Latest evidence about what works for most disadvantaged - SWEDEN

Christer Gerdes

Maria Cheung

Swedish Public Employment Service

Programme: Job coaching___________________________________________

• One service in Swedish ALMP is job search assistance, even called “Job coaching”.

• In 2013 a performance indicator of job coaching providers was made available at an online website. The indicator, called “rating”, was based on previous records on how successful job coaches had been in helping participants to find work.

• This study examines to what extent this information affected job seekers choice of job coach.

Background

• A job placement officer assess if the unemployed should have a job coach

• The job placement officer is not allowed to recommend certain providers of job coaching

• In case the unemployed does not want to choose actively, she is assigned the job coach closest to her home address

The “Rating”

• In April 2013 a performance indicator for providers of job coaching was published

• The rating is the outcome of comparing the performance of providers of job coaching during the year of 2012

• The rating is divided in one, two, and three stars – one star indicate worse than average– two stars indicate average– Three stars indicate better than average

The “Rating” (cont’d)

• Participants have been “profiled”, which means that by using a statistical model the chances for each participant of getting a job were estimated

• The estimated probabilities for participants of getting a job are compared to the actual outcome, i.e. if participants did find a job during the time they were assigned to a job coach

• Weighing up these two produce a value (the “score value”) that is used to compare how well a job coach performed compared to other job coaches

• Score values are used to rate the coaches in 1, 2, 3 stars

1st January 2012

14th November

2012

30th April 2013

Publication of rating

”Pre-publication” period

15th August 2013

Extraction of data

”Post-publication” period

Rating-period

Analysis

• Look at the correlation between participant characteristics and choice of job coach, controlling for pre-period aspects

Choice of job coach (certain rating value) = X1B1 + X1*[Post-

publication]B2 + β[Post-publication]+ X3B3+ε

Variables in vector X1 include indicators for gender, age, education, etc. Vector X1*[Post-publication] includes same variable interacted with post-publication indicator

10

 Choice of job coach (certain rating value)= X1B1 + X1*[ After publication]B2 + β[After publication]+ X3B3+εVARIABLES Baseline   

Female - After publication 0.0756***  (0.0256)Under 25 years - After publication 0.0346  (0.0472)50-64 years - After publication -0.00554  (0.0366)short waiting period - After publication (>41 days) -0.0659  (0.0543)longer waiting period - After publication (>120 days) -0.00388

  (0.0556)long waiting period - After publication (>256 days) 0.00746  (0.0463)Very long waiting period - After publication (>632 days) -0.0535

  (0.0475)Compulsory education less than 9 years - After publication -0.0437

  (0.0570)Compulsory schooling 9 years or longer - After publication -0.0290

  (0.0390)Short post-secondary education - After publication 0.0555  (0.0552)Long post-secondary education - After publication 0.0534  (0.0421)Born outside Europe - After publication -0.0451  (0.0356)Control of supply areas Yes Control for characteristics in pre-period  YesNumber of observations (participants) 12920

R2 0.201

Results

• Women seem to have benefited most from publication of rating values

• Coefficient estimates for education indicators are not statistically significant, but suggest that better educated participants choose a job coach with a better rating, and vice versa

• For participants born in a non-European country there is a negative correlation (but not statistically significant)

Programme: Group meetings___________________________________________

• Another popular Swedish ALMP instrument is frequent meetings with caseworkers group meetings Individual meetings (face-to-face or digital)

• RCT for “Right Job” implemented at 14 local PES offices Oct 2011- Feb 2013 Reason: efficiency gains at office level

• This study (Gartell, 2014) evaluates the effects of the programme wrt Job-related outcomes Costumer satisfaction Caseworkers’ work situation

Concept of RJ___________________________________________

Start seminars(10-20 participants)Training on writing CVsinterviewsNetworking etc.

2 w

Start operative teams (8-12 participants in each team)

4 w 6 w

5 seminars 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks

Evaluation technique and method___________________________________________

• RCT at the individual level

• Encouragement design - ITT estimation

• Treatment: participation in group activities + regular PES activities

• Control: regular PES activities

• Sample: 70 RJ groups were formed at 14 local PES offices 2500 individuals half of which randomized into treatment (~50% take-up) Aged 18-24 youth registered for ~ 90 days (majority)

30-55 older registered at least 6 months

• Data: register data 2 surveys: 30 days (78% answer) and 6 months (72 % answer) after

Findings___________________________________________

• Job-related outcomes (survey and register data)– No effect on job searching but on job proposals – 3 % higher probability to have a job within 1-3 months but the effect fades out over time– Effects stronger for non European born and low educated – No difference between treatment and control groups after 4 months and onward

• Costumer satisfaction (during treatment, no differences 6 months after)– Higher satisfaction levels– More content with PES service– More frequent contacts with PES

• Caseworkers’ situation (73 % or 103 answers; 63 worked with RJ)– Allocated 1.5 more h per unemployed – No effect on work load or administration burden– Higher satisfaction levels: content with group activities; better identification of those

with most need; better contact with job seekers