CAPÍTULO 2: DIAGNÓSTICO DE LA SITUACIÓN ACTUAL DE LA ACTIVIDAD DE
2.3 Aplicación de la “Metodología para el diseño de guiones de recorridos turísticos
2.3.1 Fase 1: Diagnóstico de la situación actual
At which stage of the customer journey is the profiling tool used and how? The discussion identified a number of stages in the jobseeker journey where profiling tools are used. They were reported to be taking place at one of three stages of the registration/claim process: first, at an initial online registration stage; second, at face- to-face registration with the caseworker; and finally, two to three weeks into the process.
The possibility of re-profiling was discussed. Whilst it was noted that there is often a need to revisit the profile, re-profiling was not reported to be systematically undertaken and was more likely to be a review later in the process. For instance: in Estonia re-profiling is dependent on jobseeker skill changes; in the Czech Republic different groups can be re-profiled; in the United Kingdom profiles are continually reviewed and when circumstances change dramatically, jobseekers are re-categorised; and in Sweden action plans are re-evaluated, but statistical profiling is not repeated. Re-profiling was considered important to take account of any changes to a jobseeker’s circumstances (such as personal changes, skills development, training etc.) and when services are being allocated. There was an agreed need to revisit a profile and adjust. In discussing how profiling tools are used, it was reported to be undertaken online and/or face-to-face with a caseworker. Tools are variously being used to: identify positive aspects of a jobseeker’s profile; allocate services and support; and identify those at risk of long-term unemployment.
May 2015 78
Can profiling tools have a positive or negative behavioural impact on customers and job search behaviour?
The initial discussion on whether tools can have a positive or negative impact on jobseekers and job search behaviour focused on whether jobseekers, firstly, know they are being profiled and, secondly, on whether the results of the profile are shared. Different approaches were discussed in terms of how direct caseworkers were in terms of communicating profiling results to their clients. In Denmark, full transparency in terms of sharing results and the data used in modelling were not only expected, but also required by law. It was noted that training of caseworkers was important if the results were going to be shared with jobseekers. It was considered that complex statistical results should to be given in context. Honesty is considered important. There is understood to be an increasing shift towards ‘self-help’ and online completion by jobseekers, which raised the question of whether customers start the profiling process themselves as opposed to caseworkers initiating the process. Online profiling could be considered less transparent, whilst others felt that providing results online could be viewed as dehumanising. However, it has been the practice in the past for some PES to let jobseekers know the ‘results’ from profiling, but if negative, it was agreed that this may discourage jobseekers. It was noted, for instance, that if profiling starts with the identification of problems and barriers, this may be detrimental to jobseekers’ motivation.
In contrast, some EU Member States’ representatives said that the aim of profiling was to have a positive view on jobseekers and encourage positive behaviour. So, it was thought that there needs to be a shift away from problems towards opportunities and potential actions. In Denmark, for instance, jobseekers are encouraged to focus their minds positively at an early stage, but there were also concerns that some jobseekers do not have realistic views about their employability and employment options. There was a view that profiling should include motivational questions backed up with hard (statistical) data to encourage realistic views. In Belgium (VDAB), also, caseworkers are provided with a toolbox including ‘assignments’ for jobseekers, which encourage the jobseeker to be actively involved in the process of finding new work. This was considered motivational.
There are also situations where finding new work in locations where unemployment was relatively high and job vacancies were relatively low meant that jobseekers may be realistic about their low chances of finding re-employment and this could be demotivating in itself. In France, the general atmosphere of the labour market means that many jobseekers do not know their own strengths.
Within which particular PES institutional settings do particular profiling systems work and can they serve to strengthen the relationship between the PES and Private Employment Services?
Participants stressed that no relationship exists between PES and Private Employment Services (PrES) in terms of profiling systems. It was noted that PES and PrES work in silos in the field of profiling. This stands in contrast with other areas of cooperation between PES and PrES, which share information on jobseekers and job vacancies in many countries, such as in Bulgaria. However, in Flanders, Belgium, the customer has to explicitly agree for their information on their file to be shared with the PrES (this includes profiling information).
The fact that PrES often have different commercial rationale for profiling jobseekers to the PES was discussed. It follows, that profiling systems are designed in a different manner to reflect this different rationale.
In some Member States, profiling has been reformed in the context of cuts in the PES budget, in for example the Netherlands and Hungary, which has an impact on their relationships with other organisations.
May 2015 79
In a number of countries, there are two types of caseworkers: civil servants and temporary contract agents. Temporary agents regularly go back and forth from PES to PrES and, thus, create a valuable link between the public and commercial world; this is the case in Portugal, Finland and Flanders, Belgium. It was noted that valuable competencies acquired in PrES and PES settings were transferable and an important consideration in developing the relationship between PrES and PES.
How has evaluation evidence been used to inform improvements in profiling? The discussion identified mixed experience of both profiling and how profiling systems have been evaluated. A good monitoring and evaluation evidence base exists in, for instance, Austria, the Netherlands and Slovenia. However in other countries, Ireland for example, data from the model, such as exit rates have been used to ascertain whether the predictive power of the model works.
A strong evaluative culture exists in the Netherlands where all changes in the delivery model are evaluated and the results are used to update and improve the model. In Slovenia, systematic monitoring means there is an emerging evidence base, which is available to inform decision-making. The majority of the group have tested models of different types and systems have changed or evolved over time based on evaluation evidence, for example Austria and the Netherlands, or simply based on the results from the profiling system, for example in Ireland and Slovakia.
Learning from the profiling systems and findings from evaluations are key evidence that can be used to secure ‘buy-in’ among staff, both managers and caseworkers. In order to ‘sell’ profiling to caseworkers, manager buy-in is important as managers that do not support profiling systems can have a negative impact on take up and support for the system from caseworkers.
A final point raised by the group concerned the legislative framework within which they delivered employment services. Legislation can act as a barrier to implementing both profiling and necessary changes to existing models and systems. Particularly important is the failure of legislation to keep pace with developments in how PES want to deliver services. This was particularly important in the case of Romania and was a contributory factor in the absence of a profiling system.