1. LAMAS Working Group 10-12 December 2014
Agenda Item 4.1 Ad-hoc module 2018 on reconciliation Progress report

2. Timeline 4/5 Nov 2014 1st TF meeting 25/26 Mar 2015 2nd TF meeting
June 2015
Progress report to LAMAS
2nd half 2015
Pretesting
Spring 2016
3rd TF meeting
June 2016
Draft regulation (to LAMAS)
Members of the Task Force:
Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, United Kingdom, DG Justice and OECD

3. General lessons learn from past AHMs
Task force mainly acknowledged the conclusions drawn in the evaluation report for the AHM 2010.
The new module on reconciliatio has to be
well focused on a specified and relevant topic,
less information has to be collected with a higer quality,
use simple variables measuring one aspect each,
use simple filtering, not interwined with the core and
use a model questionnaire.
Variables of the AHMs 2005 and 2010 were reviewed in how far they could be reused.
Implementation of the AHM 2018 independent from NEEDCARE.

4. Expected output of first TF meeting
Specify measurement objective of AHM
Specify topics of the three sub-modules
Define the target population
Develop a first draft list of variables
Almost no changes in policy needs  the TF can concentrate on conceptual and methodological improvements.
The task force was able to complete all tasks set for the first meeting.

5. Measurement objective
Reconciliation was specified as a situation in which "care responsibilities and participation in the labour market are compatible for a person"
There can be different solutions for reconciliation
Has to be assessed at the individual level
Two time frames: (a) recent situation, (b) long-term effects
Measurement objective:
Focus on how care responsibilities and labour market participation impose limitations on each other, or the combination of the two is experienced as problematic.
Not to measure e. g. exhaustively the use of childcare facilities.

6. Specification of sub-modules
Sub-module 1 on "care responsiblities":
In what way does access to care support facilitate labour market participation?
Sub-module 2 on "work arrangements":
Do work arrangements offered by the employers fit the needs of the employees to fulfil their care responsibilities?
Measure the use not existence of work arrangements
Sub-module 3 on "career breaks and parental leave":
 To what extent do career breaks occur connected with care responsibilities, and what is the situation of a person after returning to the labour market?

7. Target population
For the ad-hoc modules 2005 and 2010 it was everybody aged 15 to 64 years without any further limitations.
TF decided
to keep a wide definition.
No decision about the upper age limit: Care responsibilities of older persons become more and more relevant but are rarely an obstacle to labour market participation.
 LAMAS is asked to give its opinion about keeping or dropping the upper age limit.

8. Sub-module on Care Responsiblities Proposed variables
(SM1.1) Having care responsibilities for own children up to 14 years outside the household and for older dependents. (SM1.2) Does respondent have difficulties in taking care of own children limiting him/her in working? (SM1.3) Has the respondent access to child care facilities? Filter? – (a) everybody with care responsibilities, (b) persons with reconciliation problems, (c) wishing more childcare facilities to reconcile (SM1.4) Does respondent have difficulties with care responsibilities for other dependents, and do these limit him/her in work?

9. Sub-module on Work Arrangements Proposed variables
(SM2.1) Do the work arrangements limit the respondent in fulfilling his/her care responsibilities? (SM2.2-4) Which arrangements help/would help the respondent to better reconcile? (a) flexible working time regimes, incl. family leaves (b) telework (c) enterprise crèches/ kindergartens, possibility to bring children to work

10. Sub-module on Career Breaks Proposed variables
(SM3.1) Did the respondent ever stop working to take care of own child? Including maternity/paternity leave (SM3.2) How long is the sum of all spells of not working due to care? (SM3.3) Did one of these spells include a time of parental leave (in its national terms )? (SM3.4) Did the respondent ever reduce working time due to care for an own child? (SM3.5) Did the respondent ever reduce or stop working due to care for other dependents? (SM3.6) What was the most severe change after an interruption of working?

11. LAMAS is asked to:
 Take note of the work the task force has done so far.  Give its opinion on the preferred age brackets for the target population.  Comment on the list of variables elaborated by the task force.