Delivering for youth: How governments can put young people at the centre of the recovery

 Youth organisations express growing concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on mental health and access to education and employment

While the trajectory of the pandemic continues to evolve and varies across countries, most OECD countries were easing social distancing, confinement, and social isolation measures along with the ongoing deployment of vaccines when survey data was collected (July-August 2021). During this period, schools and universities in OECD countries gradually started re-opening after significant disruptions in 2020 and the first half of 2021 (OECD, 2021[1]). The global recovery continued to progress but has lost momentum and remains uneven across countries (OECD, 2021[19]). Youth unemployment rates in the OECD, which surged at the onset of the pandemic, had started to decline in many countries by July 2021 (OECD, 2021[20]). At the same time, the prevalence of mental health symptoms related to anxiety and depression has risen dramatically among young people and remains higher than before the crisis (OECD, 2021[4]; OECD, 2021[9]).

The road to recovery is characterised by significant uncertainty and risks as new COVID-19 variants continue to appear (OECD, 2021[19]). At the time of writing, the emergence of the Omicron strain has resulted in new lockdown and confinement measures and tightened travel restrictions in some OECD countries (OECD, 2021[19]).

Findings from the 2021 survey show that many of the challenges identified by respondents of the 2020 survey persist 16 months later. When asked to identify the top three concerns regarding the effects of the crisis on young people, youth organisations surveyed in July-August 2021 across the OECD expressed greatest worries about the impact of COVID-19 on mental health (83%), education (64%) and employment (42%), followed by familial relations and friendships (35%), and limitation of individual freedoms (34%) (Figure 1).

Among two-time respondents, concerns about the impact of COVID-19 have been growing in the areas of mental health, education and familial relations and friendships. Moreover, concerns about challenges in accessing and maintaining employment remain at a very high level.

These results reflect young people’s ongoing – and, in some cases, increasing – concerns about long-lasting scars that will stretch beyond employment and education. Section 2 of this paper will analyse to what extent the response and recovery efforts of countries have taken into account the needs and perspectives of young people in an integrated way.

 

Figure 1. Youth organisations express significant concerns about the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on mental health, education and employment

Note: Respondents were asked to identify the top three areas in which young people were finding it most challenging to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 crisis. Data refers to the proportion of all 151 youth organisations from OECD and non-OECD countries that answered the survey, of which 100 respondents were from OECD countries and 51 from non-OECD countries (Annex 1.A).

Source: OECD 2021 Survey on COVID-19 and Youth.

 Youth organisations are increasingly concerned about young people’s well-being

When asked about the long-term implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, respondents from OECD countries expressed greatest concerns about the well-being of young people (85%), followed by concerns about the impact on youth rights8 (72%) and inequalities across age cohorts (69%). They also indicated important concerns about the effects of the COVID-19 crisis on the spread of disinformation (fake news) (67%), racial discrimination (61%), the risk that the crisis may divert government attention away from tackling climate change (59%) and political polarisation (56%) (Figure 2).

 

Figure 2. Youth organisations are most concerned about the long-term implications of COVID-19 on the well-being of young people, youth rights and inequalities across age cohorts

Note: Respondents were asked to rate, on a scale from 1 to 5, the extent to which they were worried about the impact of COVID-19 in a number of areas, where 1 is not worried at all and 5 is very worried. The graph presents grouped answers 1-2 (Not worried at all – A little worried) and 4-5 (Worried – Very Worried), excluding those who answered ‘Neither worried nor not worried’. Data refers to the proportion of youth organisations from the OECD that answered the survey (N=100 out of 151 respondents). Results are rounded to the nearest decimal.

Source: OECD 2021 Survey on COVID-19 and Youth.

These findings differ considerably from the results of the 2020 edition of the survey. In the early stages of the pandemic, concerns expressed by youth organisations about the well-being of the elderly outweighed worries about young people’s well-being, the spread of mis- and disinformation (fake news), increasing levels of public debt and racial discrimination (OECD, 2020[3]).

A similar trend can be observed among two-time respondents who express strongest concerns about the well-being of young people and the spread of mis- and disinformation in the 2021 edition. In turn, they now express fewer concerns about the impact of the crisis on the well-being of the elderly and the rise in public debt.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted from being a public health emergency to a crisis of far reaching impacts, young people’s concerns have also shifted. Amongst the respondents to the 2021 edition of the survey, a shift is seen towards growing worries about young people’s well-being, a concern supported by findings that demonstrate that a majority of youth organisations are discontent with the way in which governments have delivered public services. These findings will be presented in greater detail below.

Findings also illustrate that concerns about the spread of mis- and disinformation9 associated with the COVID-19 pandemic persist, posing significant challenges to public perceptions about democracy, notably among young people (OECD, 2021[15]). Social media accounts for a large part of the mis- and disinformation related to the pandemic (OECD, 2020[21]). This is especially important for young people, given that they tend to be more digitally literate and source news predominantly from social media. (Brennen, 2020[22]). Moreover, evidence shows that disinformation can fuel confusion, division and distrust, all of which has implications on young people’s perceptions of their governments (OECD, 2020[3]); (OECD, 2020[21]). While 54% of 15-year-old students in OECD countries reported being trained at school on how to recognise mis- and disinformation, data shows that those from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds continue to score lower than their peers in terms of recognising the credibility of information sources (OECD, 2021[23]). OECD evidence suggests that the rise of disinformation can also reinforce polarisation in society by harming electoral processes and outcomes and misleading citizens toward undemocratic alternatives (OECD, 2020[21]). Indeed, more than one in two OECD-based respondents to the 2021 OECD Survey on COVID-19 and Youth (56%) report being worried about political polarisation in the context of the COVID-19 crisis.

Considerations about intergenerational justice and equity have also gained further traction, as the repercussions of the crisis are unfolding with differentiated impacts within and across age cohorts. While respondents identify inequalities across age cohorts (69%) as one of the top concerns, a majority of respondents (59%) is concerned that the COVID-19 crisis will divert government attention away from taking measures to tackle climate change. This is particularly relevant as young people have been at the forefront of advocating for climate justice to be placed at the top of the political agenda, highlighting that young people and future generations will have to shoulder the burden and be most impacted by the consequences of the decisions taken today (OECD, 2021[24]; OECD, 2020[25]). Findings from an analysis conducted in July 2021 indeed point to the risk that the focus on short-term emergency responses may have superseded long-term economic, social and environmental objectives in the elaboration of recovery measures. As of July 2021, 83% of recovery funds had not considered environmental impacts or have negative effects on the environment (OECD, 2021[26]).

 A moving target: young people’s trust in government during the pandemic

In responding to the COVID-19 crisis, governments have taken measures that have drastically altered the everyday lives and behaviour of citizens. Trust in government is a critical factor in people’s understanding of and compliance with extraordinary measures in extraordinary times (OECD, 2021[26]). When citizens trust public institutions, they tend to comply voluntarily with rules to a greater extent (Murphy, 2004[27]). During the COVID-19 pandemic, studies have found a strong correlation between trust and compliance with measures taken to contain the spread of the virus (Bargain and Aminjonov, 2020[28]).

After a general deterioration of trust in government in the aftermath of the 2007-2008 financial crisis in many countries, governments had been slowly regaining the trust of young people (OECD, 2020[25]). However, despite gradual improvements over the past decade, only 46% of people aged 15-29 expressed trust in national government across the OECD prior to the crisis though there is great variation across countries (Gallup, 2019[14]).

 

Figure 3. Trust in national government by age group, 2020

Source: Gallup World Poll, 2020.

Since the onset of the pandemic, citizens’ trust in government and their confidence in government’s ability to handle and recover from the crisis have been volatile. Following the initial increase in trust levels in the early phase of the pandemic, most OECD countries have seen a decline over its course (Brezzi et al., 2021[29]). According to the Gallup World Poll, in 2020, 51% of people in OECD countries trusted their government, a 6 percentage point increase from 2019 (Figure 3) (OECD, 2021[26]). However, in 2021, 48%10 of people in OECD countries trusted their government, a 3 percentage point decrease from 2020 (Gallup, 2021[30]). While tracing trust and its respective drivers is challenging, studies point to similar trends for young people. According to a study by Eurofound, trust in government among people aged 18-34 dropped significantly between April 2020 and March 2021 in all EU countries (Eurofound, 2021[12]).

Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on COVID-19 and Youth reaffirm this downward trend over the past year. Whereas 40% of OECD-based youth organisations considered that their members’ trust in government had increased in response to how the crisis was handled (as opposed to 22% reporting a decrease) in 2020, that share dropped to 16% of survey respondents in 2021. In turn, in 2021, 38% consider that their members’ trust in government had decreased since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 4).

This trend is confirmed by evidence from two-time respondents. Among them, the share of organisations reporting a decrease in trust increased by 21 percentage points between April 2020 and July-August 2021.

 

Figure 4. Youth organisations are more likely to report a decrease than an increase in their members’ trust in government since the outbreak of COVID-19

Share of respondents indicating how their trust in government has evolved since the outbreak of COVID-19

Note: Respondents were asked to indicate changes of trust in government among members of their organisation since the outbreak of COVID-19. Options given included a. Increased significantly, b. Slightly increased, c. Neither increased nor decreased, d. Slightly decreased, and e. Decreased significantly. Data refers to the proportion of all 151 youth organisations from OECD and non-OECD countries that answered the survey. Responses are separated between OECD respondents (N=100) and non-OECD respondents (N=51).

Source: OECD 2021 Survey on COVID-19 and Youth.

Increasing levels of trust in government in times of crisis, combined with the public perception that a nation as a whole is under threat, is known as “rallying around the flag”. It predicts an increase in trust during sudden crises as people unite behind leaders and institutions, and temporarily pay less attention to other policy issues (Brezzi et al., 2021[29]). This effect is confirmed by the survey data discussed above and has been discussed by other studies in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic (Kritzinger et al., 2021[31]). In 18 of 22 OECD countries, average trust in government fell between April/May and June/July 2020, indicating that this effect quickly faded away (OECD, 2021[26]).

Satisfaction with the delivery of public services during the pandemic is overall low

According to the OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, the accessibility, responsiveness and quality of public services are important determinants of citizens’ trust in government (OECD, 2017[32]). Survey results show that, overall and across various sectors, respondents from youth organisations express low levels of satisfaction with the way governments have delivered public services for young people during the COVID-19 crisis.

Youth organisations reported lowest levels of satisfaction with the provision of sports, culture and leisure services during the pandemic. In fact, 63% of OECD respondents expressed dissatisfaction in this area (see Figure 5). A majority of OECD respondents also expressed dissatisfaction with the delivery of public services in the field of education (60%), housing (56%), and employment (56%). Further, 46% of OECD-based respondents express dissatisfaction with the delivery of healthcare services during the pandemic, for instance by pointing to insufficient mental health support and unaffordability in some countries (see Figure 5).

Respondents located in non-member countries point to similar challenges but express higher dissatisfaction with government performance in the area of employment (75%), followed by housing (54%), and sports, culture, leisure and education (53%).

 

Figure 5. Youth organisations in OECD countries express low levels of satisfaction with public services, especially in sports, culture and leisure, education, housing and employment

Note: Respondents were asked to rate, on a scale from 1 to 5, the extent to which the members of their organisation were satisfied with government delivery of public services for young people since the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis, where 1 is very dissatisfied and 5 is very satisfied. Answers 1-2 (Very Dissatisfied - Dissatisfied) and 4-5 (Satisfied - Very Satisfied) are grouped in this graph. Data refers to 78 to 91 (depending on answer option) youth organisations in OECD countries for which data for this question is available.

Source: OECD 2021 Survey on COVID-19 and Youth.

These results also underline the importance of an integrated approach across different sectors and ministerial portfolios to support young people and mitigate the impacts of the crisis. For instance, different studies suggest that the lack of young people’s access to sports, culture and leisure activities is likely to have a negative impact on their mental health (Hagell, 2016[33]; Rodriguez-Bravo, De Juanas and Garcia Castilla, 2020[34]). Identifying the cumulative effects of the lack of young people’s access to certain public services and programmes is important to ensure ministries and agencies across the whole of government co-ordinate their interventions in the context of the recovery from the COVID-19 crisis and beyond.

The analysis of response and recovery plans, presented in the second section of this paper, points to significant gaps and the risk of fragmented support provided to young people. Notably, only a few countries spell out in their plans how young people shall be supported in areas beyond education and employment.

More than half of youth organisations appreciate the way in which governments have communicated on the risks of the pandemic and made use of scientific evidence

Evidence-based decision-making and effective public communication play a key role in retaining and increasing trust in government in times of crisis (OECD, 2020[21]). When asked about their satisfaction with the way governments have reacted to the COVID-19 crisis, more than one in two OECD-based respondents (53%) state that their members are satisfied with the use of scientific evidence by governments when taking decisions to mitigate the pandemic. Moreover, 54% of youth organisations report being satisfied with the performance of governments to communicate about the risk of the pandemic to their citizens (Figure 6).

The results differ for respondents from non-member countries: While 66% state that their members are satisfied with the way their government communicated about the risks of the pandemic, only 37% are satisfied with their use of scientific evidence in decision-making.

Section 2 presents some of the measures OECD countries have put in place to ensure evidence-based decision-making and effective public communication during the crisis, as well as lessons learned that can inform recovery efforts and help governments prepare for future challenges.

 

Figure 6. Youth organisations appreciate the way in which governments have communicated on the risks of the pandemic and made use of scientific evidence but are less satisfied with measures to safeguard integrity, deliver for vulnerable groups and ensure collaboration

Note: Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which the members of their organisation were satisfied with government delivery of public services for young people since the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is very dissatisfied at all and 5 is very satisfied. Answers 1-2 (Very Dissatisfied - Dissatisfied) and 4-5 (Satisfied - Very Satisfied) are grouped in this graph. Data refers to 86 to 92 (depending on answer option) youth organisations in OECD countries for which data for this question is available.

Source: OECD 2021 Survey on COVID-19 and Youth.

Youth organisations feel that they lack a say in government response measures

The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (OECD, 2017[38]) underlines that open government is critical to building citizens’ trust and achieving more inclusive policy outcomes. A recent study finds that European countries that invest in government openness, for instance by providing access to information proactively and engaging citizens in policy making, benefit from a higher level of citizen trust in the public system (Schmidthuber, Ingrams and Hilgers, 2021[39]). The study also suggests that the perception of having meaningful opportunities for political participation can translate into greater levels of trust. Similarly, trust in national parliament is positively associated with turnout in national elections, while people’s feelings of being able to understand and participate in political processes are positively related to their actual participation (Brezzi et al., 2021[29]).

Only 33% of respondents from youth organisations in OECD countries (and 20% of respondents from non-members) are satisfied with how governments have collaborated across institutions and with civil society organisations to mitigate the crisis (Figure 6). This finding resonates with the observation that many governments have operated with lower standards of stakeholder participation during the pandemic, for example when introducing emergency regulations (OECD, 2021[26]).

A majority of respondents also feels that their government has not incorporated the views of young people when taking emergency measures and decisions to mitigate the crisis. Among the respondents from OECD countries, 15% feel their government considered young people’s views when adopting lockdown and confinement measures. 22% feel that young people’s views were taken into account in the purchase of good, services and public works and 26% somewhat or strongly agree that their views were reflected in the design of financial schemes to mitigate the impact on jobs and income loss. Similarly, around one in three OECD-based respondents (35%) considers that governments have incorporated young people’s views when prioritising age cohorts in vaccination campaigns (Figure 7).

 

Figure 7. Youth organisations feel that they lack a say in government responses to the pandemic

Note: Respondents were asked to rate, on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is Strongly Disagree at all and 5 is Strongly Agree, whether the government had incorporated young people's views on a number of measures. The graph presents grouped answers 1-2 (Strongly Disagree - Somewhat Disagree) and 4-5 (Somewhat Agree - Strongly Agree), excluding those who answered, ‘Neither Disagree nor Agree’. Data refers to 85 to 93 (depending on answer option) youth organisations in OECD countries for which data for this question is available. Results are rounded to the nearest decimal.

Source: OECD 2021 Survey on COVID-19 and Youth.

While some infrastructure services have been disrupted in order to stop the spread of the coronavirus (e.g. air transport, railway, urban public transportation), other public services and infrastructure industries have been key to government emergency and recovery responses, most notably health infrastructure, digital infrastructure and telecommunications (OECD, 2020[40]). In this area, more than half of the respondents from OECD (54%) and non-member countries (52%) believe their government has not incorporated the views of young people when taking decisions.

These results show that, across some of the most impactful decisions taken by governments during the pandemic, members of youth organisations feel young people had few opportunities to meaningfully shape them.

 How to bridge the “disconnect”: young people and democracy

Foundations of democracy such as free and open elections, the separation of powers, the rule of law and the protection of human rights have long been recognised as anchors of good governance (OECD, 2021[15]). However, the Global Satisfaction with Democracy Report finds that dissatisfaction with democracy has risen since the mid-1990s, and is reaching an all-time global high, particularly in developed democracies (Foa, 2020[42]).

Dissatisfaction with democracies manifests itself in different ways, including in declining party membership, declining voter turnout, a lack of trust in public institutions as well as the rise of populism and increased polarisation (OECD, 2021[15]).

According to a study undertaken by the University of Cambridge based on data from 160 countries between 1973 and 2020, younger generations have become more dissatisfied with democracy not only in absolute terms, but also relative to how older generations felt at the same stages in life (Foa et al., 2020[13]). The study finds that while a majority of millennials (defined as born between 1981 and 1996) today express “dissatisfaction” with the way democracy works in their countries, a generation ago those at a comparable age were largely satisfied with democratic performance (Foa et al., 2020[13]). In the United States, levels of dissatisfaction with democracy have risen by over a third in just one generation (Foa, 2020[42]).

The underlying reasons behind the risk of a “disconnect” between an increasing share of young people and democracy are shaped by various factors, notably the national context, perceptions of how governments are serving younger citizens and their capacity to respond to national and global challenges, (OECD, 2021[15]) as well as a growing intergenerational divide in life opportunities (Foa et al., 2020[13]). Higher levels of youth unemployment and wealth inequality have left younger citizens facing increasing difficulty in starting an independent life, fuelling “dissatisfaction” with the way democracy delivers for them.

Moreover, young people remain underrepresented in public institutions, tend to participate less in elections than older peers and their share among the voting population is shrinking as a result of ageing, contributing to further shifting political weight and influence to older age groups (OECD, 2021[15]); (OECD, 2021[8]). Young people’s perceptions of democratic governments to handle the climate crisis might cast doubts on the overall ability of democracies to handle long-term, complex and interconnected challenges and invest in long-term priorities over short-term considerations (OECD, 2021[24]).

 

Figure 8. Youth organisations are more likely to report a decrease rather than an increase, in their members’ satisfaction with democracy since the outbreak of COVID-19

Note: Respondents were asked to indicate changes of satisfaction with democracy among members of their organisation since the outbreak of COVID-19. Options given included a. Increased significantly, b. Slightly increased, c. Neither increased nor decreased, d. Slightly decreased and e. Decreased significantly. Data refers to the proportion of all 151 youth organisations from OECD and non-OECD countries that answered the survey. Responses are separated between OECD respondents (N=100) and non-OECD respondents (N=51).

Source: OECD 2021 Survey on COVID-19 and Youth.

The COVID-19 pandemic risks further exacerbating these challenges. Around one in three respondents from OECD countries (31%) states that their members’ satisfaction with democracy has decreased since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, while only 15% report an increase (Figure 8). A survey by Eurofound11 points to a similar trend. Satisfaction with democracy among people aged 18-34 decreased between July 2020 and March 2021 in all EU countries (Eurofound, 2021[12]).

A recent study finds that individuals who experience epidemics during their transition to adulthood display less confidence in political leaders, governments, and elections, which persists over their lifetime. Long-lasting scars of the crisis are therefore not only a concern when the employment and income prospects of young people are considered but also in terms of their association with democratic processes and institutions over the life cycle (Aksoy, Eichengreen, Saka, 2020[11]).

When asked about why the satisfaction of their members with democracy had increased, OECD-based respondents point to the importance of government’s responsiveness, inclusive decision-making and fair treatment of all citizens as well as the significance of accountability, public integrity, transparency and clear communication. Some respondents mentioned that satisfaction with democracy increased as their members observed an increase in social cohesion and recognised that governments had made efforts to protect human and civil rights. In turn, respondents reporting a decline in satisfaction with democracy during the crisis pointed to its impact on civil and human rights. Some respondents also stressed that the crisis had demonstrated government’s inability to address challenges and deliver for citizens, contributing to a more pessimistic outlook and raising doubts about the coherence of government measures. Some respondents also raised concerns over the increase in intergenerational inequalities, lack of support for vulnerable groups and increasing political and social polarisation as well as the lack of transparency and integrity, reliable information, the spread of fake news and accountability.

 Strategic responses and employing resources for a fair, inclusive and resilient recovery

Section 2 presents the result of a benchmarking exercise, which analyses 34 publicly available national response and recovery plans across OECD countries.12 Sectoral and subnational responses are not considered in this analysis. By the end of 2021, at least 34 OECD countries had put forward government-wide response and recovery plans to address the complex economic, environmental and social effects of the pandemic (Table 1). Within the European Union, for instance, the Next Generation EU stimulus package and the EU long-term budget have allocated EUR 2.018 trillion to boost national recovery efforts and help rebuild a greener, more digital and more resilient Europe (EC, 2021[43]). The Response and Resilience Facility (RRF), a key instrument of the stimulus package, is structured around six pillars, including Pillar 6 on policies for the next generation, children and youth.13 To date, 21 OECD countries within the EU have published government-wide strategies guided by these six core pillars.

Other OECD countries, including Iceland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Korea and Japan have elaborated national integrated strategies to recover from the COVID-19 crisis. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway have opted instead for adapting their annual budgets to deliver strategic recovery responses. While each measure responds to the unique challenges faced by countries in their respective national context, a comparative analysis shows that environmental, digital and economic themes are common priorities identified by all countries.

 

Figure 9. A majority of OECD countries have included specific measures targeting young people in their national response and recovery plans, 2021

Note: The graph shows 32 OECD countries that had published whole-of-government national response and recovery plans by November 2021. Chile, Israel, Mexico, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United States are excluded as no comparable documents were publicly available at this time.

Source: OECD calculations based on information available on the websites of government entities responsible for planning national response and recovery measures.

Table 1 presents the results of an assessment of commitments targeting young people (hereafter “youth commitments”) in national response and recovery plans across OECD countries against principles of good governance, notably whether they are evidence-based, participatory, budgeted and cross-sectoral, in line with the methodology of the OECD Assessment Framework of National Youth Strategies (OECD, 2020[25]).14 The analysis finds that 29 countries include commitments for young people in their plans (Figure 9). Further, 27 out of 32 comparable plans incorporate evidence of the pandemic effects on young people on at least one of the following policy areas: employment, education, healthcare, mental health, involvement in sports, arts and leisure activities, and engagement in volunteering activities. 26 plans include youth-specific commitments that cover policy areas beyond education and employment sectors to address cross-sectoral impacts in areas such as housing, mental health, and the criminal justice system. In turn, only ten countries explicitly mention having consulted young people in the elaboration of recovery plans. A specific budget to implement youth-specific commitments is allocated in 27 recovery plans.

 Integrated approaches to support young people during and beyond the pandemic

While governments have largely concentrated their efforts on younger populations to address employment, skilling and education impacts (OECD, 2021[41]), the majority of response and recovery plans also outline support measures for young people across other policy areas including physical and mental healthcare, digitalisation, social services, public infrastructure investments and sports, culture and leisure. In line with previous OECD findings (OECD, 2020[25]), countries use different definitions to identify “youth” as a target population, which in turn may explain variances in the type of measures governments have put in place. Notwithstanding these differences, the diverse nature of challenges experienced by young people through the pandemic (See Section 1) call for government measures that engage multiple sectors and stakeholders in an integrated and coordinated approach.

In their national response and recovery plans, countries have both expanded initial emergency investments and launched new measures to support young people in areas of employment, skilling and education, among other policy areas. For example, France extended the duration of a number of financial support schemes included in the 1 Youth, 1 Solution (1 Jeune, 1 Solution) Plan from December 2021 to June 2022. Within this Plan is included a financial aid for businesses providing apprenticeships and internships (Government of France, 2021[44]). Moreover, Austria, Belgium, Colombia, Czech Republic, Germany and the United States have launched education programmes to re-engage young people who have dropped out of school and to address academic achievement lags among pupils from vulnerable backgrounds. For instance, the programme “COVID-19 Catching Up Action Programme for children and adolescents for the years 2021 and 2022" in Germany supports young people from disadvantaged backgrounds through volunteering activities, cultural engagements and psychological support (BMFSFJ, 2021[45]). Evidence suggests that strengthening the collaboration between different government agencies, external actors, services and the education sector is key to addressing learning gaps and improving educational outcomes for students (OECD, 2021[46]).

Employment and skilling programmes in Estonia, France, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Turkey and the United Kingdom, among others, have focused on lowering entry barriers to young people into the labour market, ensuring young workers are retained once employed. These plans have also increased funding for lifelong learning opportunities and digital literacy programmes to equip young people for “the future of work”.

To address growing concerns over the mental health impacts of the pandemic, Australia, Canada, Finland, Slovak Republic and Portugal, have invested in strengthening data collection capacities of relevant government sectors in this area. The United Kingdom, for instance, announced a further GBP 79 million would be allocated to measures dedicated to children and young people’s mental health (OECD, 2021[41]). Moreover, most OECD countries are launching digitalisation reforms in areas of education, employment and access to other government services to modernise services and increase accessibility for young people. Similarly, nearly all countries include programmes to enhance their population’s digital skills through national education systems or targeted education initiatives.

Recognising that young women have faced increased risks of experiencing domestic and gender-based violence during the pandemic, Australia and Canada have created new strategies to address these risks taking into consideration the effects of lockdowns and other pandemic-related impacts (See Box 2 for Canada).

Adopting an integrated approach will be crucial to effectively addressing the implications of the crisis on young people’s lives (OECD, 2020[25]). Finland and Canada, for instance, have adjusted existing governance mechanisms to co-ordinate the delivery of public services for young people more coherently across different sectors and ministerial portfolios (See Box 1 for Finland).

 Addressing the needs of young people in vulnerable circumstances

The pandemic laid bare longstanding structural inequalities that existed before its outbreak. It is well documented that vulnerable groups have been hit particularly hard by the social and economic implications of COVID-19 (OECD, 2020[18]). These effects have been greater for young women and young people in vulnerable circumstances, including those belonging to minority groups; adolescents and children facing increased risks of domestic violence; migrant youth; young people with disabilities; youth from lower socio-economic backgrounds; NEET among others (see Section 1).

Findings show that at least 24 OECD countries have made concerted efforts in their response and recovery plans to understand and respond to the challenges of young women and young people living in vulnerable circumstances. For instance, Austria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, New Zealand and Portugal have committed to making strategic investments in education and employment sectors to bridge the divide between rural and urban young people’s access to opportunities. Costa Rica is planning to launch targeted labour market inclusion programmes to engage youth and women in rural areas most affected by COVID-19 (MIDEPLAN, 2021[49]). Canada has engaged young women to develop a National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, and provided funding to youth-led funds and foundations to build social cohesion among racial minority communities (Government of Canada, 2021[50]). France, Belgium and Estonia, among other countries, have sought to absorb NEETs into the labour market through new programmes and trainings to build skills and encourage employers to recruit young people (Government of France, 2021[44]; Government of Belgium, 2021[51]).To address the needs of NEETs in Estonia, the government’s national recovery plan allocates budget to local governments for the design and implementation of employment and skilling programmes tailored to local needs (Government of Estonia, 2021[52]). Increasing access to digital tools, launching education and employment programmes and tailoring solutions to the needs of disabled young people are also prominently featured solutions in over 20 OECD country plans. The French recovery plan, for example, commits to support employers that have recruited people of all ages with disabilities between September 2020 and December 2021 with a grant of up to EUR 4,000 to integrate them into their organisation (Government of France, 2021[44]).

Evidence from the OECD survey shows that, notwithstanding these measures, youth organisations are worried that they may not be sufficient. Across OECD countries, only 39% of respondents are satisfied with the extent to which their government has provided support to vulnerable groups during the pandemic. In non-member countries, only around a quarter of respondents (26%) express satisfaction (see Section 1). To tackle growing inequalities driven by the pandemic and generate buy-in among hard-to-reach communities, governments should consider investing in targeted measures, regularly monitoring and evaluating their impact and engaging young people from vulnerable and marginalised backgrounds in the planning and delivery of recovery measures.

 Taking into account all generations, present and future

Concerns over whether response and recovery measures have been fair for all age cohorts, as well as over the long term fiscal sustainability of current government expenditure and the burden future generations may have to carry, have permeated media debates and policymaking across OECD countries. From vaccination campaigns to prioritising the opening of schools and workplaces, youth organisations surveyed often expressed concerns over whether their needs have been taken into account (see Section 1). Similarly, while examples exist of youth organisations and senior communities making joint efforts to address the crisis, the pandemic has contributed to widening generational divides, both by decreasing opportunities for physical interaction and increasing socioeconomic gaps (Ward, Flesicher and Towers, 2021[57]).

On the road to recovery, countries have sought to address these concerns. At the level of the European Union, the Next Generation EU Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), guided by Article 3 of the RRF Regulation, calls on countries to design “policies for the next generation, children and youth” as one of its pillars (EC, 2021[43]). To ensure considerations about the well-being of young people and future generations are integrated into all areas of policymaking, OECD evidence points to innovative efforts undertaken by some countries to create independent institutions and use new public governance tools acknowledging that investments made now will have profound future implications (OECD, 2020[25]).

The “Fit for the Future Programme for Government”, adopted by the Future Generations Commissioner of Wales, is an example from the United Kingdom of how long-term thinking can be integrated across the public administration (OECD, 2020[3]). In this programme, the Commissioner proposes recovery investments that consider long-term implications and give voice to future generations. Examples of these proposals include prioritising investments that lead to the decarbonisation of homes and creation of green jobs, launching skills programmes to engage those furthest away from the labour market, applying well-being economics in all policy decisions to align spending with national well-being goals, and create a National Nature Service to restore Wales’ natural environment.

To date, 20 OECD countries discuss the intergenerational impact of their recovery plans in some way. For instance, in its planning, Germany includes an assessment of how labour market participation will be impacted by demographic changes. Among others, the recovery plan discusses job losses among young people and youth underemployment; the feasibility of sustaining current expenditure levels on social service provision including pensions and support for young people; and the impact this may have on future senior communities. Austria’s recovery plan considers public debt and environmental burdens on future generations, changes in social mobility across age groups, and healthcare priorities (Government of Austria, 2021[58]). Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Portugal and Slovenia anticipate the needs of future generations in infrastructure investments, including building cycle ways or social housing.

The planning and implementation of response and recovery plans affords countries an opportunity to adopt an intergenerational lens to anticipate the distributional effects of fiscal decision-making (OECD, 2020[25]). Canada, Belgium, Germany, Slovenia and New Zealand already use measurement frameworks, albeit to varying extents. Canada’s Gender Results Framework, for instance, assesses how commitments across its Budget will be relevant and have an impact on different demographic groups, including across genders and ages (Government of Canada, 2021[50]). New Zealand’s Budget includes reforms to achieve intergenerational well-being, focused on healthcare outcomes, which are informed by its Living Standards Framework (New Zealand Treasury, 2021[59]). The Slovenian Demographic Fund, in turn, aims to ensure fair and balanced fiscal planning on the basis of intergenerational solidarity, including the voices of younger and older citizens (Government of Slovenia, 2021[60])

Besides anticipating and assessing age-specific impacts in rule making and public budgeting, age diversity in public life and decision-making is critical to ensure the concerns of different age groups are reflected in decision-making. For instance, Portugal and Italy launched programmes to employ and retain younger staff in their public administration (See Box 8). Lithuania and Latvia, in turn, engage senior communities and young people in programmes to build social cohesion and increase digital literacy skills (see Box 3).

 Gathering age-disaggregated evidence to inform decision-making

Collecting age-disaggregated data on the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis is crucial to ensure recovery measures are inclusive and take into account the well-being of different age groups (OECD, 2020[25]). This is important not only to address current population needs, but also to identify future risks, and increase governments’ capacity to anticipate and respond to changing needs over time.

To date, at least 29 OECD countries have gathered disaggregated evidence on the impact of the crisis on young people and tracked inequalities across age cohorts as part of their recovery plans. This practice is most established in employment and education policies where young people are direct targets of government action. To reflect the cross-sectoral impact of the pandemic on young people, Belgium, Canada, Colombia and France have taken into account a more comprehensive set of indicators to measure young people’s well-being, including mental health impacts, access to housing, and likelihood to be exposed to domestic violence (Government of Belgium, 2021[51]; Government of Canada, 2021[50]; Government of France, 2021[44]; CONPES, 2021[63]).

Regulatory impact assessments provide a systematic approach to incorporate evidence-based analyses of the expected effects of new laws and regulations. Such evidence can help determine whether a certain challenge can be addressed most effectively and efficiently by new legislation or non-regulatory alternatives of intervention, such as awareness raising programmes. “Youth checks” are an example of ex-ante regulatory impact assessments that countries can apply to incorporate the considerations of young people more systematically in policy-making and legislation (Bethke and Wolff, 2020[64]; OECD, 2020[25]). For example, Germany uses “youth checks” to examine the effects of bills on young people to identify intended and unintended effects of proposed legislations (Germany, 2021[65]). In Flanders, Belgium, based on the initiative of the Flemish Government, a child and youth impact report must accompany all legislative proposals with a direct impact on the interests of persons under the age of 25 (Desmet, 2021[66]).

The recovery plans of countries with a “youth check” in place (i.e. Austria, France, Germany, Flanders/Belgium, and New Zealand) do not provide any information whether this tool was or will be applied. The design and monitoring of Canada’s 2021 Budget measures, however, is informed by the country’s Gender Results Framework (GRF) and Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) to assess systemic inequalities and policy impacts on different population groups depending on their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age and mental or physical disability. The information gathered through this analysis informed the design and monitoring of Canada’s 2021 Budget and recovery measures (Government of Canada, 2021[50]). Costa Rica has monitored young people’s education and employment performance across its regions to address the effects of COVID-19 in rural areas (MIDEPLAN, 2021[49]). New Zealand’s Child and Youth Wellbeing Framework provided a lens to identify reforms across different government sectors to anticipate the needs of current and future generations (New Zealand Treasury, 2021[59]).

 Engaging young people in the design and implementation of response and recovery measures

Consulting young people and engaging them in the design of response and recovery measures can have positive effects on their personal development, build social cohesion and ensure that policies are well informed and responsive (OECD, 2017[38]). Moreover, when governments communicate proactively and engage citizens in the policy cycle they can generate citizen buy-in and engagement, including among young people (OECD, 2017[38]). In 2020, numerous countries launched digital engagement opportunities, including online consultations, to involve young people in the design of response measures to the crisis (OECD, 2020[3]). A majority of OECD countries (25) already have national youth councils, which help governments to gather information, ensure wide consultations and run joint activities and programmes. In addition, 17 OECD countries have national youth advisory councils affiliated to the government or specific ministries, such as in Denmark where the Ministry of Environment and Food has established a Youth Climate Council (OECD, 2020[25]). However, available information in the response and recovery plans suggests that only Estonia has engaged its National Youth Council in the planning and implementation of response and recovery measures (Government of Estonia, 2021[52]). While not explicitly mentioned in their plans, other countries – Canada, for instance – have also consulted young people in the planning of national response and recovery plans (Government of Canada, 2021[68]).

Some governments have made efforts to digitally engage constituents through innovative emergency responses in the early stages of the crisis. Examples of this include hackathons conducted in Germany, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and Switzerland (OECD, 2020[3]). Despite these efforts, pandemic containment measures diminished civic space across the OECD. While most OECD countries gradually relaxed containment measures in 2021, the prospect of ongoing lockdowns and similar measures could continue to have an effect on the ways in which citizens will exercise their civic rights.

Findings from the assessment of national response and recovery plans and budgets show that less than a third of all OECD countries (10) explicitly mention having consulted young people or youth organisations in their elaboration (Table 1). In turn, findings from the OECD survey presented in Section 1 indicate that a majority of youth organisations disagrees that the views of young people have been taken into account regarding decisions on lockdown and confinement measures, prioritising age cohorts in vaccination campaigns and other response and recovery measures. At the same time, 72% of respondents from OECD countries expressed worries about the impact of the crisis on youth rights (see Section 1). Box 5 presents examples of governments engaging young people in planning national recovery responses in Australia, Austria, Lithuania, Mexico and the Slovak Republic.

 Allocating resources in a fair and sustainable way for all generations

Since the onset of the pandemic, governments across the OECD have adopted fiscal policy measures to support businesses, households and the health sector, with a number of these measures directly targeting young people. Twenty-seven OECD countries with a national recovery plan or strategic budget provide information about the budget envelop to implement measures that target young people specifically. At least 20 OECD countries commit to increase income support for young people, including student allowances, job seeker support and welfare payments through expanding their eligibility criteria and increasing monetary support. Similar trends can be observed in the provision of hiring subsidies, delivery of skill training programmes and mental health service provision for young people (OECD, 2021[41]). To ensure sustainability in fiscal expenditures and a fair allocation of resources across different social groups, Sweden utilises BUDGe for Gender Equality, a gender budgeting tool, to determine public spending across various government sectors including social service provision and public education of young women (Government of Sweden, 2021[55]). According to analysis informed by this tool, housing policies proposed as part of the recovery plan will benefit young women more than other groups (Swedish Ministry of Finance, 2021[71]).

With the design of national response and recovery plans and budgets, intergenerational considerations are being gradually introduced into fiscal planning and budgeting. The Next Generation EU Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) funding mechanism, for example, directs countries to adopt a long-term view in public financial management, to address environmental challenges and take into account the well-being of young people and future generations. To receive funding from the RRF, recovery plans must allocate at least 37% of their budget to measures to protect the climate and biodiversity. Plans must also be consistent with country-specific recommendations, embedded in each country’s response and recovery plan, which often include commitments for young people and future generations guided by the EU Youth Guarantee (EC, 2021[72]).

The OECD Recommendation on Principles for Independent Fiscal Institutions guides countries in incorporating intergenerational considerations in policy planning processes through engaging independent financial institutions (IFIs) to analyse the fiscal sustainability of policy through an age-differentiated lens (OECD, 2014[73]).

 Keeping track of the implementation of youth-specific commitments

In light of the significant resources governments are mobilising in the context of their national response and recovery efforts, public scrutiny is particularly important. Effective monitoring and evaluation systems can increase accountability and transparency, as they provide information for citizens, media and independent institutions to act as watchdogs of government action. To keep track of the implementation of measures targeting young people, the collection, use and sharing of evidence should be disaggregated by age and other intersecting identity factors to track and address inequalities and inform decision-making (OECD, 2020[74]). Such efforts should go hand in hand with establishing clear arrangements for data collection and sharing, collaborative approaches with national statistics offices and line ministries as well as research institutions, where feasible, and inform new policies, programmes and related measures.

To date, only 10 response and recovery plans and budgets link output indicators with measures targeting young people, most frequently in the area of education. Costa Rica, for instance, presents information about the number of new schools to be created per region, the number of students that will be targeted and investments allocated per student (MIDEPLAN, 2021[49]). Italy includes information on training and hiring of teachers, and commits to put in place a mechanism to address and monitor territorial gaps in educational outcomes (Government of Italy, 2021[67]). Korea’s plan includes output indicators aimed at ensuring schools become more environmentally sustainable and better equipped to teach digital skills to young people (MOEF, 2020[75]). The plans of Canada, France and Slovenia include target indicators and expected impacts across each of their youth commitments and identify which government agencies and stakeholders are responsible for implementation (Government of Canada, 2021[50]; Government of France, 2021[44]; Government of Slovenia, 2021[60]). The national recovery plan of Germany also outlines a timeline for completion, targets and qualitative indicators across all its commitments, including those for young people (Ministry of Finance in Germany, 2021[76]).

 Partnering with young people to deliver a fair, inclusive and resilient recovery

Over the last two decades, governments have increasingly collaborated with civil society organisations and citizens in the delivery of public services with the objective of being more effective in responding to the needs of their constituents and addressing multidimensional challenges (OECD, 2011[77]). Findings show that engaging civil society in the delivery of services can lead to better outcomes in terms of reducing costs of production, increasing satisfaction with services and building social and government abilities to overcome complex societal problems (OECD, 2016[78]). Co-production, or the act of involving citizens in the planning and delivery of government projects and services, can also help identify service failures, especially when targeting minority groups and hard-to-reach communities. Examples of co-production include youth-led programmes to engage school dropouts back into education and community programmes to reduce criminal recidivism among young people (Singh and White, 2000[79]; OECD, 2011[77]).

While nearly all youth organisations surveyed by the OECD in July-August 2021 engaged in addressing the effects of the pandemic, by the end of 2021, only eight OECD countries state in their national response and recovery plans how young people shall be engaged in the implementation of commitments relevant to them. Most frequently, plans envisage involving young people and their organisations in running digitalisation campaigns, providing mental health support, and delivering education and employment programmes. Denmark, for instance, has committed to allocate funding to increase the capacity of the Youth Climate Council under its climate policy commitments (Ministry of Finance in Denmark, 2021[80]). Canada increased funding for young people and community organisations to deliver community activities autonomously rather than as part of a government service, in an effort to build resilience and cohesion (Government of Canada, 2021[50]).

Another way to continue engaging young people in pandemic recovery efforts is through strengthening national civil service and youth volunteering programmes. Findings from the early stages of the pandemic indicate that young volunteers were pivotal in ensuring the continuity of day-to-day activities, especially for vulnerable groups (OECD, 2020[3]).

The OECD report “Governance for Youth, Trust and Intergenerational Justice: Fit for All Generations?” (OECD, 2020[25]) shows that 68% of OECD countries already have youth volunteering programmes. Robust volunteering programmes not only increase youth resilience and their civic involvement (OECD, 2020[25]), but also contribute to strengthening community resilience. Findings from a study on community resilience in the aftermath of the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, show that communities with high volunteering activity were more cohesive and recovered more quickly than their less engaged counterparts (Vannier et al., 2021[82]). Available data suggests, however, that only Italy and France include explicit provisions to support youth volunteering as part of their national recovery plans (Government of Italy, 2021[67]; SNU, 2021[83]). Both countries allocate funding to increasing the number of financial resources available to young volunteers to keep them mobilised in their communities (Box 7) (OECD, 2020[3]). Further, the Italian Minister of Youth and the French Secretary of State for Youth recently signed an agreement of bilateral co-operation to increase the mobility of volunteers that take part in the civil services across the two countries (French Ministry of Education, 2022[84]).

 Lessons for the long-term: Institutional innovations and governance tools to address the challenges of young people and future generations

Government capacity to respond to future crises, as well as the increasingly complex social, economic and environmental challenges on the road to recovery, will require a review of existing governance structures and tools. Public administration reforms over the last 20 years have sought to optimise government service delivery through increasing the interconnectedness of government agencies and becoming more responsive to the diverse needs of their populations (Ingrams, Piotrowski and Berliner, 2020[85]). By acting as a stress test for governments, the pandemic has accelerated innovation in public governance in areas such as online service delivery, state-local relationships and cross-border co-operation. On the road to recovery, governments will need to continue to adapt their governance frameworks in order to respond to the changing context of the current and future crises.

Some countries have already started to integrate longer-term considerations into policy and budget cycles, increase funding to gather data on the diverse needs of populations and establish measures to ensure cross-sectoral and more integrated approaches, backed up by new or reinforced institutional and financial capacities (see Box 8). New Zealand, for example, established a new Government Implementation Unit within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to monitor the delivery of programmes and projects under its Living Standards Framework, covering areas across all government sectors including commitments for young people and future generations in education, healthcare and employment (DPMC, 2021[86]). Other countries including Portugal and Italy have sought to bring in new skills and innovation through employment programmes that engage and retain younger talent, seeking to rejuvenate the public sector workforce and facilitate the transmission of knowledge between older and younger civil servants.

Despite significant efforts by some countries to generate innovative ways to incorporate young people’s perspectives and longer-term considerations into the recovery, more systematic changes and innovation in public administration are needed to address current and future societal and economic challenges. For example, public administrations can employ governance tools, put in place institutional set-ups as well as technical and administrative means to increase their capacity to embed an intergenerational perspective into rule-making, public budgeting, public procurement, infrastructure decision-making and delivery. As outlined in Section 1, youth organisations’ growing concerns over the mental health and overall well-being of young people points to the need for more holistic, cross-sectoral approaches that addresses young people’s needs in an integrated way. Gaps also exist in the measures and tools available to governments to formulate evidence-based policies and perform systematic evaluations that consider the diverse needs of their (young) populations. Given that the pandemic had disproportionate effects on some vulnerable groups over others, governments can take this opportunity to innovate mechanisms to better measure and tackle inequalities based on age and other intersecting identity factors such as gender and socio-economic background.

Finally, the pandemic has represented a turning point for the ways in which public administrations anticipate and prepare for future risks. As governments look to address complex challenges and future crises, including climate change, new pandemics, population ageing and the rise of digitalisation, integrating systematic considerations of the well-being of future generations will be key to implement future-proof policymaking and service delivery.