Rising numbers of early handicapped youth in the Netherlands

1
Rising numbers of early handicapped youth in
the Netherlands

• towards an activating social security regulation
• Martin Blomsma
• (NL-Ministry of Social Affairs and
• Employment)
• 22 June 2009
• Prague

2
Early handicapped youth in the Netherlands

• The policy problem
• Nature of Disablement Assistance Act for Young
  Persons DAYP (WAJONG-Act -1998)
• DAYP-scheme developments
• Possible causes
• Estimated potential for integration in work and
  policy options
• Recent Dutch policies fundamental change of the
  DAYP-scheme
• Remaining questions!

3
Early handicapped youth in the Netherlands

• What is the policy problem?

4
Disablement Assistance Act for Young Persons
(DAYP) total volume 1976-2007 (UWV-data)
5
Disablement Assistance Act for Young Persons
(DAYP), total volume, Prognosis scheme-growth
2008-2050 (May 2008)
6
Demographic impact projection of net labour
force 2010-2040 (data Commission LFP-2008)
7
Disablement Benefits Act (WAO/WIA) total volume
1968-2007 (UWV-data)
8
Early handicapped youth in the Netherlands

• Nature of Disablement Assistance Act
• for Young Persons (DAYP)

9
Main characteristics of DAYP-scheme
(WAJONG-Act)

• Primarily income provision for young disabled
  (18 years).
• 1 year waiting period (between 17 and 18)
• Benefit - in principle - till 65.
• Benefit level depending on degree of disability
  and age.
• Definition of DAYP-disability
• Fully disabled benefit amounts to 75 of the
  legal Minimum Wage.
• Financially more attractive than Social
  Assistance.
• No obligation to look or apply for jobs.
• Facilities (for beneficiairies and employers) to
  stimulate integration into work (incl.
  financial).
• DAYP-return rights for those in a job (max 5
  year).
• Important point fully disabled on DAYP does
  not mean no capacity to work!

10
Early handicapped youth in the Netherlands

• Relevant DAYP-scheme developments

11
DAYP-scheme developments

• Disproportionately rising influx into DAYP
  (especially since mid-1990s)
• Fairly low and declining outflow from DAYP
• Nearly all beneficiairies are fully disabled
• Changes in composition of the DAYP-scheme
  (especially the nature of disease/disorders)

12
Disablement Assistance Act for Young Persons
(DAYP/WAJONG), total influx by sex 1976-2007
(UWV-data)
13
Disablement Assistance Act for Young Persons
(DAYP/WAJONG), influxof especially
youngsters,1998-2008 (CBS-data)
14
Disablement Assistance Act for Young Persons
(DAYP/WAJONG), new influx 2007, by age
15
Disablement Assistance Act for Young Persons
(DAYP/WAJONG), influx/NL-pop.18 year-ratio,
1998-2008 (CBS-data)
16
Disablement Assistance Act for Young Persons
(DAYP/WAJONG), outflow, all age groups,
1998-2008 (CBS-data)
17
Disablement Assistance Act for Young Persons
(DAYP/WAJONG), total influx, by degree of
disablement 1998-2008 (CBS-data)
18
Disablement Assistance Act for Young Persons
(DAYP/WAJONG), stock by diagnoses, all age
groups 1998-2005 (CBS-data)
19
Disablement Assistance Act for Young Persons
(DAYP/WAJONG), new influx by diagnoses,2002-200
6 (UWV-data)
20
Early handicapped youth in the Netherlands

• Possible causes of
• Recent DAYP-scheme growth, and
• Growing number of persons diagnosed with
  psych./behavioural disorders

21
Possible causes

• Statistical factors (20).
• DAYP-scheme maturation.
• Adverse financial incentives at Municipal level
  due to introduction of new Social Assistance Act
  (20).
• DAYP-scheme more widely known (i.e. reduced
  non-take up).
• More robust networks around early handicapped
  youth.
• Medical profession better diagnosing certain
  disturbances/new images of sickness (ADHD,
  Autism etc.). But also medicalisation of
  problems.
• More hectic, complex and demanding society
  growing incidence of pychological and behavioural
  problems. But also more pressure to label
  behaviour of youth as problematic.
• Inabilities of assessment procedures (relation
  psych. diseases/work).
• Concurrence with volume growth in other
  schemes/regulations targeting the young (notably
  in special education).
• DAYP-scheme as such.
• Overlapping causes.

22
Early handicapped youth in the Netherlands

• Estimated potential for integration in work
  (DAYP-stock and
• new entries)
• Policy options to increase participation in work
  of
• DAYP-target group
• Improving labour productivity (investing in
  education more work experience/internships etc.)
• Improving image with employers.
• Tailored individual support.
• Re-calibrating incentives to actors in DAYP and
  other schemes targeted at youth (i.e. changing
  the DAYP-scheme).

23
Early handicapped youth in the Netherlands

• 2009 NL-policy fundamental change of
  DAYP-scheme
• Essential features
• Primary aim getting people into regular work
  (Work first ánd Work should pay!)
• Retaining income-support function for those
  unable to work
• Emphasizing what people can still do.
• 18 years - as a rule- too early to label a
  life-long disability.
• DAYP-scheme split up in two phases (18-27 and
  27).
• Participationplan (18), Work regulation
  (18-27) and definitive benefit-assessment (at 27)
  
• Work regulation stressing training and
  reintegration obligations (client) and a maximum
  of LM-support and -counselling (UWV).
• Changes in the benefit-formula improved
  financial incentives to take up work.
• Current DAYP-stock can voluntarily apply for
  extra help under the new scheme.

24
Early handicapped youth in the Netherlands

• Risks
• Will enough employers provide a sufficient number
  of jobs (10.000 on annual basis) and facilitate
  work place adjustments (labour market
  offensive)?
• Will employers search for potential of DAYP-group
  and acknowledge its existence (WAJONG-vouchers
  for advice)?
• Can we improve the image of the target group with
  employers?
• How to prevent the following logic Economic
  crisis -gt less regular jobs -gt leaving (costly,
  publicly financed) sheltered employment scheme as
  the last resort option.

25
Early handicapped youth in the Netherlands

• Remaining questions
• Are we following the right track when trying to
  increase the labour participation of the
  (potential) DAYP-target group?
• Is it an institutional problem or are we faced
  with an issue primarily determined
  socio-culturally and/or medically?
• Are other countries experiencing similar
  developments and problems?
• Can we learn from each others approaches?