ESPN Thematic Report on integrated support for the long-term unemployed Germany 2015
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ESPN Thematic Report on
integrated support for the
long-term unemployed
Germany
2015
Walter Hanesch, Gerhard Bäcker, Gerhard Trabert
May – 2015EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Directorate D — Europe 2020: Social Policies
Unit D.3 — Social Protection and Activation Systems
Contact: Valdis ZAGORSKIS
E-mail: Valdis.ZAGORSKIS@ec.europa.eu
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
2EUROPEAN COMMISSION
ESPN Thematic Report on
integrated support for the
long-term unemployed
Germany
2015
Walter Hanesch (University of Applied Sciences Darmstadt),
Gerhard Bäcker (University Duisburg-Essen) and
Gerhard Trabert (University of Applied Sciences RheinMain)
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
2015The European Social Policy Network (ESPN) was established in July 2014 on the initiative of the
European Commission to provide high-quality and timely independent information, advice,
analysis and expertise on social policy issues in the European Union and neighbouring countries.
The ESPN brings together into a single network the work that used to be carried out by the
European Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion, the Network for the Analytical
Support on the Socio-Economic Impact of Social Protection Reforms (ASISP) and the MISSOC
(Mutual Information Systems on Social Protection) secretariat.
The ESPN is managed by LISER and APPLICA, with the support of OSE - European Social
Observatory.
For more information on the ESPN, see: http:ec.europa.eusocialmain.jsp?catId=1135&langId=en
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone
boxes or hotels may charge you).
LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission, however it reflects the views only of the
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http:www.europa.eu).
© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.Integrated support for the long-term unemployed Germany
Contents
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 6
1 BENEFITS AND SERVICES SUPPORTING THE LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED.......................... 7
1.1 Benefits ............................................................................................................ 7
1.2 Services ............................................................................................................ 8
2 COORDINATION BETWEEN SERVICES TOWARDS A ONE-STOP SHOP APPROACH .............11
3 INDIVIDUALISED APPROACHES .................................................................................12
4 OVERVIEW TABLE ....................................................................................................14
REFERENCES
5Integrated support for the long-term unemployed Germany
Summary
(1) In 2013, only a small minority of the registered long-term unemployed were under
the jurisdiction of unemployment insurance (Social Code Book III), while the vast
majority were under the jurisdiction of basic income support for job-seekers (Social
Code Book II). This reveals the minor importance of the first safety net and the
dominant role of the latter for the social protection and activation of the long-term
unemployed in Germany.
(2) The two benefit schemes – legally based on Social Code Book III and II - cannot
prevent long-term unemployment being one of the main causes of income poverty in
Germany. As a result of the currently legally fixed calculation method, basic income
support for job-seekers for all household types is considerably lower than the
respective poverty threshold . At the same time, between 1/3 and 2/5 of all eligible
beneficiaries do not apply for these benefits.
(3) As 18% of all participants compared to 36% of all registered unemployed, the
long-term unemployed were definitely underrepresented in active labour market
programmes/measures in 2013. In all programmes/measures, the integration success
of the long-term unemployed was lower than that of all the unemployed. But not all
activation programmes/measures were and are aimed at immediate integration into
the labour market.
(4) Just between 2010 and 2013, actual public expenditure on labour market
integration measures for recipients of basic income support for job-seekers was
reduced by around €2.5 million, or 42%. The expenditure reduction on activation
measures was accompanied by parallel reductions in expenditure on administrative
staff (including case managers).
(5) In Germany, integration practice is mainly focused on those unemployed who have
the best chances in the labour market, while those who have only poor chances are
hardly helped. This fatal setting of priorities has resulted, among other things, in an
orientation on short-term performance and financial efficiency.
(6) It remains to be seen whether, thanks to the concept of the newly elected federal
governing coalition, the necessary re-orientation of active labour market programmes
in the context of Social Code Books (SGN) III and II will be introduced - with the focus
shifting towards activating and integrating the most vulnerable groups in the labour
market. In general, the approach of the new concept is positive, but it needs to be
introduced on a larger scale.
(7) Basically, the fast and effective re-integration of unemployed people with massive
integration barriers, and the prevention of long-term unemployment, is hampered by
the splitting of social protection and activation for unemployed people into two
separate systems (legally based on SGB III (unemployment insurance) and II (basic
income support for job-seekers) with differing regulations, administration and funding.
(8) Benefits and services for SGB II are provided by two types of job centres. In job
centres as joint institutions of the local employment agencies and municipalities, co-
operation with the local employment agency functions well, while co-operation with
the municipal social services is more difficult. Where a municipality functions as an
approved sole operator of the job centre, co-operation with the municipal social
services functions well, while co-operation with the local employment agency is more
difficult.
(9) The labour market integration services of the job centres should be complemented
by social integration services, which are the competence of municipalities. But the
objective of interlinking professional and social services and providing integrated
support from a single source (“one-stop shop”) has not become reality in Germany
until now.
(10) All job centres have built up local coordination and co-operation networks, which
are meant to contribute to better planning and improved coordination of the different
local actor groups’ activities.
6Integrated support for the long-term unemployed Germany
(11) Each benefit claimant in Social Code Book II has to sign an integration contract,
which includes specific requirements of and obligations for the benefit recipient. The
integration contract involves an integration plan, which is updated regularly, and it is
also the basis for sanctions in case the benefit claimant/recipient fails to fulfil his/her
obligations.
(12) According to Social Code Book II, job centres are obliged to support job-seekers
in a comprehensive way, according to their specific needs. For those user groups with
major integration barriers, mainly the long-term unemployed, case management is
provided. This task requires great professional competence, as well as a setting which
enables an intensive process of advice and support – conditions which are not often
fulfilled.
1 Benefits and services supporting the long-term unemployed
1.1 Benefits
According to a special report on long-term unemployment in Germany by the Federal
Employment Agency (Bundesagentur für Arbeit 2014a), the number of registered
long-term unemployed hardly changed between 2009 and 2013. Since the number of
short-term unemployed declined more significantly, the proportion of long-term
unemployed has slightly increased, from 33.3% in 2009 to 35.6% in 20131. The
continuously high number and share of long-term unemployed indicates that labour
market policy has difficulties fulfilling the task of re-integrating this group into the
labour market. There are still big differences between regions and municipalities with
regards to long-term unemployment: while the states of Bremen and North Rhine-
Westphalia had the highest proportions of long-term unemployed (with 45% and 42%
respectively), Bavaria, with 25% and Baden-Württemberg, with 30% had the lowest.
The municipalities with the highest proportion of long-term unemployed are Hamm
(60%), Recklinghausen (54%) and Oberhausen (51%), all located in North Rhine-
Westphalia (Bundesagentur für Arbeit 2014a).
Social protection for the unemployed comprises an insurance-funded (Unemployment
Benefit I) and a tax-funded (Unemployment Benefit II) system. Unemployment Benefit
I, legally based on Social Code Book III, is provided for formerly insured employees
and is managed and implemented by the Federal Employment Agency. This benefit,
whose level is 60% (with children: 67%) of the last net wage, is paid if the jobless
person has contributed to the unemployment insurance fund for a minimum of one
year within the last three years. The regular maximum period for benefit receipt of
twelve months is prolonged for older unemployed people, with 15 months of benefit
payments for people aged over 50, 18 months for people aged over 55 and 24 months
for those over 58. Furthermore benefit receipt is linked to readiness to actively look
for a job and to be available for the job placement efforts of the employment agency.
The latter includes the obligation to participate in activating measures offered by the
employment agency2.
In 2013, only 130,000 (or 12%) of the 1,050,000 registered long-term unemployed
were in the jurisdiction of the unemployment insurance (Social Code Book III), while
921,000 long-term unemployed (or 88%) were in the jurisdiction of the basic income
support for job-seekers (Social Code Book II). The vast majority of unemployed
people without, or with insufficient social insurance protection, have to apply for the
means-tested basic income support for job-seekers, which is an element of the last
safety net of the social minimum income schemes in Germany. These percentages
1
The proportion of long-term unemployed according to the ILO concept is considerably higher
than the proportion of registered long-term unemployed reported by the Federal Employment
Agency, with 44.7% compared to 35.6% in 2013, but the development has been similar since
2009 (Bundesagentur für Arbeit 2014a).
2
Unemployed persons over the age of 58 can be exempted from having to be available for
labour market or activating measures. But in this case, they have to apply for their pensions as
early as possible and are no longer registered as unemployed.
7Integrated support for the long-term unemployed Germany
indicate the minor importance of the first safety net and the dominant role of the last
safety net for social protection and activation of the long-term unemployed in
Germany.
Basic income support for job-seekers is offered in the form of unemployment benefit
II, for those people in need who are capable of working and social benefit to
household members not capable of working (mostly children and youth). The level of
this minimum income benefit scheme aims to guarantee a socio-economic subsistence
level, which enables the recipients to participate in normal social life. At the same
time, the benefit level should provide a financial incentive to seek gainful employment.
The standard unemployment benefit II (and the social benefit) is determined by the
so-called statistical standard and is deduced from the expenditures of lower income
groups, measured every five years by means of the Income and Consumption Sample.
In the years in between, benefits are updated every year according to a mixed price
and wage indicator. In addition to the standard benefits, recipients can apply for non-
regular payments and additional needs supplements. The cost of accommodation (rent
and heating cost) is covered based on actual costs (within certain limits). As a result
of the currently legally fixed method of calculating, the benefit level for all household
types is considerably lower than the respective poverty threshold set at 60% of
national median income (Becker, Schüssler 2014). When taking up gainful
employment, only a small proportion of the revenues is exempted from deduction
from income support.
The two benefit schemes – based on Social Code Book III and II – cannot prevent
unemployment – above all long-term unemployment – being one of the main causes
of income poverty in Germany (Statistisches Bundesamt 2014a).
Only a small proportion of the long-term unemployed under the legal competence of
Social Code Book III receives this insurance funded benefit, because most of them
were never eligible due to the lack of contribution payments (labour market entrants
or re-entrants) or are - after expiration of unemployment benefit entitlement - not
eligible for basic income support for job-seekers because the total household income
exceeds the legally fixed threshold of need. Most benefit recipients are elderly
unemployed with a prolonged period of benefit receipt.
Empirical studies on the non-take-up of social minimum income benefits in Germany
have proved that between 1/3 and 2/5 of all eligible beneficiaries do not apply for
these benefits (Bruckmeier et al. 2013; Becker, Schüssler 2014; Becker 2015). There
are many indications that the non-take-up rate among the long-term unemployed with
regards to basic income support for job-seekers is in the same range.
1.2 Services
Active labour-market integration programmes and services are offered in the context
of the Social Code Book III (employment promotion) and the Social Code Book II
(basic income support for job-seekers). The local employment agencies and the job
centres offer not only counselling and job placement, but also a wide range of
integration programmes and measures regulated by Social Code Books III and II. In
principle, all registered long-term unemployed have access to activation support in the
form of counselling and job placement, but only a limited number – who are normally
all benefit recipients - has access to further activation and integration
programmes/measures.
(a) Activation and integration programmes and services
In the year 2013, 101,000 participants in active labour market programmes/measures
were long-term unemployed before starting (excluding measures for young people).
As 18% of all participants compared to 36% of all registered unemployed, long-term
unemployed were definitely underrepresented in active labour market
programmes/measures (Deutscher Bundestag 2015). 96,000 participants (95%) were
funded by basic income support for job-seekers in line with Social Code Book II, and
5,000 participants (5%) by unemployment insurance in line with Social Code Book III.
8Integrated support for the long-term unemployed Germany
The long-term unemployed were over-represented in measures for activation and
professional integration (36,000, or 23% of all participants in this measure) and in
work opportunities without a regular labour contract (26,000 or 24%). 18,000 or 13%
participated in further training measures and 3,600 or 27% participated in local
activation measures designed by the job centres. Around one fifth (21.3%) of former
long-term unemployed participants leaving active labour market
programmes/measures between July 2012 and June 2013 were in employment
subject to the payment of contributions six months later, compared to 38.4% of all
participants. In all the programmes/measures, the integration success of the long-
term unemployed was lower than that of all unemployed. The highest integration rate
was achieved by the integration grant (paid to the employer to stabilise an already
existing employment relationship), followed by further training measures. But not all
activation programmes/measures were and are aimed at immediate integration into
the labour market. This is especially true for those programmes/measures, which
pursue the objective of maintaining or enhancing the employability of those furthest
from the labour market, such as measures for activation and professional integration
(integration rate of long-term unemployed: 19.3%) and work opportunities without a
regular labour contract (integration rate of long-term unemployed: 6.2%) (Deutscher
Bundestag 2015).
(b) Social services
According to Social Code Book II, the labour market integration services of the job
centres should be complemented by social integration services, which fall within the
competence of the municipalities. These integration services are discretionary
benefits, meaning that they can be provided by the municipalities, but the
beneficiaries are not legally entitled to them. The range of these services is mainly
dependent on the volume of funds the local authorities are able and willing to provide.
Therefore, the volume and scope of integration services vary considerably among the
municipalities. Unfortunately, hardly any data on the service provision of the
municipalities are available (Adamy, Zavlaris 2014). Economically weak municipalities
with major labour-market problems therefore run the risk of not providing a sufficient
volume of services.
According to § 16a Social Code Book II, integration services include above all
childcare, long-term care, debt counselling, addiction counselling and psychosocial
care. The services are offered by municipalities or by the private agencies of welfare
associations on behalf of the municipalities. In fact, the success of the integration
service of the job centres with regards to the long-term unemployed is to a great
extent dependent upon these social integration services, because these services
respond individually and accurately to the different integration barriers and the
specific needs of job-seekers.
(c) Public spending on activation programmes/measures
Since the beginning of the millennium, expenditure on active labour-market policies
has been declining almost constantly – with a short-term exception during the
economic crisis in 2008 and 2009. During all those years, this expenditure was
considerably lower than that for the income protection of Social Code Books III and II
(Kluve 2013). With the shifting of registered unemployed from the jurisdiction of SGB
III to SGB II, expenditure on activation was shifted respectively to the means-tested
”basic income support for job-seekers”. The decreasing cost and participants in active
labour-market policy reflected, on the one hand, the decline in the number of
registered unemployed. On the other hand, it reflected a conceptual re-orientation of
active labour-market policy from sustainable training and integration programmes
towards short-term work and budget consolidation measures. The implementation of
activation policies in the labour market resulted in neither a rising activation rate, nor
a re-focusing on those groups with the highest need for integration support. As a
consequence, the number and rate of registered long-term unemployed have
remained high and the average period of benefit receipt in ”basic income support for
job-seekers” has continued to be extended; most of the benefit recipients are
permanent beneficiaries (Bundesagentur für Arbeit 2013b).
9Integrated support for the long-term unemployed Germany
Just between 2010 and 2013, actual public expenditure on labour-market integration
measures for recipients of basic income support for job-seekers was reduced by
around €2.5 million or 42%. The expenditure reduction on activation measures was
accompanied by parallel reductions in expenditure on administrative staff (including
case managers). Job centres were even forced to use the activation budget to cover
administrative costs (Sell 2014). The cutting of expenditure was accompanied by an
enforced concentration on those groups with the lowest integration barriers promising
the highest success rates. In 2012, the Federal Court of Auditors
(Bundesrechnungshof 2012), summarising the results of its evaluation of the
integration policy in selected job centres, emphasised that the integration practice was
mainly focused on supporting those unemployed who have the best chances on the
labour market, while those who have only poor chances are hardly supported at all.
This fatal setting of priorities resulted, among other things, from a short-term
performance and financial efficiency orientation, which was imposed by regulatory
instructions from the Federal Employment Agency. A necessary re-orientation of the
integration policy, in the context of SGB II, towards a sustainable integration success
has not taken place up to now and should still be on the agenda.
(d) The agenda of the new federal governing coalition
The newly elected governing coalition has announced in its coalition treaty that high
priority will be given to improving the re-integration of long-term unemployed people.
On November 5, 2014, the Federal Minister for Labour and Social Affairs publicly
presented her concept for reducing long-term unemployment and improving social
participation. A core element is a new ESF programme addressed to benefit recipients
on the basis of SGB II, which will offer two service features: firstly, employers should
receive a wage subsidy during the integration and training period for a new labour
contract, while the long-term unemployed should receive personal coaching for
stabilising the employment situation after signing a contributory labour contract. The
programme is intended to support 33,000 persons between 2015 and 2019. It will be
complemented by a programme for funding public employment in the social service
area, which should cover another 10,000 persons in the same period. Compared to
the number of registered long-term unemployed in Germany, the announced number
of participants in these programmes is totally insufficient. The introduction of
activation centres within the job centres that was also announced will mainly increase
the number of staff, a necessary prerequisite for improving the counselling and
placement of this target group. Finally, the preventive health care of the long-term
unemployed should be improved and activation instruments further developed in
consultation with the states (Bundesländer), the national associations of municipalities
and the Federal Labour Office. It remains to be seen whether, with this new concept,
the necessary re-orientation of active labour market programmes in the context of
Social Code Books III and II will be introduced - with the focus shifted towards
activating and integrating the most vulnerable groups in the labour market. In
general, the approach of the new BMAS concept is positive, but it should be
introduced on a larger scale.
This would be easier to realise if the possibility of using funds earmarked for passive
benefit payments to fund participation in active labour market programmes were to be
re-introduced. Through this method, the scope for the substitution of passive transfer
payments by active programme participation could be extended. This so-called
passive-active exchange funding method is supported by many labour market experts
(Deutscher Bundestag 2013). Since December 2012, a pilot programme has been
implemented in the state of Baden-Württemberg (Ministerium für Arbeit und
Sozialordnung, Familie, Frauen und Senioren 2013; Fertig et al. 2014). Similar reform
proposals have been offered by the Social Service Agency of the Protestant Church in
Germany (Diakonisches Werk der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland e.V.)(2006),
the National Association of Cities (DST 2013) and the National Association of Districts
(DLKT 2012). The associations have agreed to call for the expansion of publicly
subsidised employment for the long-term unemployed and for the use of funds for
passive transfer payments to finance active labour-market policies. This idea has also
found support in the CDU group in the Federal Parliament (Weiß et al. 2014).
10Integrated support for the long-term unemployed Germany
2 Coordination between services towards a one-stop shop
approach
Benefits and services for long-term unemployed in line with Social Code Book III are
provided by the Federal Employment Agency, which is a centralised institution with
local employment agencies functioning as authorised local service centres. Benefits
and services in line with Social Code Book II are provided by the job centres.
According to the “Act on the Further Development of the Organisation of Basic Income
Support for Job-Seekers” (“Gesetz zur Weiterentwicklung der Organisation der
Grundsicherung für Arbeitsuchende“) of August 3, 2010, the job centres are public
agencies at local level, which are normally (according to § 44b SGB II) joint
institutions of the local employment agencies and the municipalities. Currently, 304
job centres are operating as joint institutions. In addition, a limited number of 105
municipalities (status as of January 2014) are authorised by the Federal Ministry of
Labour and Social Affairs to run their own job centre (according to § 6a SGB II).
There is no single organisational structure for either type of Social Code Book II job
centre. Instead, organisational structures and procedures vary considerably between
and within both types of job centres. The job centres as joint institutions operate in a
formal partnership between the local employment agency and the municipality. Both
authorities have to fulfil their own legal tasks and at the same time are obliged to
cooperate closely in the joint institution of the job centre. In this case, the co-
operation of the job centre with the local employment agency functions well, while the
co-operation with the municipal social services is more difficult. In the case of
municipalities as approved sole carriers of the job centre, the co-operation with the
municipal social services functions well, while the co-operation with the local
employment agency is more difficult.
Basically, the fast and effective re-integration of unemployed people with massive
integration barriers and the prevention of long-term unemployment is hampered by
the splitting of social protection and activation for unemployed people into two
separate systems (legally based on Social Code Book III (unemployment insurance)
and Social Code Book II (basic income support for job-seekers)) with differing
regulations, administration and funding. The two systems result in double structures
with many interfaces, which offer counselling, placement and integration services and
whose differences impede effective solutions. Even if unemployed people with massive
integration barriers are assessed at the beginning of their unemployment spell by the
employment service and are classified as clients with special integration support
needs, they normally get adequate support only after transition to the job centre and
the jurisdiction of the SGB II. What is required is comprehensive and integrated
promotion, starting as early as possible and including all kinds of support according to
the specific problems and needs of the unemployed. This requires above all better
cooperation between local employment agencies and all the job centres. It would be
desirable to establish a real one-stop-shop for the provision of services for all the
unemployed.
As already mentioned in chapter 1, the labour market integration services of the job
centres should be complemented by social integration services, which are the
competence of municipalities. Not only are there deficits in many municipalities
regarding the scope and availability of these services, but also the cooperation
between job centres and municipalities (or other service providers) is not well
developed. The objective to interlink professional and social services and provide
integrated support from a single source (“one-stop shop”) has not become reality in
Germany until now (Adamy, Zavlaris 2014).
Currently, the job centres are designed as one-stop-shops for all job-seekers capable
of working who have no, or insufficient, social insurance protection. It is the centre’s
responsibility to offer all kinds of benefits and services for this target group - including
the vast majority of the long-term unemployed - and to co-ordinate all actors in the
field of labour market and social inclusion. In practice, the job centre’s support is
focused on benefits and labour market integration services and measures. Labour
11Integrated support for the long-term unemployed Germany
market integration measures are normally provided by public or private agencies on
behalf of the job centre. The social services are normally provided by public or private
agencies on behalf of the municipalities. This requires close coordination and co-
operation between job centres and municipal health offices, social welfare offices or
youth welfare offices, which does not always function well.
All job centres have built up local coordination and co-operation networks. These
networks include institutions like the local employment agency, the municipality
(sometimes several municipalities), public and private social service agencies, training
and further training agencies, representatives of employers and labour unions, etc.
They are intended to contribute to better planning and improved coordination of the
different actor groups’ activities.
Until now, no quality standards have been established for employment services or
social services delivered to the long-term unemployed in job centres. Therefore there
are large variations between regions, municipalities and job centres. But in recent
years, efforts have been made to improve the quality of services offered by job
centres. In 2014, the Federal Employment Agency adopted a new counselling concept
for the basic income support for job-seekers (Bundesagentur für Arbeit 2014b). And in
2015, the ISG published the first results of a research project on behalf of the Federal
Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs on the quality standards and quality management
in job centres, which is intended to contribute to the further development and
dissemination of quality standards (ISG 2015). In principle, the Federal Ministry of
Labour and Social Affairs steers the implementation of basic income support for job-
seekers through agreements on targets reached with the Federal Employment Agency
and with the states (Bundesländer), which oversee the local authorities. Since 2013,
the Federal Employment Agency has regularly provided national data on the degree to
which targets have been achieved in Social Code Book II (Bundesagentur für Arbeit
2013a).
There is no systematic exchange of data between employment and social authorities.
As a consequence of legal privacy regulations, individual data are only allowed to be
transferred to other authorities or agencies under very strict conditions.
3 Individualised approaches
In 2013, 35.6% of all the registered unemployed were long-term unemployed. Over-
represented among them were unemployed people without a professional qualification
(40.2%), unemployed people of foreign nationality (46.5%) and the unemployed aged
55 plus (48.0%). The proportion of those who were unemployed for 12 months or
more was somewhat higher among women (37.4%) than among men (34.1%)
(Bundesagentur für Arbeit 2014a). A research report by the Institute on Employment
Research on persistent unemployment has come to the conclusion that the life of
recipients of basic income support for job-seekers is characterised by a high degree of
mobility and flexibility. The diverse activities of recipients, even of their own initiative,
clearly contradicts the public image of a passive recipient of transfers who feels it is
desirable to live life on welfare benefits. It is quite apparent that achieving lasting
personal stability in gainful employment is a major goal for the long-term unemployed
(Hirseland, Lobato 2010).
The receipt of basic income support for job-seekers within Social Code Book II is
legally tied to the signing of an integration contract (“Eingliederungsvereinbarung”).
This contract is concluded between the applicant and the respective local job centre.
Each benefit claimant in Social Code Book II has to sign an integration contract, which
includes, among other things, specific requirements and obligations on the part of the
claimant. The contract involves an integration plan, which is updated regularly. The
integration contract is also the basis for sanctions in case the benefit
claimant/recipient fails to fulfil his/her obligations. Based on the specific personal
integration barriers, these can include making use of health or social services,
obtaining a driving licence, etc. But in practice, the aims and content of the integration
contract are highly standardised, not well enough explained to the claimant and
12Integrated support for the long-term unemployed Germany
insufficiently individually tailored. Supporting and challenging elements are not
adequately balanced (Schütz et al. 2011).
According to § 14 Social Code Book II, the job centres are obliged to support the job-
seekers in a comprehensive way, according to their specific needs, with the aim of
integrating them into the employment system as well and as fast as possible. For this
purpose, the job centres have to provide a personal contact person for every job-
seeker (and their family members, who live with them in a joint household as a ‘needs
community’). The job centres offer special activation support for young people and
young adults aged under 25 and for so-called “best!agers 50+”.
In all the job centres, users are classified in different activation categories according
to their specific integration barriers, for which different kinds of advice and support
are defined. The individually tailored activation support is based on the integration
plan laid down in the integration contract. For those user groups with major
integration barriers, mainly the long-term unemployed, case management is provided.
The case management is based on a so-called “employment-oriented case
management”, which was designed by experts before the basic income support came
into force (Bundesagentur für Arbeit 2004; Baethge-Kinsky 2007), but no uniform
professional standard has evolved until now. Employment-oriented case management
is defined as a sequence of steps including contacting, basic counselling, building a
working alliance, diagnosis and assessment, integration contract and agreement on
support services, control and monitoring of services. Case management must be
based on mutual trust so as to enable useful co-operation. An individually tailored
advice and support process has to be designed and agreed upon based on the specific
needs situation. At the same time, it is the task of the case manager to steer and
control the integration process, to decide on integration measures and sanctions,
especially if the client is, or seems to be, unwilling to look for or accept a job
opportunity. The employment-oriented case management is characterised by the
ambivalence of offering helpful advice and support, on the one hand, and being
obliged to monitor and sanction the integration behaviour of the client. This difficult
task requires great professional competence, as well as a setting which enables an
intensive process of advice and support. These conditions are often not fulfilled. Many
case managers have to work under precarious working conditions. Their case load is
so high that an individual support process is possible only in isolated cases. Even if
personal commitment is high, user-oriented work is only possible to a limited degree.
In summary: experience to date has shown that successful case management requires
an appropriate institutional setting, highly qualified and committed case managers and
a limited volume of cases. This means adequate public investment in case
management.
Case managers have to fulfil several tasks, which are of high priority for the activation
paradigm. As international experience has shown, activation programmes are highly
effective when professional case managers provide intensive counselling and support
during the job-search process. Empirical studies have demonstrated that the
framework conditions and the concepts of case management differ widely between job
centres. Because only few evaluation studies are available so far (cf. for example,
Kolbe, Reis 2008; Strotmann et al. 2010; Bartelheimer et al. 2012; ISG 2013), it is
not yet possible to provide a comprehensive assessment of the impact of this core
element of the activation and integration process for the long-term unemployed in
Germany.
13Integrated support for the long-term unemployed Germany
4 Overview table
Please put an X in the column Please summarise in a few words and in order of priority the 3 key gaps that need
that best represents the to be addressed to improve effectiveness (if only one gap just complete one
situation in your country column)
Very Medium Weak Gap 1 Gap 2 Gap 3
good
Income X Income benefits of the
benefits last safety net are not
effective in poverty
Effectiveness prevention
of benefits & Social services X Lack of information on
services scope and content of
supporting the social services
long-term Activation X Activation services are Activation services are Long-term unemployed
unemployed services not implemented early not focused enough on are underrepresented in
enough and are not those with massive active labour-market
effective enough to integration barriers programmes
prevent long-term
unemployment
Effectiveness of coordination X Lack of coordination Lack of coordination
between employment, social between job centres and between job centres and
assistance and social services employment agencies municipalities
Extent of individualised support X Integration contracts are Framework conditions
not balanced and are not adequate for
insufficiently individually employment-related
tailored case management
14ESPN Thematic Report LTU Germany
References
Adamy, Wilhelm; Zavlaris, Elena (2014), Sozialintegrative Leistungen der
Kommunen im Hartz-IV-System. DGB. Arbeitsmarkt aktuell Nr. 1, Berlin.
Akyol, Metin; Neugart, Michael; Pichler, Stefan (2013), Were the Hartz Reforms
Responsible for the Improved Performance of the German Labour Market? Economic
Affairs. Volume 33. Number 1.
Baethge-Kinsky, Volker et al. (2007), Neue soziale Dienstleistungen nach SGB II.
IAB-Forschungsbericht 15 Nürnberg.
Bartelheimer, Peter et al. (2012), "Es lässt sich mit allen arbeiten": PRIMUS -
Arbeitsmarktdienstleistung zwischen Vermittlung und Fallmanagement. IAB-
Forschungsbericht 05/2012. Nürnberg.
Becker, Irene (2015), Der Einfluss verdeckter Armut auf das
Grundsicherungsniveau. Hans-Böckler-Stiftung. Arbeit und Soziales. Arbeitspapier
309. Düsseldorf.
Becker, Irene; Schüssler, Reinhard (2014), Das Grundsicherungsniveau: Ergebnis
der Verteilungsentwicklung und normativer Setzungen. Eine empirische Analyse auf
Basis der EVS 2003 und 2008. Arbeitspapier Nr. 298. Hans-Böckler-Stiftung.
Düsseldorf.
Bernhard, Sarah et al. (2008), Aktive Arbeitsmarktpolitik in Deutschland und ihre
Wirkungen. IAB-Forschungsbericht Nr. 2.
Bruckmeier, Kerstin et al. (2013), Simulationsrechnungen zum Ausmaß der Nicht-
Inanspruchnahme von Leistungen der Grundsicherung. IAB-Forschungsbericht,
05/2013. Nürnberg.
Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2004), Fachkonzept „Beschäftigungsorientiertes
Fallmanagement“ im SGB II. Nürnberg.
Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2013a), Jahresbericht 2012 zur Zielerreichung im
Bereich Grundsicherung, Nürnberg.
Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2013b), Verweildauern von Leistungsberechtigten in der
Grundsicherung für Arbeitsuchende. Methodenbericht. Nürnberg.
Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2014a), Der Arbeitsmarkt in Deutschland – Die
Arbeitsmarktsituation von langzeitarbeitslosen Menschen. Nürnberg.
Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2014b), Grundlagen einer Beratungskonzeption in der
Grundsicherung für Arbeitsuchende. Nürnberg.
Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (2013b), Langzeitleistungsbeziehende
im SGB II. Handlungsansätze zur Unterstützung und Förderung. Ausgewählte Beispiele
zur Verringerung von Langzeitleistungsbezug. Bonn.
Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (BMAS) (2013c), Lebenslagen in
Deutschland. Der vierte Armuts- und Reichtumsbericht der Bundesregierung. Bonn.
Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (BMAS) (2014), Chancen eröffnen -
soziale Teilhabe sichern Konzept zum Abbau der Langzeitarbeitslosigkeit. Berlin.
Bundesrechnungshof (2012), Mitteilung an die Bundesagentur für Arbeit über die
Prüfung der Steuerung der Zielerreichung in den strategischen Geschäftsfeldern I und
Va. Bonn.
Bundesregierung (2013), Soziale Situation der Leistungsberechtigten beim
Langzeitbezug von Hartz-IV-Leistungen. Antwort auf die Kleine Anfrage der
Abgeordneten Katja Kipping, Diana Golze, Matthias W. Birkwald, weiterer
Abgeordneter und der Fraktion DIE LINKE. – Drucksache 17/14372 -. Deutscher
Bundestag Drucksache 17/14464 vom 31.7.2013.
15ESPN Thematic Report LTU Germany
Büttner, Thomas, Schewe, Torben; Stephan, Gesine (2015), Wirkung
arbeitsmarktpolitischer Instrumente im SGB III. Maßnahmen auf dem Prüfstand. IAB-
Kurzbericht Nr. 8.
Deutscher Bundestag (2013), Materialien zur öffentlichen Anhörung von
Sachverständigen in Berlin am 15. April 2013. Ausschussdrucksache 17(11)1112
Ausschuss für Arbeit und Soziales 17. Wahlperiode.
Deutscher Bundestag (2015), Eingliederungsbericht 2013 der Bundesagentur für
Arbeit. Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung. Drucksache 18/3856 vom
26.01.2015.
Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB) (2015), Beschäftigungschancen von
Langzeitarbeitslosen im Hartz-IV-System nicht verbessert. Arbeitsmarkt aktuell
2/2015. Berlin.
Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB) (2013), Verfestigte Armut –
Langzeitbeziehende im Hartz IV-System. Arbeitsmarkt aktuell 3/2013. Berlin.
Deutscher Landkreistag (DLKT) (2008), Leitlinien zur Umsetzung der sozialen
Leistungen nach dem SGB II. Berlin.
Deutscher Landkreistag (DLKT) (2012), Positionspapier zum Sozialen Arbeitsmarkt,
Berlin.
Deutscher Städtetag (DST) (2013), Kommunale Eckpunkte für öffentlich geförderte
Beschäftigung, Berlin.
Diakonisches Werk der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland e.V. (2006), Option
sozialversicherungspflichtige Beschäftigung. Konzeption Aktiv-Passiv-Transfer (PAT).
Stuttgart.
Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2014), Social Security at a glance
2014. Berlin.
Fertig, Michael et al. (2014), Erste Ergebnisse aus der wissenschaftlichen
Begleitung des Modellprojektes „Passiv-Aktiv-Tausch“. Öffentlich geförderte
Beschäftigung in Baden-Württemberg. IAB-Regional Nr. 2.
Goebel, Jan; Krause, Peter; Habich, Roland (2013), Einkommensentwicklung –
Verteilung, Angleichung, Armut und Dynamik, in: Statistisches Bundesamt und
Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (Hrsg.), Datenreport 2013, Bonn.
Hanesch, Walter (2012), Aktivierung und Eingliederung in der Grundsicherung für
Arbeitsuchende in Deutschland. In: Hanesch, Walter; Fukawa, Hisashi (eds.), Das
letzte Netz sozialer Sicherung in der Bewährung. Ein deutsch-japanischer Vergleich.
Baden Baden: Nomos.
Hanesch, Walter (2013), Second 2013 Report. Investing in children – breaking the
cycle of disadvantage. EU Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion. On
behalf of the European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
Darmstadt.
Hanesch, Walter; Bäcker, Gerhard; Trabert, Gerhard (2014), ESPN Country Profiles
Germany. Stage 1 - 2014-2015, European Social Policy Network (ESPN). On behalf of
the European Commission DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. Darmstadt.
Heyer, Gerd et al. (2011), Evaluation der aktiven Arbeitsmarktpolitik. Ein
Sachstandsbericht für die Instrumentenreform 2011. IAB-Discussion Paper 17/2011.
Hirseland, Andreas; Ramos Lobato, Philipp (2010), Armutsdynamik und
Arbeitsmarkt. Entstehung, Verfestigung und Überwindung von Hilfebedürftigkeit bei
Erwerbsfähigen. IAB-Forschungsbericht 03/2010. Nürnberg.
ISG (Institut für Sozialforschung und Gesellschaftspolitik)(2013),
Qualitätssicherung im SGB II: Governance und Management. Endbericht.
Forschungsbericht 437 des Bundesministeriums für Arbeit und Soziales. Köln.
16ESPN Thematic Report LTU Germany
Kluve, Jochen (2013), Aktive Arbeitsmarktpolitik: Maßnahmen, Zielsetzungen,
Wirkungen. Expertise für den Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der
gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Arbeitspapier 07/2013. Berlin.
Knuth, Mathias (2012), Evaluation der Zweiten Phase des Bundesprogramms
„Perspektive 50plus – Beschäftigungspakte für Ältere in den Regionen“ (2008–2010).
Abschlussbericht. Duisburg.
Koch, Susanne et a. (2011), Kurz vor der Reform. Arbeitsmarktinstrumente auf
dem Prüfstand. IAB-Kurzbericht 11/2011.
Kolbe, Christian; Reis, Claus (2008), Die praktische Umsetzung des
Fallmanagements im SGB II. Frankfurt am Main.
Krebs, Tom; Scheffel, Martin (2013), Macroeconomic Evaluation of Labour Market
Reform in Germany. IMF Economic Review. Vol. 61. Issue 4.
Kupka, Peter; Wolf, Joachim (2013), Verbesserung der Chancen von
Langzeitarbeitslosen. Zur Einrichtung eines Sozialen Arbeitsmarktes oder eines
öffentlich geförderten Beschäftigungssektors. IAB-Stellungnahme Nr. 3.
Launov, Andrey; Wäldle, Klaus (2013), Estimating Incentive and Welfare Effects of
Nonstationary Unemployment Benefits. International Economic Review, 2013. 54 (4).
Ministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Familie, Frauen und Senioren (2013),
Passiv-Aktiv-Transfer erfolgreich gestartet. Pressemitteilung vom 27.3.2013.
Möller, Joachim et al. (2009), Fünf Jahre SGB II: Eine IAB-Bilanz. Der Arbeitsmarkt
hat profitiert, IAB-Kurzbericht Nr. 29.
Rice, Deborah; Zimmermann, Katharina (2014), Social and employment services
for the long-term unemployed in Germany: Under which conditions are activation
policies “social investment”? Paper for the young researchers’ conference “Delivering
integrated employment policies”, Bordeaux, 12-13 May 2014.
Schütz, Holger et al. (2011), Eingliederungsvereinbarungen in der Praxis.
Reformziele noch nicht erreicht. IAB-Kurzbericht 18.
Sell, Stephan (2014), Die Jobcenter und ihre Kosten. Von Umschichtungen und der
eigentlichen Frage: Was machen und erreichen die (nicht) mit fast 4,5 Mrd. Euro?
Aktuelle Sozialpolitik vom 4.3.2014 (http://aktuelle-
sozialpolitik.blogspot.de/2014/03/4-jobcenter.html)
Statistisches Bundesamt (2014a), Relatives Armutsrisiko in Deutschland
unverändert bei 16,1 %. Pressemitteilung vom 28. Oktober. Wiesbaden.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2014b), LEBEN IN EUROPA (EU-SILC): Einkommen und
Lebensbedingungen in Deutschland und der Europäischen Union 2012.
Wirtschaftsrechnungen. Wiesbaden.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2014c), 7,38 Millionen Empfänger/-innen von sozialer
Mindestsicherung am Jahresende 2013. Pressemitteilung vom 1. Dezember 2014 –
426/14. Wiesbaden.
Strotmann, Harald et al. (2010), Kundenbetreuung aus einer Hand im SGB II?
Integration versus Spezialisierung von Fallmanagement, Vermittlung und materiellen
Leistungen. IAW Discussion Paper Nr. 64, März 2010.
Weiß, Peter MdB et al. (2014), Chancen zur Integration von Langzeitarbeitslosen
verbessern. Passiv-Aktiv-Transfer erproben, Berlin.
17You can also read
