Training leave and payback clauses: Policies and practice in Europe Cedefop Workshop, Thessaloniki, 6-7 June 2011 Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June Further training against the odds? How (not) to overcome the ‘Matthew effect’ via training leave instruments

Outline Equity issues regarding training leave instruments Training Leave in Austria – Lessons Learnt How to improve training leave instruments? Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June

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? Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June

Training Leave in Austria Minimum work relationship with current employer: 6 months (until 2008: 3 years, 2008: 1 year, since 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“) Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June

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% > 45y, compared to F 31% and M 33% employees; increase : F 1% to 15%, M 5% to 7%) Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June

Further training allowance Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June Participants (stock)3,5353, ,1241,2721,3581,0621,1091,6354,9866,439 Women3,2382, ,0693,226 Men ,9183,213 Paticipants older than 45 years Duration (average) Duration Women Duration Men Expenditure (thousand)19,55421,1276,0056,9097,66012,1099,46410,16615,16874,738108,069 Expenditure per day Expenditure per participant5,5326,9456,1156,1476,0228,9178,9119,1679,27714,99016,783

Crisis patterns – TL participation by Sex Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June

Crisis patterns – TL participation by Sectors Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June

Cisis patterns – Regions (NUTS 2) Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June

Crisis patterns – TL participation by Educational attainment Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June

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! Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June

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? Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June

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)? Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June

Thank you very much for your attention! Robert Jellasitz Thessaloniki, 6 June