220 likes | 340 Views
Subsidies for Safe and Healthy Workplaces: Sectoral Covenants in The Netherlands, 1999 – 2007. Theo J. Veerman AS tri , Leiden, the Netherlands 16 November 2009. Topics. Outline of the Covenants programme Participation rate of sectors Types of goals of Covenants Monitoring and evaluation
E N D
Subsidies for Safe and Healthy Workplaces:Sectoral Covenants in The Netherlands, 1999 – 2007 Theo J. Veerman AStri, Leiden, the Netherlands 16 November 2009
Topics • Outline of the Covenants programme • Participation rate of sectors • Types of goals of Covenants • Monitoring and evaluation • Effects: working conditions and sickness absence • Costs and benefits • Conclusion: did the programme work?
Outline of the programme (1) • Motives: • Improvement of working conditions • Custom-tailored sectoral interventions • Reduction of sickness absence • Savings: € 3 for each € invested • Written tripartite agreements between sectoral organizations of: • workers • employers • Ministry of Social Affairs
Outline of the programme (2) • Concrete targets (quantitative, time-limited, measurable) • Co-financing by sectors and Ministry(roughly 50/50)
Participation rate of sectors Expected: • 20 covenants, programme duration 4 years Realized: • 67 covenants, programme duration 8 yearscovering 52% of all workers
Types of goals of covenants • Each covenant set one or more goals • Average: 4 goals per covenant
Monitoring and evaluation (1) • Independent research and monitoring of each covenant • at onset: "zero-measurements“(often used for setting targets) • (often) mid-term measurements • final measurements (for evaluation)
Monitoring and evaluation (2) • Standardized instruments for measuring main goals(bonus for application: € 75,000) • Standard format for final evaluations(bonus for application: € 25,000) • Aggregate national evaluation, including use of national databases
Effects on working conditions and sickness absence (1) A) Were covenants' targets achieved? • fully: 41% of measurable targets • partly: 36% • not at all: 23% • Better achievement in sickness absence(helped by national downward trend) • Less achievement in working conditions
Effects on working conditions and sickness absence (2) B) Did covenant sectors perform better than the rest? • Employers were more active • Sickness absence fell more
… but • No substantial difference in occupational risks and health complaints A typical example: • Exposure to computer screen work
Convenant sectors: higher risk from start, but no improvement (absolute nor relative)in the short run
Costs and benefits (1) Costs of covenants: • € 303 million • 55% from sectors • 45% from the Ministry = € 10-30 per worker per year
Costs and benefits (2) Benefits: • Co-financing attracted extra funds from sectors • But how about the poor sectors? • Added value of extra drop in sickness absence:2.7 billion euro • If 1/3 attributed to covenants:payout-ratio 3:1
Conclusion: did the programme work? Yes, in • attracting participation of many sectors • attracting extra funds • activation of employers • reduction of sickness absence No, in • reduction of risk factors • improvement of self-reported health Yes, in • creating infrastructure for future improvements