On January 1, 2020, INSEE counted 73.6 million young people aged 18 to 29 in Europe. This usual categorization of youth within the 15-29 age group does not meet with consensus in the literature. Indeed, defining what is meant by the term "youth" is not easy (Dubet, 1996). Since 2008, the economic crisis has had a real impact on young people, worsening their conditions of access to employment and particularly for the least qualified among them (Batard et al., 2012; Galland, 2012; Di Paola et al., 2018). Thus, despite a slight decrease, youth unemployment remains a concern. Yet, taking an interest in youth unemployment, and more broadly in their standard of living appears to be a real societal issue (Blaya, 2012; Schoeneberger, 2012). Indeed, not being employed would have both psychological and social consequences on the individual (Demers, 1983). Also, their situation would be correlated to the risks of delinquency (Fougère et al., 2005). As a result, many public policies have targeted youth. Thus, the interest in educational, professional and social integration is part of the development of the Missions locales with the Bertrand Schwartz report in 1981. Since then, we have observed a juxtaposition of measures in favor of this category of the population (Labadie, 2020). Our paper proposes to focus on the Garantie jeunes(GJ). The GJ corresponds to the declination of the European strategy deployed in the face of youth unemployment and was largely inspired by the Nordic countries (Wargon & Gurgand 2013). Indeed, youth guarantees were first created in the 1980s and 1990s in Scandinavian countries: first in Sweden (1984), then in Norway (1993), Denmark (1993) and Finland (1996) (Can, 2015).  Introduced in 2012 in France as part of the National Conference against Poverty and for Inclusion, the main objective of this scheme is to support beneficiaries towards autonomy for one year (Wargon & Gurgand, 2013). The proposed follow-up is initially collective, then based on professional immersions in a "work first" logic (Farvaque et al., 2016). The Garantie jeunes targets vulnerable NEET youth, i.e., young people who are neither in school, nor in employment, nor in training, and who do not receive any support from their parents. However, the NEET category includes a variety of youth profiles. On this subject, Eurofound (2012) identifies five sub-categories: "young people registered as job seekers", "young people unavailable on the labour market", "the disengaged", "opportunity seekers" and "voluntary NEET". Our research problem is set in this context. More specifically, three major studies have been conducted on the Garantie jeunes and have considered the changes induced within the Missions locales, the target reached, and the effect generated on its beneficiaries (Farvaque et al., 2016; Loison-Leruste et al., 2016; Gaini et al., 2018). We propose to differentiate ourselves by considering the professional and social insertion of youth as well as their social skills. Thus, we first ask what is the profile of the young people who enter the GJ scheme? What are their past educational and professional experiences? What are their motivations? The answers to these questions will show that the profile of these young people is based on a diversity of situations. Based on this observation, we will look at their pathways after their support in the program. We will then see that three profiles can be identified. 

This paper is the result of a thesis work conducted between 2019 and 2022. The methodology adopted is "qualitative". Indeed, it is based on the questioning of beneficiaries of the Garantie jeunes through semi-structured interviews. This was the most appropriate way to understand the pathways of young people because it is part of a search for meaning (Paillé & Mucchielli, 2003). These interviews took place in three stages: at the beginning of the support, at six months and at the end of the program, in order to understand the continuity of the pathways. In total, fifty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted, lasting from twenty minutes to one hour. It was possible to reconstruct the life course of 16 young people. The first interview focused on the youth's previous experience, with questions about their professional and educational experiences and their social skills. The second interview questioned the young person's opinion on the group phase and their first professional experiences in the program. And the third interview was based more on an assessment of the support in order to gather their opinion on the Garantie jeunes. In addition, about twenty days were devoted to direct observation and participation in the workshops offered to the young people. In total, thirty-five of them were observed one or more times and consisted, for example, of having the young people work on their cover letters, job interviews or oral expression. During these moments, we annotated our observations in a field journal. These notes could be descriptive, analytical, methodological or personal. At the end of each day, we took the time to write a report of our observations. All of the data was analyzed thematically using NVivo software.

Several results can be presented. First, concerning the profile of the beneficiaries of the program, we can say that their backgrounds are relatively varied. Indeed, even if their situations are precarious, they have different educational and professional experiences. Thus, some of them have a level 3 diploma, either a CAP or a BEP. As for the others, they finished their schooling early and can be considered as "school dropouts". These young people had early learning difficulties, had repeated a year or had been bullied at school. Also, the professional experiences before entering the program are more or less long. Some of them had completed internships as part of their studies, while others had obtained permanent contracts. In addition, several of them have had civic experiences such as volunteering in associations. Their entry into the program is based on various motivations: a desire to be supported in their search for a job, a professional project, but also financial motivations. All of these results demonstrate the diversity of the profiles that are involved in an integration program, in this case the Garantie jeunes. Secondly, we propose to present the situation of these young people at the end of their support in the scheme. It appears that the Garantie jeunes has a different impact on its beneficiaries. Three profiles are identified: one for whom the program acted as a springboard, a second as a transitional stage and a third as a temporary halt. The professional and social integration of these three groups differed, as did the development of their social skills. Thus, we will see that it is the first group that has developed the skills most expected on the job market.

Batard, P.-É., Ferrari, N., & Saillard, E. (2012). Le chômage des jeunes : Quel diagnostic ? Économie & prevision, 200 201(2), 207 215. https://doi.org/10.3917/ecop.200.0207 Blaya, C. (2012). Le décrochage scolaire dans les pays de l’OCDE. Regards croisés sur l’economie, 12(2), 69 80. https://doi.org/10.3917/rce.012.0069 Can, S. (2015). La garantie européenne pour la jeunesse. Courrier hebdomadaire du CRISP, 2263, 5 45. https://doi.org/10.3917/cris.2263.0005 Eurofound. (2011). Young people and NEETs in Europe : First findings. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. https://movendi.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/NEET-and-youth-unemployment.pdf Farvaque, N., Kramme, C., & Tuchszirer, C. (2016). La Garantie jeunes du point de vue des missions locales : Un modèle d’accompagnement innovant, mais source de bouleversements organisationnels (Rapport de recherche No 102; p. 137). Le cnam ceet. Gaini, M., Guillerm, M., Hilary, S., Valat, E., & Zamora, P. (2018). ‪Résultats de l’évaluation quantitative de la Garantie jeunes‪. Quels publics, quels accompagnements et quelles trajectoires des bénéficiaires ? Travail et emploi, 153(1), 67 88. Cairn.info. https://doi.org/10.4000/travailemploi.7933‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ Galland, O. (2012). Une jeunesse française divisée. Entretien avec Olivier Galland. Études, 416(1), 33 43. https://doi.org/10.3917/etu.4161.0033 Loison-Leruste, M., Couronné, J., & Sarfati, F. (2016). La Garantie jeunes en action : Usages du dispositif et parcours de jeunes (p. 134) [Rapport de recherche]. CEET - Centree d’études de l’emploi et du travail. https://hal-cnam.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02306050/file/101-garantie-jeunes-en-action-usages-du-dispositif-et-parcours-de-jeunes.pdf Paillé, P., & Mucchielli, A. (2012). L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales. Armand Colin. https://www.cairn.info/l-analyse-qualitative-en-sciences-humaines--9782200249045.htm Schoeneberger, J. (2012). Longitudinal Attendance Patterns : Developing High School Dropouts. The Clearing House, 85, 7 14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2011.603766 Wargon, E., & Gurgand, M. (2013). Garantie jeunes : Synthèse des travaux du groupe AD HOC (p. 20). Délégation générale à l’Emploi et à la Formation professionnelle. https://www.federationsolidarite.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Synth%C3%A8se_des_travaux_Garantie_Jeunes_Version_du_5_juin_2013_final.pdf