Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Challenge: Labour market integration of the most disadvantaged Transforming Disability into Ability Copenhagen, 5 November 2014 Dr. Rienk Prins University.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Challenge: Labour market integration of the most disadvantaged Transforming Disability into Ability Copenhagen, 5 November 2014 Dr. Rienk Prins University."— Presentation transcript:

1 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)

2 Contents Target group Demarcation Backgrounds of increasing interest Selected programmes and experiences from: Netherlands United Kingdom Norway Observations, evaluations and lessons

3 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)

4 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)

5 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

6 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 66% Former prisoners59% Social assistance recipients51% Young persons on benefit24%

7 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)

8 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

9 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”)

10 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

11 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)

12 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?

13 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)

14 Norway: QP

15 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

16 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”): € / year (< 25 years: 2/3) Allowances (child support, housing) QP benefit: taxed and holiday privileges (as regular labour)

17 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

18 Structure QP

19 Initial evaluations (1) End 2010: participants Plan completed: (29%) Dropped out: (8%) After completion: 31% in regular employment 7% entered regular education 62% continued benefit dependency (temporary, permanent disability benefit, social assistance)

20 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

21 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

22 “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

23 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”

24 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


Download ppt "Challenge: Labour market integration of the most disadvantaged Transforming Disability into Ability Copenhagen, 5 November 2014 Dr. Rienk Prins University."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google