1 / 21

Training in Flanders ( Belgium )

Training in Flanders ( Belgium ). Evaluation of an on – the-job-training programme for the unempoyed Joost Bollens, K.U.Leuven. Training for the unemployed. Important ingredient of ALMP’s # Participants % of ALMP budget Intuitively , that seems right

hani
Download Presentation

Training in Flanders ( Belgium )

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Training in Flanders (Belgium) Evaluation of an on–the-job-trainingprogrammefor the unempoyedJoost Bollens, K.U.Leuven

  2. Training for the unemployed • Important ingredient of ALMP’s • # Participants • % of ALMP budget • Intuitively, thatseemsright • However : evaluationresults mixed & ratherpessimistic

  3. Effectiveness of training • Often: net effectiveness absent, or even negative • Costeffectiveness • Locking in effects • Possibly offset by “better” or more enduring jobs afterwards? • Short versus long term effects

  4. Effectiveness of training • Be careful: what is “training”? • Black box • What subject (and demandorientedornot?) • For whom? • Bywhom ? (experience, scale, …) • Type ? (classroom, on-the-job,…) • Intensity? Duration? ?

  5. Effectiveness of training • Black box, contnd. • Timing of intervention ? • CombinedwithotherALMP’s? Order? • Business cycleconditions? • Instrument fortightlabourmarket: avoid bottlenecks ? • But : locking in lessproblematicif high U?

  6. ?

  7. IBO (“Individuele beroepsopleiding in de onderneming”) • Individualvocational training, on-the -job • Initiative : employer • Whennoalternative • For unemployed • 1 to 6 months • During training : UB + additional bonus • Afterwardsrecruitment • Possibilityto present theirowncandidate

  8. Number of participants

  9. Highlyselective… • Notmuchwomen • Migrantsunderrepresented • More than 50% short term unemployed (≤ 3 m) • 55% youngerthan 25 • Relativelylesslowskilled • Selectivityremains over entireperiod

  10. Effectiveness • Two kinds of information • Unemployment register (entireperiod): eitherunemployed, ornot (monthly) • From 2003 : workingornotworking (monthly)

  11. Work

  12. “First” situation

  13. Entireperiod

  14. Net effectiveness • Outcomeverypositive • Duetoprogramme, orduetoselectivity? • Whatwould have been outcome in the absence of the programme? • Composecomparisongroup via matchingtechnique (Propensity Score Matching)

  15. Matching • Basicidea: findforevery participant, a non-participant withcomparablecharacteristics • Matchingonsex, age, unemploymentduration, educationalattainment, province, month and year of terminating the training • Selectiononobservables, notonunobservables

  16. Net effect • Here : unemployedornotunemployed (↔ workingornotworking) • From 2000 onward (↔ 2003) • In graph : % notunemployed • Starting in firstmonthafterterminating the training • Until 12.2008

  17. % notunemployed

  18. Lowskilled & LTU

  19. Business cycle : gross effect

  20. Business cycle : net effect

  21. Conclusion • Twoobjectives • As an answertoskillshortages, avoiding bottlenecks • Potentially high benefits • Butdeadweightpossible : monitor entrance • As activatingmeasure • Who enters, clearlybenefits • Butprobalility of entering unequallydivided • Howtochangethis?

More Related