Inter-Agency Co-operation and Employability Services: A Review of Evidence

1. Inter-agency co-operation, partnerships and employability services: a review of evidence from 15 countries

2. Structure of the presentation • Background to the research and methodology • Why have partnerships? • What do we mean by ‘partnership’? • Potential benefits of partnerships • Key issues from a review of 15 countries • Case studies: Netherlands and Denmark • Reflecting on policy and practice in NI

3. Background and methodology • Where is best practice in employability/inter-agency co-operation? • Who is involved and what are their roles? What are the benefits and limitations of different models? • What are the lessons that can be applied to NI? • Methods 1: Policy review/national expert survey • Methods 2: Case study research in Denmark; the Netherlands; GB and NI; Republic of Ireland

4. Why have partnerships? • Progress on unemployment but concentrations of worklessness certain areas and groups • Different factors affect employability: e.g. health, housing, childcare as well as individuals’ skills, etc. • Multi-dimensional disadvantage requires multi-agency response with range of resources/expertise • Unemployment concentrated in disadvantaged areas – partnerships more responsive at local level? • Can contacting out buy in efficiency of private sector?

5. What do we mean by ‘partnership’? • Forms of partnership (Stoker 1998) • Principal-agent relations (purchaser-provider) • Inter-organisational negotiation (resource co-ordination) • Systemic co-ordination (multi-agency governance) • Goals of partnership (Johnson and Osborne 2003) • Improved policy co-ordination in implementation • Enhanced co-governance in planning

6. Potential benefits of ‘partnership’ • More flexible and responsive interventions • Pooling of knowledge/expertise/resources • Coherent and ‘joined-up’ approaches • Legitimisation for policy and ‘buy in’ of key actors • Better efficiency and, crucially, better outcomes • Key question: How well do different models of inter-agency co-operation achieve these benefits?

7. Key issues from 15 countries • PAs crucial – some added value from outsourcing delivery to specialist agencies, but loss of PES consistency? • In the best cases, employers are active partners (providing work placements, informing programme design) • Shared assessment tools for early intervention/profiling • Many states have copied the Jobcentre/JBO model, then gone further – linking childcare, housing, health services • Best cases – strong strategic direction from PES, but with ‘shared ownership’ of planning, design and resources

8. Case studies: Why these countries? • Denmark and the Netherlands – vanguard of the leading ‘active’ welfare states? • Social partnership structures important in Denmark, but with strong PES ‘central line’ • Netherlands has seen rapid privatisation of PES functions and introduction of ‘welfare market’ (influencing Freud Report?) • Both suggested ‘employment miracles’

11. Denmark – research methods • National expert survey and interviews with: • national government LMA, • national unions’ confederation (LO) • national employers’ (DA) confederation • Case study: Regional Employment Council – interviews with regional PES/AF; regional LO; regional DA • Case study: local municipality activation project – interviews with municipality; service provider; employers

12. Denmark – models of co-operation • Strong ‘central line’ (from LMA/PES) on content of programmes, spending and target groups • 14 Regional Employment Councils (RARs) – PES; local authorities; unions; employers • RARs some autonomy on ‘tools and targets’ • 271 local authorities lead/fund services for uninsured • 2003: ‘More People at Work’: towards a ‘one string system’ • 2007: move towards PES-municipality jobcentres • Gradual contracting out (strong trade union role)

13. Denmark’s labour market policy structures, 2006

14. Reforms to Denmark’s policy structures, 2007

15. Benefits of Danish model • Tailoring of tools and targets to needs of clients and local labour market (e.g. ethnic minorities; skills) • Oversight of programme content, with employer and trade union knowledge of ‘realities on the ground’ • Credibility, ‘buy in’ from clients, unions, employers • Genuine sharing of power, resources, ‘ownership’ • Gradual marketisation – concerns over capacity and added value, but strong role for trade unions, PES

16. It was an important part of the reform process to give concrete decision-making authority to the regions. The regional authorities are in a good position to make sure that people were matched to the regional labour market. National Government LMA Representative It is important that we gain the support of the employer and trade union organisations. We can go to employers saying ‘look, we have their support on this’. It adds credibility… PES Regional Employment Council Representative

17. Problems of Danish model • “There has been a lot of consensus… in ten years only two issues have gone to a vote” LO representative • Arriving at a ‘modus vivendi’ – “decision-making processes can take a long time” LO representative • 2007: ends shared ‘ownership’/local tools and targets • 2007: locally responsive service; do local authorities have the capacity? Loss of institutional learning? • Has private sector delivered specialisation/efficiency?

18. It is a very big challenge. Some of the municipalities and jobcentres that deliver services will be very small. How they will address this challenge will be very interesting. PES Regional Employment Council Representative There is a lack of economic policy muscle at the local level. At the regional level there is more economic and financial muscle. There is the power to make things happen. National LO (Trade Union) Representative

19. In recent years we have spent resources trying to construct a market. Now we need to focus on performance – ensuring that companies deliver – not just ensuring that there is a market. We have not accurately measured the performance of other actors the way we measure the performance of the PES. National LO Representative

20. Netherlands – research methods • National expert survey and interviews with: • Government Ministry for Social Affairs, Employment (SZW) • PES (CWI); DIVOSA (local authorities) • Agency for Employees’ Insurance (UWV) • Case study: Rotterdam and SW Netherlands: • CWI, UWV representatives • Municipality of Rotterdam • Agens (private employability provider)

21. Netherlands – models of co-operation • 2002 SUWI Act – Reduced PES role/activation services privatised; CWI/PES as gatekeeper; UWV and local authorities fund/contract out activation • 131 Centres for Work and Income (jobcentres with local authorities, PES, UWV) established. Centres provide ‘one stop shop’ service – piloting of ‘boundaryless’ offices and ‘single employer contacts’ • UWV must buy 70% of activation in private sector • WWB 2004 – independence for local authorities but also total financial responsibility – impact on quality?

22. Benefits of Dutch model • Lack of specialisation, but moving towards more client-centred Individual Reintegration Accounts – “openness and creativity for both client and provider” • Centres for Work and Income – easier for agencies to share knowledge, but little shared ownership • Potential for more coherent service for clients • Efficiency – contractual model – control over content; outcome-focused; stop doing “what doesn’t work”

23. Problems of Dutch model • IROs - short-term (1/2 yr) contracts mean lack of consistency for clients; can’t plan long-term provision • Short, ‘Work First’ approach – activation as deterrent • ‘Pluriform’, fragmented market – 700 providers – transaction costs and bureaucracy increased • Lack of capacity/experience in tendering on all sides • Loss of institutional learning, ‘hollowed out’ PES struggles to define role as partner (lack of trust)

24. It’s a disappointment that the development of a free market with new products and new approaches has been very limited. The companies grow towards one approach rather than diverse approaches. The bids are repetitive and not innovative. Local authority representative, Rotterdam

25. Conclusions - common themes • Common themes: multi-agency approaches seeking: • coherent, ‘one stop’ services; locally responsive activation • engagement with employers; tailoring to local labour markets • contracting out of some services; most radical in Netherlands • Critical success factors: co-operation works where: • Clear strategic focus/rationale for model of co-operation • The right actors with the skills, resources, capacity to deliver • Capacity for ‘mutualism’ – governance supporting partnership • Structures that promote shared responsibility/ownership

26. Challenges for policy • Need to share ownership of activation with clients, communities, specialist partners, employers • Localisation may deliver responsiveness, but what about local capacity issues? • What future for PES? Loss of institutional learning? • Contracting and transaction costs; standardisation and quality – complex problems; rigid contracts? • Need for a mix of approaches, not just contracting; need to build capacity to deliver across sectors