Structure of the presentation

1. Inter-agency co-operation and activation in Europe – evidence from three states Colin Lindsay, Ronald McQuaid, Matthew DuttonEmployment Research Institute, Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

2. Structure of the presentation • Background to the research • Research questions and methodology • What are the potential benefits and problems of inter-agency co-operation? • Case studies: Netherlands, Denmark, the UK • Critical success factors and lessons for policy

3. Background • Governments increasingly deploying inter-agency approaches to activation • Problem of persistent unemployment/inactivity in certain areas and among particular groups • Multi-dimensional problems = multi-agency response • New governance/NPM = policy makers seek efficiency and dynamism of private sector • Policy makers seek to tap benefits of ‘partnership’

4. Research questions and methodology • What different models of inter-agency co-operation? • Benefits and limitations of different models? • What have been the critical success factors enabling effective inter-agency co-operation? • Methods 1: policy review/survey in 15 countries • Methods 2: case study research in Denmark; Netherlands; UK (and Republic of Ireland)

5. Potential benefits of ‘partnership’ • More flexible and responsive interventions • Bringing together knowledge/expertise/resources • Coherent and ‘joined-up’ approaches • Legitimisation for policy and ‘buy in’ of key actors • Better efficiency and, crucially, better outcomes • Key question: How well do different models of inter-agency co-operation achieve these benefits?

6. Denmark – background and policy • Research with national government LMA, national unions’ (LO) and employers’ (DA) representatives • Case studies with Greater Copenhagen Regional Employment Council and local activation project • Key policies: Reforms from 1993: strong compulsion; long-term education and training; work placements • ‘More People at Work’ 2003: ‘one string system’ for all; shorter interventions; focus on job-entry

7. Denmark – models of co-operation • Strong ‘central line’ (from LMA/PES) on content of programmes, spending and target groups • Tripartite National Employment Council • 14 Regional Employment Councils (RARs) – PES; local authorities; unions (LO); employers (DA) • RARs some autonomy on ‘tools and targets’ • 271 local authorities lead/fund services for uninsured • Gradual contracting out (strong trade union role)

8. Figure 1 Denmark’s labour market policy structures, 2006

9. Figure 2 Reforms to Denmark’s policy structures, 2007

10. Benefits of Danish model • Tailoring of tools and targets to needs of clients and local labour market (e.g. ethnic minorities; skills) • Oversight of activation content, with employer and trade union knowledge of ‘realities on the ground’ • Credibility, ‘buy in’ from clients, unions, employers • Genuine sharing of power, resources, ‘ownership’ • Gradual marketisation – concerns over capacity and added value, but strong role for trade unions, PES

11. Problems of Danish model • “There has been a lot of consensus… in ten years only two issues have gone to a vote” LO representative • Arriving at a ‘modus vivendi’ – “decision-making processes can take a long time” LO representative • 2007: ends shared ‘ownership’ with unions, employer • 2007: locally responsive service; do local authorities have the capacity? Loss of institutional learning? • Has private sector delivered specialisation/efficiency?

12. In recent years we have spent resources trying to construct a market. Now we need to focus on performance – ensuring that companies deliver – not just ensuring that there is a market. We have not accurately measured the performance of other actors the way we measure the performance of the PES. National LO Representative

13. Netherlands – background and policy • Research with national government (SZW), DIVOSA, PES (CWI), Agency for Employees’ Insurance (UWV) • Case study: Rotterdam and SW Netherlands: CWI, UWV, Municipality of Rotterdam, private provider • Key policies: Centralisation of (previously tripartite) unemployment insurance/activation structures • Funders required to buy private activation services • PES services privatised; CWI as gatekeeper

14. Netherlands – models of co-operation • Centres for Work and Income – CWI assessor and gatekeeper; UWV and local authorities as funders • Centres provide ‘one stop shop’ service – piloting of ‘boundaryless’ offices and ‘single employer contacts’ • UWV and local authorities – purchaser/provider split in relations with private activation providers • SUWI – independence for local authorities but also total financial responsibility – impact on quality?

15. Benefits of Dutch model • Lack of specialisation, but moving towards more client-centred Individual Reintegration Accounts – “openness and creativity for both client and provider” • Centres for Work and Income – easier for agencies to share knowledge, but little shared ownership • Potential for more coherent service for clients • Efficiency – contractual model – control over content; outcome-focused; stop doing “what doesn’t work”

16. The advantage of working with [private] companies is that if the product doesn’t produce results, you end the contract. Local authority representative, Rotterdam [Pre-contracting out] projects dictated themselves, they didn’t respond to what the municipality wanted or what people needed. Projects tended to continue, whatever the results. Local authority representative, Rotterdam

17. It’s a disappointment that the development of a free market with new products and new approaches has been very limited. The companies grow towards one approach rather than diverse approaches. The bids are repetitive and not innovative. Local authority representative, Rotterdam

18. Problems of Dutch model • IROs - short-term (1/2 yr) contracts mean lack of consistency for clients; can’t plan long-term provision • Short, ‘Work First’ approach – activation as deterrent • ‘Pluriform’, fragmented market – 700 providers – transaction costs and bureaucracy increased • Lack of capacity/experience in tendering on all sides • Loss of institutional learning, ‘hollowed out’ PES struggles to define role as partner (lack of trust)

19. UK – background and policy • Research with Scottish government; regional and local PES managers; local authorities; providers • 6 case studies: local authority projects; local PES-funded projects; PES-health service partnerships • Key policies: central government/PES lead as funder and provider of advisory services • Work First emphasis: job search and short training • Work focused interviews for all working age people

20. UK – models of co-operation • Amalgamation of jobs and benefits in one agency –personal advisers and work-focused interviews • Contracting out of training services to local authorities and private, public and voluntary sector • Rigid contractual model; focus on job entries • Unions marginalised; employer voluntarism • 2003: Pathways to Work: partnership with National Health Service to assist inactive groups • Pathways: more flexible funding and governance

21. Benefits of UK model • Some local flexibility; diverse range of services • One stop shop for clients, information sharing • Coherent approach – strong PES role in funding and delivery with contracted providers adding value • Tendering – control and consistency in services • Strong roles for public and voluntary sector as providers, but adopt contract/tendering approach

22. Problems of UK model • Short-term training – struggle to deliver coherent approach in face of “competitive free-for-all” • PES – inability to share resources and ownership; rigid contractual model; lack of ‘partnership’ • Low cost interventions; simplistic job entry rewards • Lack of employer ‘buy in’/in work training options • Pathways to Work – more holistic, partnership-based approach – will it continue?

23. Conclusions • Common themes: multi-agency approaches seeking: • coherent, ‘one stop’ services; locally responsive activation; • engagement with employers; tailoring to local labour markets • Critical success factors: co-operation works where: • Clear strategic focus/rationale for model of co-operation • The right actors with the skills, resources, capacity to deliver • Capacity for ‘mutualism’ – governance supporting partnership

24. Challenges for policy • Need to share ownership of activation with clients, communities, specialist partners, employers • Localisation may deliver responsiveness, but what about local capacity issues? • What future for PES? Loss of institutional learning? • Need for a mix of approaches, not just contracting; need to build capacity to deliver across sectors • Contracting and transaction costs, standardisation and questions of quality