Second review of the implementation
Recommendation CM/Rec(2015)3 on the access of young people from disadvantaged neighbourhoods to social rights - Enter! Recommendation
Focusing on housing, mental health and youth participation, it identifies progress, persistent challenges and promising practices — and sets out priorities for strengthening implementation in the years ahead.
How far have young people from disadvantaged neighbourhoods been able to access their social rights since the first review in 2019?
The second review of the Enter! Recommendation assesses progress in its implementation between 2019 and 2025, with a particular focus on housing, mental health and youth participation.
The review looks at what has changed, what remains challenging and what can be learned from promising practices across Europe. It also examines the conditions needed to turn the principles of the Enter! Recommendation into sustained action at national, regional and local levels.
The review draws on desk research, surveys of public authorities and civil society organisations, expert consultations and focus groups with young people and other stakeholders and it was conducted in 2025 and published in 2026.
About the Enter! Recommendation
The Enter! Recommendation (Recommendation CM/Rec(2015)3 on the access of young people from disadvantaged neighbourhoods to social rights) was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 2015.
It recognises that young people living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods can face multiple and interconnected barriers to accessing their social rights and participating fully in society.
The Recommendation calls on member States to develop sustainable, evidence-based policies that take into account the specific situations and needs of young people from disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
It covers a broad range of social rights, including:
- education and training;
- employment;
- health, including mental health;
- housing;
- information and counselling;
- sports, leisure and culture.
It also places particular emphasis on meaningful youth participation and on the role of local and regional authorities and civil society organisations in making social rights accessible in practice.
Why a second review?
The first review of the Enter! Recommendation, covering the period 2015–2019, identified housing, mental health and youth participation as priority areas for further implementation.
It also highlighted the need for national action plans, stronger monitoring and indicators, and greater awareness of the Recommendation.
The second review asks:
- What progress has been made since the first review?
- Where do implementation gaps remain?
- What approaches are showing promise?
- What needs to happen next to ensure that the social rights of young people from disadvantaged neighbourhoods are realised in practice?
The review covers the period 2019–2025, including the major changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis and growing pressures on housing and public services.
How was the review carried out?
The second review used a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative evidence.
It included:
- 31 public authorities from 19 Council of Europe member States
- 111 civil society organisations operating across 45 member States
The research also included:
- desk research on policies and practices;
- consultations with experts;
- focus groups held during the Human Rights Education Forum in Budapest in December 2025;
- analysis of promising practices and stakeholder experiences.
The combination of these sources provides a broad picture of how the Enter! Recommendation is understood and implemented at different levels.
Key findings
The review shows uneven but tangible progress. The three priority areas have evolved in different ways since the first review.
Housing
Housing is the most severe and structurally entrenched implementation gap.
The housing crisis has intensified since 2019.
The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation and the cost-of-living crisis have made independent housing increasingly difficult to access for many young people.
Young people experiencing homelessness, leaving care or facing multiple disadvantages are particularly vulnerable.
The review points to persistent shortages of affordable housing, insufficient funding and limited recognition of the specific housing needs of young people from disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Visibility and awareness
Coordination
Young people's needs do not fit neatly within administrative sectors. Housing, health, youth policy and social services are often managed separately, while young people experiencing disadvantage may need support across several of these areas at the same time. The review therefore identifies stronger cooperation between sectors and levels of governance as a key condition for effective implementation.
Resources and capacity
Funding is consistently identified as one of the main barriers. Short-term and project-based funding can make it difficult for civil society organisations and youth services to build the sustained relationships needed to reach young people facing multiple disadvantages. Longer-term funding, sufficient staffing and investment in youth work are essential to translate policy commitments into lasting practice.
Monitoring, data and evidence
The review finds that systematic monitoring remains weak. In particular, data is often not sufficiently disaggregated to show the specific barriers experienced by young people from disadvantaged neighbourhoods or by groups facing additional forms of exclusion. Better data and indicators are needed to identify gaps, measure progress and understand which approaches work.
Mental health
Mental health has gained visibility, but services have not always kept pace with need.
The pandemic and youth-led advocacy have contributed to increased recognition of young people's mental health needs.
Civil society organisations are playing an important role in prevention, awareness-raising, peer support and training for youth workers. At the same time, access to professional services remains uneven, with waiting lists, stigma and geographical gaps continuing to affect young people. The review highlights the need for stronger links between youth work, civil society and health services so that young people can access appropriate support earlier and closer to where they live.
Read more about findings
related to mental health on pages 27-33.
Long-term commitment
Sustained funding and relationships are more effective than short-term projects.
Coordination
Clear links between youth services, housing, health, social services and local authorities help young people navigate systems that would otherwise remain fragmented.
Meaningful participation
Young people should be involved as partners and co-designers, rather than simply consulted after decisions have already been made.
Political and institutional support
Successful initiatives are more likely to become sustainable when decision-makers provide clear mandates, resources and accountability.
The evidence suggests that the challenge is not a lack of ideas or promising solutions. The challenge is bringing these approaches from isolated initiatives to systematic implementation across Europe.
Youth participation
Participation mechanisms have expanded, but meaningful influence remains a challenge.
Youth councils, youth-led funding and training opportunities have become more widespread since the first review. However, the review identifies a persistent gap between being consulted and having genuine influence over decisions.
Trust between young people and institutions is one of the most consistently reported barriers. Tokenistic participation can lead young people to disengage, particularly when they do not see their contribution reflected in decisions. Meaningful participation requires more than creating structures: it requires real opportunities to influence decisions and, where appropriate, share decision-making power.
Read more about findings related
to youth participation on pages 34-40.
At national level
- develop targeted action plans for implementing the Enter! Recommendation;
- establish measurable objectives, indicators and timelines;
- strengthen coordination between youth, housing, health and social services;
- move towards longer-term funding for civil society organisations and youth work;
- integrate housing, mental health and participation into youth policy frameworks;
- improve monitoring of outcomes for young people facing disadvantage.
At local and regional level
- strengthen cooperation between youth services, housing, health and social welfare;
- develop participation mechanisms that give young people genuine influence;
- invest in participatory budgeting and other forms of power-sharing;
- improve data on young people's access to social rights;
- strengthen youth work and outreach in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
Youth organisations & civil society
- use the Enter! Recommendation as a framework for advocacy and policy dialogue;
- document and share promising practices;
- strengthen outreach to young people who are not reached by mainstream youth services;
- challenge tokenistic participation;
- advocate for meaningful youth involvement in decision-making.
For the Council of Europe
- The review recommends strengthening opportunities for peer learning and mutual support, particularly among local and regional authorities.
- It also points to the value of accessible tools, self-assessment resources and training for practitioners and local administrators, as well as stronger links between the Enter! Recommendation and existing Council of Europe monitoring and support mechanisms.
What works?
Despite the challenges, the review identifies promising practices from across Europe.
These include approaches that:
- connect young people with housing services before homelessness occurs;
- combine financial assistance with mentoring and skills development;
- make information about rights and services easier to access;
- bring mental health support into youth-friendly and community-based settings;
- strengthen the capacity of youth workers to respond to mental health needs;
- create formal structures for youth participation;
- give young people control over resources through participatory budgeting;
- involve young people experiencing the greatest exclusion in designing policies and services.
Examples documented in the review include the Youth–CSO–Municipal Housing Pathway in Portugal, the Boussole des Jeunes digital platform in France, Portugal's Cuida-te programme, participatory budgeting initiatives in Slovakia and approaches involving homeless young people as co-designers in Belgium.