Transcript Employment Research Institute Inter-agency co-operation, partnerships and employability services: a review of evidence from 15 countries.

Employment Research Institute
Inter-agency co-operation, partnerships
and employability services:
a review of evidence from 15 countries
1
Employment Research Institute
Structure of the presentation
• Background to the research and methodology
• Why have partnerships?
• What do we mean by ‘partnership’?
• Potential benefits of partnerships
• Key issues from a review of 15 countries
• Case studies: Netherlands and Denmark
• Reflecting on policy and practice in NI
2
Employment Research Institute
Background and methodology
• Where is best practice in employability/inter-agency
co-operation?
• Who is involved and what are their roles? What are
the benefits and limitations of different models?
• What are the lessons that can be applied to NI?
• Methods 1: Policy review/national expert survey
• Methods 2: Case study research in Denmark; the
Netherlands; GB and NI; Republic of Ireland
3
Employment Research Institute
Why have partnerships?
• Progress on unemployment but concentrations of
worklessness certain areas and groups
• Different factors affect employability: e.g. health,
housing, childcare as well as individuals’ skills, etc.
• Multi-dimensional disadvantage requires multiagency response with range of resources/expertise
• Unemployment concentrated in disadvantaged areas
– partnerships more responsive at local level?
• Can contacting out buy in efficiency of private sector?
4
Employment Research Institute
What do we mean by ‘partnership’?
• Forms of partnership (Stoker 1998)
– Principal-agent relations (purchaser-provider)
– Inter-organisational negotiation (resource co-ordination)
– Systemic co-ordination (multi-agency governance)
• Goals of partnership (Johnson and Osborne 2003)
– Improved policy co-ordination in implementation
– Enhanced co-governance in planning
5
Employment Research Institute
Potential benefits of ‘partnership’
• More flexible and responsive interventions
• Pooling of knowledge/expertise/resources
• Coherent and ‘joined-up’ approaches
• Legitimisation for policy and ‘buy in’ of key actors
• Better efficiency and, crucially, better outcomes
• Key question: How well do different models of
inter-agency co-operation achieve these benefits?
6
Employment Research Institute
Key issues from 15 countries
• PAs crucial – some added value from outsourcing delivery
to specialist agencies, but loss of PES consistency?
• In the best cases, employers are active partners (providing
work placements, informing programme design)
• Shared assessment tools for early intervention/profiling
• Many states have copied the Jobcentre/JBO model, then
gone further – linking childcare, housing, health services
• Best cases – strong strategic direction from PES, but with
‘shared ownership’ of planning, design and resources
7
Employment Research Institute
Case studies: Why these countries?
• Denmark and the Netherlands – vanguard of
the leading ‘active’ welfare states?
• Social partnership structures important in
Denmark, but with strong PES ‘central line’
• Netherlands has seen rapid privatisation of PES
functions and introduction of ‘welfare market’
(influencing Freud Report?)
• Both suggested ‘employment miracles’
8
Employment Research Institute
Total unemployment rate in EU15, UK, Denmark, Netherlands 1995-2004
12.0
Total unemployment rate
10.0
8.0
Unemployment rate % EU 15
Unemployment rate % UK
Unemployment rate % Denmark
Unemployment rate % Netherlands
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
9
Employment Research Institute
3
2.5
2
ALMP % GDP
Passive % GDP
1.5
1
0.5
0
DK
Neth
UK
10
Employment Research Institute
Denmark – research methods
• National expert survey and interviews with:
– national government LMA,
– national unions’ confederation (LO)
– national employers’ (DA) confederation
• Case study: Regional Employment Council –
interviews with regional PES/AF; regional LO; regional DA
• Case study: local municipality activation project –
interviews with municipality; service provider; employers
11
Employment Research Institute
Denmark – models of co-operation
• Strong ‘central line’ (from LMA/PES) on content of
programmes, spending and target groups
• 14 Regional Employment Councils (RARs) – PES; local
authorities; unions; employers
• RARs some autonomy on ‘tools and targets’
• 271 local authorities lead/fund services for uninsured
• 2003: ‘More People at Work’: towards a ‘one string system’
• 2007: move towards PES-municipality jobcentres
• Gradual contracting out (strong trade union role)
12
Employment Research Institute
Denmark’s labour market policy structures, 2006
13
Employment Research Institute
Reforms to Denmark’s policy structures, 2007
14
Employment Research Institute
Benefits of Danish model
• Tailoring of tools and targets to needs of clients and
local labour market (e.g. ethnic minorities; skills)
• Oversight of programme content, with employer and
trade union knowledge of ‘realities on the ground’
• Credibility, ‘buy in’ from clients, unions, employers
• Genuine sharing of power, resources, ‘ownership’
• Gradual marketisation – concerns over capacity and
added value, but strong role for trade unions, PES
15
Employment Research Institute
It was an important part of the reform process to
give concrete decision-making authority to the
regions. The regional authorities are in a good
position to make sure that people were matched
to the regional labour market.
National Government LMA Representative
It is important that we gain the support of the
employer and trade union organisations. We can
go to employers saying ‘look, we have their
support on this’. It adds credibility…
PES Regional Employment Council Representative
16
Employment Research Institute
Problems of Danish model
• “There has been a lot of consensus… in ten years
only two issues have gone to a vote” LO representative
• Arriving at a ‘modus vivendi’ – “decision-making
processes can take a long time” LO representative
• 2007: ends shared ‘ownership’/local tools and targets
• 2007: locally responsive service; do local authorities
have the capacity? Loss of institutional learning?
• Has private sector delivered specialisation/efficiency?
17
Employment Research Institute
It is a very big challenge. Some of the
municipalities and jobcentres that deliver
services will be very small. How they will address
this challenge will be very interesting.
PES Regional Employment Council Representative
There is a lack of economic policy muscle at the
local level. At the regional level there is more
economic and financial muscle. There is the
power to make things happen.
National LO (Trade Union) Representative
18
Employment Research Institute
In recent years we have spent resources trying to
construct a market. Now we need to focus on
performance – ensuring that companies deliver –
not just ensuring that there is a market.
We have not accurately measured the
performance of other actors the way we measure
the performance of the PES.
National LO Representative
19
Employment Research Institute
Netherlands – research methods
• National expert survey and interviews with:
– Government Ministry for Social Affairs, Employment (SZW)
– PES (CWI); DIVOSA (local authorities)
– Agency for Employees’ Insurance (UWV)
• Case study: Rotterdam and SW Netherlands:
– CWI, UWV representatives
– Municipality of Rotterdam
– Agens (private employability provider)
20
Employment Research Institute
Netherlands – models of co-operation
• 2002 SUWI Act – Reduced PES role/activation
services privatised; CWI/PES as gatekeeper; UWV
and local authorities fund/contract out activation
• 131 Centres for Work and Income (jobcentres with
local authorities, PES, UWV) established. Centres
provide ‘one stop shop’ service – piloting of
‘boundaryless’ offices and ‘single employer contacts’
• UWV must buy 70% of activation in private sector
• WWB 2004 – independence for local authorities but
also total financial responsibility – impact on quality?
21
Employment Research Institute
Benefits of Dutch model
• Lack of specialisation, but moving towards more
client-centred Individual Reintegration Accounts –
“openness and creativity for both client and provider”
• Centres for Work and Income – easier for agencies
to share knowledge, but little shared ownership
• Potential for more coherent service for clients
• Efficiency – contractual model – control over content;
outcome-focused; stop doing “what doesn’t work”
22
Employment Research Institute
Problems of Dutch model
• IROs - short-term (1/2 yr) contracts mean lack of
consistency for clients; can’t plan long-term provision
• Short, ‘Work First’ approach – activation as deterrent
• ‘Pluriform’, fragmented market – 700 providers –
transaction costs and bureaucracy increased
• Lack of capacity/experience in tendering on all sides
• Loss of institutional learning, ‘hollowed out’ PES
struggles to define role as partner (lack of trust)
23
Employment Research Institute
It’s a disappointment that the development of a
free market with new products and new
approaches has been very limited. The
companies grow towards one approach rather
than diverse approaches. The bids are
repetitive and not innovative.
Local authority representative, Rotterdam
24
Employment Research Institute
Conclusions - common themes
• Common themes: multi-agency approaches seeking:
– coherent, ‘one stop’ services; locally responsive activation
– engagement with employers; tailoring to local labour markets
– contracting out of some services; most radical in Netherlands
• Critical success factors: co-operation works where:
– Clear strategic focus/rationale for model of co-operation
– The right actors with the skills, resources, capacity to deliver
– Capacity for ‘mutualism’ – governance supporting partnership
– Structures that promote shared responsibility/ownership
25
Employment Research Institute
Challenges for policy
• Need to share ownership of activation with clients,
communities, specialist partners, employers
• Localisation may deliver responsiveness, but what
about local capacity issues?
• What future for PES? Loss of institutional learning?
• Contracting and transaction costs; standardisation
and quality – complex problems; rigid contracts?
• Need for a mix of approaches, not just contracting;
need to build capacity to deliver across sectors
26