Fase 3: Elaboración del guión del recorrido guiado

How can profiling be used to support resource deployment decisions?

The use of profiling tools was discussed in terms of it acting as: a management tool to help allocate resources; a tool to send people on active labour market programmes; and as a performance measure. Supporting resource deployment decisions was viewed as one application of profiling. Profiling tools can be used as a useful indicator of active labour market programme performance (availability of programmes was considered key) and/or a particular PES office performance.

Two examples of how profiling can be used to support resource deployment decisions were described. First, the Spanish PES discussed how scarce resources meant that the PES does not have enough time or money to help everyone and that difficult decisions need to be made, which is where some form of segmentation can be helpful. Second, in Ireland, for instance, by using profiling results the proportions that are segmented can help determine resources needed for the forthcoming year. It is, therefore, possible to adjust the cut-off points for different segmented groups. Importantly, it was not about reducing resources, but about the distribution of resources. Profiling is outcome driven.

It was agreed that at the local level, PES determine demand, so should be able to determine the allocation of resources, which can be supported by profiling. This was noted to be the case in Germany and the Czech Republic, where local PES are able to determine how their budgets are spent, so profiling is used to support resource deployment decisions. In contrast in Ireland and Hungary, resource allocation is planned centrally.

May 2015 85

What’s the trade-off between increased numbers of clients and quality of available support?

It was generally recognised that an increase in the number of unemployed presented a major challenge for PES in terms of determining how best to invest in those most in need, how to deliver services and the impact on caseworkers.

Changes in the systems and the increase in jobseeker numbers have impacted on the PES, profiling and available support. For instance, in Austria, the crisis as well as the introduction of changes to the unemployment system (such as activating people with health problems who were previously not required to search for work) had drastically increased the workload of PES. This makes it even more important to try to establish who needs various types of support. In Greece, the PES service is complex so it is not possible to design a simple system. While it is desirable to provide some services to those most ‘job ready’ online, this impacts on the quality of the service. The Greek PES provides services ‘on demand’, but it was thought to be more effective to provide services to a smaller number of jobseekers as there is not enough time to spend with everyone.

A discussion about multi-channelling (i.e. various combinations of face-to-face, telephone and internet channels) was held. Examples of this were discussed. Firstly, in Belgium (VDAB), the PES has invested heavily in online tools for jobseekers so that they can strengthen themselves in the labour market and access information to help them find their own way. At the same time, the PES was trying to improve identification and early intervention for those most in need. Secondly, in France, the increase in the number of unemployed has had an impact on the nature of contact with jobseekers (in terms of quantity rather than quality). Online tools and telephone interviews were being increasingly used instead of face-to-face. Finally, in Latvia, the PES is moving more towards increased online delivery, reduced face-to-face interaction and increased self-service.

Different ‘psychological contracts’ exist between jobseekers in schemes based on unemployment insurance versus welfare. Nevertheless, rationing is a political reality for most PES and it was suggested that caseworkers spend an increasing amount of time on compliance and/or sanctioning.

Overall, it was agreed that the increasing diversity of PES jobseekers means that channels other than face-to-face will become increasingly important, as the PES will not have enough resources to provide intensive support to all. While IT can help, it was thought that there will always be some complex jobseekers with multiple barriers and those without the necessary IT skills to navigate ‘self-help’ channels. It was also recognised that it is likely that the EU will increasingly focus on the long-term unemployed and expand the activation of groups who were not previously clients of PES. It was agreed that this would change the role and pressures placed on caseworkers.

How are profiling tools being designed and implemented in the context of wider delivery strategies?

Discussions raised the issue of whether caseworkers should be allocated a particular category of jobseeker in order to capitalise on their specialisation and expertise. For instance, in Bulgaria, the introduction of the Youth Guarantee, has led to the creation of a particular category of caseworker working only with young jobseekers (and which have specific tools at their disposal to support young jobseekers who often face similar obstacles, for instance, a lack of work experience, a lack of job-search skills, etc.). Profiling systems were identified to be implemented to meet particular service delivery demands and objectives. For example, different profiled categories of jobseekers will be directed towards different service categories. It was noted to be important to use the data available to evaluate which services are most beneficial for different target groups. This raised the issue of work-first or education-first approaches. In Denmark,

May 2015 86

if a young person registers as a jobseeker and has the profile of an early school leaver, they will be signposted towards education first. Whereas in the United Kingdom, ‘intensive activation’ courses are expensive and will only be used in those cases that are likely to have the strongest effect. In the cases of complex jobseekers with multiple barriers to the labour market, profiling can serve to refer jobseekers to relevant social services.

Changes in policy at a national and European level were discussed. Short to medium term changing policy priorities were agreed not to affect the redesign of a national profiling system (i.e. the manner in which jobseekers are profiled), but rather the amount of resources that can be spent on distinct groups. Policy also determines changes in priorities, but these do not lead to a change in the profiling tool itself. This denotes a lack of flexibility in the profiling systems.

How are PES using profiling systems to assist the balance between intensive support for the most vulnerable clients and self-help for others?

Typically profiling systems are used to screen out stronger, more job ready jobseekers, so that the PES can focus on jobseekers who require in-depth and intensive support. The decision to provide intensive support is a difficult decision to make, especially where all jobseekers have a right to access guidance and support (for example Belgium, Actiris). While in some countries the profiling system identifies whether a jobseeker or particular target groups are entitled to access intensive support (as in Denmark and Sweden), whereas in the Netherlands a Work Profiler

takes this decision. In addition to the 70 plus factors in the model, Work Profiler uses soft factors to inform their decision, including: motivation; job search behaviour; and customers’ perceptions of their own health. With profiling currently focusing on young people in Denmark, an equivalent screening tool for adults is being developed. The tool will help provide caseworkers with information to inform their decision on which jobseekers will access intensive support.

Availability of resources is a key factor in determining which jobseekers access intensive support. Resources are typically orientated towards customers in greatest need, which was identified to represent a large group of all jobseekers in Romania. While young people are an important client group, initiatives such as the Youth Guarantee are skewing resource distribution and act as an obstacle to ‘normal distribution’ for other target groups.