Training leave and payback clauses: Policies and practice in Europe Cedefop Workshop, Thessaloniki, 6-7 June 2011 Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June

Training leave and payback clauses: Policies and practice in EuropeCedefop Workshop, Thessaloniki, 6-7 June 2011

Robert JellasitzThessaloniki, 6 June

Further training against the odds?

How (not) to overcome the ‘Matthew effect’ via training leave instruments

Outline

• Equity issues regarding training leave instruments

• Training Leave in Austria – Lessons Learnt

• How to improve training leave instruments?


Evaluation Framework – Equity issues

• Do Training Leave Instruments (TLI) increase participation in Further Training (FT)?

• What kind of FT for different groups?

• Would FT take place anyway (deadweight effects)?

• Do TLI reduce or widen the participation gap (‘Matthew effect‘)?

• Financial means? Who pays for whom/what?


Training Leave in Austria

• Minimum work relationship with current employer: 6 months (until 2008: 3 years, 2008: 1 year, since 2009 6 months)

• Minimum duration: 2 months

• Maximum duration: 1 year within 4 years

• Financial support: Further training allowance (Weiterbildungsgeld), equals unemployment benefit, training costs may be funded partially by employers and regions („Bildungskarenz Plus“)


Monitoring data - overview

• Traditionally, on average around 1,000 participants (i.e. 0.03% of employees), primarily women in the tertiary sector (public sector, social services, health care) made use of the training leave

• Sharp rise from 2008 on (up to 10,000, i.e. 0,3% of employees)• Composition of participants changed during crisis (men,

manufacturing sector, regions hit hardest by the crisis), but some secular trends continued

• Regarding participants‘ qualification, ISCED levels 2 and 3 increased sixfold between January 2008 and January 2010, take up in seasonal occupations increased sevenfold

• Training leave has become ‘more inclusive‘ during the crisis (sectors, regions, qualification)

• Older workers still underrepresented (2008: F 15%, M 7% > 45y, compared to F 31% and M 33% employees; increase 2000-2008: F 1% to 15%, M 5% to 7%)


Further training allowance 2000-2010


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Participants (stock) 3,535 3,042 982 1,124 1,272 1,358 1,062 1,109 1,635 4,986 6,439

Women 3,238 2,716 637 722 826 929 671 694 977 2,069 3,226

Men 297 326 345 402 446 429 391 415 658 2,918 3,213Paticipants older than 45 years 46 79 101 140 172 192 164 216 255 625 738

Duration (average) 253 300 239 239 233 256 230 232 213 170 214Duration Women 261 310 266 263 266 281 261 261 246 230 236Duration Men 198 197 201 209 197 213 194 197 179 142 200

Expenditure (thousand) 19,554 21,127 6,005 6,909 7,660 12,109 9,464 10,166 15,168 74,738 108,069

Expenditure per day 13.6 13.9 15.7 15.9 16.1 16.4 16.8 17.6 27.8 31.5 31.7

Expenditure per participant 5,532 6,945 6,115 6,147 6,022 8,917 8,911 9,167 9,277 14,990 16,783

Crisis patterns – TL participation by Sex


Crisis patterns – TL participation by Sectors


Cisis patterns – Regions (NUTS 2)


Crisis patterns – TL participation by Educational attainment


Evaluation results

• Survey (1,000 participants 2005, 2008, 2009) revealed that around 90% of participants are very satisfied with TL

• Formal education during TL very important (2008: more than 60% formal education, 44% university)!

• High intensity of non-formal training compared to participation according to AES data (709 hours vs. 71 hours)

• Occupational fields: Health care, social service, engineering, technical occupations

• Longer leave related to worse outcome in terms of employment, unemployment and wages (attachment to workplace important!)

• Best results for younger men after apprenticeships (skilled workers, manufacturing, technical occupations)

• 20% to 30% of participants change employer after training, 20% change position within same enterprise – TL supports mobility!


Lessons learnt

• Participants highly integrated in the Labour Market, stable careers (2008: 80% had work history of 4 years or more with current employer, 2009: 84%) – Training for insiders?

• About 10% of participants use TL in a modular way, 90% at once – How to proceed with ‘modularisation approach‘?

• More than 90% (2008) completed one single training unit/course during TL – Indicator for high quality training with high intensity?

• 47% of participants 2005 completed Education/Training during TL, 38% afterwards – TL too short?

• Better outcomes for participants with shorter TL duration – TL too long?

• Sharp increase, change of composition of participants during crisis – persistance of ‘crisis patterns‘, learning effects?


What next?

• Ongoing discussion in Austria how to facilitate participation in general (eligibility, flexibility of use) and how to increase participation of disadvantaged groups (eligibility, incentives, support)

→ Constraints/barriers (SMEs, reluctance of both employers and employees, especially elderly) to overcome via mix of information/guidance, coaching, financial incentives, training consortia/ joint training facilities etc.

• Trade-offs: E.g. Universal access (deadweight!) vs. Targeting (administration costs!)

• Move towards ‘rights approach‘ (entitlement) within ‘unemployment insurance regime‘ would imply strict targeting in terms of type of education/training, documentation and sanctions!

• What kind of financial means are appropriate for the kind of education/training we support via TLI (e.g. scholarships - taxes, training funds - contributions)?


Thank you very much

for your attention!


Documents

Training leave and payback clauses: Policies and practice in Europe Cedefop Workshop, Thessaloniki, 6-7 June 2011 Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June