Folie 1

1
(No Transcript)
2
Outline

• Equity issues regarding training leave
  instruments
• Training Leave in Austria Lessons Learnt
• How to improve training leave instruments?

3
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?

4
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)

5
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 gt 45y, compared to F 31 and M 33
  employees increase 2000-2008 F 1 to 15, M 5
  to 7)

6
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 3,213
Paticipants older than 45 years 46 79 101 140 172 192 164 216 255 625 738
Duration (average) 253 300 239 239 233 256 230 232 213 170 214
Duration Women 261 310 266 263 266 281 261 261 246 230 236
Duration 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
7
Crisis patterns TL participation by Sex
8
Crisis patterns TL participation by Sectors
9
Cisis patterns Regions (NUTS 2)
10
Crisis patterns TL participation by Educational
attainment
11
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!

12
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?

13
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)?

14

• Thank you very much
• for your attention!