Benchmarking among PES from an experimental project to a regular procedure

1. Benchmarking among PESfrom an experimental project to a regular procedure Introduction Vienna, March 24, 2010, Gudrun Nachtschatt Peter Oberbichler Marius Wilk

2. Who takes part/since when? … the working group took up ist meetings in 2002 and has continued since then with financial support by the European Commission … in 2002 with 5 PES members (AMS-AT, AMS-SE, BA, CWI, VDAB) … In 2009 15 (16) PES members (AT, Actiris, VDAB, HR, DE, FIN, FR, HU, IR, NL, LI, LT, SK, SI, SE, CH) … in 2010 ??? … Project leader AMS-AT supported by a Coordination Group and a team of consultants (Synthesis Research)

3. … providing a shared modular data base on PES-performance … comparing how the performance of participating PES evolves over time (and circumstances) … exchanging good practices desigend to enhance performance What is the working group all about….. 2

4. … is a useful tool to support the modernisation of PES … is a starting point for mutual learning … widens our horizons … first of all raises questions … focuses on the identification and discussion of „Good Practice“ in strategic areas … will be linked to Mutual Learning in the new programme „PES to PES Dialogue“ shared view: Benchmarking… 3

5. Q 1 transition to employment Q 2 (Q2a) transition to employment before unemployment lasts long Q 3 transition to employment after participating in training measures Q 4 transparency of the labour market Q 5 filling vacancies with variations Q 6 satisfaction of jobseekers Q 7 satisfaction of employers (Q 8) impact of the recession (under construction) Measuring performance: in which way? 4

6. We have defined … POPs for population data and … VACs for vacancy data … indicators are a relation between 2 POPs or 2 VACs … concepts: unemployed, registered, employed, to take up a job etc. with different options … 5 context variables: EU-unemploment rate, turnover of unemployed, workload in relation to clients/inhabitants, expenditure for ALMP Measuring performance: in which way? 5

7. … we do not just compare mere figures of different PES … data base is coherent; measurement biases are expliciteley taken into account in the benchmarking process … context and background are taken into account … dynamic comparison (of PES specific „time path“) becomes more important than static comparison („cross section“ benchmarking for a single year) Comparing PES-performance Does it make sense? 6

8. … be generalists … be well informed about strategies of their organisation … have good knowledge on which kind of data is available in their PES … have access to those persons in their PES who are responsible for improvement, reforms etc. … have specialists in the background for support on data, assessment of good practice etc. Participants should…. (1) 7

9. … participate in the working group (2 x year) … deliver figures directly to the database … document the options chosen … document their measurement procedures … deliver information to the background paper on context and tasks ... analyse their performance … inform the group on reforms and strategic discussions … present good practices Participants should….(2) 8

10. … engage in discussions on good practices and reforms … be linked to their own managment … engage in informing their own PES … present reports to their managment … prepare and initiate study visits … follow up the impact in their organisation the difficult part……. Participants should…(3) 9

11. Conditions of participation … …the benchmarking will be funded by the EC ? …national contributions will be limited to working time ? …participation in the workshops and discussions …provision of data and all kinds of requested information … strong commitment of the whole PES … agreement that no figures are published !!!