Evaluation of Measures Targeting the Improvement of

Employment

Károly MikeHétfa Research Institute

30 April 2013

Goals of the evaluation

I. Comprehensive assessment of SROP Priority 1. and Priority 2.

II. Exploration of characteristics and efficiency of non-profit organisations in the field of employment policy

III. Recommendations for the 2014-2020 period

Methodologies of the evaluation

• Document analysis• Expert interviews• Analysis of SMIS (Standardised Monitoring Information System) data• International good practices• Online survey (population of employment-related non-profits, 655

organizations)• 4 territorial case studies (with the collaboration of Revita Foundation):

– Low skilled and disadvantaged people– Local actors: non-profits, municipalities, employment service, enterprises

• 3 case studies with a target group focus (with the collaboration of Revita Foundation):– People with reduced capacity to work– People returning from parental leave– People above 50

• Experience of end-beneficiaries– Interviews with clients of non-profits– Exploration of internet visibility

What actions have been implemented?

• Contracted funds up to January 2013: HUF 233 billion in SROP Priority 1. and HUF 126 billion SROP Priority 2.

• Allocation of funds according to the dominant element of the constructions

41.6%

31.7%

12.2%

6.2%4.2% 2.6% 1.2% 0.4% Non-target group-specific

complex programmes

Trainings

Subsidies for employment

Target-group-specific complex programmes

Institutional development programmes

Other developments

Direct employment programmes

Developments of employers, workplaces

Who were the implementers?

• Data are available about the direct beneficiaries, the lead applicants– SROP 1: 155 non-profits, 31 for-profits, 34 governmental lead

applicants– SROP 2: 373 non-profits, 3200 for-profits, 102 governmental lead

applicants• Nearly half of the beneficiaries are returning partners of development

policy (non-profits – SROP 5, for-profits EDOP, ROPs)

Distribution of funds among different types of beneficiaries

SROP 1 SROP 2

What are the most important results?

• The National Employment Service has taken steps towards becoming a service network rather than a state authority:– IT system – monitoring of individual career paths– Foundations of a profiling system– System of employer contacts

• Stabilising, competent core of non-profits organisations• Shift towards accompanying unemployed clients into

actual employment and beyond• Responding to the economic crisis (e.g. broadening of

target groups, targeted programmes)

• Fragmentation of the institutional setup:– Parallel systems of PES programmes and SROP grant schemes

for nonprofits– Inclusion of civil sector in employment policy vs. outsourcing of

services– „Lack of sponsor”, weakness of outsourcing capacities

• Handling of „services and sanctions” in an integrated framework was missing– Target groups for projects vs. transfers for target groups +

service with sanction– General (1.1.2, 1.1.4; 1.4.1, 1.4.3) vs. target group focused

programmes (rehabilitation allowance -1.1.1, unemployment benefits 1.1.3)

• Benefits of direct employment?– Temporarily supported vs. real transit jobs at non-profits– Social cooperatives vs. job creating corporations

What were the main problems of the constructions?

What were the main problems of the constructions?

• Accountability of ESF indicators– Policy vs. contractual indicators: information vs.

incentives– 180 day employment indicator – minimum value:

• Minimizing the risks: skimming (target group members, locations)

• Disregarding long-term effects– There is no unified data register at individual level for

PES and nonprofit programmes– 180 day employment indicator:

• Non-profits: self-assessment• NES: inquiry of contracted partners

What are the characteristics and activities of non-profits?

• Very heterogeneous pool of applicants:– 40% established between 2007-2012– Only half of them conducted employment activity in 2012

• Weak „civil aspect”:– Personal income tax 1% for non-profits is only 1,8% of the

average income• Stabilising, competent core

– by the index of professional competence and institutional professionalism:• approx. 80 outstanding organizations• additional 150 good organizations

– Importance of regular governmental budgetary support, entrepreneurial activities, connections with employment services

• Importance of local cooperation: strongest ties with municipalities, local employment offices

What are the distinctive features of organizations who received SROP funds?

Factors contributing to successful application:– Institutional professionalism– Professional competence– Previous experience with employment programs– Municipality as founder– (unrelated factors: reputation of expertise, expert community, church body

among the founders)Geographical location:

– East, South-West– 60% of organizations,

43% of projects are in big cities

– The projects are not taken to the peripheries

What are the non-profits’experiences with SROP projects?

• Shift towards helping actual employment (and beyond) rather than just support of employability

• Lack of target group focus: in 60% of the projects there were at least 5 target groups

• Inclusion of Roma and elderly people are limited• They are able to reach the non-registered, permanently

unemployed people only to a limited extent (18%)• The duration of the actual service phase is significantly

shorter than the duration of the project (1 vs. 2 years)– On average, it would be necessary to provide service

to an involved person for 6 months longer

Recommendations for 2014-2020

1. Abolition of divided institutional structure (NES, NDA/ESZA)– Strengthening of the services procurement

capacities of NES (at county-level)– Inclusion of competent non-profits as external

providers at county-level

2. NES as a provider and outsourcer institution– Development of management-system (MEV)

• Data supply• Internal incentives (instead of direct performance

contracts)

Recommendations for 2014-2020

3. Finding the role of municipalities in employment policy– Making the employment pacts operational

• Joint strategy making and local institutional framework for continuous cooperation

• With the lead and professional support of the ministry

• 3-4 years long contracts for the participating municipalities or their associations

• Synchronization of nationally funded public employment and EU funding:– National funding as block grants, with freer

usage

Recommendations for 2014-2020

4. Rethinking the use of indicators in contracts– Contractual indicators:

• Differentiation of contract types– NES: Leave the incentives and monitoring for

the internal management-system– Make performance contracts with the external

providers and municipalities• Adjustments of the employment result indicator

– Incentive for permanent employment: 360 days– Differentiation between target groups and local

labour markets– Reasonable risk sharing: multistage, motivating

remuneration

Thank you for your attention!

Hétfa Research InstituteH-1051 Budapest

Október 6. utca 19.www.hetfa.hu