Outline

Outline

Equity issues regarding training leave instruments

Training Leave in Austria Lessons Learnt

How to improve training leave instruments?Robert JellasitzThessaloniki, 6 June

Robert JellasitzThessaloniki, 6 June

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?Robert JellasitzThessaloniki, 6 June


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)Robert JellasitzThessaloniki, 6 June


Monitoring data - overviewTraditionally, 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 leaveSharp 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 continuedRegarding participants qualification, ISCED levels 2 and 3 increased sixfold between January 2008 and January 2010, take up in seasonal occupations increased sevenfoldTraining 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%)Robert JellasitzThessaloniki, 6 June


Further training allowance 2000-2010


20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010Participants (stock)3,5353,0429821,1241,2721,3581,0621,1091,6354,9866,439Women3,2382,7166377228269296716949772,0693,226Men2973263454024464293914156582,9183,213Paticipants older than 45 years4679101140172192164216255625738Duration (average)253300239239233256230232213170214Duration Women261310266263266281261261246230236Duration Men198197201209197213194197179142200Expenditure (thousand)19,55421,1276,0056,9097,66012,1099,46410,16615,16874,738108,069Expenditure per day13.613.915.715.916.116.416.817.627.831.531.7Expenditure per participant5,5326,9456,1156,1476,0228,9178,9119,1679,27714,99016,783


Crisis patterns TL participation by SexRobert JellasitzThessaloniki, 6 June


Crisis patterns TL participation by SectorsRobert JellasitzThessaloniki, 6 June


Cisis patterns Regions (NUTS 2)Robert JellasitzThessaloniki, 6 June


Crisis patterns TL participation by Educational attainment



Evaluation resultsSurvey (1,000 participants 2005, 2008, 2009) revealed that around 90% of participants are very satisfied with TLFormal 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 occupationsLonger 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 learntParticipants 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?Robert JellasitzThessaloniki, 6 June


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)? Robert JellasitzThessaloniki, 6 June


Thank you very much for your attention!Robert JellasitzThessaloniki, 6 June


Outline

Documents

Transcript of Outline