1. LAMAS Working Group 24-25 June 2016
Agenda Item 3.5 LFS ad-hoc module 2018: issue paper

2. Aim of Issue Paper
Give guidance to the task force and raise issues to be considered – as a first step of development:
Set out the policy and methodological frame.
Discuss and suggest possible population.
Introduce structure; NEW: sub-modules are pre-defined in a legally necessary amendment to the programme
Discuss possible content of each sub-module.

3. Policy Needs I Rather stable policy needs compared to 2010.
Reconciliation seen as key factor for labour market participation of women.
Relevant topics are:
Availability and use of childcare services.
Care responsibilities for other dependants than children.
Use of informal support.
Availability of flexible work(ing time) arrangements.
Career breaks and use of parental leave.

4. Policy Needs II
Topics adressed are too broad to be covered by one ad- hoc module.
Can be aggregated into three thematic groups: (1) Factors of family life influencing reconciliation (2) Work arrangements influencing reconciliation. (3) Stop/reduce work in need to reconcile
All information collected should have a clear focus on relation to labour market participation.
No information should be collected that is already provided by other sources.

5. Methodological Considerations
Lessons can be learned from the evaluation report of the ad-hoc module Main issues:
Unclear overall aim of the module
Some variables not well designed/focused  too complex
Some variables not relevant
Too many interwinded topics, superficially covered
Complicated interlinking with core mostly not usable
Complex filters
No model questionnaire

6. Target Population Suggested: all persons aged 15 to 64 years
Increase of lower boundary can be checked
Try to have as few different sub-populations as possible  few and simple filters
In order to construct household compositions the corresponding information has to be complete for every record.

7. Sub-module 1: Care Responsibilities
Main issue: Does the supply of care services facilitate labour market participation? ( ask main reason for not using a care service to all and cross tab with NEEDCARE)
Combination of different kinds of formal/informal care support?
Care responsibilities for older dependants?
Reference week or longer period?
Collect information on one dependant or all?

8. Sub-module 2: Flexibility of Work Arrangements
Main issue: how much flexibility does the job offer to reconcile with care responsibilities?
Regular working time arrangement?  use approach for the AHM2015
Additional working time arrangements for employees with care responsiblities?
Further arrangements facilitating reconciliation (e.g. enterprise kindergarten, tele-work etc.)?

9. Sub-module 3: Career Breaks and Parental Leave
Main issue: to what extend do career breaks occur connected with care responsibilities?
Exactly define what is to be measured: (a) Effectiveness of reconciliation policies  recent occurrence of career breaks; (b) influence on career paths  all spells of reducing or stopping work
What time is to be counted for the length of interruption/reduction?
Was also parental leave used? How long was that spell?
How to define parental leave?: full-/part-time, paid, right to return

10. Timeline until 11 July 2014 Volunteering for Task Force Oct 2014
1st TF meeting
Spring 2015
2nd TF meeting
June 2015
Progress report to LAMAS
2nd half 2015
Pretesting
Spring 2016
3rd TF meeting
June 2016
Draft regulation (to LAMAS)

11. LAMAS is asked to: Endorse developing the AHM 2018 as proposed.
Comment and supplement the issues discussed in the paper.
Volunteer to participate in the TF.
Provide input to the TF, like recent national results or respective research.