1.4 MODELOS DE REFERENCIA
1.4.3 Comparación entre los modelos de referencia OSI y TCP/IP
EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT OP 167
outlook is further complicated by the fact that the OP was drawn up at a time when the changes brought about by rapid economic growth were only beginning to be fully understood. There is, therefore, also an element of delayed adjustment which should now still take place, particularly in relation to the emphasis on the long- term unemployed as distinct from the short-term unemployed and those in work.
The changes in the external macro-economic, demographic and policy environment were considered to have a number of direct implications for the rest of the OP period:
• the need to re-balance expenditure in the light of the dramatic fall in the numbers of unemployed and long-term unemployed;
• the need for adjustments within Active Labour Market
Policies to reflect recent developments:
o greater focus on short-term unemployment in the light of growing job losses, and in order to ensure preventative action so that long-term unemployed numbers do not rise;
o more focused and progression led interventions for the long-term unemployed and socially excluded; o greater focus on supply side interventions having
strong labour market linkages which have a significant impact on participants’ future employment prospects.
• falling demographic numbers in the initial education age cohorts suggest falling demand for some of this provision, and the need for older age groups to replace that group as a source of flexible labour supply for the economy. This in turn suggests a relatively greater emphasis in the future on continued education;
• a need for greater focus on training for those at work;
• a need for increased emphasis on lifelong learning
opportunities for everyone in Irish society at all levels – in work, out of work and out of the labour force, and for innovative responses to this;
• a need for a greater awareness of and focus on costs and cost effectiveness in HRD provision.
FINANCIAL PROGRESS
As noted above, as of end-2002 the OP had invested approximately €6.0 billion (or 89 per cent) of forecast expenditure. The Evaluation concluded that the OP could therefore be said to be broadly on target in expenditure terms, particularly taking account of front loading of some financial projections for administrative reasons (i.e. the Berlin profile).
In relation to the ESF co-financed Measures, the OP had invested 68 per cent of forecast expenditure at the end of 2002. In relation to the regional split of funding between the Border,
Midland and Western and Southern and Eastern Regions, performance in each region was equivalent to the overall OP average.
The OP-wide performance masks great differences at Priority level. ‘Employability’ is above the OP average at 95 per cent, and ‘Adaptability’ is just below at 84 per cent. In contrast, both ‘Entrepreneurship’ and ‘Equality’ are far below, at 24 per cent and 23 per cent of the end-December 2002 target, respectively. These patterns reflect those of the big Measures which essentially drive the Priority figures. Employability is dominated by Community Employment (CE) and Adaptability by MLT/HLTBs, both of which were above forecast at end 2002. In Entrepreneurship both the In-company Training and the Social Economy Programme were well behind forecast expenditure.
PHYSICAL PROGRESS
The evaluation also examined the physical progress of the OP at end-2002 in terms of indicators of ‘outputs’, ‘results’, and ‘impact’. With regard to physical progress, the Final Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation of the OP attempts to examine physical progress in terms of indicators of outputs, results and impacts. The report shows that output indicators, mainly in the form of throughput data, are available in respect of 34 of the 47 Measures and Sub- Measures in the programme. Of these 16 were above target, 10 were broadly on target, and 8 were below target. The Final Report notes that only 14 of the 47 Measures could be assessed in respect of result indicators, and 10 Measures could be assessed in respect of impact indicators. The Final Report concludes that indicators are comprehensive (i.e. defined, relevant and reported) in respect of output. However, the quality of indicators of results is poor and impact indicators typically do not exist. This is far from satisfactory, and is particularly disappointing in the light of the fact that many of the activities supported by the OP have been in operation for some years.
EFFECTIVENESS AND VALUE FOR MONEY
The Mid-Term Evaluation attempted to assess efficiency by comparing actual with planned unit costs at measure level. Data for such a comparison were available in respect of 29 of the 47 Measures in the OP. Roughly half of the Measures showed unit costs well in excess of planned, and about half below. The Evaluation concluded that there is currently no systematic basis for assessing “to what extent delivery of OP education and training is or is not cost-efficient.” This is due both to the nature of the indicators used in the OP and to the absence of appropriate benchmarks.
EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT OP 169
ANALYSIS OF LABOUR MARKET IMPACT
The Evaluation also included a special analysis of the labour market impact of a limited number of Measures for which survey data on post-programme outcomes were available. The analysis provided estimates of the employment and wage effects of programme participation, net of other factors that could influence labour market outcomes (e.g. age, gender, previous educational attainment and labour market experience).
In initial education the impact analysis found that participation in Measure 21, Post Leaving Certificate Courses, Measure 25 Middle Level Technician/Higher Technical and Business Skills, and Measure 27, Postgraduate Conversion Courses have significant positive effects on employment and earnings. The findings indicate that both Measures contribute to several objectives – enhancing individual employability and the quality of labour supply, and contributing to demand for skills in the economy.
In the case of active labour market programmes (ALMPs) funded under the OP, the impact analysis found that certain ALMPs implemented by FÁS, including Traineeships, Specific Skills Training, Jobstart, Linked-work Experience, Community Youth Training and Alternance (funded under Measures 1, 3, 11a, 13 and 14) had a positive impact on subsequent employment chances, even when other relevant personal characteristics were taken in to account. Programmes with no statistically discernable impact on employment, when personal characteristics are taken in to account, include Community Employment (funded under Measure 3), the single largest ALMP. Participation in CE, and some other ALMPs, did however, increase the probability of an individual continuing in other education, training or employment schemes, although the data did not permit analysis of whether this represented progression or churning.
Beyond the Measures covered by the impact analysis there is a great deal of activity funded under the EHRD OP in respect of which it is not possible to conduct a rigorous analysis of impact because of the absence of post-programme follow-up data. This is despite agreement by the OP Monitoring Committee to collect such data. The Mid-Term Evaluation accordingly recommended that “follow-up data be organised jointly, on a common basis, for the OP as a whole, given the failure of individual agencies (with the exception of FÁS) to do it individually.”