Analysis on the Local Government-led Youth Employment Program

Published on August 9, 2022
Published by Social Administrative Program Evaluation Division

   Recently, the population of the metropolitan areas of Korea has surpassed that of the non-metropolitan areas for the first time, and the continued exodus of the population from non-metropolitan areas might exacerbate regional imbalances, diminish the vitality of local communities, and possibly cause the extinction of non-metropolitan areas. In addition, according to population estimates of Statistics Korea, the exodus trend of the non-metropolitan populations is expected to continue. In addition, Korea's youth employment rate is lower than that of other OECD countries, and in particular, the employment rate in rural areas in Korea is lower compared to that in the metropolitan areas and large cities.
   Although the central government and local governments have been enforcing various policies related to youth employment, in rural areas, a vicious cycle is created in that young people and jobs are leaving the region together, as there are few young people to work, and few jobs that young people want in the region. To address these issues, in March 2018, the government established the “Plans to Resolve Youth Employment Issues” jointly with related ministries. In this report, regarding local government-led youth employment programs executed as part of the central government’s youth employment plans, main issues and proposals for improvement of the fixed-term program implemented from 2018 and 2021, as well as the implications ofcontinuing this program in 2022 were reviewed.
   First, considering the objectives of the programs, KPIs should involve evaluating the program’s performance and results in line with their intended goals. Since the discretionary support that each local government provides for youths to settle in local areas is important, mandatory features of each program, contents and performance of local governments’ discretionary support need to be assessed. In addition, it is necessary to review whether it is appropriate to proceed as a continued program in terms ofeffectiveness and sustainability, and to consider interconnecting with other programs or reorganizing its program mechanisms. A reclassification of program types needs to be examined in consideration of program purpose.
   Second, in order to improve the efficiency of the program’s mechanisms, the governance system between each local government and contracted organizations needs to be streamlined and information accessibility should be improved for all participants by unifying program promotion and management windows.
   Lastly, to manage project effectiveness, the effect of young people’s settlement in the relevant areas should be analyzed and managed; and the inspection checklist used to assess program sites needs to be more specific, with an established feedback process regarding inspection results. Furthermore, efforts should be made to analyze the causes that contribute to youth dropouts, conduct follow-up management of dropouts, andimprove job quality.