The Federal Youth Council on current developments in social policy

These initiatives relate to different support systems. In the lives of young people, however, their consequences are directly intertwined. They determine whether psychotherapeutic support is available in good time, whether education remains accessible regardless of one’s family background, whether young people are reliably protected in times of crisis, and whether they can rely on sustainable, solidarity-based social security systems in working life and in old age.

Taken as a whole, a problematic political direction is emerging: necessary reforms are being delayed, made subject to funding conditions or accompanied by cuts to benefits. Instead of consistently adapting social security systems to changing life circumstances and resolving structural funding problems through solidarity, short-term spending cuts and benefit reductions dominate. Young people are particularly hard hit by this trend. At a stage in life when decisions about education, entering the labour market, leaving the parental home and establishing an independent life are all concentrated, they usually have low incomes, hardly any savings and few opportunities to bridge gaps in public social security cover themselves. At the same time, today’s decisions regarding contributions, entitlement to benefits and the funding of social security systems will have an impact on the rest of their lives. If necessary support is provided too late, benefits are set too low or burdens are unilaterally shifted into the future, health and financial crises can become entrenched, educational and career pathways can be jeopardised, and confidence in a long-term, reliable old-age pension system can be undermined.

A social policy that is fair to young people and across generations must therefore do more than simply administer existing systems as cost-effectively as possible. It must reliably safeguard social rights, enable self-reliance and invest in health, education and social participation. Not least from an economic perspective, one thing is clear: government investment in ensuring that young people grow up healthy, resilient and secure is a sustainable fiscal policy measure that prevents high follow-on costs.

Health policy: promises of care without implementation

In its coalition agreement, the Federal Government announced a strategy for the mental health of young people. At the same time, the coalition pledged to further develop the planning of psychotherapeutic provision, particularly for children and young people, as well as for rural regions.

These objectives are right and urgently needed. So far, however, it is barely apparent how the Federal Government intends to implement them. As early as October 2025, the Bundesjugendring criticised the fact that it remains unclear how young people and their self-organisations will be involved in the strategy. In April 2026, the Federal Government merely stated that the strategy was still being drawn up. To date, there is still no sign of a public timetable, a transparent participation process or binding next steps. This is regrettable, given that, through the Federal Ministry for Youth, the Federal Government is simultaneously demonstrating – in the related area of ‘loneliness’ – that it recognises the challenges faced by young people and is allowing these to be discussed and debated with the involvement of civil society.

At the same time, with the Statutory Health Insurance Contribution Rate Stabilisation Act, the Federal Government has adopted regulations that could place further pressure on psychotherapeutic care. The Act is intended to stabilise the financing of statutory health insurance and prevent a further rise in supplementary contributions. Reliable and solidarity-based funding is also in the interests of young people. However, rather than comprehensively addressing the structural funding problems of health insurance, the reform relies primarily on spending caps and higher co-payments for insured persons.

Particularly critical is the inclusion of key psychotherapeutic services within a limited regional overall budget. To date, psychotherapeutic consultations, acute treatments, diagnostic sessions and approved psychotherapies, amongst other things, have generally been reimbursed outside this budget. In future, limits may once again apply once the funds available for a region have been exhausted.

This will not immediately result in therapy places being cut. However, it may become financially more difficult for practices to take on additional patients or to offer more consultation hours and acute treatments. Incentives to start short-term therapy will also be weakened. This contradicts the announcement in the coalition agreement that the aim was to strengthen precisely this form of treatment.

The reform comes at a time when, in many places, children, adolescents and young adults have already been waiting for months for a therapy place. Delayed treatment can lead to conditions becoming entrenched and crises worsening. The consequences extend far beyond health: they affect social relationships and participation in society. Furthermore, a lack of timely outpatient support may necessitate inpatient treatment, which might have been avoidable had therapy been provided at an early stage.

Under the adopted legislation, child and adolescent psychotherapy is not, in principle, exempt from budgetary constraints. However, the Bundestag has adopted an accompanying resolution. According to this, the Federal Government is to present legislative provisions after the parliamentary summer recess to ensure that therapies already underway are protected until their completion and, in particular, that child and adolescent psychotherapy, urgent treatments and care for people with severe mental illness continue to be reimbursed outside the limited budget. However, even this will not help many young people. After all, child and adolescent psychotherapeutic care currently ends upon reaching the age of 21. Yet young adults, too – and indeed particularly young adults – suffer from mental health conditions, even beyond the age of 21.

“It is to be welcomed that the coalition parliamentary groups have recognised some of the risks and wish to make some improvements. However, a resolution does not yet change the current law, and the resolution only takes into account part of the target group. The Federal Government has initially adopted regulations whose foreseeable effects it subsequently intends to limit in a further procedure. The announced corrections must therefore be comprehensive, binding and implemented in good time. Furthermore, there is an urgent need for more treatment capacity, realistic demand planning that takes into account the specific situation of young people, secure funding for further training in psychotherapy, and a strategy to strengthen the mental health of young people, as announced in the coalition agreement. “The Federal Government’s current approach to young people’s mental health is appalling and fundamentally wrong,” says Wendelin Haag, Chair of the Bundesjugendring.

Basic income support: More pressure instead of reliable prospects

Young people are also structurally disadvantaged under the new basic income scheme. The Bundesjugendring has already criticised in detailthe fact that those under 30 are allowed to retain a significantly lower level of exempt assets, are subject to greater pressure to find work, and may face harsher sanctions. This makes it harder for them to build up savings for the transition to further education, employment or independent living.

At the same time, too little consideration is given to the living circumstances of young benefit recipients. Many are still in training, are looking for a sustainable start to their careers, or require reliable support due to health and social pressures. Being rushed into any form of employment therefore does not necessarily help them. Sanctions can also affect minors and other family members, as cuts to housing, food or transport cannot be limited to a single person.

Immediate Child Allowance: A temporary measure becomes a cut

The Federal Government intends to abolish the immediate child supplement – a monthly supplement currently amounting to 25 euros – as part of the 2027 Budget Accompanying Act. This supplement specifically supports children, teenagers and young adults in households on very low incomes. The parliamentary process has not yet been finalised.

The scrapping of this benefit is particularly problematic given the history of its introduction. The immediate child allowance was introduced in July 2022 explicitly as a transitional measure until the introduction of a comprehensive basic child allowance, initially amounting to 20 euros, and 25 euros per month since 2025. Its purpose was therefore, from the outset, to provide better short-term protection for young people affected by poverty until a structural reform of child benefits was implemented.

However, the announced basic child allowance has still not been implemented to date. Now, the support introduced as a stopgap is also to be discontinued, without any comparable structural improvement taking its place. “This effectively turns what was originally intended as temporary support into a cut in benefits for children and young people affected by poverty. Particularly for families whose financial leeway is already limited, it is socially and politically wrong to prioritise budget consolidation by targeting a benefit specifically designed to combat child poverty. This gives the impression that at least parts of the Federal Government do not care about poverty amongst young people,” emphasises Sophie Schmitz, Deputy Chair of the Bundesjugendring.

BAföG: Long-overdue improvements remain inadequate

With the draft of the 30th BAföG Amendment Act, the federal government has, after lengthy debates, presented a reform of student finance. The draft includes necessary improvements: the flat-rate housing allowance for students living away from home is to rise from 380 to 440 euros. The basic allowance is to be increased gradually. Income thresholds are to be adjusted regularly in future, applications are to be digitised to a greater extent, and administrative procedures are to be simplified.

The fact that the reform has been presented at all is to be welcomed. However, it is coming later than expected and is less ambitious than announced in the coalition agreement. In that agreement, the Federal Government had pledged to increase the flat-rate housing allowance as early as the 2026/27 winter semester and to permanently align the basic allowance with the level of the basic income support scheme. Now, the higher flat-rate housing allowance is not due to come into effect until the 2027 summer term. The full increase in the basic allowance is not scheduled until 2029.

This means that much-needed support is being postponed, ironically for those who are already having to cope with high rents and living costs today. A room in a shared flat on the private housing market already costs an average of 512 euros. Even the planned 440 euros would not cover this amount. By the time the increase takes effect, the actual shortfall is likely to have grown further.

Another critical issue is that the flat-rate housing allowance for BAföG recipients living with their parents is to be reduced and later abolished altogether. Whilst many of them do not pay rent themselves, Nevertheless, the shared household incurs additional costs, such as for accommodation, energy and living expenses. In low-income families in particular, the cut would increase the financial pressure.

BAföG is not a voluntary supplementary benefit for supposedly privileged young people. It is intended to ensure that educational pathways do not depend on parents’ income. Working whilst studying or attending school can be sensible, but it must not become a prerequisite for being able to afford rent, food and study materials. Anyone who sets the level of educational support too low or postpones necessary adjustments for years is accepting that young people will be unable to choose their educational path according to their abilities and interests, will take on an excessive burden, or will remain permanently dependent on their parents’ household. A modern reform therefore requires needs-based rates that ensure a decent standard of living and a binding indexation mechanism that keeps pace with the actual rise in housing and living costs.

Advance maintenance payments: cuts directly affect young people

Cuts to advance maintenance payments also threaten to fall directly on young people. The Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMBFSFJ) plans to end entitlement from the age of 16 in future, rather than 18 as is currently the case. For many young people, this could mean monthly losses of several hundred euros. The proposal is controversial within the Federal Government and has not yet been adopted.

Advance maintenance payments are not voluntary support for the parent with custody, but rather safeguard the young person’s entitlement to maintenance if one parent pays no maintenance or insufficient maintenance. This entitlement loses neither its justification nor its significance upon reaching the age of 16. Many young people are still at school or starting vocational training at this stage and are unable to support themselves independently.

A reduction would shift the financial risk of non-payment of maintenance onto the young people and the parent with custody. Particularly in families at risk of poverty, this could limit opportunities for education and social participation, increase dependence on household income and heighten the pressure to start supporting themselves at an early age, at the expense of their own training or studies.

“Young people are not to blame if a parent fails to pay maintenance. Cutting their financial security at precisely this crucial stage of their education and life is wrong from a social policy perspective. Once again, young people are being made to bear the brunt of cost-cutting measures, even though they neither caused nor can solve the underlying problems,” says Sophie Schmitz.

Instead of curtailing young people’s entitlements, the state should focus more on areas where maintenance obligations can actually be enforced. So far, only a comparatively small proportion of advance maintenance payments has been successfully recovered from parents liable for maintenance. Better coordination and resourcing of the relevant authorities, as well as more consistent recovery of these funds, could help relieve the burden on public finances without undermining the financial security of young people.

Pension policy: solidarity rather than supposed intergenerational conflicts

The forthcoming pension reform is frequently discussed under the banner of intergenerational justice. In June, the Pension Commission presented 33 recommendations. These include an additional statutory capital pension, the expansion of the pool of insured persons and changes to the state pension age. Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Federal Minister for Labour Bärbel Bas initially announced their intention to implement the package in full. However, individual recommendations are now the subject of debate within the coalition and among the federal states. Draft legislation to implement the reforms has not yet been tabled.

Pension policy is an issue that concerns young people. Through their contributions, young people finance today’s pensions whilst at the same time building up their own entitlements for the future. They therefore have an interest in affordable contributions and in a statutory pension on which they can actually rely later in life. These two objectives must not be pitted against one another.

The proposed expansion of the group of insured persons is a step in the right direction. The Bundesjugendring has long called for an employment-based insurance scheme into which all those in work contribute. Funded elements can supplement the state pension, but must not replace its function of solidarity. Capital market risks must not be shifted unilaterally onto the insured. Young people in particular, with low incomes, high housing costs and precarious employment, have only limited opportunities to make additional private provision for their retirement.

This also applies to the planned ‘early start’ pension. According to the draft bill from the Federal Ministry of Finance, young people aged between six and 18 are to receive ten euros a month for a funded pension scheme. If parents do not take out an individual policy, the money is to be invested collectively and managed by the public sector. This fallback solution makes sense in principle, as it means that state support does not depend entirely on the initiative, knowledge and financial decisions of parents. Nevertheless, the ‘Early Start Pension’ can only serve as a minor supplement. Ten euros a month is no substitute for a strong state pension, good wages or stable employment subject to social insurance contributions. High-income families can supplement the state support with private contributions and thereby build up considerably larger assets. Without a consistently socially oriented design, the ‘Early Start’ pension is therefore more likely to perpetuate existing wealth disparities than to reduce them.

“The proposals put forward by the Pension Security Commission contain important approaches to making the state pension more inclusive and reliable in the long term. Above all, this involves including more people in the workforce in the solidarity-based funding system. At the same time, financial stabilisation must not be achieved primarily through a higher state pension age or a greater shift towards funded pension schemes. People have very different employment histories, health challenges and opportunities to make private provisions. A pension policy that is fair to all generations must take these differences into account and finance social security collectively, rather than shifting risks onto individuals or future generations,” said Sophie Schmitz.

Social policy must not become a target for cuts

The Bundesjugendring deliberately considers the current proposals within a broader context. Health, education, livelihood security and old-age provision are directly intertwined in the lives of young people. If benefits in several areas are restricted, delayed or inadequately structured, the consequences can reinforce one another and impair educational and career paths, the establishment of an independent livelihood, social participation and long-term social security.

The message conveyed by the current proposals is disastrous: the Federal Government is failing to use the considerable pressure for reform in the social security systems to bring about a consistent modernisation of the welfare state. Instead of reliably adapting benefits to changing life circumstances, improving access and closing structural funding gaps through solidarity, short-term spending cuts, benefit cuts and the shifting of responsibility onto individuals are the dominant features.

A few sensible initiatives – such as the further development of the BAföG or the announced improvements to psychotherapeutic care – do nothing to alter this overall assessment. All too often, necessary improvements are delayed, watered down or linked to cuts elsewhere. As a result, social policy currently does not appear to be a proactive policy area that adapts social security to societal change, but increasingly as a sector available for budgetary consolidation.

The fact that, in parallel, far-reaching cuts and restrictions on individual rights are also being discussed outside the realm of traditional social policy – particularly in child and youth welfare – exacerbates this trend. Child and youth welfare is a central state regulatory system which, through its services and provision, supports, advises and promotes the development of children, young people and their families. to ensure that the rights of young people—which are derived, amongst other sources, from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Basic Law—are effectively realised. Its infrastructure, its services and individual support must not be subject to blanket cuts.

A strong welfare state cannot be measured solely by the level of its expenditure. It is effective when social rights are reliably upheld, services meet actual needs and support is available in a timely manner. This requires local authorities with the capacity to act, efficient public services and a social infrastructure with secure long-term funding.

“A modern welfare state that is youth-friendly is not a repair shop for crises that have already escalated. It invests at an early stage in health, education, social security and social participation. It empowers young people to make independent decisions and creates the conditions for a self-determined way of life. In doing so, it not only prevents poverty and exclusion, but also strengthens social cohesion, democracy and economic sustainability,” said Wendelin Haag.