Challenge: Labour market
integration of the most
disadvantaged
Transforming Disability into Ability
Copenhagen, 5 November 2014
Dr. Rienk Prins
University for Applied Sciences
“Progresz” Utrecht (Netherlands)
Contents
• Target group
• Demarcation
• Backgrounds of increasing interest
• Selected programmes and experiences from:
• Netherlands
• United Kingdom
• Norway
• Observations, evaluations and lessons
Demarcation
• General:
• The most disadvantaged / the most vulnerable / the hardest to
help
• Multiple disadvantaged groups
• Specific (“operational definitions”): Example Netherlands
• Persons on benefit
• Simultaneous: two (or more) connected problems / barriers
• Unable / unwilling to arrange themselves control or solution of
problems
• Related approaches:
• Focus on families (e.g. UK: Troubled Families)
• Focus on poverty neighbourhoods (NL: Neighbourhood Coach)
Backgrounds of rising interest
• Current benefit / integration systems not appropriate:
• contingency focused (the sick, the disabled, the
unemployed, …)
• less effective in helping customers with combinations of
disadvantages
• Most disadvantaged:
• passive, often do not take initiative for support to
employment
• “grey area clientele”
• Service delivery problems
• Oversupply / uncoordinated agencies
• Lack of expertise
• Organizational conditions (work load case managers)
Small international overview
• Three countries dealing with the target groups:
•Netherlands: exploring scope and delivery
problems, pilots and experiments
•UK: targeted programmes, (meta) evaluations
•Norway: generous programme implemented
NL: Scope
• Estimating the size of the problem:
• Data sources (2008, 2009): persons receiving
benefits (sickness, disability, unemployment,
social assistance)
• Estimate on all benefit recipients:
• 40%: “have multiple problems” (2 or more barriers)
• Estimate on some specific categories:
•
•
•
•
Poorly educated/skilled
Former prisoners
Social assistance recipients
Young persons on benefit
66%
59%
51%
24%
NL: Provision of services (1)
• Providers/case workers/experts interviews
(N=27):
• Large variation in number of actors/agencies in
the chain of service provision
• Large variation in their goals and criteria: e.g.
•Prevention social exclusion,
•Empowerment
•Mental health rehabilitation
•Employment
• Waiting lists, availability of service providers
(e.g. debt management)
NL: Provision of services (2)
• Cooperation and coordination “in the chain”
• “Who has the lead”, who sets priorities?
• Availability of budgets
• Many variations in organizational strucures
• Dilemma’s / Paradigms:
• Voluntary or forced?
• Work First? Health First? Housing First?
• “What works for whom?”
• More org. problems: poverty neighbourhood/ poverty
family programmes
NL: Pilot projects and Information
• Pilot projects on various aspects, e.g.:
• Integrated intake procedures (care needs, integration needs)
• Cooperation of mental health care providers and municipal social
welfare office
• Integrated approach of health promotion and access to
employment in welfare recipients
• IPS oriented (Individual Placement and Support)
• Publications:
• Overviews of “promising (integrated) approaches” , “good
practices”
• Training material for case workers
• Fact sheets (“knowledge documents”)
UK: Demarcation
• Def.: Diverse group with no clear identity
• Those with most severe / multiple barriers to
work:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Drug or alcohol dependency
Persistent /ex offenders
Homeless people,
Poor basic skills, learning difficulties,
Poor English language skills, refugees
Persons with mental health conditions
• Many projects on specific categories
UK: Evaluations
• Little information: ”what type of provisions work best”
for most disadvantaged:
• No/poor collection of customer characteristics
and performances on project level
• Heterogeneous client groups
• Nature of interventions varies across individuals,
no isolated measures
• Lack of control groups
• Lessons: more relying on qualitative evaluations
(interviews: staff, administrators, employers, clients)
UK: Lessons (1)
• Lessons from qualitative evaluations of specific
programmes (ex offenders, drug abusers): Need for
• Support, advice, guidance and motivational confidence-building
assistance
• Individually tailored programme / action plan
• First step often: addressing mental health conditions, housing
problems, etc. (Not: “Work First”)
• Basic questions on aims:
• Realistic aims: Is employment an appropriate and feasible goal?
Or:
• Strive for : greater stability in life - but in association with (further)
claiming of benefits?
UK: Lessons (2)
• Delivery aspects:
• Clients: least likely to volunteer for support  Outreach
approaches needed
• One-to-one support from a personal advisor
• Staff with empathy, good communication skills
• “It takes time to help the most disadvantaged”: 6-12 month
period: insufficient
• Appropriate case load for advisor/provider
• In depth knowledge of local organizational infrastructure
• Practical inter-organizational referral arrangements (to
prevent drop out)
Norway: QP
QP Aims
• History:
•
•
•
•
2007: Start pilots
2009: Interim evaluation / EU Peer Review
2010: Nation wide implementation (and legal entitlement)
2014: Evaluation report
• Aim: fight poverty, by promoting self-supporting employment
• Target group: Hard to employ social assistance
claimants with reduced work capacity and variety of
problems:
• Poor language skills, disrupted schooling, little or no work
experience
• Often: mental disorders, drugs problems
• Aged 19 - 67
QP: Key features (1)
• Programme:
• “Costly and ambitious”
• Combines generosity and activation
• Offers income safety, requires effort to become self
sufficient.
• Key elements programme:
• Full time (37,5 hours/week)
• Duration: initially 1 year (max. 2 years)
• Income support (“quasi wage”): € 20 000/ year (< 25
years: 2/3)
• Allowances (child support, housing)
• QP benefit: taxed and holiday privileges (as regular labour)
QP: Key features (2)
• Tailored qualification and activation programme
• Agreed by client and case worker
• Plan elements: mixture:
• Consultations
• Medical rehabilitation, therapy, sports
• Skills upgrading
• Employment training
• Social training
Structure QP
Initial evaluations (1)
• End 2010: 17 214 participants
• Plan completed: 4 968 (29%)
• Dropped out:
1 414 (8%)
• After completion:
• 31% in regular employment
• 7% entered regular education
• 62% continued benefit dependency (temporary,
permanent disability benefit, social assistance)
Initial evaluations (2)
• “Success factors” (interviews):
• Individually tailored programme, flexibility criteria
• Job training with “ordinary employers”
• Clients:
• Income support: financial stability
• Plans fitted to individual needs
• QP case workers:
• Received specific training (employment issues)
• Adapted case load: 18 clients (other schemes: ca. 86 clients)
• Active follow up approach and adequate IT system
• Weaknesses:
• Transfer from health  employment interventions
• Full time programme: often not feasible
EU Peer Review Evaluation (2010)
• Very positive: QP reflects social inclusion policy
EU advocates:
•
•
•
•
One stop shop
Integrated approach (work and health)
Adequate income support
Coordination of several administrative levels
(municipality, region, national)
• One coordinator / case manager:
• both internally (public actors) and
• externally (e.g. care provider, employer)
• Clients and case workers: satisfied
“Final” evaluations (2014)
• Register data entrants 2008 – 2011 (N=19 211)
•
•
•
•
Participating >2 years: 23%
Mean age: 33.7
Non-native: 50.7%
High school: 16.1%
• Main success criterion employment:
• QP: reduces employment slightly during first 1-2 years of
participation
• 3 years after QP entry: 20% point increase in employment
probability (stat. sign.)
• Most additional jobs: poorly paid / very small
• So: still high dependency of transfers from welfare state
Some conclusions (1)
• Policy / programme level:
• Shared Goals (employment, less barriers, stability)
• Programme features:
•
•
•
•
Large variations contents/structure of programmes
Long lasting
Shared responsibilities (case worker/client)
Integration work focussed interventions
• Dilemma’s: e.g.
• Voluntary vs compulsory
• Evaluations: more on “process” than “effects”
Some conclusions (2)
• Operational level:
• Active approach to client:
• Outreach
• Close monitoring and supervision
• Organizational issues needing attention: e.g.:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Multidisciplinary cooperation
Commitment and consensus
Various coordination models
Agreement on budgets and criteria
Availability of services (waiting lists)
Working conditions/ work load case managers