Session 4: Involving local authorities

Chair: Robert VOORHAMME, alderman City of Antwerp, Belgium

Matthias KNUTH - University of Duisburg, GermanyNico VAN DE VRIE - Eurocities

Annick WAEGEMAN - City of Antwerp, Belgium

Translation

• Channel X= Dutch• Channel Y= English

Matthias KNUTHUniversity of Duisburg, Germany

Municipalisation in the German and the Danish

Public Employment Service

Active Labour Market Policies for the Europe 2020 Strategy

Ways to Move ForwardAntwerp, October 28-29, 2010

Introduction

• From 2005 to August 2009, two competing models of municipalisation 'of' or 'in' the PES in DK and Germany ('experiment', subject to evaluations)

• municipalisation > decentralisation / localisation– municipal self-administration– municipal responsibility for social assistance– social assistance with stronger historical links to 'pre-welfare-state' charities than

later differentiation into 'welfare state regimes'• municipalisation related to 'joining up' welfare services ('one stop', 'single

gateways') – 'diagonal' joining up:

• between levels of governance• between social policy fields• between professional traditions

5

The Danish governance structure of labour market policy

• Since the 1970s a two-tier labour market system:

– The PES (state) primarily serviced businesses and the unemployed covered by unemployment insurance

– The municipalities had the primary responsibility for welfare-oriented services and the non-insured unemployed.

New reforms 2007 and 2009

The Danish governance structure of labour market policy (1.1.2007)

Minister of Employment

Administrative region Employment region

Minister of Employment

Administrative region Employment region

BER

RBR

Jobcentres

Municipality

State LBR

Central government financing

Monitoring results and effects

KBMunicipal financing

Municipality

BER: Central employment council

RBR: Regional employment council

LBR: Local employment council

KB: Municipal government

1.8.2009

+ Municipal co-financing of unemployment benefit

Explicit and implicit objectives of ”central designers” in Denmark

• Ensure equal treatment of target groups in PES and municipalities

• Create a better coordinated and integrated implementation structure

• Gain strategic control over the implementation of municipal employment policies: Decentralised centralisation (NPM techniques introduced)

• Push implementation towards 'work first'• Reduce the visibility of political responsibility of the minister• latent de-corporatisation (attack on the unions via the

unemployment insurance funds)

Motives, mechanisms and unintended outcomes with regard to municipalisation in Germany

• 'one-stop' services: merging of services (national & municipal) necessitates merging of benefits (unemployment assistance & social assistance)

• regime borrowing: activating 'work first' principles dormant in the regime of social assistance also for former ue assistance recipients– suitability of job offers unrestricted by considerations of the 'good order' of the labour

market– replacing the dichotomic concept of unemployment by the gradual concept of neediness:

any job will reduce neediness– work requirements extend to every adult and able-bodied household member

irrespective of previous breadwinner status• preference for municipal services in some political factions:

– 'municipalities know better how to deal with persons distant from the labour market'

– implicitly increasing responsibilities of the Länder (as supervisors of municipalities)– maintaining a functional range of responsibilities for county administrations

threatened to become unneeded

9

Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

≈

400 municipal social services

Federal Agency for Work

unemployed persons

ex-insured insured

tri-partite governing board

176 local agencies for work

176 tri-partite governing boards

16 Labour/Social Ministries of the

Länder

German governance structure of labour market policy before 2005

need-based system

no participative mechanism

insurance system

Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

69 licensed municipalities

Federal Agency for Work

non-insured able to work and needy

insured unemployed

tri-partite governing board

≈

400 advisory councils (social partners, civil

society organisations)

municipal social servicesnon-insured insured

176 local agencies for work

≈

350 consortia 176 tri-partite governing boards

≈

350 partners' assemblies (agency for work + municipality)

16 Labour/Social Ministries of the

Länder

German governance structure of labour market policy since 2005

need-based system insurance system

Implications of municipalisation in public employment services

• clash of organisational and professional cultures– PES: high degree of standardisation, administrative or miscellaneous professional background– municipalities: high level of discretion, social worker background

• hybridisation of regimes of social protection– DE: 'unemployment benefit II' (UB II) as a 'national social assistance' replaced 'Bismarckian'

unemployment assistance– DK: municipalisation of public share in funding 'Ghent'-type unemployment insurance long-term

implications uncertain• de-corporatisation of labour market policy governance

– DK: function of unemployment insurance funds as selling points for trade union membership may be undermined

– DE: no statutory role for social partners in UBII regime– both countries: statutory role of social partners reduced to re-active supervision; representation

de-monopolised by taking new civil society organisations on board• contested relationship between national policy and street level implementation

– DK: 'centralised decentralisation'– DE: multi-model, multi-level, multi-lateral governance

12

Conclusions

• implications of the ‘activation’ paradigm far beyond activating recipients of benefits:– activation of administrative systems– activation of front-line staff – activation of principles 'dormant' in existing regimes of social protection

• paradoxical imaging of municipalities in 'activation' policies:– municipalities represent the 'softer' social worker approach (as compared

to a more 'repressive-bureaucratic' approach in national PES)– politicians seem to believe that municipalities possess the key to

overcoming long-term unemployment and that they would be tougher and more cunning in 'activating' benefit recipients

Conclusions II

But some effects of municipalisation ‘in’ or ‘of’ public employment services emerge clearly:

1) Municipalisation as a part of welfare-retrenching reforms2) Municipalisation as a part of de-corporatisation ('union side-

lining' as the soft equivalent to union bashing)3) Municipalisation intensifies the dilemma between national

strategic control of labour market policies and local autonomy and discretion

4) Municipalisation can be part of or decisive for NPM-reforms creating new problems similar to old

Nico VAN DE VRIEEurocities

19-10-2010

Decentralisation Social Welfare a Rotterdam and European perspective

Nico van de Vrie

Program Director Department of Social Affairs and Employment

Rotterdam

19-10-2010

Presentation

1- City of Rotterdam - some facts and figures

2. Importance of decentralisation and privatisation in the Netherlands

3. G4 cooperation

4. Visitation as a learning process

5. Lessons learned

6. European Experiences

7. Challenges

19-10-2010

1. City of Rotterdam - some facts

City of Rotterdam- Second largest city in the Netherlands- 600.000 inhabitants

- 32.000 households on welfare (65-)- 4.000 households on welfare (65+)- 5.000 migrants in integration-programs- 50.000 handicapped/disabled people requiring

personal care ( e.g. adaptations and help in housekeeping (1/3 working and 2/3 = 65 +)- 4.000 persons need help with burdens of debt- 4.000 disabled people in sheltered jobs- 2.000 people in temp.transitional jobs (subsidised)

About 100.000 people depending on SoZaWe RotterdamThis is 1/6 of the population of Rotterdam

1.2 Policy context – City of Rotterdam

. Unemployment & welfare dependency. 32.000 households on welfare (9% of working population). 57.000 households on social security (16% of working population). net participation grade: 58% ( goal = 80%). strong ethnic component (70% in welfare population)

. Key issues. long term welfare dependency, multiple social-problems and social exclusion, related to absence of work . Need for the development of professional skills and ‘workers’ skills. changing demands upon labour market. global economic crisis

19-10-2010

1.3 Institutional context

. Act on Employment and Social Assistance (WWB, 2004) = decentralisation to the municipal level

. Strong financial incentive to reduce number of claimants

. Central role for local municipal social services

. Cooperation between public and private agencies in delivery of services (‘chain cooperation’)

19-10-2010

1.4 Situation 2004 – 2010

. Caseload dropped to 32.000 = - 30%. Many experiments in 2005, 2006. Focus on gatekeeping and re-integration. Also stringent on benefit-cheats . Organisational change (split work – income). Central role for the case managers who have direct contact with the clients. ‘Fit for Work’ experiment with G4 (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht) for re-integration of long-term welfare dependent

19-10-2010

1.5 Measurements taken by Rotterdam to overcome the Crisis

. Crisis-team with chainpartners on local and regional level. Preventive approach : Work tot Work arrangements with employers. Stick to Work-first-approach for new applicants. Regional Labourmarket Policy in Rotterdam-Rijnmond Region. Opening hours Jobcentres 8.00h-20.00h. Experimental approach for ‘the hard to serve’. Extension of programs offering temp. subsidised Jobs as a stepping stone

19-10-2010

2.1 Decentralisation in the Netherlands

Decentralisation (with a fixed budget) creates :. ownership en responsibility on local level;. focus on local needs in accordance with national objectives;. a problem-solving attitude;. budget-discipline;. innovative and experimental approaches on the local level. a higher outflow from social assistance (3%)

But also creates:. diversity and differences on regional and national level;. an ‘everyone for himself –approach’ ;. danger of silo-preferences;. stringent ‘gate-keeping’ to decrease take-up rates;

19-10-2010

2.2 Privatisation in the Netherlands

Privatisation (with a fixed budget) creates: . distance between policy-making and execution/implementation. necessity of good commissionership and procurement. strong focus on (contracted) results. competition between vendors. public-private-partnership relationships. savings in public spending (external provision is less costly)

But also creates, unless properly contracted :. lack of innovation. cream-skimming and parking, but little impact of these activities on job placement rates . decisionmaking predominantly driven by cost considerations

19-10-2010

3. G4-Chain-cooperation on national level

G- 4 ( = Rotterdam, Amsterdam, The Hague and Utrecht). 2,2 million inhabitants. almost 100.000 people on welfare. 1/3 of the national level

Cooperation G-4 with ‘ Work Company’ (merger of UWV andJobCentres)

- 2010: establish 18 shared premises with a joint front office- One uniform stop shop approach for all clients in 18 shared premises- Bringing more people to work- Standardization and more effective in the joint operation - Common Employers Approach- Common Regional Labourmarket Policy

19-10-2010

4. Development of process of Visitation as a learning process in the Netherlands

- Until 2002 : State financed and controlled systemAccountants and State inspection

- From 2002Decentralised system Several initiatives (benchmarking, chain-coperation and visitation)Importance of transparancy and public accountability

19-10-2010

4.2 The first phase 2005-2009

.Visitation on a voluntary basis .Conducted by colleagues from other cities/agencies. Instrument of learning. Focus on improvement in business-performance.Based on INK (Dutch Quality system).Execution: - interview with management;- desk research of documents- visit and interviews with staff- final meeting and presentation of

result experiences and conclusions - Use of mystery-guest on request

19-10-2010

4.3 Second Phase from 2010 - …….

.Visitation on a voluntary basis, but as a part of measurement and assessment .Conducted by colleagues from other cities/agencies, which are qualified to be a visitator . Focus on improvement in business-performance, form the perspective of the client (jobseeker and employer) . Focus on ‘Werkplein’ as integrated organisation.Based on INK (Dutch Quality system).Use of mystery-guest

19-10-2010

4.4 Second Phase from 2010 - …….

.Execution: - interview with management;- desk research of documents- visit and interviews with staff- final meeting and presentation of

result experiences and conclusionsNew: - agenda for improvement by local

management - systematic approach (plan) and follow-up

by local management- mandatory in 2012

19-10-2010

4.5 Second Phase from 2010 - …….

.New - 2010 : results published on werkplein- 2015 : results published on internet for public

acces- 2012 : introduction of benchmark-system

based (a.o.) on results of visitation

- 2012 : execution also by experts from other organisations (mix)

- 2015 : visitation as part of reward-system

19-10-2010

5. Lessons learned (so far in Rotterdam)

. Activation services are impossible to standardise fully and to regulate in detail. No blue prints !. Central role for the case managers who have direct contact with the clients. Split Work – Income is essential for improving quality of service delivery and futher development. Chain cooperation can only be established when there is strong focus on the clients interests. Exemplary Leadership is necessary !. Organisational change is complex, multi dimensional and requires learning processes

19-10-2010

1- Many experimental approaches of cities in combating crisis2- Creation and development of Jobcentres (Jobtorgs, Werkpleinen,

Werkwinkels, Jobcenters-plus)3- More employer involvement4- Supportive Work-first approaches5- Education and training for suitable jobs6- The question of balance7- Professionalising staff8- Importance of Leadership9- Networking in partnerships. 19-10-2010

6. Experiences on the European level from Eurocities WG Employment

7. Challenges

. Retention. Job-carving. Meeting future labour demand (demographic changes). Effective regional cooperation. Breaking down the silo’s. Social return on investment (lack of knowledge). Short-term effect of budget-cuts. Exchange with other cities (mutual learning). Improving the quality of service-delivery and customer-satisfaction (e.g. visitation and client-surveys) . Examining possibilities for further ‘internal decentralization’ by changing case- workers to social entrepreneurs (performance based and with fixed budget)Another 3% extra caseload-reduction ? or more ?

19-10-2010

Questions ?

Thank you for your attention

19-10-2010

Annick WAEGEMANCity of Antwerp, Belgium

Antwerp, 

a holistic approach to the labour market policy

• Holistic approach

• Antwerp

• Actieve Stad (Active City)

• Talentenwerf

• EU 2020

• Questions

• Integrated approach• Joined forces• Common objectives

holistic approach

win win

local level

Actieve Stad(Active City) 

child care

tourism

education

student city

economy (includes ‘labour market policy’)

Sectoral networks

•Labour market (Flemish 

Employment Service ‐

VDAB)

• City 

• Education

• Companies, sectoral and 

social partners

Supply 

&

Demand 

Talentenwerf

partners Talentenwerf

City of Antwerp

FVB: Fund for Vocational Training in the Construction Sector

VDAB: Flemish public employment service

ORA:Local Council for Education

•Lack of skilled manpower•Antwerp paradox•Large building projects

reasons

common objectives

• Inform and advise 1000 persons

• 100 people training program

• 275 jobs with a long‐term future 

• 5 innovative concepts of training on‐site 

• Actions towards schools…

• Cooperation

• Goodwill• Effective policy

• Efficient use of resources

…

success elements

EU 2020

Overall approach

• Make the gap between training, education and work 

smaller

• Develop early warning systems and match systems to understand the labour market better

• Monitor, assess and anticipate locally 

• Promote equality of opportunity

Q & A

Attention

If you are attending the evening program please gather not later then 6.15pm in the Lobby of the hotel. Guided tours will start there!

Active Labour market policies for the EUROPE 2020-strategy

Ways to move Forward