues after COVID-19, without
producing reforms.
CZ X Stakeholders mentioned that activities stemming from the

EUYS gave a substance/meaning to the 2022 European Year
of Youth.
DE XXX The stakeholders mentioned that the 2022 European Year of

Youth helped to mainstream the needs of young people to
gain more visibility. According to one stakeholder, youth
organisations had the possibility to communicate and support
the needs of youth in a European context.
DK XX Stakeholders mentioned that projects under the 2022

European Year of Youth succeeded in including young people
who normally do not participate (e.g., youth dealing with
mental challenges).
EE XXX Stakeholders mentioned that all activities organised under the

2022 European Year of Youth in Estonia covered important
target groups and took place in different formats. Cooperation
among youth sector partners was initiated and their network
activities helped to spread the word about the Year.
EL XXX The 2022 European Year of Youth raised the visibility of youth
issues in Greece with more than 200 activities and increased
public awareness about the challenges faced by young
people. By putting youth issues in the spotlight, it generated
greater attention and support from both policy makers and the
public.
FI XX Both interviewees agreed that there was a positive impact of

the 2022 European Year of Youth on the added value of the
EUYS, specifically in engaging stakeholders and bringing
youth issues into view.
FR X No findings were provided by the stakeholders (no legacy of

the 2022 European Year of Youth identified by the
297
stakeholders, who explained it is being discussed and
formalised).
HR XXX Stakeholders mentioned that the 2022 European Year of

Youth gave an extra boost to promoting and mainstreaming
youth policy and placed a focus on different topics that young
people found relevant. It also helped to foster cooperation
between different stakeholders as well as mobilise young
people from rural and remote areas.
IE XXX The 2022 European Year of Youth had a positive influence on

the EUYS’s added value, particularly through its impact on
participating organisations and youth engagement. The 2022
European Year of Youth has influenced participating
organisations' likelihood to apply for Erasmus+ funding in the
future. The experience of applying for grants under the 2022
European Year of Youth has provided valuable insights and
knowledge on funding applications, helping smaller
organisations improve their approach. This suggests that the
Year has enhanced organisations' capacity to access funding
opportunities and engage with EU initiatives, thereby
contributing to the added value of the EUYS.
IT XXX Stakeholders mentioned in multiple examples the positive

impact of the 2022 European Year of Youth. Besides the
major activities and programming reaching a bigger critical
mass, 4 of 4 stakeholders stressed that they valued the close
collaboration and short communication lines (e.g., more work
meetings, open MS Teams channel) with their peers across
Member States and the Commission.
LT X The 2022 European Year of Youth demonstrated novel

methods, and how young people can get engaged in different
youth activities.
LV X Stakeholders shared the opinion that the 2022 European Year

of Youth had not led to significant changes or policy reforms. It
did, however, help with the visibility of issues being tackled.
SI XXX The 2022 European Year of Youth has enhanced cooperation

among countries more than the EUYS itself. The 2022
European Year of Youth was marked by numerous
international activities where good practice examples, studies,
and policies of individual countries were presented. Thanks to
the 2022 European Year of Youth, countries were able to
collaborate more closely and delve into different perspectives,
as well as discuss various good practice cases in more detail
298
and with greater precision. The EUYS has served to support
the planning of activities during the Year.
Table 53 Impact of the absence of the EUYS on EU youth education, employment, and social
policies
Level of Evidence
impact196
AT X The EUYS had an effect on other EU policies in the creation

phase, but the interviewees did not observe an effect in practice.
4 out of 4 stakeholders did not see that the role of the EU Youth
Coordinator had an effect on ongoing youth education,
employment or social policies.
BE X BE-FL: The consequences of the discontinuation of the EUYS

would be quite mild in Flanders as the region already has a well-
established youth policy in place. However, if Flanders did not
have a youth strategy in place, these effects could be
disastrous.
BE-DE: The discontinuation of the EUYS would not make much
of a difference as the national strategy is aligned with the EUYS.
Nonetheless, one stakeholder mentioned that the
discontinuation of the EUYS could undermine the legitimisation
of youth policy and could also reduce available funding.
BE-FR: Nothing would change in terms of youth policy, which
would have been developed in the same way even in the
absence of the EUYS. However, the framework for exchanges
with other Member States would be “lost”.
BG XX Stakeholders argued that youth policy would probably lose some

of its weight and it would be a step back, as the Strategy backs
up the setting up of different youth programmes and
instruments. This would have a very negative impact on youth
engagement and empowerment. The Strategy was a milestone
that needs to be continued and built upon.
CY XXX Stakeholders clearly stated that a potential discontinuation of the

Strategy would have a negative impact on the youth policy of the
country. They explained that some stakeholders are using EU
guidelines as a tool of advocacy. The country would also be cut
off from EU values and connectivity to Europe.
CZ XXX Stakeholders stated that it would be a big step back. The EUYS
brings forward topics that would otherwise not have been dealt
196 XXX: strong effect; XX: moderate effect; X: limited effect. No information in DK, ES, LT, PT, RO, SE.
299
with (e.g., through the EUYD). The EUYS offers a systemic
approach towards young people and inter-ministerial
cooperation.
DE XXX A discontinuation of the EUYS would be difficult as the EUYS is

considered necessary in order to have funding programmes
such as Erasmus+ or the European Solidarity Corps. The EUYS
is a reference for youth work in different European countries,
especially those countries where the situation of youth is more
difficult. Lastly, the absence of the EUYS would reduce the
visibility of Europe and European topics as well as reduce
“European peer learning”.
EE XX According to the stakeholders consulted, the absence of the

EUYS could lead to disruptions in the mainstreaming of youth
issues in different policy areas. In particular, this is expected to
affect EU programmes implemented at national level, such as
Erasmus+, the European Solidarity Corps, and DiscoverEU.
EL XXX Stakeholders argued that a discontinuation would limit policy

coordination between Greece and other EU countries in matters
related to youth, leading to a lack of consistency, coherence,
and shared learning in addressing youth issues, potentially
limiting the effectiveness of national policies. It would also
decrease youth engagement and participation at the European
level. This could result in reduced opportunities for Greek youth
to voice their concerns, contribute to policy development, and
actively participate in democratic processes at the EU level.
FI XX The stakeholders mentioned that the importance of youth issues

would decrease with a discontinuation of the EUYS.
FR XX The stakeholders mentioned that the loss of the EUYS would

have an impact on cooperation in youth policies. Stakeholders
also indicated that the EUYS is key as it disseminates an
important line of conduct for youth policy in a sector that is not a
shared competence.
HR XXX Stakeholders argued that youth education, employment, and

social policies would not be such a prominent matter in Croatia
in the absence of the Strategy because the EUYS inspired
national stakeholders to promote certain themes and activities in
Croatia in the absence of a national youth strategy.
HU XXX There would be significant uncertainty among youth CSOs and

institutions. European priorities would not be clear, the reference
framework that provides a unified methodology and toolkit for
300
youth work would disappear, there would be no set of values
that could serve as a starting point in youth policy, and the
signposts in youth dialogues that the EYGs represent would be
sorely missed.
IE XXX Stakeholders argued that a discontinuation would likely have

several consequences:
• Loss of opportunities: The discontinuation would mean

the end of initiatives like Erasmus+ and the European
Solidarity Corps, which have been described as fantastic
opportunities for young people.
• Decreased funding availability: The EUYS provides
funding for various youth-related programmes and
activities. Without the Strategy, funding availability would
likely decrease. This would have a significant impact on
organisations and initiatives that rely on EU funding to
support their work in promoting youth engagement,
empowerment, and inclusion.
• Lower government prioritisation: Without the EUYS, the
priorities of the government in Ireland would likely be less
focused on youth-related matters. The Strategy serves
as a framework and platform for advocating and
addressing the needs and concerns of young people.
Discontinuation would potentially result in reduced
government attention and support for youth issues.
IT XX Stakeholders argued that a discontinuation would limit the ability

to concentrate actions, which would become more dispersed
(and likely smaller, hence reducing impact). In addition,
exchange platforms such as Erasmus+ would not be able to
work the way they are currently working.
LU X Stakeholders believed that there would be no major impact in

the short term, but in the long term there would be a lack of
overarching framework. The EUYS allows to ensure coherence
at EU level, and consequently at national level, in the field of
youth policy. It provides a clear direction and a good overall
framework.
LV XXX Stakeholders thought that the EUYS was essential for youth-
focused education, employment and social policies. Latvia does
not have the financial resources to tackle these issues on its
own to the same extent. The international cooperation
component of the EUYS is also of major importance.
301
MT XXX Stakeholders believed that a discontinuation would limit youth
opportunities, as well as their scope. The national youth strategy
in Malta would have a more limited scope without the EUYS. It
would create isolation and limit connection.
The discontinuation of the EUYS would result in a more isolated

approach, primarily focused on the national level. This would
limit connections and partnerships with other European
countries, reducing the opportunities for young people to
connect and engage within the European framework. The EUYS
provides a unique European dimension that complements
national youth strategies. Discontinuing it would result in the loss
of this European dimension. The EUYS has played a role in
accelerating the learning process by providing a platform for
sharing experiences and knowledge among different countries.
NL X 1 out of 3 stakeholders consulted reported that having a

framework above the national level helps to create a coordinated
and unified approach towards addressing the needs and
aspirations of young people. The EYGs, although not directly
enforced, serve as a source of inspiration and motivation for
change. They provide a reference point for policy makers,
organisations, and individuals working in the youth sector,
guiding their efforts to improve the lives of young people. The
EUYS and its associated EYGs also facilitate the exchange of
best practices and knowledge sharing among European
countries.
PL X Stakeholders believed that discontinuing the EUYS would not

have much impact assuming that EU functioning would be
unchanged and EU funding for individual programmes would
remain largely unchanged.
SI XXX Stakeholders believed that the discontinuation would create a

lack of guidance, direction, and coordination at the European
level among Member States and their national youth policies,
which could lead to fragmentation and lack of consistency in the
implementation of youth policies. It would limit cross-sectoral
collaboration, the involvement of various stakeholders, and
synergies between sectors in shaping and implementing youth
policies, which could hinder a comprehensive approach to
addressing youth challenges. It would also limit the recognition
of youth needs by political and institutional actors, the
clarity/existence of specific instruments/measures (Erasmus+,
the European Solidarity Corps), and the development of youth
work. Finally, it would mean the non-existence of a reference
document justifying the need to address young people’s
302
challenges and needs, as well as involve young people in youth
activities and (youth) policies.
SK XXX Stakeholders believed that a framework for the Slovak national

youth strategy would be missing. Besides that, youth
organisations wouldn’t have instruments to consult young
people, as it is now done thanks to the EUYD, and their position
as stakeholders would decrease.
Relevance of the EUYS 2019-2027

The alignment between the EU Youth Strategy's objectives and the current needs of
stakeholders varies across different countries. The clustering in the table below is based on
the level of evidence and examples of alignment provided for each country in relation to the
EU Youth Strategy's objectives and the needs of stakeholders. Countries with strong alignment
present specific evidence and examples supporting the alignment, while those with moderate
alignment present some evidence but not as comprehensive. Countries with limited alignment
show minimal evidence, and those with no information provided do not have sufficient data to
assess alignment. Finally, countries without a national youth policy lack specific information on
alignment due to the absence of a framework for youth policies.
Table 54 Level of alignment between the EUYS's objectives and youth needs
Level of Evidence
alignment197
AT X The EUYS is considered comprehensive enough to address

the needs of young people, such as mental health issues
and economic challenges. However, direct solutions are
mainly found in national youth policies and strategies.
BE XX Both the EUYS and the youth strategy of the Flemish

community emphasise youth participation in decision-
making processes, indicating alignment between their
objectives and the needs of young people.
BG XXX The initial development of the national youth strategy aligns

with the EYGs and is also aligned with the objectives of the
EUYS.
CY XXX Stakeholders believe that the EUYS objectives align with

the needs of young people, particularly emphasizing EYG 1
Connecting EU with Youth, EYG 5 Mental Health &
Wellbeing, EYG 6 Moving Rural Youth Forward, and EYG
11 Youth Organisations & European Programmes.
197
XXX: strong alignment; XX: moderate alignment; X: limited alignment. No information in CZ, ES, HR, SE, SI.
303
DE X Stakeholders highlight engagement and participation as
important, with the development of a national action plan for
youth participation in Germany.
DK XX Stakeholders focus on young people's well-being and

educational opportunities in rural areas, which aligns with
both the current government reform program and the FNAP
2021 survey results.
EE XXX The main national youth challenges correspond to the

EUYS's overall objectives, with needs related to
participation, discovering talents, inclusion, and preparing
for adulthood being addressed by the EUYS.
EL XXX Stakeholders perceive alignment between the EUYS’s

objectives and the needs of young people, with particular
relevance to EYG 1 Connecting EU with Youth, EYG 3
Inclusive Societies, EYG 5 Mental Health & Wellbeing, EYG
9 Space and Participation for All, and EYG 11 Youth
Organisations & European Programmes.
FI XX There is moderate alignment between the EUYS’s

objectives and the current needs of stakeholders, and more
alignment with national policy.
FR XXX French youth policies address several EUYS objectives,

particularly focusing on social and professional inclusion,
education, and training.
IE XXX Evidence suggests alignment between the EUYS’s

objectives and the needs of young people in Ireland, with a
shared focus on youth participation, mental health,
environment, education, and employment.
IT XXX Italy's national priorities align with ten of the EYGs, with
some focus on informal activities for learning competences.
LT XXX The FNAP 2021 survey results align with the EUYS core
areas, with a focus on stakeholder inclusion, youth mobility,
volunteer work, and support for youth organisations.
LU XXX Luxembourg's National Youth Action Plan 2022-2025 aligns

with EYG 5 Mental health & Wellbeing, reflecting national
priorities.
304
LV XXX OECD research emphasises the importance of youth
engagement during and after the COVID-19 pandemic,
aligning with the EUYS's focus on youth engagement.
MT XX Evidence is limited, but the EUYS is deemed appropriate in

addressing challenges faced by young people in Malta,
particularly in terms of inclusion, employment, education,
and health.
PT XXX Stakeholders acknowledge alignment between the EUYS

core areas and the needs of youth, emphasising the
importance of genuine youth engagement and decision-
making.
SK XXX The national youth strategy aligns fully with the EUYS, as
young people and stakeholders were consulted during its
drafting.
In terms of the themes covered, the alignment varies across different aspects of the EU Youth
Strategy's objectives and stakeholder needs, as shown in the table below.
Table 55 Extent of alignment between the EUYS's objectives and national youth needs (mental
health and well-being, participation, and inclusion)
Mental health and Participation Inclusion

well-being198
AT XX / XX
BE / XXX X
BG X X X
CY XXX XXX XXX
CZ / / /
DE X XXX X
DK XXX / XXX
EE X XXX XXX
EL XXX XXX XXX
ES XX XX XX
FI X X X
198 XXX: strong alignment; XX: moderate alignment; X: limited alignment; /: No information.
305
FR XXX XXX XXX
HR / / /
HU / XXX XXX
IE XXX XXX XX
IT XX XX XX
LT / XXX XXX
LU XXX XXX /
LV X XXX X
MT X X XXX
NL / / /
PL / XXX /
PT / / /
RO X X X
SE / / /
SI XXX XXX XX
SK X X X
The table below clusters the different countries in categories depending on their view of the
positive impact of the 2022 European Year of Youth on the EUYS’s objectives. The first
category represents countries that have expressed strong positive views on the impact of the
2022 European Year of Youth on the EUYS’s objectives. The second category represents
countries that believe that the 2022 European Year of Youth had a moderate impact on the
EUYS following the same logic. The last two categories represent either countries that believe
that the 2022 European Year of Youth had no or limited positive impact on the EUYS.
Table 56 Stakeholder views on the impact of the legacy of the 2022 European Year of Youth on the
EUYS’s objectives
Level of influence199 Evidence
AT XXX Overall, the 2022 European Year of Youth helped to

reach out to more young people. In addition, the
national initiatives were seen as a big success.
199 XXX: strong positive influence; XX: moderate positive influence; X: limited positive influence. No information in CY, CZ, PT,
RO, SK.
306
BE XX The 2022 European Year of Youth sparked valuable
considerations about youth issues, but better
preparation could have been beneficial as the
announcement came somewhat unexpectedly.
BG X Stakeholders viewed that the 2022 European Year of

Youth remained relevant only within a small core group
of civil society organisations and did not reach many
young people.
DE XX The 2022 European Year of Youth improved

networking among youth and youth organisations and
was a good opportunity to raise awareness about the
EUYS. However, two stakeholders claim that this holds
primarily for a rather privileged group among youth.
DK XXX The projects/initiatives under the 2022 European Year

of Youth were some of the most meaningful things that
the stakeholders have ever done in their agency in
relation to EU programmes.
EE XX The 2022 European Year of Youth was a very

important initiative in accelerating the attention to youth
issues at EU level. It helped to promote some
initiatives. However, stakeholders questioned the long-
term outcomes of the Year.
EL XXX The activities and legacy of the 2022 European Year of

Youth positively influenced the EUYS in Greece by
increasing its visibility.
ES X Stakeholders consulted had a rather neutral view

concerning the 2022 European Year of Youth and its
impact on the Strategy and the other way around. It
was perceived as one more thing to support youth, but
not as something revolutionary.
FI XXX There has been a high participation rate in the activities

of the 2022 European Year of Youth. It is however
possible that this will not translate into further
participation and will only be a short-lived success.
FR XXX Some activities launched during the 2022 European

Year of Youth are being pursued (such as the process
of greening Erasmus+ programs by training
307
stakeholders and deepening the reflection with them on
the topic).
HR XXX Croatia has dedicated a lot of space in the political and

youth field to the 2022 European Year of Youth.
HU XX The stakeholders reported that there was not enough

time for a proper preparation as the framework of the
programme came very late and was not fully clear.
Despite the timing issue, the overall impact was
positive and helped in the activation of civil society in
the short term to create engagement and relevant
programmes.
IE XXX Participating organisations were positively influenced to

apply for future Erasmus+ funding, and smaller
organisations improved their funding application
approach. The continuation of successful initiatives,
such as micro grant funding showed the possibility to
establish a lasting legacy and further involve
organisations.
IT XXX The stakeholders reported that it was very positive,

specifically in terms of agenda setting at regional level.
LT XXX The 2022 European Year of Youth allowed more

ambitious activities to be implemented, increased
cooperation between organisations, and helped to
attract more people to get involved in organising and
implementing activities targeting youth.
LU X It was complicated to plan the 2022 European Year of

Youth in Luxembourg, due to the limited time and
budget available.
LV X For the stakeholders, the announcement of the 2022

European Year of Youth was not timely. There should
have been a longer preparation period, and it was
drowned out by other developments, such as Russia’s
war against Ukraine.
MT X Stakeholders mentioned the importance of the 2022

European Year of Youth in focusing on youth needs
despite challenges and limitations associated with its
implementation and impact. The long-lasting effects
308
and legacy of the 2022 European Year of Youth remain
uncertain.
NL XXX The 2022 European Year of Youth has brought about a

significant increase in funding for local initiatives and
creative youth events in the Netherlands. These
initiatives, which have flourished under the Year, have
not only had a positive impact during the designated
Year but have also fostered long-lasting collaborations.
PL X Stakeholders mentioned one legacy of the 2022

European Year of Youth, which is the promotion of the
youth policy agenda. Besides that, no direct impacts on
the Strategy’s objectives were identified.
SI XX The 2022 European Year of Youth increased the

importance of the EUYS, promoted dialogue between
young people and decision makers, and allowed for
more exchange of good practices. However, the
stakeholders also reported that there was not enough
time for preparation and questioned the ability of the
2022 European Year of Youth to leave a long-lasting
legacy.
SE XX The 2022 European Year of Youth was an opportunity

to market the EUYS and its instruments in Sweden.
309
10. Annex 10 – Data collection tools
Desk research tools
The data collection tool that has been used for the desk research is Excel. With Excel, we
have developed a repository containing all the analysed documents and what information they
provide for each evaluation question. Through this approach, we get a clear overview of what
information exists and which evaluation questions that have limited information from desk
research. The tool thus helps us to minimise the burden on respondents by ensuring that
interviews and surveys focus on collecting data that is not available. The repository contains
close to 340 documents.
Country research template

COUNTRY REPORT TEMPLATE
Country:
Existence of a national youth strategy or similar (e.g. road map)

☐ YES ☐ NO
If your answer is YES, please add a link to the relevant document:
Part I – ANALYSIS OF EACH EVALUATION CRITERION

Analysis of the evaluation criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness,
efficiency, EU added value
RELEVANCE
Specific instructions for this section
The criterion of relevance looks at the relationship between the needs and problems in
society and the objectives of the intervention. In the specific case, we ned to look at to
how the objectives of the EUYS correspond to wider EU policy goals and priorities and
whether there are possible mismatches between the objectives of the Strategy and the
(current) needs or problems.
We need to understand the degree to which the objectives of the Strategy remained
relevant over the period 2019-2023, i.e. met the needs of its stakeholders ranging from
policymakers through to CSOs and youth. The desk-based analysis and interviews will
identify the main needs of stakeholders in relation to the Strategy over the 2019-2023
period. We also need to understand the extent to which the Strategy can be directly or
indirectly linked to initiatives at the EU, national and regional levels, as well as to analyse
the views of different types of stakeholders on the degree to which they perceived the
Strategy to be relevant (were the needs of policymakers and particularly of youth of
different backgrounds addressed by the Strategy?).
Finally, we need to examine the extent to which the relevance of the Strategy was
influenced by the 2022 European Year of Youth.
EQ 0: To what extent is the national youth strategy in your country informed by/modelled
after the EU Youth Strategy?
Refer to the indicator number below (e.g. 0-1) when filling out this box. Give a short and to the point
answer to the evaluation question.
Confidential
Indicators:
0-1: Evidence of EU Youth Strategy informing the youth strategy of the country in question.
0-2: Number of stakeholders confirming that the national youth strategy is informed by/modelled
after the EU Youth Strategy.
Use the format: xx of xx stakeholders consulted (e.g. 3 of 5 stakeholders consulted)
EQ 8: To what extent did the EU Youth Strategy’s objectives remain relevant over the
2019-2023 period?
Refer to the indicator number below (e.g. 8-1) when filling out this box. Give a short and to
the point answer to the evaluation question.
Indicators:
8-1: Evidence that stakeholders had (over the period 2019-23) an awareness of:
Youth engagement tools at an EU level (e.g. the EU Youth Dialogue).
Instruments to be connected to peers (e.g. Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps

programmes, European Youth Portal and EU Youth Strategy Platform).
Youth work development and recognition tools of non-formal and informal learning
(European Youth Work Agenda).
8-2: Existence of illustrative (qualitative) examples of how the Strategy responded to the
needs of stakeholders over the period 2019-23 and youth problems addressed by the
EUYS.
8-3: Stakeholders’ views about how the Strategy is engaging and relevant to stakeholders,
primarily to youth.
8-4: Number of different groups of stakeholders consulted in interviews who consider that
the Strategy addressed their needs in the period 2019-23.
Use the format: xx of xx stakeholders consulted (e.g. 3 of 5 stakeholders consulted)
EQ 9: How well do the EU Youth Strategy’s objectives still correspond to the needs and
challenges of young people and youth stakeholders today? And to the activities of national
youth policy makers?
Indicators:
9-1: Evidence / examples of alignment between EU Youth Strategy’s objectives and the
current needs of stakeholders.
311
9-2: Evidence of new needs that emerged that were not covered by the EU Youth
Strategy’s objectives.
9-3: Stakeholder views on the degree to which the EU Youth Strategy’s objectives meet
their current / future needs.
9-4: Existence of no significant gaps in terms of how the EU Youth Strategy responds to
the current needs of specific stakeholder groups.
9-5: Number of different groups consulted who consider that the EU Youth Strategy
addresses their current needs.
9-6: Evidence demonstrating that the motivations of stakeholders to participate in activities under the
EU Youth Strategy is in line with its objectives.
EQ 10: To what extent and how has the EU Youth Strategy’s relevance been influenced by the
2022 European Year of Youth and the legacy of the Year?
Indicators:
10-1: Evidence / examples from activities under the 2022 European Year of Youth (e.g.
national initiatives and events, new participation tools such as Policy dialogue with
Commissioners, Youth voices tool, Youth talks, Level up!, debates held within the
European Parliament, the 2022 European Year of Youth closing conference).
10-2: Stakeholder views on the degree to which the legacy of the 2022 European Year of
Youth had a positive or negative impact upon the Strategy’s objectives.
10-3: Evidence demonstrating that the motivations of stakeholders to participate in the 2022
European Year of Youth impacted on their motivations to participate in activities under the Strategy.
Add any relevant considerations about ‘Relevance’ that are not covered by EQs 0-8-9-10.
Briefly describe key points.
COHERENCE
In this section we will check:
• the ‘internal’ coherence: how the various core areas, instruments and guiding
principles in different areas of the EU Youth Strategy operate together to achieve
its objectives and whether synergies have actively been sought across the
Strategy’s core areas and instruments.
• the ‘external’ coherence: the relationship between the EU Youth Strategy 2019 –
2027 and other interventions, at different levels: for example, between EU
interventions within the field of education, training and youth (e.g. European
Education Area, European Strategy for Universities, Digital Education Action Plan,
European Skills Agenda). Also, the relationship with other relevant EU policies and
programmes with more high level and horizontal policy objectives such as the
Green Deal, NextGenerationEU and the Recovery and Resilience Facility.
EQ 11: To what extent is the national youth strategy (or equivalent) coherent with other
strategies or policies at national level? Do you see any alignment with / influence by the EU
Youth Strategy and (current) wider EU policies, strategies and priorities?
312
To what extent is the national youth strategy (or equivalent) coherent with international
obligations, such as the Sustainable Development Goals?
How could synergies be improved wherever gaps are detected, both between policies and
initiatives at national level and between national policies and EU policies?
Please refer to the indicator number below (e.g. 11-1) when filling out this box. Give a short and to
the point answer to the evaluation questions.
Indicators:
11-1: Extent to which national youth policies and strategies (or equivalent) are coherent with the
challenges and objectives of the EUYS as well as with other relevant EU policies, strategies and
priorities200.
• Choose one of the following and explain further: to a very large extent / to a large extent /
to some extent / to little extent / to no extent
11-2: Number of actions in national youth strategies and policies (or equivalent) which
align with the three core areas of the EU Youth Strategy.
11-3: Number of national-level stakeholders which perceive complementarities of the
national youth strategies and policies (or equivalent) with the EUYS’s challenges and
objectives or other relevant EU policies, strategies, and priorities (see footnote).
• Use the format: xx of xx stakeholders consulted (e.g. 3 of 5 stakeholders
consulted)
11-4: Number of national-level stakeholders which perceive overlaps of the national youth
strategies and policies (or equivalent) with the EUYS’s challenges and objectives or other
relevant EU policies, strategies, and priorities (see footnote).
consulted)
11-5: Examples of gaps between national youth strategies and policies (or equivalent) and the
EUYS’s challenges and objectives.
EQ 12: To what extent are the EUYS’s core areas and instruments coherent with one another?
Indicators:
12-1: Extent to which the EU Youth Strategy’s core areas and instruments are coherent internally
12-2: Number of stakeholders which perceive the three core areas (i.e. Engage, Connect, Empower)
of the EU Youth Strategy as coherent internally.
consulted)
12-3: Number of stakeholders which perceive the instruments of the EU Youth Strategy as coherent
internally (instruments: Evidence-based youth policymaking and knowledge building, mutual learning
and dissemination, Future National Activities Planner, EU Work Plans for Youth, EU-CoE youth
200
In particular, the evaluation will examine the coherence with the following strategies/ policies/ initiatives: European Education
Area, European Strategy for Universities, European Research Area, New European Innovation Agenda, European Green Deal,
Digital Education Action Plan, European Skills Agenda, NextGenerationEU and the Recovery and Resilience Facility, Youth
Action Plan in EU external action, EU Strategy on the Rights of the child, EU Human rights and Democracy Action Plan,
Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025, EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation, Council
Recommendation on Roma equality, inclusion and participation, Communication on an LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025,
Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; the EU Anti-racism Plan 2020-2025, EU Strategy on Combating
Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life 2021-2030, EU Citizenship Report 2020 Empowering citizens and protecting their rights
313
partnership, Participatory governance, EU Youth Dialogue, EU Youth Coordinator, Communicating
the EU Youth Strategy, Mobilising and Monitoring EU Programmes and Funds, European Youth
Work Agenda, Youth Information and Support).
•Use the format: xx of xx stakeholders consulted (e.g. 3 of 5 stakeholders
consulted)
12-4: Examples of synergies and gaps within the EUYS’s core areas and instruments.
EQ 13: To what extent and how has the EUYS’s coherence been influenced by the 2022
European Year of Youth and the legacy of the Year?
Indicators:
13-1: Extent to which the EU Youth Strategy was coherent with the activities under the 2022
European Year of Youth.
13-2: Number of actions within the three core areas of EU Youth Strategy which
interlinked directly to actions under the 2022 European Year of Youth.
13-3: Number of stakeholders which perceived synergies with the 2022 European Year of
Youth (and its legacy) and the EU Youth Strategy’s objectives and actions.
consulted)
13-4: Number of stakeholders which perceive overlaps with the 2022 European Year of Youth (and
its legacy) and the EU Youth Strategy’s objectives and actions.
consulted)
Add any relevant considerations about ‘Coherence’ that are not covered by EQs 11-13.
EFFECTIVENESS
The analysis of effectiveness aims at evaluating:
• the extent to which progress has been made in the three core areas (Engage,
Connect, Empower) and towards the impact areas targeted by the EUYS:
Medium-term impacts:
o Youth active citizenship, social inclusion, solidarity: Enabled through
policies, promotion, support.
o Youth mainstreamed across policy: Youth’s needs and voices and impact
on youth are systematically considered in policy across employment,
education, health and social inclusions, green and digital transformation.
o Youth connections and empowerment: Youth transitions into adulthood and
working life facilitated through youth work development and increased and
314
more inclusive opportunities in learning mobility, education, training, labour
market.
o International influence: Influence on strategies and activities related to
youth outside Europe.
Long-term impacts:
o Increased youth employment.
o Eliminated youth poverty and discrimination.
o Increased youth participation and representation.
• the extent to which progress has been made against the 11 European Youth goals.
• the extent to which there is plausible evidence about the relationship between the
activities put in place by the EUYS and any changes to the 11 goals or the three
core areas and impact areas.
• each of the implementation of mechanisms and the scale of the actions that were
put in place, their thematic coverage and the ways in which these mechanisms and
actions input into progress and broader decision making.
• the effectiveness of the activities of the 2022 European Year of Youth linked to the
Strategy.
EQ 1: To what extent has the EU Youth Strategy been an effective framework that has enabled
national actors to translate the objectives, priorities and actions set at EU level into concrete
and sustainable achievements in your country since 2019 (in terms of outputs, results and
impacts)?
EQ 1a: What are the actual effects achieved (or progress made) in your country in each of the
3 core areas (Engage, Connect, Empower)?
What are the actual effects achieved (or progress made) in your country in the contribution
to the Youth Goals?
Please refer to the indicator number below (e.g. 1-1) when filling out this box. Give a short and to the
point answer to the evaluation questions.
Indicators:
1-1: Volume and thematic focus of outputs.
1-2: Stakeholders reached (type and number of stakeholders).
1-4: Extent of usefulness of outputs.
1-5: Analysis of examples of specific influence of EUYS on national policies exist: evidence that
national youth policy initiatives have been influenced or inspired by EUYS.
1-9: Level of engagement and consultation of youth at national level.
• Choose one of the following and explain further: High level / medium level / low level / no
engagement
1-10: Extent of mainstreaming of youth perspectives in policy making.
to some extent / to little extent / to no extent)
1-11: Analysis of situation of young people in areas covered by EUYS goals.
1a-1: Analytical description of the type of effects achieved (or progress made) in the country across
the following impact areas: youth active citizenship, social inclusion and solidarity; youth
mainstreaming across policy; youth connections and empowerment; influence of national youth
policies on countries outside the EU.
1a-2: Analytical description of success stories at national level on how EUYS helped youth to be
more engaged, connected and empowered.
1a-3: Key stakeholders identifying the contribution of EUYS to the Youth Goals.
315
1a-4: Analytical description of how EUYS contributed and to which Youth Goals.
EQ 1b: In what way and to what extent have the Guiding Principles of the EUYS influenced its
effectiveness in your country?
The Guiding Principles are: equality and non-discrimination; inclusion; participation; global,
European, national, regional and local dimensions; dual approach.
Please refer to the indicator number below (e.g. 1b-1) when filling out this box. Give a short and to
Indicators:
1b-1: Key stakeholders recognise that these principles have been present in the
implementation of the EUYS at national level.
1b-2: Extent to which the Guiding Principles of the Strategy have influenced the
effectiveness of the EUYS at national level.
1b-3: Analytical description of how the Guiding Principles have influenced the
effectiveness of the Strategy.
1b-4: Key stakeholders recognise that these Principles have facilitated changes at EU and national
levels.
EQ 1c: To what extent has the EUYS already influenced or created synergies with the national
youth strategies (or equivalent)?
Please refer to the indicator number below (e.g. 1c-1) when filling out this box. Give a short and to
Indicators:
1c-1: Key stakeholders recognise that EUYS influenced or created synergies with the
national youth policies.
1c-2: Analytical description of how the Strategy has influenced and/or created synergies
with the national youth policies.
1c-3: Extent to which the Strategy has influenced and/or created synergies with the national youth
policies.
EQ 1d: Which main factors have contributed to or limited the progress towards the objectives
at mid-term in your country?
How has the 2022 European Year of Youth contributed to progress at national level?
Please refer to the indicator number below (e.g. 1d-1) when filling out this box. Give a short and to
the point answer to the evaluation questions.
Indicators:
1d-1: Stakeholders’ perception of the role of other factors and policies/ interventions in
shaping the youth agenda.
1d-2: Identification of factors that have contributed to (or limited) the progress towards the objectives
of the EUYS.
316
1d-3: Analytical description of how the 2022 European Year of Youth has contributed towards the
objectives of the EUYS.
EQ 1e: Have there been any unintended/unexpected effects of the EUYS in your country?
EQ 1f: To what extent are the effects of the EUYS likely to last in the long-term?
Please refer to the indicator number below (e.g. 1e-1) when filling out this box.
Give a short and to the point answer to the evaluation questions.
Indicators:
1e-1: Key stakeholders identifying unintended/unexpected effects of EUYS.
1e-2: Identification of unintended effects and their scope and scale.
1f-1: Stakeholders identifying different EUYS impacts likely to last in the long-term.
1f-2: Analysis of the nature of impact produced as a result of the EUYS.
1f-3: Analysis of which EUYS effects of the strategy are likely to last in the long-term.
1f-4: Stakeholders’ perceptions on which EUYS impact is to last long term.
1f-5: Extent to which the effects of the EUYS are likely to last in the long-term.
• Choose one of the following and explain further: to a very large extent / to a large
extent / to some extent / to little extent / to no extent
EQ 2: To what extent have the EUYS’s instruments proven to be effective in supporting the
implementation of the EUYS at national level at mid-term?
EQ 2a: Which instruments or combination of instruments?
EQ 2b: Are the instruments and implementing tools regarded as sustainable and apt to
continue facilitating the implementation of the EUYS at national level and what are the main
factors behind this?
point answer to the evaluation questions.
Indicators:
2-1: Extent to which the Strategy’s instruments have been effective in achieving the outputs and
outcomes of the EUYS
2a-1: Analytical description of which instruments (or combination of instruments) are
particularly effective.
2a-2: Analytical description of which instruments need adjustment, reasons for the adjustments and
possible changes
EQ 2c: To what extent have the instruments supported a cross-sectorial approach and
effective mainstreaming of youth issues and greater youth involvement into other policy
fields in your country?
EQ 2d: To what extent have the EU programmes (such as Erasmus+, European Solidarity
Corps, Horizon Europe, ESF+, RRF, Digital Europe, CERV, EU4Health, Creative Europe,
etc.) been mobilised and linkages, alignments and synergies created between them and
the EUYS to effectively address the objectives of the EUYS in your country?
317
Please refer to the indicator number below (e.g. 2c-1) when filling out this box. Give a
short and to the point answer to the evaluation questions.
Indicators:
2c-1: Extent to which the youth issues have been mainstreamed in other policy fields in
the country in question.
2c-2: Analytical description of how youth issues have been taken-into account in other
policy fields in the country in question.
2c-3: Analytical description of successful stories of how youth issues have been
incorporated into other policy fields in the country in question.
2c-4: Extent to which young people have been involved in other policy fields in the country
in question.
2c-5: Analysis of how young people have been involved in other policy fields in the country
in question.
2c-6: Analysis of success stories of how young people have been involved in other policy fields in
the country in question.
2d-1: Extent to which links and synergies exist between the EUYS and other EU
programmes (Erasmus+, European Solidarity Corps, Horizon Europe, ESF+, RRF, Digital
Europe, CERV, EU4Health, Creative Europe, etc.) in the country in question.
2d-2: Analysis of links and synergies between the EUYS and other EU programmes in the
country in question.
2d-3: Extent to which links and synergies between the EUYS and other EU programmes
support the effective achievement of the objectives of the Strategy in the country in
question.
EQ 3: How well was the EUYS able to adapt to the unforeseen developments and
impact of Covid19-pandemic, of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Brexit and the cost-
of-living crisis in your country?
In what way did the unforeseen events impact the implementation?
What have been the enabling/limiting factors impacting the adaptability?
What has been the role of solidarity in the EUYS’s adaptability?
Please refer to the indicator number below (e.g. 3-1) when filling out this box. Give a short
and to the point answer to the evaluation questions.
Indicators:
3-1: Extent to which the EUYS adapted well to the development of the Covid-19 pandemic
and the Ukrainian crisis in the country in question.
3-2: Analysis of how the Strategy adapted to deal with the Covid-19 situation and the
Ukrainian crisis in the country in question.
318
3-3: Analysis of how the Covid-19 and the Ukraine’s crisis impacted on the implementation
of the EUYS in the country in question.
3-4: Analytical description of factors that have enabled or limited the adaptability of the
EUYS to the Covid-19/Ukrainian crisis in the country in question.
3-5: Extent to which solidarity had a role in supporting the adaptability of the EUYS in the
3-6: Analytical description of how solidarity had a role in supporting the adaptability of the
EUYS in the country in question.
3-7: Analytical description of success stories of how the EUYS adapted to the foreseen
events in the country in question.
EQ 4: To what extent and how has the EUYS promoted and influenced the inclusion of young
people with fewer opportunities and facing obstacles in life in your country due to e.g.:
• disability
• health problems (including mental health, chronic health conditions)
• barriers linked to education and training systems
• cultural differences
• social barriers
• economic barriers
• barriers linked to discrimination,
• racism,
• geographical barriers?
Please refer to the indicator number below (e.g. 4-1) when filling out this box. Give a short
and to the point answer to the evaluation question.
Indicators:
4-1: Extent to which the EUYS has promoted and influenced the inclusion of young people
with fewer opportunities in the country in question.
4-2: Analysis of how the EUYS has promoted and influenced the inclusion of young
people with fewer opportunities in the country in question.
4-3: Analytical description of success stories of how the EUYS has promoted and
influenced the inclusion of young people with fewer opportunities in the country in
question.
4-4: Analysis of how the EUYS adapted to include young people with the diverse
background during health and political crisis in the country in question.
4-5: Analysis of how the actions stemming from the EUYS contributed to improving the situation of
young people with mental health issues in the country in question.
EQ 5: To what extent and how has the EUYS promoted the green and digital transitions in
your country?
319
point answer to the evaluation question.
Indicators:
5-1: Extent to which the Strategy has promoted the green and digital transition in the
5-2: Analysis of how the EUYS has promoted the green and digital transition in the country
in question.
5-3: Analytical description of success stories of how the EUYS has promoted the green and digital
transition in the country in question.
Add any relevant considerations about ‘Effectiveness’ that are not covered by EQs
1-5
EFFICIENCY
We need to assess:
• the direct costs, i.e. expenditure on the different activities implementing the EUYS
and time spent by different stakeholders engaging with the EUYS and its
instruments;
• direct and indirect benefits arising from the EUYS; and
• country-level perceptions on the relation between the extra costs associated with
the existence of the EUYS at the EU level with the realised benefits.
EQ 6a: To what extent, at what level and for whom do the instruments, and activities
create (administrative or other) burdens (=costs, efforts) for stakeholders?
What are the main factors behind this?
Please refer to the indicator number below (e.g. 6a-1) when filling out this box. Give a short and to
the point answer to the evaluation question. When interviewing stakeholders, also use the wording
‘costs and efforts’ to clarify what we mean by burdens.
Indicators:
6a-1: Extent to which the instruments, processes and activities created administrative or
other burdens for stakeholders.
6a-2: Description of which instruments, processes and activities created administrative or
other burdens and for which stakeholders.
6a-3: Description of other burdens and for which stakeholders.
6a-4: Description of factors which create administrative burdens.
EQ 6b: What is the scope for further simplification and burden-reduction in the instruments,
processes and activities, at what level and for whom?
320
Please refer to the indicator number above (e.g. 6a-1) when filling out this box. Answer the evaluation
question and keep your analysis concise and to the point.
Indicators:
6b-1) Description of how instruments, processes and activities can be simplified and for which
stakeholder.
EQ 7: How much budget in euro does the country in question dedicate to youth
policies/strategies/initiatives/etc. informed by the EUYS annually (reference year 2022)?
How much staff (Full Time Equivalent – FTE) has been dedicated to the implementation of
these youth policies/strategies/initiatives/etc. informed by the EUYS annually (reference year
2022)?
How often does national-level staff participate in working groups or events related to the
implementation of the EUYS in a year (reference year 2022)? How many of the staff participate
in such working groups or events in a year (reference year 2022)?
Please provide numbers for the above questions (e.g. from financial annual report of the public
authority) – if possible, for the indicated reference year. Keep in mind that we are looking for
information on the EUYS only, not youth-related work in general in your country – we understand
that this may be very tricky. Make sure to highlight in your text if the information refers to a) only the
EUYS or b) both EUYS and national youth-related work.
Indicators:
7-1: Extent to which the resources dedicated to the implementation of the EUYS are proportionate to
the objectives of the EUYS.
7-2: Annual budget for the EUYS implementation in euro (reference year 2022).
7-3: Annual FTE for the EUYS implementation (reference year 2022).
7-4: Number of times national-level staff participate in working groups or events related to the
implementation of the EUYS in a year (reference year 2022).
7-5: Number of staff at national-level participating in working groups or events related to the
implementation of the EUYS in a year (reference year 2022).
Please add any relevant considerations about ‘Efficiency’ that are not covered by EQs 6-7.
EU ADDED VALUE
The criterion of EU-added value looks for changes which it can reasonably be argued are due to the
EU intervention (i.e. the Strategy), over and above what could reasonably have been expected from
national actions by the Member States. We need to distinguish the contribution the Strategy provided
compared to what has realistically been achieved at the Member State level, and then go further to
understand how the Strategy promoted cooperation between countries.
To operationalise the analysis of EU added value, the evaluation will assess four main
aspects:
321
• Volume/scale effects: the extent to which the Strategy creates additional volume
effects (scale of cooperation) which would not be achieved through national
actions.
• Scope effects: the extent to which the Strategy covers stakeholders that would
not be covered by national interventions.
• Role effects: the extent to which the Strategy and actions implemented through it
allowed innovation and its uptake at national and organisational level. For
example, the Strategy could emphasise focus on certain new priorities that are
otherwise under-represented at national level.
• Process effects: the extent to which the Strategy created innovation in the
process. This concerns notable spill-over effects such as how engaged, connected
and empowered youth across Member States have become. The provision of tools
for managing as well as recognising outcomes of the Strategy and their use are
possible examples of process effects.
EQ 14: How and to what extent does action at EU level add value in addressing the objectives
of the EU Youth Strategy, beyond what individual Member States could achieve on their own?
Indicators:
14-1: Volume/scale effects: the additional scale in terms of engagement, connection and
empowerment of youth that has been influenced/ achieved through the EUYS.
14-2: Scope effects: the relevant stakeholders across sectors were covered through the
EUYS and relevant programmes/policies.
14-3: Role effects: the coverage of new issues or priorities, as well as target groups, in
addition to what is covered at national and/or regionals level.
14-4: Process effects: the scale and nature of process innovation compared to what is
done at national and/or regional levels.
14-5: Evidence from stakeholders that the same results could not have been achieved at
national and/or regional levels without the EUYS.
14-6: Evidence of impacts from other support schemes targeting youth at national and/or regional
levels.
14-7: Data on outputs from programmes under the strategy (e.g. results of these
programmes, data on youth engagement etc.).
14-8: Number of participants in programmes under the strategy at national and EU level, as well as
in cooperation with international actors, where relevant.
EQ 15: To what extent does the EU Youth Strategy promote cooperation between countries
(in Europe and beyond)?
Indicators:
15-1: Evidence / examples of EU Youth Strategy having promoted cooperation between
countries both within Europe and internationally (e.g. via partnership with Council of
Europe).
15-2: Stakeholder views on the degree to which cooperation between countries can be
attributed to the influence of the EUYS.
322
15-3: Evidence demonstrating that stakeholders were motivated by the EUYS to undertake actions
and cooperation across borders, both within the EU and internationally.
EQ 16: To what extent and how has the EU Youth Strategy’s added value been influenced by
the 2022 European Year of Youth and the legacy of the Year?
Indicators:
16-1: Evidence / examples from activities under the 2022 European Year of Youth (e.g.
national initiatives, ALMA201, European Youth Event, debates held within the European
Parliament, the 2022 European Year of Youth Conference) having influenced the EU
added value of the EUYS.
16-2: Stakeholder views on the degree to which the legacy of the 2022 European Year of Youth had
a positive or negative impact upon the added value of the EUYS.
EQ 17: What would be the most likely consequences of a discontinuation of the EU Youth
Strategy?
Indicators:
17-1: Stakeholder views on what would happen in terms of continuation of EU youth
education, employment/social policies in the absence of the Strategy.
17-2: Stakeholder views on what would happen to the different activities under the EUYS in the
absence of EU funding.
Add any relevant considerations about ‘EU added value’ that are not covered by EQs 14-17.
Part II – SUMMING UP
The section below is not a repetition of specific questions included in the sections above. It is
an overall assessment by the country expert.
If useful, please review the definitions provided in the previous sections.
Alignment of national youth policies with the three core areas of EUYS
There is alignment between national youth policies and (tick one or more boxes below):
☐ Engage
☐ Connect
☐ Empower
Please briefly justify (you can also make reference to one or more specific sections above):
201
323
Alignment with the 11 Youth Goals
There is alignment between national youth policies and (tick one or more boxes below):
☐ Connecting EU with Youth
☐ Equality of all genders
☐ Inclusive societies
☐ Information & Constructive Dialogue
☐ Mental Health & Well-being
☐ Moving Rural Youth Forward
☐ Quality Employment for All
☐ Quality Learning
☐ Space and Participation for All
☐ Sustainable Green Europe
☐ Youth Organisations & European Programmes
Please briefly justify (you can also make reference to one or more specific sections above):
Youth Dialogue at national level

List and briefly describe the Youth Dialogue (or similar format) which have been organised in your
country.
For this, check the EU Youth Dialogue map and website but also do research on your own.
Include the title, date, and location of each Youth Dialogue, in addition to a brief description. If there
have been no Youth Dialogue in your country, please state this.
Youth initiatives at national level

List the top 5 national youth initiatives in your country.
For this, also check Youth Wiki.
For the top 5, please select those that are mentioned the most in your research and are linked to the
11 Youth Goals, to ensure their relevance for our study.
List the name of the national initiatives and, if possible, the timeline (from [year] to [year]) and
responsible national authority. Include a brief description for each.
Clustering of countries
To sum up, in which group of countries would you put your country?
Tick one box below:
☐ group 1: Member States that have a youth strategy, whose objectives and priorities are closely
aligned with the ones of the EUYS.
☐ group 2: Member States that have a youth strategy, whose objectives and priorities are somewhat
324
☐ group 3: Member States that have a youth strategy, whose objectives and priorities do not seem
☐ group 4: Member States that do not have a youth strategy, but whose policies have objectives
and priorities in some way aligned with those of the EUYS.
☐ group 5: Member States that do not have a youth strategy and whose policies are not aligned with
the objectives and priorities of the EUYS.
You can add a brief description justifying your choice:
Add any overall considerations/information you find useful for the country report.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
List all of your referenced sources here, sorted in the following way:
• Alphabetically by author name
• If there are multiple sources by the same author, sort them by year, starting from the most
recent to the oldest date
• If there are multiple sources by the same author from the same year, sort them as described
above and then alphabetically by title
Example:
European Commission, FNAP Survey 2021: Estonia, EUSurvey, 2021. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/publication/FNAPSurvey2021
Interview guide for key informant interviews
EU level/international stakeholders - Interview guide for EU institutions
o Introductory text
o The European Youth Strategy (EUYS) is a framework adopted in 2018 that describes EU
youth policy cooperation for the period of 2019 up until 2027. The framework includes objectives,
principles, priorities, core areas and measures to encourage cooperation in youth policy involving all
relevant stakeholders.
o As stipulated in Council Resolution 2018/C456/01, the EUYS is subject to a Mid-term Review,
on the basis of an evaluation report to be submitted by the Commission by 31 December 2023. To
support the Commission, the consortium led by Kantar Public, is conducting the support study to this
evaluation. The evaluation shall cover the five evaluation criteria — relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency, coherence and EU added-value — as set out by the Better Regulation Guidelines.
o As part of this evaluation, stakeholder activities are being conducted, of which a series of
interviews with EU level policy makers and international organisations are being undertaken. The
main aim of the interviews is to gather views and perspective with regards to the evaluation questions
related to coherence, relevance but also effectiveness and efficiency and EU added value.
325
o It should be noted that your personal details will not be revealed as part of the analysis of
your answers. Any personal data is retained only as long as necessary to conduct the research and
appropriate for its intended and lawful use. In most cases, we retain data for no longer than 12
months after the end of the project. Personal data that is no longer required will be disposed of in
ways that ensure that their confidential nature is not compromised. Data is stored and deleted
according to the requirements of the 2018 GDPR Regulation.
o
o Introductory questions
Question Answer
Please first explain your role within your organisation
How familiar are you with the EUYS?
What is your role in relation to the EUYS/ how have you interacted with the
Strategy?
o Questions related to the relevance of the EU Youth Strategy
EQ Question Answer
8 How aware are you of the EU Youth Strategy as a whole, as

well as its objectives, target audiences and instruments?
8 In your view, how relevant has the EU Youth Strategy been in

addressing the main needs and challenges faced by young
people over the period 2019-2023?202
8 In what ways did the EU Youth Strategy actively respond to

the needs of young people? Can you provide specific
examples of instruments of activities which have helped to
mitigate the challenges facing youth?
9 Do you believe the EU Youth Strategy is sufficiently flexible to

remain relevant to stakeholders (primarily youth) in the
future?
8 How relevant do you believe the EU Youth Strategy has been

as an umbrella EU strategy, pulling together relevant EU
initiatives on topics relating to youth in one place?
202
Challenges include hindered access to public services, barriers to education, impact from the cost-of-living crisis, financial
stability, job loss, mental wellbeing, risk of poverty, differences in opportunities between rural and urban geographies, social
exclusion, youth unemployment
326
EQ Question Answer
10 In your view, what effect did the European Year of Youth

have on the relevance of the EU Youth Strategy as a whole?
10 In way has the legacy of the Year of Youth had a positive or

negative impact upon the Strategy’s objectives?
o Questions related to the effectiveness of the EU Youth Strategy
EQ Question Answer
1, Looking at the objectives of the EU Youth Strategy, what

1a specific achievements (outputs) have you observed halfway
through the strategy's implementation?
Follow-up questions
o Has the EUYS enabled young people to be architects of

their own lives, support their personal development and
growth to autonomy, build their resilience and equip them
with life skills to cope with a changing world? If so, how?
o Has EUYS encouraged and equipped young people with
the necessary resources to become active citizens, agents
of solidarity and bring about positive change inspired by
EU values and a European identity? If so, how?
o Has the EUYS improved policy decisions with regard to
their impact on young people across all sectors, notably
employment, education, health and social inclusion? If so,
how?
o Has the EUYS contributed to the eradication of youth
poverty and all forms of discrimination, and promoted the
social inclusion of young people? If so, how?
1, To what extent do you believe that the instruments outlined in

1b the EU Youth Strategy have been successfully implemented at
the European and national levels?
Follow-up questions
o What challenges have been encountered in the

implementation of the EU Youth Strategy so far, and how
have they been addressed?
o In what way and to what extent have the Guiding
principles203 of the Strategy influenced its effectiveness?
203
Equality and non-discrimination, Inclusion, Participation, Global, European, national, regional and local dimension, Dual
approach
327
EQ Question Answer
o Do you know of any examples where the Strategy has

already influenced or created synergies with Member
States' youth policies?
1f In your view, has the current implementation of the EU Youth

Strategy led to any long-term impacts, or highlighted areas
where long term impacts could be brought about in the future?
2, How effective do you think each of the instruments204 of the

2a, EU Youth Strategy have been in contributing to the overall
2c objectives of the Strategy?
Follow-up questions
o Is there any particular instruments or combination of

instruments which stand out as particularly (in)effective?
o Do you believe that combining the instruments under one
umbrella has supported a cross-sectorial approach and
effective mainstreaming of youth issues and greater youth
involvement into other policy fields?
3, To what extent do you believe that the EU Youth Strategy was

1d sufficiently flexible to adapt to unforeseen developments and
contexts which can have an impact on youth, namely the [1]
war in Ukraine, [2] the COVID-19 pandemic, [3] Brexit and [4]
the cost-of-living crisis?
Follow-up questions
o What have been the enabling/limiting factors impacting the

adaptability?
o What has been the role of solidarity in the Strategy’s
adaptability?
o Are there lessons that can be learnt from unforeseen
crises for the Strategy to learn for the future?
4 In what ways has the EU Youth Strategy successfully

promoted the inclusion of young people with fewer
opportunities205?
Follow-up questions
o Can you provide examples of concrete and sustainable

achievements (outputs, results, and impacts) of the EU
204
Mutual learning activities, Future National Activities Planners, EU Youth Dialogue, European Youth Portal, EU Youth
Strategy Platform, Evidence-based tools, EU Youth Coordinator and the EU Youth Programmes
205
e.g. disability, health problems (incl. mental health, chronic health conditions), barriers linked to education and training
systems, cultural differences, social barriers, economic barriers, barriers linked to discrimination, racism, and geographical
barriers
328
EQ Question Answer
Youth Strategy in promoting the inclusion of young people

with fewer opportunities?
o To what extent has the Strategy ensured that young
people with fewer opportunities have been able to be
supported and included across all Member States?
5 With regards to the green and digital transitions, what impact

has the Strategy had on promoting these transitions, primarily
towards young people?
o Questions related to the efficiency of the EU Youth Strategy
EQ Question Answer
6 Do you believe that the available financial means for the

implementation of the Strategy has been sufficient to enable
the fulfilment of its objectives?
6a, In your view, does the instruments, processes, and activities

6c of the EU Youth Strategy create costs (e.g. administrative) or
any other burdens for stakeholders?
Follow-up questions
o Which instruments can be regarded as causing the

highest costs for stakeholders?
o To what extent has the burden of implementing the Youth
Strategy been different across different stakeholders,
including young people, Member States, civil society
organizations, and the private sector?
o How has the Strategy worked to ensure that the
administrative and other burdens associated with the
implementation of the Youth Strategy are proportionate
and justified, and do not undermine the overall objectives
of the Strategy?
6a How would you rate the cost-benefit ratio of the Strategy as a

whole, as well as for each of the different instruments and
activities?
Follow-up questions
o How has the Commission worked with Member States

and other stakeholders to ensure that the implementation
of the Youth Strategy is not disproportionately
burdensome for any particular group or region?
329
6b Do you believe that there is scope for further simplification
and burden-reduction in the instruments, processes and
activities? If so, at what level and for whom?
o Questions related to the coherence of the EU Youth Strategy
EQ Question Answer
12 To what extent do you believe that the Strategy’s core areas

and instruments have been coherent with one another?
11 To what extent has the EU Youth Strategy been coherent with

existing EU policies, strategies and priorities which relate to
the Strategy’s challenges and objectives?
Follow-up questions:
o In particular, how has the Strategy encouraged synergies

with the European Education Area, the European
Strategy for Universities, the European Research Area,
the New European Innovation Agenda, the European
Green Deal, the Digital Education Action Plan, European
Skills Agenda, NextGenerationEU and the Recovery and
Resilience Facility, the Youth Action Plan in EU external
action, the EU Strategy on the Rights of the child, the EU
Human rights and Democracy Action Plan.
o Are you aware of any inconsistencies, overlaps or
duplications between the Strategy and the areas listed
above?
o How could synergies be improved where gaps are
detected?
11 In your view has the EU Youth Strategy been coherent with

international obligations, such as the Sustainable Development
Goals?
13 To what extent and how has the Strategy’s coherence been

influenced by the European Year of Youth and the legacy of
the Year?
o Questions related to the EU added value of the EU Youth Strategy
EQ Question EU Institution
14 In your view, how has action at EU level added value in

addressing the objectives of the EU Youth Strategy, beyond
what individual Member States could achieve on their own?
330
Follow-up questions
o To what extent has the Strategy impacted the scale at

which youth have been engaged, connected and
empowered of youth, compared to what Member States
could achieve alone? (Volume/scale effects)
o Do you believe that relevant stakeholders across sectors
were sufficiently covered/ engaged through the Strategy
and its instruments, compared to what could have been
feasibility achieved by Member States alone? (Scope
effects)
o What role do you think the Strategy has played in
broadening the coverage of new issues or priorities, as
well as target groups, in addition to what is covered at
national and/or regionals level. (Role effects)
15 Do you believe that the Strategy has been able to add value
through increasing cooperation between countries on policies
and matters relevant to youth? If so, in what ways has
cooperation been increased?
16 To what extent has the European Year of Youth and its legacy
influenced the added value of the Strategy, over and above
what could have been achieved by Member States alone in its
absence?
17 What would be the most likely consequences of a

discontinuation of the EU Youth Strategy?
EU level/international stakeholders - Interview guide for EU Agencies
Question Answer
What is your role in relation to the EUYS/ how have you interacted with the
Strategy?
331
EQ Question Answer
8 How aware are you of the EU Youth Strategy as a whole, as

well as its objectives, target audiences and instruments?
8 In your view, how relevant has the EU Youth Strategy been in

addressing the main needs and challenges faced by young
people over the period 2019-2023?206
8 In what ways did the EU Youth Strategy actively respond to

the needs of young people? Can you provide specific
examples of instruments of activities which have helped to
mitigate the challenges facing youth?
9 Do you believe the EU Youth Strategy is sufficiently flexible to

remain relevant to stakeholders (primarily youth) in the
future?
8 How relevant do you believe the EU Youth Strategy has been

as an umbrella EU strategy, pulling together relevant EU
initiatives on topics relating to youth in one place?
10 In your view, what effect did the European Year of Youth

have on the relevance of the EU Youth Strategy as a whole?
10 In way has the legacy of the Year of Youth had a positive or

negative impact upon the Strategy’s objectives?
EQ Question Answer

Follow-up questions

206
332
EQ Question Answer

how?

Follow-up questions



Follow-up questions

3, To what extent do you believe that the EU Youth Strategy was

1d sufficiently flexible to adapt to unforeseen developments and
contexts which can have an impact on youth, namely the [1]
207
approach
208
333
EQ Question Answer
war in Ukraine, [2] the COVID-19 pandemic, [3] Brexit and [4]
the cost-of-living crisis?
Follow-up questions
o What have been the enabling/limiting factors impacting the

adaptability?
o What has been the role of solidarity in the Strategy’s
adaptability?
o Are there lessons that can be learnt from unforeseen
crises for the Strategy to learn for the future?

opportunities209?
Follow-up questions


EQ Question Answer

Follow-up questions

209
barriers
334
of the Strategy?
EQ Question Answer
11 To what extent has the EU Youth Strategy been coherent with

existing EU policies, strategies and priorities which relate to
the Strategy’s challenges and objectives?
Follow-up questions:
o In particular, how has the Strategy encouraged synergies

with the European Education Area, the European
Strategy for Universities, the European Research Area,
the New European Innovation Agenda, the European
Green Deal, the Digital Education Action Plan, European
Skills Agenda, NextGenerationEU and the Recovery and
Resilience Facility, the Youth Action Plan in EU external
action, the EU Strategy on the Rights of the child, the EU
Human rights and Democracy Action Plan.
o Are you aware of any inconsistencies, overlaps or
duplications between the Strategy and the areas listed
above?
o How could synergies be improved where gaps are
detected?

Goals?
EQ Question Answer

Follow-up questions
335
effects)
15 Do you believe that the Strategy has been able to add value
through increasing cooperation between countries on policies
and matters relevant to youth? If so, in what ways has
cooperation been increased?

EU level/international stakeholders - Interview guide for international organisations
Question Answer
What is your role in relation to the EUYS/ how have you

interacted with the Strategy?
EQ Question Answer
8 How aware are you of the EU Youth

Strategy as a whole, as well as its
objectives, target audiences and
instruments?
8 In your view, how relevant has the EU

Youth Strategy been in addressing the
main needs and challenges faced by
336
EQ Question Answer
young people over the period 2019-

2023?210
8 In what ways did the EU Youth Strategy

actively respond to the needs of young
people? Can you provide specific
examples of instruments of activities
which have helped to mitigate the
challenges facing youth?
9 Do you believe the EU Youth Strategy

is sufficiently flexible to remain relevant
to stakeholders (primarily youth) in the
future?
EQ Question Answer

Follow-up questions

how?
210
337
EQ Question Answer

Follow-up questions



Follow-up questions


opportunities213?
Follow-up questions

211
approach
212
213
barriers
338
EQ Question Answer


EQ Question International organisation

Follow-up questions

of the Strategy?
EQ Question Answer

Goals?
EQ Question International organisation

339
Follow-up questions

effects)

The interview guide for EU level and international stakeholders was created using Microsoft
Word, ensuring a comprehensive and structured approach to the interviews. Subsequently,
all interviews were conducted remotely via Microsoft Teams to facilitate seamless
communication. The detailed minutes of these interviews were recorded and stored in a
dedicated online folder. This meticulous documentation process was undertaken to ensure
ready access to the information as required, allowing us to enrich our analysis with the
insights gleaned from these interviews.
Public consultation
Technical notes on the public consultation
• Text in red serves to provide notes on the routing of the questions to different
stakeholder groups, as well as technical instructions to the scripter. Text in red is not
to be translated.
• Questions marked with an asterisk “*” are mandatory.
• The survey is divided into seven main sections, with some of them being dependent
on the stakeholder type. The seven areas include:
[1]. Introduction: A brief summary of the EUYS [visible to all respondents]
[2]. About you: Default questions from EU survey that cannot be changed [visible to
all respondents]
[3]. Additional background questions: In addition to the default questions in the
“about you” section, the survey includes some additional background questions
that will be crucial to identifying young people who answer the survey. This is
only shown to those who answer as an EU or non-EU citizen.
[4]. General Questions: This section is open to all respondents (with some
questions being shown to specific stakeholders depending on their answers). The
340
section aims to understand the awareness of stakeholders with the EUYS as well
as explore its relevance.
[5]. Questions to youth: This section is only shown to those identified as being
youth. The section asks questions about their engagement with youth policy in
their country and the EUYS (if known).
[6]. Questions to other stakeholders: This section is open to all stakeholders apart
from youth. The sections covers the areas of how effective and coherent the
Strategy has been, as well as its EU added value.
[7]. Closing section: This section is open to all respondents and includes three
simple final questions where respondents can provide final comments and a
position paper, if they wish to do so.
Current character count (without spaces) = 11,588
341
Introduction
The EU Youth Strategy is the framework for EU youth policy cooperation for 2019-2027, based
on the Council Resolution of 26 November 2018. It fosters youth participation in democratic
life; it also supports social and civic engagement and aims to ensure that all young people
have the necessary resources to take part in society.
The EU Youth Strategy focuses on three core areas of action, embodied by three words:
‘Engage’, ‘Connect’, ‘Empower’, and encourages joined-up action across sectors. During a
2017-2018 dialogue process which involved young people from all over Europe, 11 European
Youth Goals were developed. These goals identify cross-sectoral areas that affect young
people’s lives and point out challenges. The EU Youth Strategy should contribute to realising
this vision of young people.
To provide insights into what has been achieved thanks to the EU Youth Strategy, an
evaluation is foreseen and this public consultation forms part of it.
342
About you
These questions are predefined fields that have to be asked in every public consultation.
* Language of my contribution
*I am giving my contribution as
* First name
* Surname
* Email (this won’t be published)
*Scope
*Level of governance
Dependant on the answer in Q6
*Level of governance
Dependant on the answer in Q7.
*Organisation name
255 character(s) maximum
*Organisation size
*Transparency register number

255 character(s) maximum
* Country of origin
Please add your country of origin, or that of your organisation.
This list does not represent the official position of the European institutions with regard to
the legal status or policy of the entities mentioned. It is a harmonisation of often divergent
lists and practices.
The Commission will publish all contributions to this public consultation. You can choose
whether you would prefer to have your details published or to remain anonymous when your
contribution is published. For the purpose of transparency, the type of respondent (for
example, ‘business association, ‘consumer association’, ‘EU citizen’) country of
origin, organisation name and size, and its transparency register number, are always
published. Your e-mail address will never be published. Opt-in to select the privacy
option that best suits you. Privacy options default based on the type of respondent selected
343
*Contribution publication privacy settings
☐Anonymous
The type of respondent that you responded to this consultation as, your country of origin
and your contribution will be published as received. Your name will not be published.
Please do not include any personal data in the contribution itself.
☐Public
Your name, the type of respondent that your responded to this consultation as, your
country of origin of origin and your contribution will be published.
*Contribution publication privacy settings

☐Anonymous
Only organisation details are published. The type of respondent that you responded to
this consultation as, the name of the organisation on whose behalf you reply as well as
its transparency number, its size, its country of origin and your contribution will be
published as received. Your name will not be published. Please do not include any
personal data in the contribution itself.
☐Public
Organisation details and respondent details are published. The type of respondent that
you responded to this consultation as, the name of the organisation of whose behalf you
reply as well as its transparency number, its size, its country of origin and your
contribution will be published. Your name will also be published
☐*I agree with the personal data protection provisions
344
The following questions will only be shown to those that answered options “EU citizen” or
“non-EU citizen) in Q0
Additional background questions
This section aims to gather additional background information about you.
*How old are you?
Between 13 and 17 years old
Over 36 years old
The following questions (Q14, Q15, Q16 and Q17) will only be shown to those that answered
options “Between 13 and 17 years old”, “Between 18 and 23 years old”, “Between 24 and 29
years old”, or “Between 30 and 35 years old” in Q0.
* I identify as…?
Male
Female
I identify in another way
Prefer not to say
*What is the highest education level you have achieved to date?

Primary education
Secondary education
Post-secondary education
University studies (Bachelor, Master)
Post-graduate studies
Prefer not to say
*What is your current working status?

Student
Full-time work
Part-time work
Own business/Self-employed/Freelance
Volunteering
Active military service
Parental leave
Unemployed
Homemaker (e.g. a person who manages a household as a spouse, parent and/or carer)
Unable to work
Prefer not to say
Other
If other, please specify.

[Shown only if respondent responded “other” to Q0]
345
346
GENERAL QUESTIONS
[Section open to all respondents with active routing]
The following questions will ask about challenges faced by young people and your
awareness of the EU Youth Strategy and its instruments.
*Do you agree that the options stated below were challenges that young people faced
between 2019 and 2022? (Multiple choices possible)
Challenge Neither Strongly

Don’t
Strongly disagree disagree
Agree Disagree know/no
agree nor
opinion
agree
Access to public □
□ □ □ □ □
services
□
Barriers to education □ □ □ □ □
Barriers to learning □
□ □ □ □ □
mobility
Impact of the cost-of- □

□ □ □ □ □
living crisis
□
Financial stability □ □ □ □ □
□
Job loss □ □ □ □ □
□
Mental wellbeing □ □ □ □ □
□
Risk of poverty □ □ □ □ □
Differences in
opportunities between □ □ □ □ □ □
rural and urban settings
□
Social exclusion □ □ □ □ □
□
Youth unemployment □ □ □ □ □
Barriers to youth □
□ □ □ □ □
participation
Limited access to □
□ □ □ □ □
digital technologies
Limited access to □
green transportation,
□ □ □ □ □
such as public
transport or bike lanes
□
Other □ □ □ □ □
347
*If you answered ‘other’ above, please let us know what other challenges young
people faced between 2019 and 2022
*Do you believe that the EU or your country have helped to mitigate the challenges
that young people faced between 2019 and 2022? (Multiple choices possible)
Challenge Yes, the Yes, my No, the No, my Do not

EU has country EU has country know/no
helped has helped not has not opinion
helped helped
Access to public
□ □ □ □ □
services
Barriers to education □ □ □ □ □
Barriers to learning
□ □ □ □ □
mobility
Impact from the cost-

□ □ □ □ □
of-living crisis
Financial stability □ □ □ □ □
Job loss □ □ □ □ □
Mental wellbeing □ □ □ □ □
Risk of poverty □ □ □ □ □
Differences in
opportunities
□ □ □ □ □
between rural and
urban geographies
Social exclusion □ □ □ □ □
Youth unemployment □ □ □ □ □
Barriers to youth
□ □ □ □ □
participation
Limited access to
□ □ □ □ □
digital technologies
Limited access to
green transportation, □ □ □ □ □
such as public
348
transport or bike
lanes
*How familiar are you with the EU Youth Strategy?

Familiar to a great extent
Familiar to a certain extent
Familiar to a limited extent
Not familiar at all
Don’t know
*How aware are you of the following instruments associated with the EU Youth
Strategy?
[Shown only if respondent responded, “Familiar to a limited extent”, “Familiar to a certain
extent” or “Familiar to a great extent” to Q0]
Aware to a Aware to Aware to a Not aware at all
Instruments
great a certain limited
extent extent extent
Mutual learning □ □ □ □
activities
Events or initiatives
where policymakers
and stakeholders
exchange best
practices and
experiences on
youth-related
policies and issues.
EU-Council of □ □ □ □
Europe Youth
Partnership
A partnership
between the EU and
the Council of
Europe, with the aim
of gathering,
producing and
translating
knowledge for use in
youth policy and
practice.
EU Work Plans for □ □ □ □

Youth
All stakeholders
apart from those that
answered “EU
citizen” or “non-EU
349
citizen) in Q0 and
“Between 13 and 17
years old”, “Between
18 and 23 years
old”, “Between 24
and 29 years old”, or
“Between 30 and 35
years old” in Q0
Work plans that set
3-year priorities and
actions and guide
Member States, the
European
Commission and all
stakeholders
towards achieving
the objectives of the
EU Youth Strategy.
EU Youth Dialogue □ □ □ □
A process of
consultations with
young people and
youth organisations
across the EU to
inform policymaking
and improve youth
policies.
European Youth □ □ □ □
Portal
An online platform
with information,
opportunities, and
resources for young
people.
EU Youth Strategy □ □ □ □
Platform
A platform for
stakeholder
involvement in the
participatory
governance and
coordination of the
EU Youth Strategy.
Evidence-based □ □ □ □
tools (e.g., Youth
Wiki, RAY
Research, EU-CoE
youth partnership,
EU Youth
350
Dashboard,
Erasmus+ and
European Solidarity
Corps Dashboards)
Tools or resources
that provide data,
information, or
research on the
situation of young
people, youth
policies and
programmes.
EU Youth □ □ □ □
Coordinator
A function to
enhance cross-
sectoral
cooperation,
knowledge
development and
exchange on youth
issues within the
European
Commission and
coherent
communication
towards young
people.
Erasmus+ □ □ □ □
An EU programme
that supports
mobility and
cooperation
opportunities in
education, training,
youth and sport.
European Solidarity □ □ □ □
Corps
An EU programme
that supports
volunteering and
solidarity projects for
young people.
European Youth □ □ □ □
Work Agenda
activities
A strategic
framework which
351
aims to strengthen
and further develop
youth work practice
and policies.
*Do you think that young people have been sufficiently engaged in the implementation
of the EU Youth Strategy?
[Shown only if respondent answered, “Familiar to a limited extent”, “Familiar to a certain
extent” or “Familiar to a great extent” to Q0]
Yes, to a great extent
Yes, but to a certain extent
Yes, but to a limited extent
Not at all
Don’t know/No opinion
[All “youth” respondents now go to the section “QUESTIONS FOR YOUTH”, while all
other stakeholders jump to Section “QUESTIONS FOR ALL OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS”]
352
QUESTIONS FOR YOUTH
The following questions will only be shown to those that answered options “EU citizen” or
“non-EU citizen) in Q0 and answered options “Between 13 and 17 years old”, “Between 18
and 23 years old”, “Between 24 and 29 years old”, or “Between 30 and 35 years old” in Q0.
Have you taken part in or made use of any of the EU Youth Strategy instruments you
are familiar with? If you have, please describe your experience.
[Each option is filtered according to whether they answered “Aware to a limited extent”,
“Aware to a certain extent” or “Aware to a great extent” to Q0]
Did you take part in/make use of this If you did, what was
instrument? your experience?
Yes, I took No, I didn’t I don’t
part/made take know
use of part/didn’t
make use of
Mutual learning □ □ □ [open field]
activities
Events or
initiatives where
policymakers and
stakeholders
exchange best
practices and
experiences on
youth-related
policies and
issues.
EU-Council of □ □ □ [open field]

Europe Youth
Partnership
A partnership
between the EU
and the Council
of Europe, with
the aim of
gathering,
producing and
translating
knowledge for
use in youth
policy and
practice.
EU Youth □ □ □ [open field]

Dialogue
A process of
consultations with
young people and
youth
organisations
353
across the EU to
inform
policymaking and
improve youth
policies.
European Youth □ □ □ [open field]

Portal
An online
platform with
information,
opportunities, and
resources for
young people.

Strategy Platform
A platform for
stakeholder
involvement in
the participatory
governance and
coordination of
the EU Youth
Strategy.
Evidence-based □ □ □ [open field]

tools (e.g., Youth
Wiki, RAY
Research, EU-
CoE youth
partnership, EU
Youth
Dashboard,
Erasmus+ and
European
Solidarity Corps
Dashboards)
Tools or
resources that
provide data,
information, or
research on the
situation of young
people, youth
policies and
programmes.

Coordinator
A function to
enhance cross-
sectoral
354
cooperation,
knowledge
development and
exchange on
youth issues
within the
European
Commission and
coherent
communication
towards young
people.
Erasmus+ □ □ □ [open field]

An EU
programme that
supports mobility
and cooperation
opportunities in
education,
training, youth
and sport.
European □ □ □ [open field]

Solidarity Corps
An EU
programme that
supports
volunteering and
solidarity projects
for young people.
European Youth □ □ □ [open field]

Work Agenda
activities
A strategic
framework which
aims to
strengthen and
further develop
youth work
practice and
policies.
If you took part in/made use of any of the above EU Youth Strategy instrument(s), why
did you do so? (Multiple choices possible)
I was curious
I wanted to try something different
I wanted to use it for my education
I wanted to use it for my career
I wanted to use it for my personal development
355
I knew this was important for my community
I want to influence the society we are living in
Other
I did not take part in/make use of any instrument
Please explain why you got involved with the EU Youth Strategy instrument(s).
[Shown only if answered “other” in the previous question]
*Have you ever heard of a youth strategy in your country?

Yes
No
Don’t know
*Do you know about any youth-focussed initiatives/activities in your country? If you
do, please describe them below.
[Shown only if respondent answers “yes” in Q0]
*Did you participate in any youth-focussed and/or youth work-focussed

initiatives/activities organised in your country, region or local area in 2022?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Please let us know which activities you took part in.

[Shown only if respondent answered “Yes” to Q0]
*Was the activity you took part in connected with the European Year of Youth in 2022?
[Shown only if respondent answered “Yes” to Q0]
Yes
No
Don’t know
356
STAKEHOLDER-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
The following questions will be shown to all respondents apart from EU and non-EU
citizens (including youth).
*Does your country currently have a national youth strategy?
[Only shown to those who answered as “Public Authority” in Q0]
Yes
No
Don’t know
*Was the national strategy taken up as a result of/ influenced by the EU Youth
Strategy? If yes, please explain why/how.
[Only shown to those who answered as “Yes” in Q0]
*How much has the EU Youth Strategy assisted you as a national or regional
policymaker in your daily work?
[Only shown to those who answered as “Public Authority” in Q0]
To a great extent
To a certain extent
To a limited extent
Not at all
Don’t know/ no opinion
*Please indicate the ways in which the EU Youth Strategy has assisted you.
[Only shown to those who answered as “To a great extent”, “To a certain extent” in Q0]
*How effective has youth policy cooperation between Member States (supported by
the EU Youth Strategy) been over 2019 - 2022?
Effective to a great extent
Effective to a certain extent
Effective to a limited extent
Not effective at all
*What can be done to improve the effectiveness of youth policy cooperation between
Member States?
1.
357
*To what extent are the instruments of the EU Youth Strategy coherent with and
complementary to instruments and strategies at international/ national level?
To a great extent
To certain extent
To a limited extent
Not at all
*Please specify in which ways the instruments of the EU Youth Strategy have not
been coherent with and complementary to instruments and strategies at
international/ national level.
[Shown only if answered “not at all” or “To a limited extent” in Q0].
*To what extent has the EU Youth Strategy provided additional value to what Member
States could have achieved on their own?
To a great extent
To a certain extent
To a limited extent
Not at all
358
CLOSING QUESTIONS
[Shown to all respondents]
*In what ways could the EU Youth Strategy be improved to better support the needs
and aspirations of young people in Europe?
If you wish to add further comments - within the scope of this questionnaire - please
do so here (optional):
If you wish to upload files as support to your responses, please do so here:
The public consultation was initially drafted using Microsoft Word, compiling all questions
along with written instructions on filtering, and describing in written form how it would appear
once uploaded online. After incorporating the comments from DG EAC in the written text, the
public consultation was launched by the European Commission using EUSurvey.
Following the end of the consultation period, the results were downloaded and subsequently
transformed into a format compatible with Excel for analysis. Within Excel, the raw data was
structured across various sheets and enhanced visually through the use of tables and
graphs.
Subsequently, the data was organized and presented using Pivot Tables. By utilizing
PivotTables, we efficiently aggregated and analyzed the data, uncovering patterns, trends,
and outliers to extract valuable insights. The capability of Pivot Tables allowed us to
rearrange and organize the data based on diverse dimensions and metrics, facilitating
information filtering according to stakeholder type or geographic location.
Survey questionnaire for young people
1. Welcome to the survey
This survey is part of a study commissioned by the European Commission which will help to
find out what the EU can do to help young people like you be better engaged in society. We
want to know more about your views on the activities organised for young people in your
country and in the European Union (EU). Your contribution is key to defining better policies for
young people. The survey is divided into 5 small parts:
• Part 1 is about the awareness of initiatives and activities engaging youth in decision-
making, youth organisations and national youth initiatives.
• Part 2 is about the awareness of youth initiatives allowing youth to move with the aim
to learn and work across Europe.
359
• Part 3 is about young people’s opportunities to improve their personal, social-
educational and professional development and the development of competences via
youth work.
• Part 4 gathers information on the current and future needs of young people in your
country.
• Part 5 asks questions about yourself.
The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete.
If you have any questions about the survey, please reach out to Giorgi Davidovi, Senior
Research Executive at Kantar Public, at giorgi.davidovi@kantar.com.
For more information on how personal data are collected and used, please consult this privacy
policy (linked).
Continuing with this survey means that you agree with the above privacy notice.
1. Agree to continue.
2. Disagree to continue.
IF 2, TERMINATE THE SURVEY
Thank you for your time. We have no additional questions for you at this time.
SHOW IF answer to the above = 2
SCREENING QUESTIONS ARE BASED ON: AGE; GENDER; COUNTRY; AND COUNTRY
OF RESIDENCE.
Q1.1 This survey is about the involvement of young people in youth activities. It gathers
information about participation in civil society organisations and self-reported
disability. All sensitive data collected in this survey will remain confidential in line with
our privacy policy. This is a sensitive topic and something that might make some
people uncomfortable. If answering questions about this topic makes you
uncomfortable, feel free to close the survey now or at any point during the survey.
Do you agree to participate in this study?
1. Yes, I agree to participate
2. No, I do not agree to participate
IF 2, TERMINATE THE SURVEY
SHOW IF Q1.1 = 2
Q1.2. How old are you?

SINGLE ANSWER – screening question
Q1.2_1 15 and less
Q1.2_2 16-20
Q1.2_3 21-25
Q1.2_4 26-29
Q1.2_5 30 and above
360
Q1.2_996 Prefer not to say *HIDE SPECIAL*
If Q1.2_1, Q1.2_5, Q1.2_996 → TERMINATE THE SURVEY
Q1.2_2, Q1.2_3, Q1.2_4 (hard quotas)
If no answer (Q1.2_996) → Error message “Please answer to this question, it is necessary
to continue the survey.”
Q1.3 Do you identify as…?

Q1.3_1 Male
Q1.3_2 Female
Q1.3_3 I identify in another way
Hard quota Q1.3_1, Q1.3_2, Q1.3_3 (Exact quota to be based on the Quota Sheet)
If Q1.3_996 → TERMINATE THE SURVEY
If no there is no answer (Q1.3_996) → Error message “Please answer to this question, it is
necessary to continue the survey.”
Q1.4 In which region do you live in [COUNTRY]?

Dropdown menu of the NUTS1 region for Czechia, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden
Regions
If Q1.4_996 → TERMINATE THE SURVEY

If no answer (Q1.4_996) → Error message “Please answer to this question, it is necessary
to continue the survey.”
2. Engagement of young people
361
In this part of the survey, we want to ask you about your awareness of youth policies
at the EU and at national level and your involvement in decision making processes.
SHOW ALL
Q2.1 How well would you say you know the EU Youth Strategy and any other youth
policies in [COUNTRY]?
SINGLE ANSWER
Never Know Know a Know a Know

heard by little (3) fair very well
of (1) name amount (5)
only (2) (4)
Q2.1_1 The EU Youth Strategy
Q2.1_2 The national youth policy in

[COUNTRY] (e.g., youth
strategy, action plan,
roadmap, or legislation)
Q2.2 Where did you hear about this strategy or policy? Select all options that apply.
MULTIPLE ANSWER
Randomise order of answer options
Q2.2_1 Social media
Q2.2_2 European Youth Portal
Q2.2_3 Eurodesk.eu
Q2.2_4 Erasmus+ portal
Q2.2_5 European Solidarity Corps portal
Q2.2_6 EU Youth Strategy platform
Q2.2_7 European Year of Youth
Q2.2_8 Youth organisation
Q2.2_9 At school or university
Q2.2_10 From a family member
Q2.2_11 From your peers
Q2.2_12 From your professional network
Q2.2_13 Television, radio, podcast, newspaper
362
Q2.2_14 Other
If Q2.1_1 = “2, 3, 4, 5” or if Q2.1_2 = “2, 3, 4, 5”, display Q2.1_1 and / or Q2.1_2 in Q2.2
Q2.3 How well would you say you know the following youth initiatives?
SINGLE ANSWER
Never Know Know a Know a Know

heard by little (3) fair very
of (1) name amount well (5)
only (2) (4)
Q2.3_1 Youth Dialogues

Consultations with young
people and youth
organisations to inform
policymaking and improve
youth policies in
[COUNTRY] or in the EU.

Online platform with
information, opportunities,
and resources for young
people.
Q2.3_3 EU Youth Strategy

Platform
Platform for stakeholders’
involvement in the
participatory governance
and coordination of the
EU Youth Strategy.
Q2.3_4 Different EU information

platforms
Tools or resources that
provide data, information,
or research on the
situation of young people,
youth policies and
programmes such as
Eurodesk, Youth Wiki,
RAY Research, EU-CoE
youth partnership, EU
Youth dashboard.
363
Q2.3_5 EU Youth Coordinator
A function to enhance
cross-sectoral
cooperation, knowledge
development and
exchange on youth issues
within the European
Commission and
coherent communication
towards young people.
Q2.4 Where did you hear about this youth initiative? Select all options that apply.
MULTIPLE ANSWER
Q2.4_1 Social media
Q2.4_3 Eurodesk.eu
Q2.4_4 EU Youth Dashboard
Q2.4_5 Erasmus+ portal
Q2.4_6 European Solidarity Corps portal
Q2.4_7 EU Youth Strategy platform
Q2.4_8 European Year of Youth
Q2.4_9 Youth organisation
Q2.4_10 At school or university
Q2.4_11 From a family member
Q2.4_12 From your peers
Q2.4_13 From your professional network
Q2.4_14 Television, radio, podcast, newspaper
Q2.4_15 Other
If Q2.3_1/2/3/4/5 = “2, 3, 4, 5”, display Q2.3_1 and / or Q2.3_2, and / or Q2.3_3, and / or
Q2.3_4, and / or Q2.3_5 in Q2.4
Q2.5 Have you taken part in, made use of, or consulted any of these youth initiatives or
services?
364
SINGLE ANSWER
Yes, I have taken part No, I have not taken part

in, made use, or in, made use, or
consulted of this consulted of this
initiative initiative
Q2.5_1 EU Youth Dialogue
Q2.5_3 EU Youth Strategy

Platform
Q2.5_4 Different EU information

platforms (e.g.,
Eurodesk, Youth Wiki,
RAY Research, EU-CoE
youth partnership, EU
Youth dashboard)
Q2.5_5 EU Youth Coordinator
If Q2.3_1/2/3/4/5 = “3, 4, 5’”, display Q2.5_1 and / or Q2.5_2, and / or Q2.5_3, and / or Q2.5_4,
and / or Q2.5_5 in Q2.5
2.1. Awareness of youth initiatives in your country

Q 2.6 How well would you say you know the following youth projects in [COUNTRY]?
SINGLE ANSWER
Dropdown based on national initiatives presented on the YouthWiki portal (https://national-
policies.eacea.ec.europa.eu/youthwiki).
Neve Kno Kno Know a Kno

r w by w a fair w
heard nam little amoun very
of (1) e (3) t (4) well
only (5)
(2)
Q2.6_1 Service Civique
Q2.6_2 Pass Culture
Q2.6_3 Service National Universel (SNU)
Q2.6_4 École ouverte
Q2.6_5 Aides régionales pour l'achat

d'ordinateurs portables pour les
étudiants (lycée et/ou université)
365
Q2.6_6 Volontariat International en Entreprise
/ Volontariat International en
Administration
Q2.6_7 Studentské volby
Q2.6_8 Centrum fiktivních firem
Q2.6_9 Multikulturní centrum Praha, AFS

Mezikulturní programy, INEX-SDA
Q2.6_10 Bundesfreiwilligendienst (BFD)
Q2.6_11 Bundeswettbewerb der

Schulen Jugend trainiert für Olympia &
Paralympics
Q2.6_12 Die Jugendleiter*in-Card (JULEICA)
Q2.6_13 Jugend forscht
Q2.6_14 Deutsche Kinder- und

Jugendparlamente
Q2.6_15 Judgend entscheidet
Q2.6_16 Servizio civile universale
Q2.6_17 Reddito di cittadinanza
Q2.6_18 Carta Nazionale Giovani
Q2.6_19 Europa=Noi
Q2.6_20 Culturele Jeugd Pas (CJP)
Q2.6_21 The Traineeprogramma (Stageprogra

mma van de nationale overheid)
Q2.6_22 Jeugdfonds Sport & Cultuur

Nederland
Q2.6_23 Nationale Jeugdraad (Dutch National

Youth Council)
Q2.6_24 Krajowy Program Przeciwdziałania

Ubóstwu i Wykluczeniu Społecznemu
2020 – Nowy wymiar aktywnej
integracji
Q2.6_25 Harcerstwo (Ruch skautowy i

przewodnicki)
366
Q2.6_26 Młodzieżowe rady w samorządach
(rady młodzieżowe w samorządach
lokalnych i regionalnych)
Q2.6_27 Telefon zaufania dla dzieci i młodzieży

/ Fundacja Dajemy Dzieciom Siłę
(telefon zaufania dla młodzieży i
dzieci, Fundacja Dajemy Dzieciom
Siłę)
Q2.6_28 ÉS.CULTURA’18
Q2.6_29 70NOW!
Q2.6_30 Voluntariado Jovem para a Natureza e

as Florestas
Q2.6_31 Namorar com Fair Play
Q2.6_32 Cuidar de si próprio
Q2.6_33 ACTIMOB 3
Q2.6_34 Innotech Student
Q2.6_35 Miercurea Ciuc
Q2.6_36 'No Hate' campaign
Q2.6_37 Unifest (organizat de Uniunea

Studenților din România) și
Studențiada (organizat de Uniunea
Națională a Studenților din România)
Q2.6_38 Campos de Voluntariado Internacional
Q2.6_39 La iniciativa de empleo juvenil
Q2.6_40 Red de Campus Inclusivos
Q2.6_41 Proyecto Tú decides en Internet
Q2.6_42 Jobbgaranti för ungdomar
Q2.6_43 Mission: Democracy (Forum för

levande historia)
Q2.6_44 Litter Picking Days (Håll Sverige rent)
Q2.6_45 Idrottslyftet
Q2.6_46 Kulturarvsdagen
In France, display Q2.6_1 to Q2.6_6.
367
In Czechia, display Q2.6_7 to Q2.6_9.
In Germany, display Q2.6_10 to Q2.6_15.
In Italy, display Q2.6_16 to Q2.6_19.
In the Netherlands, display Q2.6_20 to Q2.6_23.
In Poland, display Q2.6_24 to Q2.6_27.
In Portugal, display Q2.6_28 to Q2.6_32.
In Romania, display Q2.6_33 to Q2.6_37.
In Spain, display Q2.6_38 to Q2.6_41.
In Sweden, display Q2.6_42 to Q2.6_46.
Q2.7 Have you taken part in or made use of any of these initiatives?
SINGLE ANSWER
Yes, I have taken No, I have not taken

part in or made use part in or made use
of this initiative of this initiative
Q2.7_1 List of initiatives from Q2.6

– Q2.7_46
If Q2.6_1/2/3/4/5/…/46 = “3, 4, 5”, display Q2.7_1 and / or Q2.7_2, and / or Q2.7_3, and / or
Q2.7_4, and / or Q2.7_5 … and / or Q2.7_46 in Q2.7 within the table.
Q2.8 In your view, which of the following initiatives, if any, were supported by the
European Union? Select all options that apply.
MULTIPLE ANSWER
1. Initiative 1 from Q2.6
2. Initiative 2 from Q2.6
3. …
4. …
5. …
…
47. None of the above *fixed* [Exclusive]
If Q2.6_1/2/3/4/5 = “3, 4, 5”, display Q2.8_1 and / or Q2.8_2, and / or Q2.8_3, and / or Q2.8_4,
and / or Q2.8_5 in Q2.7
2.2. Your involvement in youth organisations
Q2.9 Have you been involved in organisations (i.e., civil society organisations, NGOs)
at the local, national or EU level?
MULTIPLE ANSWER
368
Q2.9_1 At local level
Q2.9_2 At national level
Q2.9_3 At EU level
Q2.9_4 I have not been involved in any such organisations
Q2.10 In the last 12 months, have you been involved in any of the following
organisations at local / national / EU level? Select all options that apply.
MULTIPLE ANSWER
Q2.10_1 A sports’ club
Q2.10_2 A youth club, leisure-time club
Q2.10_3 A youth organisation or youth work organisation
Q2.10_4 A political organisation or a political party
Q2.10_5 A cultural organisation
Q2.10_6 An organisation with volunteering activities
Q2.10_7 An organisation working on climate change/environmental issues
Q2.10_8 An organisation promoting human rights or global development
Q2.10_9 Other
Q2.10_10 None of the above
If Q2.9_1/2/3 = “Yes”, display Q2.9_1 and / or Q2.9_2, and / or Q2.9_3, in Q2.10
Q2.11 Which of the following topics were covered in any of the activities of the
organisation you were involved in?
MULTIPLE ANSWER
1. Youth volunteering
2. Youth solidarity and inclusion
3. Increasing youth employment
4. Eliminating youth poverty
5. Youth physical health
6. Increasing a sense of community among youth
7. Fighting against youth discrimination
8. Increasing youth political participation
369
9. Youth mental health and well-being
10. Climate change and sustainability
11. Digitalisation
12. Other
Q2.12 To what extent do you agree that your involvement in organisations resulted in
the following …?
SINGLE ANSWER
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Don't

disagree (2) agree (4) agree know /
(1) nor (5) No
disagree opinion
(6)
(3)
Q2.12_1 It increased my
professional
experience
Q2.12_2 I learned a lot

about youth-
related issues
(e.g.,
employment,
education,
human rights)
Q2.12_3 My opinions
were listened to
and taken into
account
Q2.12_4 I felt I could

make a change
for my
neighbourhood,
city, or country
Q2.12_5 I contributed to
improving
young people's
lives
Q2.12_6 I learned a lot of

new skills
Q2.12_7 I was motivated

to be involved in
370
other similar
projects
Q2.12_8 I was motivated

to be involved in
EU projects
Q2.12_9 I could voice my

and my peers’
issues in my
neighbourhood,
city, or country
2.3. Involvement in the decision-making process
Q2.13 To what extent have you been involved in the decision-making process at the
following levels?
SINGLE ANSWER
Not at all Not very Somewhat Involved Highly

involved involved involved (4) involved
(1) (2) (3) (5)
Q2.13_1 Local (e.g.,

participation in local
elections, joining
local committees,
contributing to
decisions on new
projects to improve
daily life of people in
my neighbourhood
or the city I live in)
Q2.13_2 National level (e.g.,

participation in
national elections,
joining political
parties, participating
in policy discussions
or youth parliament
simulations)
Q2.13_3 EU level (e.g.,

involvement in EU
projects, being in
contact with youth
representatives in
the EU, taking part in
European parliament
elections)
371
Q2.14 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements when
describing your involvement in the decision-making process?
SINGLE ANSWER
Randomise order of options
Strongly Disagre Neither Agree Strongl Don't

disagree e (2) agree (4) y agree know /
(1) nor (5) No
disagre opinio
n (6)
ed (3)
Q2.14_1 My opinions
were taken
into account by
politicians or
decision-
makers
Q2.14_2 I gained a lot

of
competences
or professional
skills
Q2.14_3 I learned about

some of the
issues people
face in my
neighbourhood
/ city/ country
Q2.14_4 I learned about

some of the
issues people
face in other
countries
positive
changes in my
neighbourhood
/ city / country
positive
changes at the
EU level
If Q2.13_1/2/3 = “2, 3, 4, 5”, display Q2.13_1 and / or Q2.13_2, and / or Q2.13_3, in Q2.14
3. Connecting youth across Europe
372
In this part of the survey, we would like to ask about your involvement in some of the
youth initiatives allowing youth to move with the aim to learn and work across Europe.
SHOW ALL
Q3.1 Some opportunities for young people to study or work in another EU country are
listed below. How well do you know the following opportunities?
SINGLE ANSWER
Never Know Know Know a Know

heard by a little fair very
of (1) name (3) amount well (5)
only (4)
(2)
Q3.1_1 Erasmus+ for students

(An EU programme that supports
mobility and cooperation
opportunities for 18+ year-olds.)
Q3.1_2 Erasmus+ for pupils

mobility and cooperation
opportunities for 11–18-year-
olds.)
Q3.1_3 Erasmus+ for apprentices

youth to enrol in apprenticeships.)
Q3.1_4 Erasmus+ youth exchanges

youth exchanges across Europe
for activities such as workshops,
exercises, debates, role-plays,
outdoor activities and more.)
Q3.1_5 Erasmus+ for young

entrepreneurs
young entrepreneurs to work
across Europe.)
Q3.1_6 DiscoverEU
(Travel experience, mainly by rail,
that enables young people to
explore Europe’s diverse
countries and regions.)
Q3.1_7 European Solidarity Corps

373
volunteering and solidarity
projects for young people.)
Q3.2a Have you been involved in any of these opportunities? If yes, please select the
reason why you were involved. If you have not been involved, please mark ‘I have not
been involved’.
SINGLE ANSWER
Studyin Non- Cultural Volunte Workin Other I have

g, formal /sports ering or g in not
(6)
training and activitie similar another been
or informa s in activitie country involve
apprent l another s in d
(5)
iceship learnin EU another
(7)
in g linked country country
another to
(3) (4)
country youth
work in
(1)
another
country
(2)
Q3.2a Erasmus+
_1
Q3.2a DiscoverE
_2 U
Q3.2a European
_3 Solidarity
Corps
If Q3.1_1/2/3/4/5 = “3, 4, 5”, display Q3.2a_1 in Q3.2a

If Q3.1_6/7 = “3, 4, 5”, display Q3.2a_2 and / or Q3.2a_3 in Q3.2a
Q3.2b_1 If you were involved in Erasmus+ for another reason, please indicate it below.
OPEN END
ASK IF Q3.2a_1 = “Other, please specify”
Q3.2b_2 If you were involved in Discover EU for another reason, please indicate it
below.
OPEN END
Q3.2b_3 If you were involved in European Solidarity Corps for another reason, please
indicate it below.
374
OPEN END
Q3.3 To what extent do you agree or disagree that your involvement in these
opportunities did the following?
SINGLE ANSWER
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Don't

disagree (2) agree (4) agree know / No
(1) nor (5) opinion
disagree
*Fixed
(3)
[Exclusive]
(6)
Q3.3_1 Increased my
knowledge of
some of the
issues young
people
experience
Q3.3_2 Helped me to
make new
friends and
connections
Q3.3_3 Helped me to
improve my
competences
or
professional
skills
Q3.3_4 Made me feel

I had
something to
contribute to
the debate on
societal
challenges in
[COUNTRY]
Q3.3_5 Made me feel

I could
influence
what
happens in
Europe
375
IF Q3.2a_1 = “1/2/3/4/5/6”, display title “Erasmus+” in Q3.3 and ask all the items
Q3.3_1/2/3/4/5
IF Q3.2a_2 = “1/2/3/4/5/6”, display title “DiscoverEU (Interrail)” in Q3.3 and ask all the items
Q3.3_1/2/3/4/5
IF Q3.2a_3 = “1/2/3/4/5/6”, display title “European Solidarity Corps” in Q3.3 and ask all the
items Q3.3_1/2/3/4/5
Q3.4 What stopped you, if anything, from taking part in such opportunities? Select all
options that apply.
MULTIPLE ANSWER
1. Not interested
2. Insufficient foreign language skills
3. I am a caretaker for another person at home and therefore cannot leave the
country
4. My parents/family/partner/friends discouraged me from going abroad
5. I do not feel sufficiently independent to go abroad
6. Lack of financial means
7. Lack of information on opportunities to go abroad
8. Lack of opportunities that match my interests
9. The competences or professional skills gained would not be recognised in my
country
10. The experience would not be recognised/valued in my country
11. Other *Fixed
ASK IF { Q3.1_1/2/3/4/5 = “3, 4, 5” AND Q3.2a_1 = “7” } OR { Q3.1_6 = “3, 4, 5” AND Q3.2a_2
= “7” } OR { Q3.1_7 = “3, 4, 5” AND Q3.2a_3 = “7” }
Q3.5 Do you agree that you and your peers are offered sufficient opportunities to go
abroad to learn or work through different EU programmes (Erasmus+, European
Solidarity Corps, etc.)?
SINGLE ANSWER
1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
6. Do not know / No opinion
4. Empowering youth via youth work
Thank you for your insights. We would like to ask your opinion on young people’s
opportunities to improve their competences and skills via youth work.
SHOW ALL
376
Q4.1 How much do you know about youth work opportunities* across the following
levels?
* Youth work includes paid or voluntary activities by youth workers, with, and for young people
and is based on non-formal and informal learning processes focused on young people and on
voluntary participation. Youth work could be involvement in youth centres, NGOs, clubs,
volunteering and other associations, cultural centres, etc. It equips young people with
personal, social, civic, professional and entrepreneurial skills as a bridge into education,
training or work and supports young people’s active participation and inclusion in their
communities and in decision-making.
SINGLE ANSWER
Never Know Know Know a Know

heard by a fair very
of (1) name little amount well
only (3) (4) (5)
(2)
Q4.1_1 In your community
Q4.1_2 In your region
Q4.1_3 In [COUNTRY]
Q4.1_4 In the EU
Q4.2 Have you ever looked for youth work opportunities?

SINGLE ANSWER
1. Never
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
4. Often
5. Very often
6. Do not know / Cannot answer
ASK IF answer to one of the options in Q4.1 = “3, 4, 5”
Q4.3 Have you been involved in youth work?

SINGLE ANSWER
1. Not involved at all
2. Involved to some extent
3. Involved
4. Very involved
5. Do not know / Cannot answer
ASK IF answer to Q4.2 = “3, 4, 5”
Q4.4 Have you received a certificate, report or another kind of formal validation of the
learning outcomes of your youth work experience?
377
SINGLE ANSWER
1. I received a certificate/report that outlined what I have learnt
2. I received a certificate/report, but it did not outline what I have learnt
3. I did not receive a certificate, report or any other kind of formal validation
4. None of the above
5. Do not know
ASK IF answer to Q4.3 = “2, 3, 4, 5”
Q4.5 How useful do you think youth work and/or similar initiatives are for young people
to …
SINGLE ANSWER
Not Somewhat Neutral Useful Very Do not

useful useful (2) (3) (4) useful know /
at all (5) No
(1) opinion
(6)
Q4.5_1 Support their

personal and social
development and
their participation in
society
Q4.5_2 Learn about and

experience universal
values such as
human rights, gender
equality, democracy,
peace, pluralism,
diversity, inclusion,
solidarity, tolerance
and justice
Q4.5_3 Apply what they have

learnt through formal
and non-formal and
informal education
and training
Q4.5_4 Improve their skills

and competences
Q4.5_5 Support people in

their communities
5. Needs of young people in your country
378
Thank you for your insights. We would like to ask you about your opinion on the needs
of young people in your country.
SHOW ALL
Q5.1 To what extent do you agree or disagree that there is a need in [COUNTRY] to…
SINGLE ANSWER
Randomise order of the answer options
Stron Disagr Neither Agree Strongl Do not

gly ee agree (4) y agree know /
Disag nor (5) No
(2)
ree disagre opinion
(1) e (6)
(3)
Q5.1_1 Take into

account your
concerns when
it comes to
your education
and training
Q5.1_2 Involve young

people in civil
society (i.e.,
NGOs, youth
and
volunteering
organisations,
etc)
Q5.1_3 Engage youth

in democratic
decision-
making
processes in
[COUNTRY]
Q5.1_4 Engage youth

from
[COUNTRY] in
democratic
decision
making
processes in
the EU
Q5.1_5 Take into

account your
concerns when
it comes to
379
your
employment
Q5.1_6 Improve young

people’s
mental health
and well-being
Q5.1_7 Take into

account your
concerns when
it comes to
your access to
social services
Q5.1_8 Take into

account your
concerns when
it comes to
your access to
public health
Q5.1_9 Take into

account your
concerns when
it comes to
climate change
and
digitalisation
Q5.1_10 Support cross-

border mobility
of youth within
Europe
Q5.1_11 Support youth

voluntary
activities
Q5.1_12 Support
recognition of
non-formal or
informal
education and
training
received
outside of
school and
universities
5.1. Your perceptions on addressing young peoples’ needs sufficiently
380
Now we would like to ask you about your perceptions of how well young people’s needs
are addressed.
SHOW ALL
Q5.2 In your opinion, how effective are the following organisations in [COUNTRY] at
addressing your and your peers’ needs?
SINGLE ANSWER
Randomise order of the answer options
Not at Not Somew Effectiv Very Do not

all very hat e (4) effectiv know /
effectiv effectiv effectiv e (5) No
e (1) e (2) e (3) opinion
(6)
Q5.2_1 Civil society

organisations
(NGOs, youth
organisations,
youth clubs,
volunteering
associations,
cultural centres,
etc…)
Q5.2_2 Your local

government
(e.g.,
municipality,
region, etc.)
Q5.2_3 Political parties

in [COUNTRY]
Q5.2_4 National
government
Q5.2_5 EU institutions
Q5.3 Which needs of young people do you think this institution addresses the best?
Select all options that apply.
MULTIPLE ANSWER
Randomise order of the options
1. Youth unemployment
2. Youth poverty
3. Youth participation and representation
4. Youth mental health and well-being
5. Youth personal and social development
381
6. Youth discrimination
7. Youth transition from education to work
8. Other *Fixed
If Q5.2_1/2/3/4/5 = “3, 4, 5” display Q5.2_1 and / or Q5.2_2, and / or Q5.2_3, and / or Q5.2_4,
and / or Q5.2_5, in Q5.3
Q5.4 How important are the following issues to you?

SINGLE ANSWER
Not at all Slightly Moderately Important Very Do not

important important important (4) important know /
(1) (2) (3) (5) No
opinion
(6)
Q5.4_1 Crime
Q5.4_2 Overall
economic
situation
Q5.4_3 Rising prices /

inflation / cost
of living
Q5.4_4 Taxation
Q5.4_5 Unemployment
Q5.4_6 Early school

leaving
(dropping out
of school)
Q5.4_7 Terrorism
Q5.4_8 EU's influence

in the world
Q5.4_9 Promoting
democratic
decision-
making
Q5.4_10 Participation in
decision
making
processes
382
Q5.4_11 Migration
Q5.4_12 Pensions
Q5.4_13 Environment
and climate
change
Q5.4_14 Mental health

and well-being
Q5.4_15 Digital
transformation
Q5.4_16 Energy supply
Q5.4_17 Public health

(e.g., access
to health
services)
Q5.4_18 International
crises (e.g.,
Russian
aggression
against
Ukraine,
COVID-19)
5.2. Your opinion on young people’s needs during societal changes and
crises
We now want to ask you about your opinion on young people’s needs during societal
changes and crises.
SHOW ALL
Q5.5 In your view, how have the following factors affected young people’s lives in
[COUNTRY]?
SINGLE ANSWER
Very Somewhat No Somewhat Very Do not

negatively negatively impact positively positively know /
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) No
opinion
(6)
Q5.5_1 Covid-19
pandemic
383
Q5.5_2 Russia’s
invasion of
Ukraine
Q5.5_3 Shift to
online
learning
and
working
Q5.5_4 The digital

divide
between
young
people
living in
rural and
urban
areas
Q5.5_5 Availability
of jobs
Q5.5_6 Availability
of jobs in
the green
sector
Q5.5_7 Adapting to
a more
sustainable
behaviour
and
lifestyle
Q5.5_8 Inflation
and rise of
the cost-of-
living
Q5.5_9 Politicians
making
decisions
on behalf
of young
people
Q5.6 To what extent do you agree that the EU is responding to these possible
consequences of the war in Ukraine?
SINGLE ANSWER
384
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Do not
disagree (2) agree (4) agree know /
(1) nor (5) No
disagree opinion
(3) (6)
Q5.6_1 Inflation / rising

prices
Q5.6_2 Difficulties in
welcoming
refugees
Q5.6_3 More frequent

cyber attacks
Q5.6_4 The war

spreading to more
countries in
Europe
Q5.6_5 The war

spreading to
[COUNTRY]
Q5.6_6 A nuclear war
Q5.6_7 Energy supply

problems
Q5.6_8 A major economic

crisis
Q5.7 Do you agree that the issues* affecting young people were addressed over the
course of the COVID-19 pandemic?
*for example, losing job, access to online learning, a transition from face-to-face to online
learning, isolation, access to public health services, well-being and mental health.
SINGLE ANSWER
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Don’t

Disagree (2) agree (4) Agree know /
(1) nor (5) No
disagree opinion
(3) (6)
Q5.7_1 At local level
385
Q5.7_2 At national
level
Q5.7_3 At EU level
Q5.8 A range of initiatives were put in place in [COUNTRY] to help young people in
reducing the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Do you agree or disagree that
these initiatives helped young people during the COVID-19 pandemic?
SINGLE ANSWER
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Do not Do not

Disagree (2) agree (4) Agree know if know /
(1) nor (5) this No
disagree initiative opinion
(3) existed in (6)
(Country)
Q5.8_1 Initiatives to
support
young
people in
finding jobs
provide
financial
support to
young
people who
lost their
jobs
support
young
people to
transition
from face-to-
face to
online
learning
provide well-
being and
mental help
support to
young
people
386
provide
access to
public health
services
provide
opportunities
to socialise
(e.g.,
cultural
events,
online
events, etc.)
Q5.9 Compared with three years ago, is more being done to improve …?
SINGLE ANSWER
Yes, in Yes, in Yes, both No I do

[COUNTRY] the EU in (4) not
(1) (2) [COUNTR know
Y] and in (5)
the EU (3)
Q5.9_1 Young people’s

education

involvement in civil
society organisations
(e.g., NGOs, clubs,
youth and
volunteering
associations, cultural
centres, etc…)

access to work

mental health and
well being

involvement in
democratic decision
making
387
6. Socio-demographic information about you
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Now we would like to ask you a few questions
about yourself.
SHOW ALL
Q6.1 What is the highest education level you have achieved to date?
SINGLE ANSWER
Q6.1_1 Pre-primary education (including no education)
Q6.1_2 Early school leave
Q6.1_3 Primary education
Q6.1_4 Secondary education
Q6.1_5 Post-secondary education
Q6.1_6 University studies (Bachelor, Masters)
Q6.1_7 Post-graduate studies
Q6.1_8 Other
Soft quota for Q6.1_1, Q6.1_2, Q6.1_3, Q6.1_4, Q6.1_5, Q6.1_6, Q6.1_7, Q6.1_8 (based on
the Quota Sheet)
If no answer (Q6.1_996) → Error message “Please answer this question, it is needed to
finish the survey.”
Q6.2 What is your current working status?

Select a maximum of two options.
“YES” / “NO” - SINGLE ANSWER
[Maximum 2 answer “YES” allowed]
Q6.2_1 Student
Q6.2_2 Full-time work
Q6.2_3 Part-time work
Q6.2_4 Own business / Self-employed / Freelance
Q6.2_5 Volunteering
Q6.2_6 Active military service
388
Q6.2_7 Parental leave
Q6.2_8 Homemaker (person who manages a home and/or family instead of earning
money from employment)
Q6.2_9 Gap year / Sabbatical from work or studies
Q6.2_10 Unemployed
Q6.2_11 Unable to work
Q6.2_12 Not looking or not available for work and not in education or training
Q6.2_13 Other, specify: [Include open-end text box]
Soft quota and monitor the progress based on the Quota Sheet
If no answer (Q6.2_14) → Error message “Please answer this question, it is mandatory.”
Apply restrictions:
• CANNOT SELECT Q6.2_2 AND Q6.2_3
Q6.3 Did you or your parents move to your current country of residence from another
country? Select only one option.
SINGLE ANSWER
Q6.3_1 Yes, from another EU country
Q6.3_2 Yes, from a country outside the EU
Q6.3_3 No
389
Q6.4 Would you say you live in a…?

SINGLE ANSWER
Q6.4_1 Rural area or village
Q6.4_2 Small or middle-sized town
Q6.4_3 Large town or city

If Q6.4_1, Q6.4_2, Q6.4_3 → Soft quota with balanced fallout and monitor the progress based
on the Quota Sheet
Q6.5 Are you an active member of any of the following organisations? Select all that
apply.
MULTIPLE ANSWER
Q6.5_1 Civil society organisations (NGOs, associations, youth organisation, youth work
organisation, volunteering organisations etc.)
Q6.5_2 Political party
If Q6.5_1, Q6.5_2, Q6.5_3 → Soft quota with natural fallout and monitor the progress based
on the Quota Sheet
If no answer → Error message “Please answer this question, it is needed to finish the
survey.”
Q6.6 Have you participated in any of the following elections within the last five years?
Select all that apply.
MULTIPLE ANSWER
Q6.6_1 Local / regional / state elections
Q6.6_2 National elections
Q6.6_3 European elections
390
Soft quota and monitor the progress based on the Quota Sheet
survey.”
Q6.7 Would you consider yourself as having any of the following …? Select all that
apply.
MULTIPLE ANSWER
Q6.7_1 No or limited vision
Q6.7_2 No perception of colour
Q6.7_3 No or limited hearing
Q6.7_4 No or limited vocal capability
Q6.7_5 Limited mobility (upper body and/or lower body)
Q6.7_6 Mental health conditions (e.g., depression, bipolar, anxiety, ADHD, PTSD,
OCD)
Q6.7_7 Autism
Q6.7_8 Dyslexia
If Q6.7_1, Q6.7_2, Q6.7_3, Q6.7_4, Q6.7_5, Q6.7_6, Q6.7_7, Q6.7_8, → Soft quota with
natural fallout among those
If Q6.7_9 → Soft quota (based on the Quota Sheet)
survey.”
Q6.8 (visible ONLY for Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Poland and hidden for all the
other countries)
Thank you for your participation in this study. Based on your responses to this survey, the
European Commission would like to learn more about your opinions on youth participation in
different youth initiatives and challenges youth faces in your country. Kantar Public, on
behalf of the European Commission, is setting up a follow-up study with young people in
your country. The follow-up study will be done face-to-face in your country in the first half of
June 2023. Your participation will be compensated.
If you agree to take this interview and if you are selected, Kantar Public representatives in
your country on behalf of the European Commission may contact you by email within the
next 15 days.
391
Your data will be processed and kept securely in accordance with the privacy policy (linked).
All information you provide is only used for research purposes related to this project, will be
held in strict confidence, and will not be shared in any public domain.
Do you agree to participate in the follow-up study organized by Kantar Public on
behalf of the European Commission and to be contacted for this purpose?
SINGLE ANSWER
1. Yes, I agree
2. No, I do not agree
Q6.9 Would you be able to attend an interview in [Milan/Warsaw/Lisbon/Cologne]?

Please note that we can only cover local or regional travel cost (i.e., public transport).
Ask if Q6.8 = “Yes, I agree”
If COUNTRY = Italy, display “Milan”; if COUNTRY = Poland, display “Warsaw”; if COUNTRY
= Portugal, display “Lisbon”; if COUNTRY = Germany, display “Cologne”
SINGLE ANSWER
1. Yes
2. No
Q6.10 If you agree, please provide the following contact details:

Ask if Q6.8 = “Yes, I agree”
Your name: [Open-end text box] Your email address: [Open-end text box]
7. End of survey
Q7.1 At the moment, we do not have any more questions for you. Thank you for your
participation and your time.
SHOW ALL
Survey questionnaire for CSOs

1. Introduction
Thank you for participating in this survey. In this part of the survey, we would like to ask you
about the scope and purpose of your organisation.
SHOW ALL
QX. Please indicate which of these best describes your work.
SINGLE ANSWER
1 Civil Society Organisation (e.g., NGO, association, youth organisation, youth work
organisation, volunteering organisation)
392
2 Youth researcher (e.g., member of research organisation, academia)
3 Youth informal group
Q1.1 How many employees does your organisation have?
SINGLE ANSWER
1 Large ≥ 250 employees
2 Medium-sized < 250 employees
3 Small < 50 employees
4 Micro < 10 employees
ASK IF QX = 1
Q.1.2 How would you describe your work’s geographical focus? Select all that apply.
MULTIPLE ANSWER
1 Local (i.e., community level)
2 Regional
3 National
4 EU-level
5 Countries beyond the EU
Q.1.3 In which EU Member States and other countries are you active? Please select all
that apply.
MULTIPLE ANSWER
Drop down list of EU Member States, EEA, EU Neighbourhood countries
1 Albania
2 Algeria
3 Armenia
4 Austria
5 Azerbaijan
393
6 Belarus
7 Belgium
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina
9 Bulgaria
10 Croatia
11 Cyprus
12 Czechia
13 Denmark
14 Egypt
15 Estonia
16 Finland
17 France
18 Georgia
19 Germany
20 Greece
21 Hungary
22 Iceland
23 Ireland
24 Israel
25 Italy
26 Jordan
27 Kosovo
28 Kyrgyz Republic
29 Latvia
30 Lebanon
31 Libya
32 Liechtenstein
33 Lithuania
34 Luxembourg
35 Malta
36 Moldova
37 Montenegro
394
38 Morocco
39 North Macedonia
40 Norway
41 The Netherlands
42 Palestine
43 Poland
44 Portugal
45 Romania
46 Serbia
47 Slovakia
48 Slovenia
49 Spain
50 Sweden
51 Switzerland
52 Syria
53 Tunisia
54 Turkey
55 Ukraine
Q.1.4 Which of the following is your core area of activity?
SINGLE ANSWER
1. Education and training

2. Youth work and non-formal and informal learning
3. Voluntary activities
4. Social inclusion and discrimination
5. Creativity and culture
6. Participation and engagement
7. Employment and entrepreneurship
8. Health and well-being (incl. mental health)
9. Digital transformation
10. Climate change and green transition
11. Other, please specify INCLUDE OPEN TEXT HERE
2. Awareness and use of the EU Youth Strategy and its tools
In this part of the survey, we want to ask you about your awareness and use of the EU
Youth Strategy and its tools and instruments.
SHOW ALL
395
Q2.1a Are you aware of the existence of the EU Youth Strategy?
SINGLE ANSWER
Yes 1
No 2
Q2.1b Are you aware of the existing national youth policies (i.e., youth strategies,
youth action plans, roadmaps, legislation) in the country(ies) where you conduct
activities?
SINGLE ANSWER
Yes 1
No 2
Q2.2 Are you aware of any of the EU Youth Strategy’s tools and instruments?
“YES” / “NO” – SINGLE ANSWER
Yes No
1 Mutual learning activities

Events or initiatives where policymakers and stakeholders
exchange best practices and experiences on youth-related policies
and issues.
2 EU-Council of Europe Youth Partnership

A partnership between the EU and the Council of Europe, with the
aim of gathering, producing and translating knowledge for use in
youth policy and practice.
3 EU Work Plans for Youth

Work plans that set 3-year priorities and actions and guide Member
States, the European Commission and all stakeholders towards
achieving the objectives of the EU Youth Strategy.
4 EU Youth Dialogue
A process of consultations with young people and youth
organisations to inform policymaking and improve youth policies in
the EU or in the Member States.
5 European Youth Portal

A website with information, opportunities, and resources for young
people.
396
6 EU Youth Strategy Platform
A platform for stakeholder involvement in the participatory
governance and coordination of the EU Youth Strategy.
7 Evidence-based tools
Tools or resources that provide data, information, or research on
the situation of young people, youth policies and programmes (e.g.,
Youth Wiki, RAY Research, EU-Council of Europe Youth research,
EU Youth Dashboard, Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps
dashboards).
8 The Future National Activities Planners

A document that allows Member States on a voluntary basis to
share their priorities in line with the EU Youth Strategy.
9 EU Youth Coordinator
A function to enhance cross-sectoral cooperation, knowledge
development and exchange on youth issues within the European
Commission and coherent communication towards young people.
10 Erasmus+
An EU programme that supports mobility and cooperation
opportunities in education, training, youth and sport.
11 European Solidarity Corps

An EU programme that supports volunteering and solidarity projects
for young people.
12 European Youth Work Agenda activities

A strategic framework which aims to strengthen and further develop
youth work practice and policies.
Q2.3 How often have you, as part of your work, participated in or made use of any of
the following youth-related tools and instruments of EU Youth Strategy?
SINGLE ANSWER
Never Rarely Someti Often Always

mes

Events or initiatives where
policymakers and
stakeholders exchange best
practices and experiences on
youth-related policies and
issues.
397
2 EU-Council of Europe Youth
Partnership
A partnership between the
EU and the Council of
Europe, with the aim of
gathering, producing and
translating knowledge for use
in youth policy and practice.

Work plans that set 3-year
priorities and actions and
guide Member States, the
European Commission and
all stakeholders towards
achieving the objectives of
the EU Youth Strategy.
4 EU Youth Dialogue
A process of consultations
with young people and youth
organisations to inform
youth policies in the EU or in
the Member States.

A website with information,
opportunities, and resources
for young people.

A platform for stakeholder
involvement in the
participatory governance and
coordination of the EU Youth
Strategy.
provide data, information, or
research on the situation of
young people, youth policies
and programmes (e.g., Youth
Wiki, RAY Research, EU-
Council of Europe Youth
research, EU Youth
Dashboard, Erasmus+ and
European Solidarity Corps
dashboards).
398
8 Future National Activities
Planners
A document that allows
Member States on a
voluntary basis to share their
priorities in line with the EU
Youth Strategy.
A function to enhance cross-
sectoral cooperation,
knowledge development and
exchange on youth issues
within the European
Commission and coherent
communication towards
young people.
10 Erasmus+
An EU programme that
supports mobility and
cooperation opportunities in
education, training, youth and
sport.

supports volunteering and
solidarity projects for young
people.
12 European Youth Work

Agenda activities
A strategic framework which
aims to strengthen and
further develop youth work
practice and policies.
If Q2.2 – 1/2/3/4/5/.../12 = “Yes”, display Q2.2-1 and / or 2, and / or 3, and / or 4, and / or 5 …

and / or 12 in Q2.3
If no code is selected as "Yes" in Q2.2, please skip Q2.3.
Q2.4 To what extent do you agree that the following instruments under the EU Youth
Strategy are complementary (i.e., do not contradict or overlap with) to existing
initiatives/policies at the national level in the countries where you conduct work
activities?
SINGLE ANSWER
399
Not To a To a To a To a Do not
at all small moderate great very know /
extent extent extent great No
extent opinion

policymakers and
practices and experiences
on youth-related policies
and issues.
2 EU-Council of Europe
Youth Partnership
translating knowledge for
use in youth policy and
practice.

4 EU Youth Dialogue
with young people and
youth organisations to
inform policymaking and
improve youth policies in
the EU or in the Member
States.

An online platform with
people.

involvement in the
400
and coordination of the EU
Youth Strategy.
young people, youth
policies and programmes
(e.g., Youth Wiki, RAY
Research, EU-Council of
Europe Youth research, EU
Youth Dashboard,
Erasmus+ and European
Solidarity Corps
dashboards).

Planners
Member States on a
voluntary basis to share
their priorities in line with
cross-sectoral cooperation,
knowledge development
and exchange on youth
issues within the European
young people.
10 Erasmus+
education, training, youth
and sport.

people.

Agenda activities
A strategic framework
which aims to strengthen
401
and further develop youth
work practice and policies.
If Q2.2 – 1/2/3/4/5/…/12 = “Yes”, display Q2.2-1 and / or 2, and / or 3, and / or 4, and / or 5 …

and / or 12 in Q2.4
If no code is selected as "Yes" in Q2.2, please skip Q2.4
Q2.5a You said that you participated in or used some of the EU Youth Strategy’s
instruments and tools. Based on your experience, what were the main issues
associated with the implementation of this activity under the Strategy for your work?
MULTIPLE ANSWERs
1 Mutual learning activities 1. Limited awareness

and information on
Events or initiatives where policymakers and
how to participate
stakeholders exchange best practices and experiences
2. Limited financial
on youth-related policies and issues.
resources to
participate
3. Time constraints to
participate
4. Uncertainty with
outcomes of activity
5. Other
2 EU-Council of Europe Youth Partnership 1. Limited awareness

and information on
A partnership between the EU and the Council of
how to participate
Europe, with the aim of gathering, producing and
translating knowledge for use in youth policy and
resources to
practice.
participate
participate
4. Uncertainty with
outcomes of the
activity
5. Other
3 EU Work Plans for Youth 1. Limited awareness

and information on
Work plans that set 3-year priorities and actions and
how to participate
guide Member States, the European Commission and
all stakeholders towards achieving the objectives of the
resources to
EU Youth Strategy.
participate
participate
4. Uncertainty with
outcomes of the
activity
5. Other
402
4 EU Youth Dialogue 1. Limited awareness
and information on
A process of consultations with young people and youth
how to participate
organisations across the EU to inform policymaking and
improve youth policies.
resources to
participate
participate
4. Uncertainty with
outcomes of the
activity
5. Other
5 European Youth Portal 1. Limited awareness

and information on
An online platform with information, opportunities, and
how to participate
resources for young people.
resources to
participate
participate
4. Uncertainty with
outcomes of the
activity
5. Other
6 EU Youth Strategy Platform 1. Limited awareness

and information on
A platform for stakeholder involvement in the
how to participate
participatory governance and coordination of the EU
Youth Strategy.
resources to
participate
participate
4. Uncertainty with
outcomes of the
activity
5. Other
7 Evidence-based tools (e.g., Youth Wiki, RAY Research, 1. Limited awareness

EU-Council of Europe Youth research, EU Youth and information on
Dashboard, Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps how to participate
Dashboards) 2. Limited financial
resources to
Tools or resources that provide data, information, or
participate
research on the situation of young people, youth
policies and programmes.
participate
4. Uncertainty with
outcomes of the
activity
5. Other
403
8 Future National Activities Planners 1. Limited awareness
and information on
A document that allows Member States on a voluntary
how to participate
basis to share their priorities in line with the EU
Youth Strategy.
resources to
participate
participate
4. Uncertainty with
outcomes of the
activity
5. Other
9 EU Youth Coordinator 1. Limited awareness

and information on
A function to enhance cross-sectoral cooperation,
the function and role
knowledge development and exchange on youth issues
within the European Commission and coherent
resources to
communication towards young people.
participate
participate
4. Uncertainty with
outcomes of the
activity
5. Other
10 Erasmus+ 1. Limited awareness

and information on
An EU programme that supports mobility and
how to participate
cooperation opportunities in education, training, youth
and sport.
resources to
participate
participate
4. Uncertainty with
outcomes of the
activity
5. Other
11 European Solidarity Corps 1. Limited awareness

and information on
An EU programme that supports volunteering and
how to participate
solidarity projects for young people.
resources to
participate
participate
4. Uncertainty with
outcomes of the
activity
5. Other
404
12 European Youth Work Agenda activities 1. Limited awareness
and information on
A strategic framework which aims to strengthen and
how to participate
further develop youth work practice and policies.
resources to
participate
participate
4. Uncertainty with
outcomes of the
activity
5. Other
If Q2.3 – 1/2/3/4/5/.../12 = “Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always”

If all options are selected as "Never" in Q2.3, please skip Q2.5
Q2.5b_1 Please specify what other issues were associated with the implementation of
the Mutual learning activities.
OPEN TEXT
ASK IF Q2.5a_1 = 5
the EU-Council of Europe Youth Partnership.
OPEN TEXT
ASK IF Q2.5a_2 = 5
the EU Work Plans for Youth.
OPEN TEXT
ASK IF Q2.5a_3 = 5
the EU Youth Dialogue.
OPEN TEXT
ASK IF Q2.5a_4 = 5
the European Youth Portal.
OPEN TEXT
ASK IF Q2.5a_5 = 5
the EU Youth Strategy Platform.
405
OPEN TEXT
ASK IF Q2.5a_6 = 5
the Evidence-based tools.
OPEN TEXT
ASK IF Q2.5a_7 = 5
the Future National Activities Planners.
OPEN TEXT
ASK IF Q2.5a_8 = 5
the EU Youth Coordinator.
OPEN TEXT
ASK IF Q2.5a_9 = 5
Erasmus+.
OPEN TEXT
ASK IF Q2.5a_10 = 5
the European Solidarity Corps.
OPEN TEXT
ASK IF Q2.5a_11 = 5
the European Youth Work Agenda activities.
OPEN TEXT
ASK IF Q2.5a_12 = 5
Q2.5c_1 Did you encounter any difficulties with managing the grants received under
Erasmus + to implement projects?
SINGLE ANSWER
Yes No
ASK IF Q2.3_10 = “Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always”
406
Q2.5c_2 Did you encounter any difficulties with managing the grants received under
the European Solidarity Corps to implement projects?
SINGLE ANSWER
Yes No
ASK IF Q2.3_11 = “Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always”
Q2.6 To what extent have the benefits associated with this instrument or tool of the EU
Youth Strategy outweighed the costs (in terms of financial and human resources) for
your work?
SINGLE ANSWER
Not To a To a To a To a Do not
at all small moderate great very know /
extent opinion

policymakers and
practices and experiences
on youth-related policies
and issues.
2 EU-Council of Europe Youth

Partnership
translating knowledge for
use in youth policy and
practice.

4 EU Youth Dialogue
with young people and
youth organisations across
the EU to inform
407
youth policies.

An online platform with
people.

involvement in the
and coordination of the EU
Youth Strategy.
7 Evidence-based tools (e.g.,

Youth Wiki, RAY Research,
EU-Council of Europe youth
partnership, EU Youth
Dashboard, Erasmus+ and
European Solidarity Corps
Dashboards)
young people, youth
policies and programmes.

Planners
Member States on a
voluntary basis to share
their priorities in line with
cross-sectoral cooperation,
knowledge development
and exchange on youth
issues within the European
young people.
10 Erasmus+
408
education, training, youth
and sport.

people.

Agenda activities
A strategic framework which
aims to strengthen and
further develop youth work
practice and policies.
If Q2.3 – 1/2/3/4/5/.../12 = “Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Always”

If all options are selected as "Never" in Q2.3, please skip Q2.6
Q2.7 To what extent do you agree that the administrative burden (associated with being
involved in activities under the EU Youth Strategy and using its instruments) is
proportionate to the benefits they bring about?
SINGLE ANSWER
1. Not at all
2. To a small extent
3. To a moderate extent
4. To a great extent
5. To a very great extent
Ask if any of Q2.2 – 1/2/3/4/5/…/12 = “Yes”
work, from using any of the initiatives and tools of the EU Youth Strategy in your
country?
Open-end text box
If Q1.2 = “1, 2, 3”
If any Q2.2 – 1/2/3/4/5/…/12 = “Yes”
work, from using any of the initiatives and tools of the EU Youth Strategy in the EU or
beyond?
Open-end text box
If Q1.2 = “4, 5”
If any Q2.2 – 1/2/3/4/5/…/12 = “Yes”
409
3. Relevance of the EU Youth Strategy
In this part of the survey, we want to ask you about your opinion on the relevance of
the EU Youth Strategy and the needs of young people in the EU or in your country.
SHOW ALL
Q3.1 To what extent do you agree that the EU Youth Strategy is relevant to address the
challenges faced by young people in the EU?
SINGLE ANSWER
Not Slightly Somewhat Relevant Very I do

relevant relevant relevant relevant not
know
Youth
unemployment
Risk of poverty
Social exclusion or
discrimination
Insufficient youth
participation
Rural / urban
divide
Preparing for the

digital transition
(e.g., lack of digital
skills)
Preparing for the

green transition
(e.g., lack of
relevant skills for
green jobs)
Youth health and

well-being (incl.
mental health)
ASK IF Q2.1a = “Yes” and Q1.2 = “4, 5”
Q3.2 To what extent do you agree that the EU Youth Strategy is relevant to address the
needs faced by young people in your country?
SINGLE ANSWER
410
Not Slightly Somewhat Relevant Very I do
relevant relevant relevant relevant not
know
Youth
unemployment
Risk of poverty
Social exclusion /
discrimination
Insufficient youth
participation
Rural / urban divide
Preparing for the

digital transition
(e.g., lack of digital
skills)
Preparing for the

green transition
(e.g., lack of relevant
skills for green jobs)
Youth health and

well-being (incl.
mental health)
ASK IF Q2.1a = “Yes” and Q1.2 = “1, 2, 3”
Q3.3 Which of these issues listed below are the most important to young people in the
EU based on your experience or research?
SINGLE ANSWER
Not at all Slightly Somewhat Important Very Do not

important important important important know /
No
opinion
Rising
prices/inflation/cost
of living
Taxation
Economy
411
Unemployment
Early school
leaving (dropping
out of school)
Terrorism
EU's influence in
the world
International crises
(e.g., Russian
aggression against
Ukraine, Covid19)
Migration
Pensions
Crime
Mental health and

well-being
Public health (e.g.,

access to health
services)
Digital
transformation
Environment and
climate change
Energy supply
ASK IF Q1.2 = “4, 5”
Q3.4 What do you think are the future challenges for young people in the EU, based
on your experience or research?
Open-end text box
ASK IF Q1.2 = “4, 5”
Q3.5 Which of these issues are the most important to young people in your country,
based on your experience or research?
SINGLE ANSWER
Not at all Slightly Somewhat Important Very Do not

important important important important know /
412
No
opinion
Rising
prices/inflation/cost
of living
Taxation
Economy
Unemployment
Early school
leaving (dropping
out of school)
Terrorism
EU's influence in
the world
International crises
(e.g., Russian
aggression against
Ukraine, Covid19)
Migration
Pensions
Crime
Mental health and

well-being
Public health (e.g.,

access to health
services)
Digital
transformation
Environment and
climate change
Energy supply
ASK IF Q1.2 = “1, 2, 3”
413
Q3.6 What do you think are the future challenges ahead for young people in your
country, based on your experience or research?
Open-end text box
ASK IF Q1.2 = “1, 2, 3”
Q3.7 To what extent do you agree that the EU Youth Strategy instruments adapted to
evolving contexts with respect to the following topics?
SINGLE ANSWER
Completely Disagree Neutral Agree Completely I do

disagree agree not
know
COVID-19
pandemic
Brexit
Inflation
Russia’s
invasion of
Ukraine
Digital
transition in
EU
Green
transition in
EU
Globalisation
ASK IF Q2.1 = “Yes” OR IF ANY Q2.2_1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12 = “Yes”
4. Your perceptions on results stemming from the EU Youth Strategy
Thank you for your insights. In this part of the survey, we want to ask about your
perceptions on results stemming from the EU Youth Strategy.
SHOW IF Q2.1a = “Yes” OR IF ANY Q2.2_1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12 = “Yes”
Q4.1 To what extent do you agree that the EU Youth Strategy’s tools and instruments
achieved the following European Youth Goals?
SINGLE ANSWER
Completely Disagree Neutral Agree Completely Do not

disagree agree know /
414
No
opinion
Connecting
the EU with
Youth: Foster
the sense of
youth
belonging to
the European
project and
build a bridge
between the
EU and young
people to
regain trust and
increase
participation.
Equality of All
Genders:
Ensure equality
of all genders
and gender-
sensitive
approaches in
all areas of the
young person’s
life.
Inclusive
Societies:
Enable and
ensure the
inclusion of all
young people
in society.
Information &
Constructive
Dialogue:
Ensure young
people have
better access
to reliable
information,
support their
ability to
evaluate
information
critically and
engage in
participatory
415
and
constructive
dialogue.
Mental Health
& Well-being:
Achieve better
mental well-
being and end
stigmatisation
of mental
health issues,
thus promoting
social inclusion
of all young
people.
Moving Rural
Youth
Forward:
Create
conditions
which enable
young people
to fulfil their
potential in
rural areas.
Quality
Employment
for All:
Guarantee an
accessible
labour market
with
opportunities
for quality jobs
for all young
people.
Quality
Learning:
Integrate and
improve
different forms
of learning,
equipping
young people
with the tools to
face the
challenges of
an ever-
changing life in
416
the 21st
century.
Space and
Participation
for All:
Strengthen
young people’s
democratic
participation
and autonomy
and dedicated
youth spaces in
all areas of
society.
Sustainable
Green Europe:
Achieve a
society where
all young
people are
environmentally
active,
educated and
able to make a
difference in
their everyday
lives.
Youth
Organisations
& European
Programmes:
Ensure equal
access for all
young people
to youth
organisations
and European
youth
programmes,
building a
society based
on European
values and
identity.
ASK IF Q2.1a = “Yes” OR IF ANY Q2.2_1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12 = “Yes”
417
Q4.2 To what extent do you agree that the EU Youth Strategy fostered the following
principles in youth activities in the EU?
SINGLE ANSWER
Completely Disagree Neutral Agree Completely Do not know

disagree agree / No opinion
Equality and non-

discrimination principle
(all people being
treated equally)
Inclusion principle
(inclusion of all youth,
including
disadvantaged youth
and youth with fewer
opportunities)
Participation principle
(youth participation in
policy-making
processes)
Mainstreaming youth at
global, European,
national, regional and
local dimensions
(inclusion of youth
issues at all levels of
policy)
Mainstreaming youth
issues across different
policies (inclusion of
youth issues in other
policy areas)
ASK IF Q2.1a = “Yes” and Q1.2 = “4, 5”
Q4.3 To what extent do you agree that the EU Youth Strategy fostered the following
principles in youth activities in your country?
SINGLE ANSWER
Completely Disagree Neutral Agree Completely Do not know

disagree agree / No opinion
Equality and non-

discrimination principle
(all people being
treated equally)
418
Inclusion principle
(inclusion of all youth,
including
disadvantaged youth
and youth with fewer
opportunities)
Participation principle
(youth participation in
policy-making
processes)
Mainstreaming youth at
global, European,
national, regional and
local dimensions
(inclusion of youth
issues at all levels of
policy)
Mainstreaming youth
issues across different
policies (inclusion of
youth issues in other
policy areas)
ASK IF Q2.1a = “Yes” and Q1.2 = “1, 2, 3”
Q4.4 Has the EU Youth Strategy brought young people together at the local, national,
EU, or international level via the following?
SINGLE ANSWER
Yes - at Yes - at Yes – at Yes – at the No I do not

national EU level both EU international know
or local level level
level and
national
or local
levels
Volunteering
Learning mobility
Youth work activities
Youth
conferences/events
Consultation activities
with young people, e.g.,
419
Youth Dialogues, Youth
Parliaments
ASK IF Q2.1a = “Yes”
Q4.5 How useful were those activities for your organisation’s work with young people?
SINGLE ANSWER
1. Not useful
2. Somewhat useful
3. Useful
4. Very useful
5. I do not know
Q4.6 Has the EU Youth Strategy fostered the following among young people at the local,
national, EU, or international level?
SINGLE ANSWER
Yes – at Yes – at Yes – at Yes – at the No I do not

national EU level both EU international know
or local level level
level and
national
or local
levels
Civic engagement
Economic
engagement
Social engagement
Cultural engagement
Engagement in
democratic decision-
making
Q4.7 Has the EU Youth Strategy helped your organisation or research organisation
foster the following areas of youth empowerment?
SINGLE ANSWER
420
Yes – at Yes – at Yes – at Yes – at the No I do not
national or EU level both EU international know
local level level and level
national
or local
levels
Networking
between youth
organisations
across Europe
Creating new
partnerships
among
organisations
Increasing the
uptake of
opportunities
available to youth
Networking with
policy makers
Positive change in
the organisation’s
practices
Increase in the
capacities of the
organisation
Meaningful
dialogue between
stakeholders (i.e.,
young people and
policy makers)
Triggering of youth
policy initiatives
Q4.8 How useful were the results of the EU Youth Strategy for your work with young
people in the following areas?
SINGLE ANSWER
Not Somewhat Useful Very I do not

useful useful useful know /
421
No
opinion
Networking between youth organisations

across Europe
Creating new partnerships among

organisations
Increasing the uptake of opportunities

available to youth
Networking with policy makers
Positive change in the organisation’s

practices
Increase in the capacities of the

organisation
Meaningful dialogue between

stakeholders (i.e., young people and
policy makers)
Triggering of youth policy initiatives
Q4.9 Has the EU Youth Strategy supported youth empowerment through quality,
innovation and recognition of youth work?
SINGLE ANSWER
Yes – at Yes – Yes – Yes – at the No I do not know

national at EU at both international
or local level EU level
level level
and
national
or local
levels
Helped improve the quality

of youth work
Supported innovation in
youth work
Increased the recognition of

youth work
422
Q4.10 How useful were those results for your organisation’s work with young people?
SINGLE ANSWER
Not Somewhat Useful Very I do not

useful useful useful know / No
opinion
Helped improve the quality of youth

work
Supported innovation in youth work
Increased the recognition of youth

work
5. EU Youth Strategy supporting other EU or national policies
In this part of the survey, we want to ask you about your perceptions on how the EU Youth
Strategy supports other EU or national policies.
Q5.1 To what extent do you agree that there are complementarities between EU Youth
Strategy and the following areas?
SINGLE ANSWER
Not at To a To a To a To a Do not
all small moderate great very know /
extent opinion
National level initiatives
EU-level instruments on
employment (e.g.,
Youth Guarantee,
European Skills
Agenda)
human rights and
discrimination (e.g., The
European Instrument
for Democracy and
Human Rights (EIDHR),
423
EU Human Rights and
Democracy action plan)
gender equality (e.g.,
Gender Equality
Strategy, LGBTIQ
Equality Strategy 2020-
2025)
digital transition (e.g.,
Digital Education Action
Plan)
green transition (e.g.,
EU Green Deal)
UN’s sustainable
development goals
Other international
youth policies (e.g.,
CoE, UN, OECD, etc.)
Q5.2 To what extent do you agree that the Strategy's core areas* and instruments
complement one another?
*Core areas are:
Engage: Youth engagement activities and tools (e.g., the EU Youth Dialogue).
Connect: Instruments to be connected to peers (e.g., learning mobility through

Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps, European Youth Portal and EU Youth
Strategy Platform)
Empower: Youth work activities (e.g., European Youth Work Agenda and recognition
tools of non-formal and informal learning)
SINGLE ANSWER
1. Completely disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neutral
4. Agree
5. Completely agree
424
Q5.3 To what extent do you agree that the EU Youth Strategy improved the youth
policies in the country(ies) where you work?
SINGLE ANSWER
1. Not at all
ASK IF { Q2.1a = “Yes” OR IF ANY Q2.2_1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12 = “Yes” } AND if Q1.2 =

“1, 2, 3”
Q5.4 To what extent do you agree that there are complementarities or overlaps
between the EU Youth Strategy and the European Year of Youth?
SINGLE ANSWER
Completely Disagree Neutral Agree Completely I do not

disagree agree know
The European
Year of Youth
created
additional
support for the
implementation
of the EU
Youth Strategy
and its tools
The European
Year of Youth
created some
duplication of
already
existing EU
Youth Strategy
and its tools
The European
Year of Youth
created new
priority areas
and tools to
consider in the
EU Youth
Strategy
425
Q5.5 To what extent do you agree that the European Year of Youth made the EU Youth
Strategy more relevant to your organisation or in your country?
SINGLE ANSWER
Not at all To a To a To a great To a very Do not

small moderate extent great know / No
extent extent extent opinion
To your
organisation
To other
organisations
in your
country
To policy
makers in
your country
To young
people in
your country
Q5.6 To what extent do you agree that the EU Youth Strategy instruments were
relevant to the needs of other (research) organisations during the 2019-2022 period?
SINGLE ANSWER
1. Not relevant
2. Slightly relevant
3. Somewhat relevant
4. Relevant
5. Very relevant
6. I do not know
ASK IF any of Q2.2 – 1/2/3/4/5/…/12 = “Yes”
6. EU added value of the EU Youth Strategy
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. In this part of the survey, we want to ask you about
your opinion on what the added value of the EU Youth Strategy is.
426
Q6.1 To what extent has the EU Youth Strategy provided additional support for your
work with young people across the EU in the following three areas, compared to the
support provided to you by the country in which you operate?
SINGLE ANSWER
extent opinion
Engage: Promoting
meaningful civil,
economic, social,
cultural, and political
participation of young
people.
Connect: Supporting
connections, relations,
and exchange of
experiences among
young people also
through mobility.
Empower: Encourage
young people to take
charge of their own
lives through their
engagement in quality
youth work.
ASK IF Q2.1a = “Yes” and Q1.2 = “4, 5”
Q6.2 To what extent has the EU Youth Strategy provided additional support for your
work with young people in your country in the following three areas, compared to the
support provided by your country?
SINGLE ANSWER
extent opinion
Engage: Promoting
meaningful civil,
economic, social,
cultural, and political
427
participation of young
people.
Connect: Supporting
connections, relations,
and exchange of
experiences among
young people also
through mobility.
Empower: Encourage
young people to take
charge of their own
lives through their
engagement in quality
youth work.
ASK IF Q2.1a = “Yes” and Q1.2 = “1, 2, 3”
Q6.3 Do you agree that better engagement, increasing connection and empowerment
of youth could have been achieved to the same degree in the EU without the support
of the EU Youth Strategy?
SINGLE ANSWER
Not at To a To a To a great To a very Do not

all small moderate extent great know / No
Better
engagement
of youth at EU
level
Increasing
connection of
youth at EU
level
Empowerment
of youth at EU
level
ASK IF Q2.1a = “Yes” and Q1.2 = “4, 5”
Q6.4 Do you agree that better engagement, connection and empowerment of youth
could have been achieved to the same degree in your country without the support of
the EU Youth Strategy?
428
Not at To a To a To a great To a very Do not
all small moderate extent great know / No
Better
engagement
of youth at
national level
Increasing
connection of
youth at
national level
Empowerment
of youth at
national level
ASK IF Q2.1a = “Yes” and Q1.2 = “1, 2, 3”
Q6.5 To what extent has the support provided through the EU Youth Strategy
instruments added to/supported/broadened the following?
SINGLE ANSWER
extent opinion
Existing actions for

youth at the national
level
Cooperation on youth
issues among
organisations and
authorities at
national/regional/local
level
issues among EU
countries
issues internationally
(e.g., via UN, CoE,
OECD)
ASK IF ANY Q2.2_1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12 = “Yes”
429
Q6.6 To what extent has the EU Youth Strategy provided additional support to engage
and motivate all the relevant stakeholders in youth policies in your country?
extent opinion
Engaged relevant
stakeholders in youth
policies not yet reached
by other initiatives
Motivated relevant
stakeholders to use the
EU Youth Strategy
instruments and tools
Q6.7 To what extent did the European Year of Youth boost the EU Youth Strategy’s
aims to engage, connect and empower young people in the EU?
SINGLE ANSWER
1. Not at all
ASK IF Q2.1a = “Yes” and Q1.2 = “4, 5”
Q6.8 To what extent did the European Year of Youth boost the EU Youth Strategy’s
aims to engage, connect and empower young people in your country?
SINGLE ANSWER
1. Not at all
ASK IF Q2.1a = “Yes” and Q1.2 = “1, 2, 3”
430
7. Follow up
Q7.1 For the interim evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy, the study team is planning
follow-up online focus groups with civil society organisations, youth researchers and
informal groups. The purpose of the focus groups is to gather examples of how the
EU Youth Strategy contributed to your work with young people. We will also explore
the challenges facing young people in the EU. The focus group will last approximately
two hours.
If you are willing to participate in the online focus group, please let us know.
SINGLE ANSWER
1. Yes, I would like to participate

2. No, I will not be able to participate
Q7.2 Which of the following dates would you be able to join the focus group?
MULTIPLE ANSWER
1. 05.07.2023
2. 06.07.2023
3. 07.07.2023
4. 10.07.2023
5. 11.07.2023
6. 12.07.2023
7. 13.07.2023
8. 14.07.2023
9. 17.07.2023
10. 18.07.2023
11. 19.07.2023
12. 20.07.2023
13. 21.07.2023
Other, please specify INCLUDE OPEN TEXT HERE
ASK IF Q7.1 = “1”
Q7.3 Thank you for accepting the invitation. Please leave your email and the study
team will contact you.
OPEN TEXT
IF 7.1 = "1”
431
Discussion guide for focus groups with young people
0. Introduction (all groups) 8’
Objective: Introduce the facilitator; explain the purpose of the focus group. Build a safe and
open-minded environment.
Introductory points to cover:

• Welcome respondents in a warm and friendly manner.
• Introduce yourself and Kantar Public – explain that you work for Kantar Public, an
independent public opinion research company.
• Reassure the confidentiality and treatment of personal data and confirm consent for
audio recording and note taking.
• Encourage interviewees to talk about their own stories and feelings, to give examples.
“Remember that there are no right or wrong answers here!”
• Icebreaker activity: e.g., Participants create a name tag, writing their own name and an
adjective that starts with the same letter as their name. Facilitator to do the same. For
example, Disco Daniela, Funny Fred, etc. People should then introduce themselves to
the whole group using the adjectives.
• Present the theme of the discussion: “Today I would like to ask you some questions
about your opinion on programmes and activities organized by the European Union for
young people”.
1. Exploring awareness of opportunities for youth (all groups) 6’
Objective: Participants share the extent to which they are aware of the opportunities available
to youth and their perceptions of their relevance to them
Questions to cover:
• Have you heard of the EU Youth Strategy and any youth strategy in your country?
• If yes, can you explain what it is?
• Have you heard of any youth programmes or initiatives at the EU and national levels?
[Prompt: Are you aware of any activities that have taken place under the umbrella of
the European Year of Youth 2022?]
• If yes, can you give an example of programmes and initiatives that you took part in or
heard about?
2.A Participation stories (Subgroup A Young people that are active) 34’
Objective: Participants who have been involved in any EU-level youth or country-level youth
activities discuss their stories, and what contributed to a positive experience.
Storytelling activity:
Encourage participants to share their stories and for other participants to ask questions.
• Ask participants to choose the EU or national youth activity that has had the largest
impact on them: Prompt: “What this group has in common is that everyone here has
participated in one way or another in one of the programmes or activities that the EU or
your country offers to young people. Maybe some of you went on an Erasmus exchange,
worked, or volunteered abroad. Others might have participated in an EU-level Youth
Parliament or been active in civil society organisations. I would like you to think about
your own experiences to discuss some topics.” [Please refer to the background materials
432
for information on EU and country-level initiatives. There are several examples of the
activities that are implemented at the national level in your country and also the list of
activities where young people can participate]
Topics to discuss:
Description of example
• What type of activity were you involved in? What was its main goal?
• What motivated you to be involved? [Prompt: you can also ask: Why did you decide to
participate in these activities?]
• How did you get to know about this activity/initiative?
• Who was the organiser of the activity/initiative? Was it an organisation, ministry or
another national actor, or the EU?
• What was the application process like? Are there any factors that make it easier or more
difficult?
• What was it like to take part in these activities? Are there any good or bad things about
them that you've noticed? [Prompt: How did the activity help young people to be more
engaged, more connected and more empowered? To what extend did the activity
supported the following 4 areas: Participation, Equality and non-discrimination;
Addressing Youth issues in different policies; Addressing Youth issues at different levels:
local, regional, national, European, International]
Results of example
• What were the results of participating in these activities?[Prompt: Please expand the
question asking if they can think of the results in 4 areas: individual, organisational,
neighbourhood/community and country/EU level. For individual ask: What was the
outcome for you? For their career, education? For organisational (If relevant), ask: What
was the outcome for the organisation you were involved in (if any)? For the community
level (in their city, neigbourhood), ask What was the outcome for your peers if any)? For
the country/EU level, ask What was the outcome for yourcountry/EU (if any)?
• Would you recommend others to participate in a similar experience? Why / why not?
• How do EU-level activities compare to those organised by your home country?
• What actions can be taken to encourage participation in EU- and country-level youth
activities among young people?
2.B Barriers for participation (Subgroup B Young people that are not active) 34’
Objective: Participants who have not been involved in these opportunities talk about the
barriers and challenges they face to taking part in the decision-making process at the local
level and using the opportunities of participating in EU- and country-level youth activities.
Storytelling activity:
Encourage participants to share their stories and for other participants to ask questions.
Introduce participants to the discussion topic:
Prompt: “As some of you may know, the EU has various programmes and activities organised
for young people like Erasmus exchanges, working or volunteering abroad, and youth
parliaments. Prior to this meeting, you said that you have not participated in EU-organised
activities. Based on your own experience, I would like us to discuss what are some of the
reasons why young people might not participate in these activities.” [Prompt: Please, elaborate
on what type of activities we are referring to under this focus group based on the background
433
materials. There are several examples of the activities that are implemented at the national
level in your country and also the list of activities in which young people can participate in.]
Topics to discuss:
• Have you heard about any EU-level or country-level youth activities? If so, how? If not,
why?
• Do you think this information is accessible to all?
• If not, please explain?
• What were the reasons for participating less in an EU- or country-level youth activity?
[Prompt: If you are not sure about what stopped you from participating, what do you think
could be a barrier to young people in your country participating? Please provide
examples of the activities here again.]
• What is holding you back or in the way of you taking part in these activities?
• What would encourage you to participate in the future?
3. Perceived gaps in existing opportunities and initiatives (all groups) 10’
Objective: Participants consider how existing opportunities could be made more accessible
and what other opportunities could be made available to young people’s needs.
Questions to cover:
• Do you think that EU- and country-level youth activities are accessible to all young
people in general?
• Think of people with fewer opportunities (i.e., people with disabilities, health issues, low
education or income, people facing social barriers, cultural differences, discrimination,
and geographical barriers). How inclusive and accessible are EU- and country-level
youth activities for them?
• Are there any things that the EU could do to make these activities more inclusive and
accessible?
4. Addressing needs of youth during crises (all groups) 20’
Objective: Explore participants' concerns regarding global, local, and personal challenges, and
identify the types of support that can help young people address these challenges.
Starting question: What do you see as the main problems or challenges facing your
generation today?
[Based on answers, the moderator should group them into 6 main categories, explain what
they are based on information in the Background materials, and stir the discussion in a
direction that elaborates on the categories mentioned. The categories are:
- Economic issues
- Education
- Social inequalities
- Climate change
- Political participation
- International issues
Follow-up question: What do you think the EU and your country should do about this?
5. Summary and wrapping up (all groups) 12’
434
Objective: To identify the main insights from the group discussions and evaluate whether
participants’ opinions have evolved during the focus group.
Points to cover:
• Ask participants to think about the discussions they had during the focus group (on
activities organised by the EU and the main challenges faced by young people) and to
answer the question: What would you say are the “dos and don’ts” for designing and
organising activities for young people?
• To conclude ask participants to think of their thoughts about EU youth activities before and
after the focus group and ask: Did your initial opinions change during the focus group
discussion? If so, how?
• Close by thanking participants for their contributions.
Discussion guide for focus groups with CSOs and interview guide for youth
researchers
EU Youth Strategy 2019-2027: Interim Evaluation
Focus group with CSOs: Group No. [insert]
Instructions:
✓ Summarise in the boxes your findings/key discussion points in English.
✓ Make sure that your report write-up is concise and to the point and that it can be
understood by anyone who has not been in the focus group.
✓ When referring to specific sub-questions in your summary, please indicate the
number of the sub-question (Q1.1, Q1.2, etc.).
INTRODUCTION
- Introduce the facilitator to the group discussion; explain the purpose of the group
discussion; build a safe and free-minded environment
- The facilitator of the discussion gives a short introduction, welcoming participants,

introducing themself, reassuring on confidentiality and treatment of personal data,
encouraging participants to talk about their own stories and feelings and to give
examples. “Remember that there are no right or wrong answers here!”
- The facilitator may use an Icebreaker activity by using name tags.
- The facilitator presents the theme of the discussion.
In red are additional questions that came up from client meetings/ preliminary findings.
435
Summary of participation:
Focus group information Please fill out the details:
Time and date of focus group
Location/format of focus group
Number of participants (excluding

you, the moderator)
Names of organisations of the

participants
Types of roles/positions of the

participants
436
SESSION 1: EXPLORING THE ROLE OF YOUTH CSOs IN THE YOUTH SECTOR
Participants can discuss what they consider that the role of youth CSOs is in enhancing the
vision of youth more generally, as well as the role of CSOs in implementing the EU Youth
Strategy
Question Summarise here your findings/key

discussion points
What types of activities do you engage

young people in?
Follow-up questions/ discussion points:
Q1.1. Can you provide specific examples of the

activities you have organised for young people?
Q1.2. What communication activities do you carry out

in relation to the strategy?
Q1.3. How do you raise awareness about the

EU Youth Strategy among young people and
other stakeholders?
How would you describe the EU Youth

Strategy's connection to your activities?
Q2.1. Have you specifically integrated any elements of

the EU Youth Strategy into your programming or
activities? If so, could you provide examples?
Q2.2. Are there any areas where you see

potential for further collaboration or synergy
between your organization and the EU Youth
Strategy?
How would you describe the role that CSOs

play in enhancing youth participation (i.e.,
civic, economic, social, cultural, political)?
437
Q3.1. In what specific ways do CSOs empower young
people to participate in civic, economic, social,
cultural, and political spheres?
Q3.2 What are some of the main challenges

that CSOs face in promoting and enhancing
youth participation, and how do you
overcome them?
SESSION 2: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY AT EU AND NATIONAL

LEVEL

discussion points
Are you aware of any differences and/or

similarities in the level of implementation of
the EUYS between CSOs, different contexts,
and across countries?
Q4.1. How have contextual factors such as local

culture, political environment, or economic conditions
influenced the implementation of the strategy by
CSOs?
Q4.2. Have you noticed any common challenges or

barriers that CSOs across different countries or
contexts have faced in implementing the strategy? If
so, what are they and how have they been addressed?
Q4.3. Preliminary findings uncovered that in

countries with a well-developed youth policy
framework and where national youth
strategies exist there are greater variations
in the assessment of the EUYS’s
effectiveness. Have you identified similar
trends across different countries/ contexts?
What are the ways in which your

organisation identifies the specific needs of
young people?
438
Q5.1. Did you find that the instruments provided by the
EU Youth Strategy were flexible enough to address the
diverse needs of young people in your community?
Why or why not?
Q5.2. Have you made any adaptations or modifications

to the instruments provided by the strategy to better
meet the needs of young people in your community? If
so, can you provide examples?
Question from SG from IR meeting: Q5.3. To

what extent have housing issues for youth
emerged over the period 2019-2023. If so, in
what ways do you support this area?
SESSION 3: SUCCESS STORIES AND GOOD PRACTICES

discussion points
Can you share specific success stories or

examples of how the EUYS or its related
instruments have had a positive impact on
young people and/ or your CSO's activities?
Q6.1. How did you measure or assess the success of

these initiatives or projects?
Q6.2. Have there been any unexpected or unintended

positive outcomes or impacts resulting from the
implementation of the EU Youth Strategy?
Question from SG from IR meeting: Q6.3. What is

your experience/ thoughts on the Youth Coordinator in
acting as an interlocuter between stakeholders and the
Commission in engaging with the EUYS?
Q6.4. Can you provide examples of where the EUYS

has supported you in your work?
Q6.5. Preliminary findings uncovered

examples of where civil society uses the
EUYS as a tool to push national
policymakers to adopt national youth
strategies. Have you also used the EUYS in a
439
similar way, or know of organisations which
have?
Have you observed any notable

improvements or changes in the current
framework compared to the previous one? If
so, what are they?
Q7.1. What would you say the main differences are

with the predecessor framework (2010-2018)?
Q7.2. Are there any areas where you feel that the
current framework could learn from or build upon the
successes of the predecessor framework?
Q7.3. The previous evaluation of the EUYS

(2010-2018) highlighted that many
stakeholders were not fully aware of its
objectives and instruments, indicating the
need for better dissemination and
communication. Do you think there has been
an improvement under the current EUYS?
SESSION 4: BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES

discussion points
What could be done to make it easier for

CSOs to improve the level of
implementation of the EUYS? Follow-up
questions/ discussion points:
Q8.1. Are there any specific administrative or

bureaucratic hurdles that hinder CSOs in expanding
their work?
Q8.2. In your opinion, what changes or improvements

could be made to existing instruments or the EUYS as
a whole to facilitate the expansion of CSOs activities?
Q8.2. Are there any best practices or

successful models from other regions or
440
countries that could be adopted to support
CSOs in extending their activities?
How could the EUYS and its instruments be

enhanced to enable CSOs to engage,
connect and empower youth more
effectively in the future?
Q9.1. What new instruments and activities could be

developed to better support national authorities in
engaging, connecting, and empowering youth?
Q9.2. Are there any unexplored opportunities that

governments/the EU could provide to better capitalise
on the role of CSOs in youth activities?
Q9.3. What role can young people

themselves play in shaping and co-creating
the instruments and activities of the EU
Youth Strategy to better meet their needs
and priorities?
The preparation of the discussion guide for both the focus group with CSOs and the
interviews followed a well-structured approach. In both cases, Microsoft Word was used to
develop comprehensive guides. The subsequent interactions were facilitated through
Microsoft Teams, ensuring a seamless virtual communication platform.
For the CSOs' focus groups, a comprehensive guide was formulated. This guide
encompassed a detailed agenda, a set of carefully framed questions, and internal
instructions for the study team members conducting the session. These instructions provided
guidance on where to place more emphasis and how to engage participants effectively,
including by asking icebreaker questions and creating a conducive environment for open
discussion. To augment participants' comprehension, a PowerPoint presentation was
devised and shared during the session. This presentation not only aided their understanding
of the topics but also maintained a structured flow of discourse. Following the focus groups,
detailed minutes were recorded, securely stored in an online repository, and subsequently
drawn upon for further analysis.
The interview guides conducted with youth researchers were drafted by combining pertinent
elements from both the focus group and national interview guides. This approach allowed for
a comprehensive exploration of the subject matter, gauging perspectives from informed
researchers and incorporating insights gained from the broader focus group discussions.
The minutes from these interviews were also stored in an online folder and later accessed
for further analysis.
441
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU
In person
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You
can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
On the phone or by email
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can
contact this service:
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU
Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on
the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en
EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from:

https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by
contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en).
EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official
language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Open data from the EU
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from

the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes.
NC-02-24-061-EN-N
ISBN 978-92-68-11689-0

Support Study For The Interim Evaluation of The Eu-NC0224061ENN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Support Study For The Interim Evaluation of The Eu-NC0224061ENN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Support study for the Interim

Evaluation of the EU Youth Strategy

Contact point: Jadranka Vukovic Johnsson

European Commission, DG EAC Rue Joseph II 70, 1000 Brussels, Belgium

Support study for the Interim Evaluation of

Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sports, and Culture

EN PDF ISBN 978-92-68-11689-0 doi 10.2766/587282 NC-02-24-061-EN-N

Manuscript completed in October 2023

Daniela Ulicna (Kantar Public-main author)

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024

© European Union, 2024

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission

1. Annex 1 - Evaluation questions and matrix

• Development of the detailed impact pathways between the individual components of

The analysis of effectiveness assesses changes at multiple levels:

Table 1 Evaluation matrix – Effectiveness

Evaluation question Judgement criteria Indicators Methods/source

1. To what extent has Objectives, priorities See other This an

There is evidence that Analysis of Desk research

Analysis of Civil society

There is evidence that Examples of Desk research

EU-level youth policies influence of Key informant

Progress has been Level of Desk research

Space and Analytical

Analytical Youth survey and

1.d Which main The role of external Stakeholders’ Desk research

The role of other EU

1.e Have there been Unintended/unexpecte Key Desk research

2. To what extent have The Strategy’s Extent to Desk research

Mutual learning and

EU Work Plans for

Partnership with CoE

European Youth Work

Youth Information and

2.a Which instruments There are instruments Analytical Desk research

instruments stand out instruments that are which Key informant

2.b Are the The instruments and Assessment of Desk research

2.c To what extent Youth issues have Extent to Desk research

and effective mainstreamed survey and focus

2.d To what extent Links and synergies Extent to Desk research

RRF, Digital Europe, Horizon Europe, programmes services and at

Russia’s invasion of and the Russia’s of the Covid-

4. To what extent and The EUYS has Extent to Desk research

how the EUYS

the EUYS has

• Headcount dedicated to EUYS in DG EAC; and

Table 2 Evaluation matrix – Efficiency

Evaluation Judgement criteria Indicators Methods/sou

6. To what The EUYS’s Direct and indirect costs of Cost-

6.a To what The instruments, Extent to which the Key

Description of factors which

What are the

6.b What is n/a Description of how Key

6.c Which n/a Description of costs and Cost-

7 To what The resources Extent to which the Cost-

Table 3 Evaluation matrix – Relevance

Evaluation Judgement criteria Indicators Methods/sources

8. To what Evidence Evidence that Desk research

of how the Strategy

9. How well Evidence Evidence / examples of Desk research

10. To what There is direct/ Evidence / examples Desk research

Table 4 Evaluation matrix – Coherence

Evaluation question Judgement Indicators Methods/sources