Hugo Sinzheimer Institute Universiteit van Amsterdam

1
Hugo Sinzheimer InstituteUniversiteit van
Amsterdam

• Decentralising welfare to work
• the Dutch example
• Els Sol
• c.c.a.m.sol_at_uva.nl
• W-T-W Convention
• Birmingham 20 21 june 2007

2
Some Key Figures of the Dutch Labour Market

• 16 mln inhabitants of which 7,5 mln labour force
• Sickness rate 4 (2005 5)
• Unemployment rate 4.7 (2005 6,1) (2001
  3,3)
• Not participating or partly participating
• 850.000 disabled benefits (2005 900.000)
• 250.000 short term unemployed (2005 300.000)
• 300.000 social assistance (2005 330.000)
• -gt More people participating due to economic
  growth
• and change in legislation

3
Dutch service delivery structureby type of
welfare benefit under 2002 SUWI act (Structure
Implementation Work and Income)
4
Factors driving introduction of private market
for public employment services (2002 SUWI Act)

• Effectiveness increased focus on outcomes
• Efficiency competition between providers
• Client oriented service choice for users

5
Role of private non-profit and for profit
contractors

• Expenditure of reintegration budget in
  percentage of non -profit and for profit
  reintegration companies, Amsterdam, 1996-2003

6
Municipal tenders

• 2003 first tenders
• Duration period free (1 2 years)
• Transparancy
• Directory Providers http//keuzegids.blikopwerk.n
  l/reintegratiemonitor/rwi/intro.asp
• Information on Municipal Tenders
  http//www.reintegratiemeldpunt.nl/home.asp?depart
  ment1
• Certificated Providers
• http//www.boreakeurmerk.nl/
• http//www.boakeurmerk.nl

7
Outflow after two years by recipients social
assistance, 2003Source CBS, 2005, Uitstroom
naar werk.
8
Outflow after two years by recipients of
unemployment benefits 2003Source CBS, 2005,
Uitstroom naar werk.
9
Net effect of W-t-W example of Rotterdam

• SAW/TNO (2006) Gross and net results by type of
  instrument in Rotterdam
• __________________________________________________
  ______________
• instrument placement (p) shortens
  duration
• 
  (gross effect) placement in months
• __________________________________________________
  ______________
• Basic reintegration 12-37 16 4
• Reintegration plus 13-28 24 10
• Social activation 8-19 16 4
• Work experience 40-43 52 3
• No instrument -
  10 --
• __________________________________________________
  ______________
• Source Hekelaar, Zwinkels, Braat,
  2006, De juiste klant op het juiste
  traject.Rotterdam SWA/TNO.

10
Social Assistance Probability of getting a job,
with and without employment services (source SEO
2006)
11
WW Probability of getting a job, with and
without employment services (source SEO 2006)
12
Characteristics of NPM Dutch municipalities

• Funding AME and DEL division model
• Law Policy bylaws (bonus/malus, sanctions)
  municipal autonomy in policy design and control
• Policy Implementation make or buy
  windowdressing

13
Dutch service delivery structureby type of
welfare benefit under 2002 SUWI act (Structure
Implementation Work and Income)
14
NPM Management Mechanisms

• Benchmarking
• Steering by output
• Tendering
• Vouchers (IRO, PRB)

15
Creating a WF Benchmark(source Sol a.o. Work
First works. Towards evidence based work first
approach 2007)

• 2004 Act on Worc and Income
• autonomy in policy design, financial
  responsibility -gt outcome orientation
• from suitable labour -gt generally accepted labour
• Work First examples from the United States, UK
  and Denmark
• In no time Work First became a major trend
  amongst municipalities (more than 80 in 2006)
• Laboratorium of Work First approaches -gt what
  works best? -gt comparing approaches by benchmark

16
Definition Work First

• A policy strategy
• directed at prevention, enforcement, diagnoses by
  using work arrangements (do mechanism)
• purpose is return to the labour market asap
• using two types of instruments employment
  services and sanctions (sweet and sour)

17
Work First Concept (Un)Willingness to Work
18
Work-First strategy
t1 ? t2
t1
t2
19
Reintegration model Work First
20
Results WF Benchmark 2006 outflow by target group
21
Resultaten WF Benchmark 2006 Type sanctie naar
uitstroomresultaat
22
Results WF Benchmark 2007 by type of working
place (simulated or real)
23
Results WF Benchmark 2007 Outflow by type of
activities
24
Make or buy Prime contractor Work First projects
25
Result WFbenchmark 2007 by type of prime
contractor
26
Downside Work First

• The focus on work, regardless of pay and
  sustainability can create working poor, who
  earn too little and become dependent on social
  assistance again and again (revolving door)

27
Conclusions

• Laboratorium of new approaches
• NPM reform delivers short term results
• Steering instruments more knowledge
• Mimicking windowdressing
• Work First Plus incentives?
• Lack of political steering national and local
  depolitizication -gt democratic deficiency