Design Charles & Ray Eames - Hang it all © Vitra
The labour market integration of people of foreign origin in Flanders (Belgium): in search of effective interventions
Hanne Vandermeerschen, Steven Groenez, Rembert De Blander & Peter De Cuyper
Unemployment rate, by origin, in % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30
15
20
10
7
4
0
Belgian
EU
Source: Djait, 2015 2
non-EU
Exit rate (employment) 12 months after entry at PES, by origin, in %
Foreign origin
41
Natives
60
0
10
20
30
40
50 Percentage
3
60
70
80
90
100
Gap in the literature… • Vast body of knowledge on explanations (lack of human capital, country-specific human capital, type of migration,….) • Much less research on effect of ALMP’s for immigrants / different types of immigrants
4
Research questions 1. What labour market instruments are most effective in terms of labour market integration of immigrants? = what works? 2. Are there differences in effectiveness according to the profile of immigrants? = …for whom? 3. How can the effectiveness (or lack of it) of the labour market instruments be explained? = …and why?
5
Administrative data: public employment service and social security data VDAB
Crossroads Bank for Social Security
• Trajectory with VDAB (influx, exit, programs taken) • Background characteristics
• • • •
– Education – European diploma – Language skills (upon arrival at VDAB) – Driver’s licence
6
Origin Length of stay proxy for refugee Demographic variables
Population • Job seekers of Belgian and foreign origin • Entered in VDAB registration between 2008 and 2012 • ‘first entrance’ in this period
7
Sample Immigrant
Non-immigrant
• By year of entry • 50 % • Stratified on duration of residence and proxy for refugee (90%) • Including 2nd generation
• By year of entry • 20 % • Random sample, nonstratified
8
Sample
Year of entry
Immigrant
Non-immigrant
Total
2008
35 318
28 745
64 063
2009
31 829
24 908
56 737
2010
27 384
18 817
46 201
2011
23 332
15 910
39 242
2012
22 405
15 267
37672
Total
140268
103 647
243 915
9
alterneringsstage Instapstage
sollicitatietraining IBO
Nederlands op de werkvloer
tweedelijnsbegeleiding beroepsopleiding
Beroepsgerichte doorstroomopleiding
begeleidingstraject Nederlands voor anderstaligen
BIO
Algemene arbeidsmarktcompetenties
Beroepsverkennende stage
Oriënterende opleiding
10
Design Focus groups with experienced PES councellors
Literature review
Data Analysis: what works for whom?
Conclusions: what works for whom, and why?
11
Choices for phase 2
1. Competence enhancing traineeship & Individual Vocational Training Importance of work experience in the host country ALMP: the closer to the LM, the more effective
2. Vocational training ‘diploma culture’; demonstrable skills Mixed findings in the literature
Choices for phase 2
3. Groups by origin and length of stay Importance of subgroups (length of stay; origin; education/learning capacity,….) Shortcoming in current reseach
7 ‘trajectories’ 1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6.
7.
‘contact only’ ‘exclusively other interventions’ Vocational training Competence-enhancing traineeship Individual Vocational Training (IVT) Vocational training and competence-enhancing traineeship Vocational training and IVT
14
Voc. training
Comp. traineeship
IVT
1
(?)
(?)
(?)
2
0
0
0
3
X
0
0
4
0
X
0
5
0
0
X
6
X
X
0
7
X
0
X
2 control groups • No intervention • Only counseling
15
5 origin groups • • • • •
Belgian EU-origin (1st or 2nd generation) 2nd generation non-EU 1st generation “former arrivals” (5 years or more) 1 st generation “newcomers”
16
Exit 6 months after completion of trajectory 100 90
91
88
90 88 75
80
66
Percentage
70 60
69 60
58
57 47
50
47
40
44
38
30 20 10 0 7 - beroep & IBO
5 - IBO
6 - beroep & 3 - beroep stage Belg
4 - stage
Buitenlandse herkomst
17
2 - enkel contact
1 - enkel andere acties
Probability of exit during (or immediately after) trajectory 50%
Belg
EU
2de gen niet-EU
1ste gen oudkomers
1 ste gen nieuwkomers 46%
46%
45% 40%
38% 37% 35%
35% 30%
30% 29% 29%
25% 26% 25% 24% 24% 24% 22%
25% 20%
25% 24% 24%
24% 24% 23% 23% 23% 23% 22% 23% 22% 21%
27% 25% 23% 22% 20% 19% 19%
23%
20% 18% 18%19%
18% 14% 14% 13%
15% 10%
10% 5% 0% A - geen interventie
B - enkel 1 - enkel begeleiding andere acties
2 - enkel contact
18
3beroepsopl
4 - stage
5 - IBO
67beroepsopl + beroepsopl + stage IBO
Probability of exit after trajectory 50%
Belg
EU
2de gen niet-EU
1ste gen oudkomers
1 ste gen nieuwkomers
45% 40%
40%
39%
35% 31%
30%
28%
25% 20%
35%
33%
32% 31% 31%
35%
36%
32% 29% 28%
30%
30%
29%
26% 26% 24%
26%
28%
27% 26% 25%
18% 14% 14%
15%
13%
10%
10% 5% 0% A - geen interventie
1 - enkel andere acties
2 - enkel contact
3 - beroepsopl
19
4 - stage
5 - IBO
6 - beroepsopl 7 - beroepsopl + stage + IBO
Conclusion (1): effectiveness of trajectories • Interventions ‘work’: increases the odds of exit to employment (compared to no intervention) • This holds for each origin group
• No lock-in effect • Differences in effectives by group of origin – every group has another profile
20
Conclusion (2): Score of the different interventions • IVT as expected the ‘winner’ – In line with literature – subsidized working experience – wage subsidies; – Very effective, but relatively little influx of first generation immigrants
• In second position: trajectories with vocational training • Vocational training more effective than (only) traineeship – Traineeship less positive result then expected – “work experience in host country” – ‘Diploma oriented culture’ in Flanders as explanation? – Importance of ‘good quality’ internships 21
Conclusion (3): differences by origin group
Newcomers: profiled as a strong group – Participate in interventions more frequently – Vocational training remarkably effective (even compared to natives) – Descriptive exit rates still lower for newcomers
22
Conclusion (3): differences by origin group
However…
Newcomers: profiled as a strong group
• Relatively small numbers ‘push through’ to vocational training (+/- 8%) • Indications of selective participation • What about low educated newcomers? • What about the type of job (level)?
– Participate in interventions more frequently – Vocational training remarkably effective (even compared to natives) – Descriptive exit rates still lower for newcomers
23
Conclusion (3): differences by origin group
Second generation non-EU - Results show more resemblance to first generation than to Belgians - Several trajectories are less effective for this group
24
Future research • Effectiveness of ALMP’s of immigrants as underresearched topic • Distinguish between immigrant groups • 2nd generation? • Traineeships? • Succesful policies for ‘weaker’ groups? (education/learning capacity)
25
THANK YOU! Contact:
[email protected] [email protected]
26
