Analysis of the Support System for Job Seekers: Relation ofTraining Implementation Agencies’ Activities and Trainees’
Job Seeking Success
Makoto Fujimoto
The Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training
The Support System for Job Seekers, launched in fiscal 2011, differs fromprevious public vocational training programs in that it offers occupational
training and job-seeking support to job seekers with minimal work experience.
This article analyzes the relationship between the activities of institutions thatprovide vocational training and support for job seekers, and success rate oftrainees seeking employment.
In the System’s basic course, in which trainees acquire the basic skills
common to many jobs, recruiting and leading participants in joint briefing sessions held outside of training implementation agencies appears to be correlatedwith higher rates of success in securing employment. However, in practicaltraining courses where trainees acquire practical skills required in specific jobs,
factors correlated with job seeking success include mechanisms for trainees toseek job opportunities, such as establishment of personnel who develop potential job offers for trainees, as well as mechanisms to provide explanations andinformation about the labor market in the region or industry, and partnerships
with other institutions.

I.

Introduction

The Support System for Job Seekers, officially established in 2011 as a follow-up to
emergency employment measures implemented after the global financial crisis of 2008,
differs from vocational training programs for unemployed persons carried out in Japan thus
far, in that it is geared toward job seekers who have no work experience and are not coveredby employment insurance.
This article will first of all give an outline of the Support System for Job Seekers.
Next, it will examine training implementation agencies, which provide vocational training
and support for job seekers, based on the results of a questionnaire administered by the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training (JILPT) in 2012. Finally, it will analyze anddiscuss the impact on job seekers’ success rates of training implementation agencies’ activities and their relationships with other institutions.

II. Outline of the Support System for Job Seekers
The global financial crisis of 2008 (known in Japan as “Lehman Shock” after the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers) had a significant and wide-ranging impact
on employment in Japan, particularly in the manufacturing sector. With regard to
non-regular employees, who already faced challenges in terms of job security, there were89

Japan Labor Review, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 2016

rising concerns over increasing long-term unemployment. To address these concerns, thegovernment of Japan in the first supplementary budget of fiscal 2009 established the Emergency Human Resources Development and Employment Support Fund, used to fund theEmergency Human Resources Development Program launched in July 2009. This programprovided enhanced vocational training and subsidies under the Training and Livelihood
Support Benefit Plan to people unable to collect unemployment insurance, specifically because they have been repeatedly engaged in short-term, non-regular employment and areunqualified to collect job-seekers’ allowance benefits, or the term of these benefits has already expired, or they were self-employed and have gone out of business. The Training andLivelihood Support Benefit Plan provides a monthly allowance (¥100,000 per month forsingle persons, ¥120,000 per month for those with dependent family) while they are undergoing vocational training, if they are unable to collect employment insurance and meet certain conditions.1
This Emergency Human Resources Development Program was intended from thestart to be a temporary program lasting through fiscal 2011, after which its role would be
inherited by the permanent Support System for Job Seekers going into effect on October 1,
2011, which provides vocational training, financial assistance, and job-seeking support to“specific job seekers” such as “the long-term unemployed, new graduates seeking employment, young people in the NEET (Not in Employment, Education, or Training) category,and heads of single-parent households.”
The Support System for Job Seekers offers two types of training courses, a basic
course in which trainees acquire the basic skills common to many jobs (business etiquette,business communication, business document preparation, Information Technology (IT)skills, etc.), and practical courses in which trainees acquire practical skills required in specific jobs. Both courses can be completed in a period of three to six months.
There are four conditions for eligibility that “specific job seekers” must meet to receive job-seeker support and training: they must (i) have applied for employment at the
Public Employment Security Office, (ii) not be covered by or qualified to receive employment insurance, (iii) be willing and able to work, and (iv) be judged by the Public Employment Security Office as needing vocational training or other support. While these “specificjob seekers” are undergoing job-seeker support and training, they are provided with a¥100,000 monthly “educational training fee” plus an allowance for transportation from theirplace of residence to the training site.2
1
Conditions include: (i) Must be the primary earner in the household (based on previous year attime of application), (ii) At time of application, projected individual income for that year must be ¥2
million or less, and projected household income must be ¥3 million or less, (iii) Total household assets
must equal ¥8 million or less, (iv) Must not own any land or buildings other than current residence, (v)Must not have received allowances from the central government, etc. through dishonest means overthe last three years.
2
However, to receive this stipend, beneficiaries must meet certain conditions such as: (i) Beneficiary’s individual monthly income must not exceed ¥80,000, (ii) Total household income must not90Analysis of the Support System for Job Seekers

Between October 2011, when the Support System for Job Seekers was launched, andJune 2015, a total of 82,953 people completed the basic course and 207,927 completed oneof the practical courses, for a total of 290,880 people.

III. Status and Activities of Training Implementation Agencies
1. Training Implementation Agencies and Accredited Vocational Training
Incentives
The parties engaged in providing training and support to beneficiaries of the Support
System for Job Seekers include corporations, independent business owners, various types ofvocational schools, vocational training agencies, social welfare agencies, and non-profit
organizations. Here, these are referred to collectively as “training implementation agencies.”
These agencies and the individual training courses they conduct must meet certain “certification criteria”3 related to curriculum content, trainees’ performance, and trainees’ employment status, among others. The independent administrative institution Japan Organization for Employment of the Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Job Seekers (JEED)
evaluates whether these criteria are being met and gives certification, after which trainees
for each course are recruited through the Public Employment Security Office.
Training implementation agencies are provided with “certified vocational training incentives” paid for by employment insurance to encourage smooth and effective implementation of training. The incentive program consists of “basic incentives” and “additional incentives,” with the former being ¥60,000 per trainee per month in the basic course and¥50,000 per trainee per month in the practical courses. For training implementation agencies
that offer practical courses, additional incentives are calculated based on the employment
status of trainees, with ¥20,000 per trainee per month paid when 60% or more of trainees
have found employment4 three months after the course ends, and ¥10,000 per trainee permonth when between 35% and 60% of trainees have found employment three months after
the course ends.

exceed ¥250,000 per month (¥3 million per year), (iii) Must attend all days of training, or even if there
is an unavoidable reason for absence must attend at least 80% of days.
3
Certification criteria are stipulated in the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare’s Directive ofJuly 25, 2011 entitled “Regulations for
Enforcement of the Vocational Training, etc. under the Support System for Job Seekers.”
4
Criteria for designation as “employed,” used for determining additional incentive payouts, are (i)beneficiary has become a general insuree under the employment insurance system or (ii) beneficiary is
running a business covered by employment insurance.

91

Japan Labor Review, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 2016

2. Current Status and Activities of Training Implementation Agencies as Seen in
The Results of a Questionnaire Survey
In November and December 2012, the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training
administered a questionnaire survey to training implementation agencies that play a central
role in the Support System for Job Seekers. The survey target consisted of implementation
agencies that conducted all the training courses completed between April and September
2012, and responses were received from 1,376 agencies (valid response rate: 53.7%). Here,let us examine the status and activities of these agencies based on the questionnaire results5
shown below.
Of organizations that operate training implementation agencies, corporations accountfor 66.6%, businesses other than corporations (limited corporations and individual business
operators) for 18.9%, and vocational or other schools for 6.5%. In terms of area, the education-related projects implemented by organizations have been focused on “office equipment(computer and word processor operation)” (28.8%), followed by “medicine, nursing,long-term care and welfare” (14.3%) and “IT-related” (7.6%). With regard to whether theorganization had experience carrying out public vocational training for national or prefectural governments, 33.6% are currently performing it, 50.4% have no experience doing so,
and 12.4% have performed such training in the past but are not currently doing so. Numberof employees at training implementation agencies were: 5‒9 employees (32.9%), 10‒19
employees (25.1%), and 1‒4 employees (19.1%), indicating that the majority of agencies
are small-scale. At approximately 60% of the agencies, a majority of employees are
non-regular employees (part-time, entrusted or contract employees, workers dispatchedfrom other organizations, individual contractors, etc.)
With regard to the content of advance preparations for implementation of training,common responses were: “preparation or modification of the training location or equipmentused” (62.4%), “improvement of framework for counseling of trainees” (62.3%), “training,for instructors already employed at the site, in performing job-seeker support and training”(59.9%), and “having employees already working at the training site obtain career consultant certification” (55.5%).
As for the content of support for job seekers, the most common response was “guidance in having the correct mentality toward finding a job and working” at 90.8%, closely
followed by “collecting and offering specific information about potential employers”(86.5%), and then “providing explanations and information about the labor market in that
region or industry” (64.5%) and “observation of actual workplaces” (64.5%). With regard to
the career counseling agencies are supposed to offer trainees during job-seeker support andtraining, a majority (73.8%) carried it out three times for each trainee.
The frequency with which workers from each agency were dispatched to the Public
5

For detailed information about the questionnaire survey, see pages 13‒70 of “Results of Survey
on the Support System for Job Seekers” compliled by JILPT in 2015.

92

Analysis of the Support System for Job Seekers

Employment Security Office was, in order of most common response: “approximately oncea month” (26.5%), “once every two or three months” (23.8%), and “two or three times amonth” (21.3%).
Asked about institutions other than the Public Employment Security Office withwhich agencies exchange information or form partnerships aimed at securing employment
for trainees, temporary employment agencies (47.3%) and private-sector companies (otherthan placement agencies and temporary employment agencies (47.1%) were both cited bynearly half of respondents, followed by placement agencies (19.8%), industry associationsin specific fields (13.4%), and regional employers’ associations such as chambers of commerce or commercial and industrial organizations (11.6%). On the question of whether they
assigned staff specifically to the development of job offers for trainees. 43.1% of agencies
responded that they did, and 49.2% that they did not.

IV. Activities of Training Implementation Facilities and Employment Status ofTrainees
This section contains an analysis of the relationship between trainees’ employment
status and the circumstances of training courses, the actions of training implementation
agencies in running and managing courses, and the support training implementation agencies provide to job seekers.
Information on trainees’ employment status is derived from the Ministry of Health,Labour and Welfare’s Implementation Status Report and Data Tabulation on Job-Seeker
Support and Training (referred to below as the “Implementation Status Report”). This reportmonitors the circumstances of each individual training course and matches results with thequestionnaire survey data outlined in the preceding section, enabling analysis of correlations
between agencies’ implementation and management of courses and support for job seekers,
and the employment outcomes after training has been completed. Of the 2,026 training
courses completed between April and September 2012 and covered by the questionnaire, theanalysis in this section incorporates data on 1,673 courses for which responses can bematched to data in the Implementation Status Report.
With regard to the circumstances of trainees after implementation of training, thissection focuses specifically on their employment status. The Implementation Status Report
records the employment status of trainees three months after completion, and this status canbe analyzed from a variety of angles. This section applies two benchmarks to trainees’ employment: the first is the percentage of trainees who are employed three months after training ends, which will be referred to below as the “employment rate.” Here the term “employment” is used without distinguishing between fixed-term and indefinite, or between
regular and non-regular employment. The second is the percentage of trainees who havesecured employment contracts with no fixed term, and will be referred to as the“non-fixed-term employment rate.” Securing such employment can be seen as a more stable
93

Japan Labor Review, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 2016

Table 1. Trainees’ Employment Rate, by Course Field

Notes: 1. Data on courses for which there was no response are omitted from thetabulation. The gray cells contain statistically significant figures (Chi-squared
test: p < .05). This table is intended to examine the discrepancies between
fields of practical courses.
2. “Other fields” encompasses both practical courses classified as being in “otherfields,” and 12 fields that are specified but not listed on this table. The samegoes for Table 2.

employment situation than being employed with a fixed-term contract, and by using thenon-fixed-term employment rate as a benchmark, it is possible to analyze and consider the
degree to which the Support System for Job Seekers is assisting trainees in obtaining steadyjobs.

1. Training Course Field and Trainees’ Employment Status
Firstly, let us examine the correlations between the contents of each training course
and the employment status of trainees. Table 1 shows a cross-tabulation of employment rateby training course field. Here we have calculated the employment rate and divided training
courses into three categories: “Under 50%,” “Between 50% and 75%,” and “75% andabove.”
It is clear from this table that there are significant disparities in employment rates depending on the course field. Particularly high employment rates are seen in the fields of“Long-term care and welfare” and “Hairdressing and beauty,” with employment rates of
75% or above for approximately 60% of courses in the former, and over 50% in the latter.
Conversely, relatively low employment rates are seen in the IT field and “Sales, retail andoffice work.” For both of these the percentage of courses with employment rates of 75% orabove is only around 20%, and approximately 30% of IT courses and nearly 40% of sales,
retail and office work courses have less than half their trainees placed in jobs three months
after training ends. For the basic course, approximately 20% of courses have employment
94Analysis of the Support System for Job Seekers

Table 2. Trainees’ Non-Fixed-Term Employment Rate, by Course Field

Note: Data on courses for which there was no response are omitted from the tabulation. The graycells contain statistically significant figures (Chi-squared test: p < .05). This table is intended
to examine the discrepancies between fields of practical courses.

rates under 50% and around 30% have rates of 75% or above, meaning the basic course
tends to have higher rates of employment than the latter two practical courses.
Table 2 shows a cross-tabulation of non-fixed-term employment rate by training
course field. Here the highest percentage of courses achieving rates of 75% or above is“Hairdressing and beauty.” A relatively high non-fixed-term employment rate is seen in“Long-term care and welfare,” as well, with nearly half of courses having non-fixed-term
employment rates between 50% and 75%. By contrast, here as well the practical courses insales, retail and office work and the IT field have a high percentage (30‒40%) of courses
with non-fixed-term employment rate of under 25%.
For the basic course, around 70% of courses have less than half their trainees placedin non-fixed-term jobs three months after completion, and the remaining 30% or so havemore than half of trainees placed.

2. Correlations between Specific Aspects of Course Management and
Employment Status
In the questionnaire survey of training implementation agencies, agencies’ management of courses is assessed in terms of (1) method of selecting trainees, (2) selection ofcourse instructors, (3) frequency of implementation of tests to verify level of understanding,(4) frequency of administration of questionnaires to monitor trainees’ needs, etc., and (5)revision of courses based on trainees’ circumstances and needs. Let us examine whether
these aspects have an impact on trainees’ employment status in way comparable with thoseof course field and trainee attributes.
Firstly, we will look at the correlation between employment rate and the various
95

Japan Labor Review, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 2016

Table 3. Correlations between Aspects of Course Management and Employment
Status (Basic Course)

Note: Data on courses for which there was no response are omitted from the tabulation. For items (1),(2), and (5), course data for agencies not implementing/not emphasizing these aspects is omitted
due to space constraints. The gray cells contain statistically significant figures (Chi-squared test:
p < .05).

aspects as applied in the basic course (Table 3). With regard to (1) method of selecting
trainees, the table shows the status of employment rate and non-fixed-term employment rate
(percentage of courses with employment rate of 50% or above and with less than 50%, andthe corresponding percentages for non-fixed-term employment rate) for courses applying
specific methods. For example, for courses selecting trainees by “reviewing resumes,” thepercentage of courses with employment rate below 50% was 16.5%, and that of courses

96Analysis of the Support System for Job Seekers

with employment rate of 50% and above was 83.5%, while non-fixed-term employment rate
below 50% was 66.9%, with 50% and above non-fixed-term employment rate achieved by
33.1% of courses. Because of space constraints on the table, the corresponding rates foragencies not applying each method are not shown, but in cases where there is a statisticallysignificant disparity in the employment rate and/or non-fixed-term employment rate between courses applying a method and those not applying it, the cells containing the figures
are marked in gray. None of the cells for “(1) method of selecting trainees” are gray, indicating that there is no statistically significant disparity between courses applying and not
applying a given method.
As for (2) Points emphasized when selecting instructors, the employment rate andnon-fixed-term employment rate for courses emphasizing each criterion for selection are
shown on the table (data for courses not emphasizing criteria is omitted.) As with (1) method of selecting trainees, there is no statistically significant disparity in employment rate or
non-fixed-term employment rate depending on whether a particular criterion is emphasized,with the single exception of “Communication skills.” Courses emphasizing this as a criterion for selecting instructors have a statistically significant disparity with courses that do not.
Although it is not shown on the table, the former has a higher percentage of courses achieving an employment rate of 50% and above than the latter.
For (3) frequency of implementation of tests to verify level of understanding, and (4)frequency of administration of questionnaires to monitor trainees’ needs, etc., the tableshows the employment rate and non-fixed-term employment rate for each level of frequency,
but there are no statistically significant disparities for these aspects of agencies’ course
management.
The same is true of (5) revision of courses based on trainees’ circumstances and needs.
Although the table shows the employment rate and non-fixed-term employment rate foreach level of frequency (data for courses not implementing revisions is omitted), there are
no statistically significant disparities for this aspect of agencies’ course management.
The correlations between aspects of practical course management and the employment rate and non-fixed-term employment rate are shown in Table 4, as with the basic
course in the above table. There is a statistically significant disparity with regard to selection of trainees, in terms of whether or not resumes were reviewed. However, this disparity,
unlike that seen with other aspects of course management, stands out in that the employment rate and non-fixed-term employment rate are lower for courses where resumes arereviewed than for those where they are not.
There is also a statistically significant disparity in the employment rate andnon-fixed-term employment rate depending on whether a written test is administered whenselecting trainees, with courses that administer a written test having a higher percentage ofboth employment rate and non-fixed-term employment rate of 50% and above than coursesthat do not administer one. The other aspect of practical course management for which there
is a statistically significant disparity in employment status involves the selection of97

Japan Labor Review, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 2016

Table 4. Correlations between Aspects of Course Management and Employment
Status (Practical Courses)

Note: Data on courses for which there was no response are omitted from the tabulation. For items (1),(2), and (5), course data for agencies not implementing/not emphasizing these aspects is omitted
due to space constraints. The gray cells contain statistically significant figures (Chi-squared test:
p < .05). Of these, the figures in italics indicate courses where the implementation of a given aspect of course management leads to poorer employment results than non-implementation.

instructors, with a higher employment rate and non-fixed-term employment rate for thosethat emphasize “qualifications and/or academic degrees” than those that do not.
The fact that in selecting trainees, practical courses that implement written tests resultin higher employment rates than those that do not can be interpreted as indicating that theformer more effectively select employable trainees than the latter. However, at many train-98Analysis of the Support System for Job Seekers

ing implementation agencies the total number of applicants is less than course capacity, and
it is difficult to select trainees.6 Thus the correlation between implementation of written
tests to select trainees, and good or poor employment results, may reflect the fact that thesetests are often conducted in practical course fields such as medicine, long-term care andwelfare that generally have high employment rates, and where acquisition of much specialized knowledge is required. Tests are implemented in these fields partially to assess whether
there is a possibility of the trainee dropping out during the course.
The fact that in terms of selection of instructors, courses that emphasize possession ofqualifications or academic degrees have higher employment rates than those that do not,may also reflect disparities in employment status between practical course fields, as may be
the case with written test implementation. Among courses that place weight on instructors’“possession of qualifications or academic degrees” are those that can only be implemented
by instructors holding a variety of qualifications, and in particular long-term care and welfare courses, which have dramatically higher employment rates than other practical courses,
are strongly represented among courses that prioritize possession of qualifications or academic degrees.

3. Correlations between Training Implementation Agencies’ Support for Job
Seekers and Employment Status
Training implementation agencies’ activities that tend to have an impact on trainees’
employment status include, in addition to aspects of course management, the various ways
in which agencies provide support for job seekers.
Table 5 shows a cross-tabulation of the employment status of trainees taking the basic
course and various types of support for job seekers that agencies provide. Among the aspects of “Guidance and encouragement for trainees” on the table, employment rate andnon-fixed-term employment rate are shown for courses giving various responses with regard to (1) Number of times career counseling is offered during the training course, (2)When career counseling is offered, (3) Number of times guidance on preparation of resumes
and application forms is offered, and (4) Number of times job interview practice is offered.
Note that here “number of times” indicates the number of times such support is generally
given to each individual trainee during the training course period. With regard to (5)Measures implemented to support job seekers, on the table, the employment rate andnon-fixed-term employment rate are shown for various aspects of support for job seekers
that agencies offer in conjunction with courses. Because of space constraints on the table,
the corresponding rates for agencies not applying each method are not shown, but in cases
where there is a statistically significant disparity in the employment rate and/or
non-fixed-term employment rate between courses applying a method and those not applying
6

Refer to the questionnaire tabulation results on pages 29‒30 and the record of interviews withtraining implementation agencies on pages 173‒258, “Results of Survey on the Support System for
Job Seekers” compliled by JILPT in 2015.

99

Japan Labor Review, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 2016

it, the cells containing the figures are marked in gray.
According to Table 5, in terms of items for which there is a statistically significant
disparity in employment status, the number of times career counseling is offered (which canbe considered a form of guidance and encouragement of trainees) stands out as significant.
Omitting “Less than three times” and “10 or more times” responses given by few courses,
when “Three times” and “Four to nine times” are compared, a higher percentage of courses
giving the latter response have employment rates and non-fixed-term employment rates of
50% or above.
In terms of support for job seekers that falls into the category of “guidance and encouragement for trainees,” there is a statistically significant disparity in the employment
rate for courses implemented by agencies that “provide explanations and information about
the labor market in that region or industry,” conduct “observation of actual workplaces” or“recruit and lead participants in joint briefing sessions held outside of training implementation agencies,” compared to courses run by agencies that do not. The percentage of courses
with employment rates of 50% and above is higher for the former than for the latter. However, the opposite is true for agencies that conduct “industry or corporate briefing sessions
with representatives of corporations, etc. invited”: the percentage of courses implemented
by these agencies having an employment rate of 50% and above is lower among theseagencies than among those that do not conduct such sessions, to a statistically significant
degree.
Table 5 shows the employment rate and non-fixed-term employment rate for courses
correlated to each category of response for the following “Aspects of efforts to secure employment for trainees”: (1) Presence/absence of personnel in charge of developing potential
job offers, (2) Frequency with which agency staff visit the Public Employment Security
Office, (3) Number of job offers received from the Public Employment Security Office (permonth). For (4) Partnerships with agencies other than the Public Employment Security Office to secure employment for trainees, the employment rate and non-fixed-term employment rate are shown for courses run by training implementation agencies that partner withvarious types of agencies (data on employment and non-fixed-term employment rates forcourses run by agencies that do not partner with other agencies is omitted). In cases where
there is a statistically significant difference between courses run by training implementation
agencies that do have partnerships with other (non- Public Employment Security Office)agencies and those that do not, cells are marked in gray.
Among items for which there is a statistically significant disparity depending on aspects of efforts to secure employment for trainees are partnerships with the non-Public Employment Security Office agencies belonging to the categories “Industry associations for
specific industries” and “Temporary employment agencies.” However, the disparities do notfollow a single pattern, and for courses run by agencies that partner with temporary employment agencies, while there are a relatively high percentage of courses with a
non-fixed-term employment rate of 50% and above, the percentage of courses with an100

Analysis of the Support System for Job Seekers

Table 5. Correlations between Aspects of Agencies’ Support for Job Seekers andEmployment Status (Basic Course)

101

Japan Labor Review, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 2016

Table 5. (Continued)

Note: Data on courses for which there was no response are omitted from the tabulation. Course data
for agencies not implementing aspects of support / not partnering with other agencies is omitted
due to space constraints. The gray cells contain statistically significant figures (Chi-squared
test: p < .05). Of these, the figures in italics indicate courses where the implementation of agiven aspect of course management is correlated with lower employment rates than
non-implementation.

overall employment rate of 50% and above is relatively low.
In terms of reasons why employment results are actually worse when agencies undertake a particular initiative to support job seekers than when they that do not, it may be thatthe initiative in question is being carried out to shore up already low employment rates. The
data on Table 5 may reflect the fact that agencies implementing courses where trainees havedifficulty securing employment afterward are more proactive about efforts such as inviting
corporate representatives, etc. to conduct industry or corporate briefing sessions, or forging
partnerships with temporary employment agencies, in an attempt to improve their employment rates.
How do the figures for trainees’ employment status correlate with various initiatives
undertaken by training implementation agencies in support of job seekers in the case ofpractical courses? The results are summarized on Table 6.
Examination of the cross-tabulation of the employment rate shows a significantly
higher percentage of courses with employment rates of 50% and above when the agencies
conducting the courses carryout the following initiatives, compared to agencies that do not:Providing guidance in having the correct mentality toward finding a job and working,102

Analysis of the Support System for Job Seekers

Table 6. Correlations between Aspects of Agencies’ Support for Job Seekers andEmployment Status (Practical Courses)

103

Japan Labor Review, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 2016

Table 6. (Continued)

Note: Data on courses for which there was no response are omitted from the tabulation. Course data
for agencies not implementing aspects of support / not partnering with other agencies is omitted
due to space constraints. The gray cells contain statistically significant figures (Chi-squared test:
p < .05). Of these, the figures in italics indicate courses where the implementation of a given aspect of course management is correlated with lower employment rates than non-implementation.

providing explanations and information about the labor market in that region or industry,
recruiting and leading participants in joint briefing sessions held outside of training implementation agencies, recruiting and leading participants in job interviews held outside oftraining implementation agencies. In terms of aspects of efforts to secure employment fortrainees, there are significantly higher percentages of employment rates of 50% and above
when agencies designate personnel in charge of developing potential job offers, and partnerwith industry associations in a specific field, than when they do not. Also, there is a significantly lower percentage of courses with 50% or higher employment rates when agencies“do not engage in information exchange or partnership with any other specific agency” withregard to securing trainees’ employment, compared to agencies that do engage in information exchange or partnership.
According to Table 6, in terms of initiatives carried out by training implementation
agencies, there is a statistically significant disparity in the non-fixed-term employment ratedepending on the number of times career counseling, guidance on preparation of resumes
and application forms, and job interview practice are generally offered to each trainee during the training period. For all of these, a greater number of times is correlated with a higher

104

Analysis of the Support System for Job Seekers

percentage of courses with non-fixed-term employment rates of 50% and above. With regard to (5) Implementation of measures to support job seekers, an aspect of “guidance andencouragement of trainees,” as well, there is a statistically significant disparity in the employment rate depending on whether the following are carried out: Providing guidance inhaving the correct mentality toward finding a job and working, providing explanations andinformation about the labor market in that region or industry, recruiting and leading participants in joint briefing sessions held outside of training implementation agencies, and recruiting and leading participants in job interviews held outside of training implementation
agencies. For all of these, agencies that implement the measures have a significantly higher
percentage of courses with employment rates of 50% and above than those that do not.
Also, under “Aspects of efforts to secure employment for trainees,” with regard to“(4) Partnerships with agencies other than the Public Employment Security Office to secure
employment for trainees,” agencies that partner with “industry associations in a specificfield” have a significantly higher percentage of courses with non-fixed-term employment
rate 50% and above than those that do not, and as with the overall employment rate tabulation, there is a significantly lower percentage of courses with 50% or higher non-fixed-term
employment rates when agencies “do not engage in information exchange or partnershipwith any other specific agency” with regard to securing trainees’ employment, compared toagencies that do engage in information exchange or partnership.

4. Factors Influencing Employment Status
Thus far we have explored, through cross-tabulation analysis, factors that impact theemployment status of trainees after job-seeker support and training courses have finished. It
is likely that among the factors most strongly influencing this employment status—in addition to the course fields and the trainees’ own attributes, training implementation agencies’course management, and their various initiatives to support job seekers—are the region
where a given agency is located and the circumstances of the labor market. Also, it should
be noted that among factors and measures that could potentially influence employment status are those that appear, because of their close relation to other factors, to have a strong
impact, but actually do not, such as “points emphasized when selecting instructors,” whichby itself is not correlated with significant disparities, but which is related to the training
course field, etc.
With this in mind, in this section we will carry out a multivariate analysis, subdivided
into “basic course” and “practical courses,” with trainees’ employment rates as the explained variables and the training course circumstances, measures adopted by training implementation agencies, labor market environment and so forth as explanatory variables, andexamine various factors’ influence on employment status in each type of course. Whether
analyzing the basic course or practical courses, the explained variables are the employment
rate and non-fixed-term employment rate, and the variables shown are percentages indicating these rates for each course. Correlations between these explained variables and the var105

Japan Labor Review, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 2016

ious explanatory variables will be clarified through multiple regression analysis.
Of measures adopted by training implementation agencies, those employed as explanatory variables in the analysis of post-completion employment rates for the basic course(Table 7) are: (i) Number of times career counseling is offered, (ii) Whether the agency carries out support measures for job seekers such as providing explanations and information
about the labor market in that region or industry; observation of actual workplaces; group
job interviews to which corporate representatives, etc. are invited; recruiting and leading
participants in joint briefing sessions held outside of training implementation agencies; andrecruiting and leading participants in job interviews held outside of training implementation
agencies, (iii) Whether the agency engages in information exchange or partnership withindustry associations in specific fields, and (iv) Whether the agency prioritizes qualifications and/or academic degrees, extensive professional experience, and high degree of communicative ability in appointing instructors. Added to the explanatory variables ascourse-related circumstances are the number of trainees in the course and the percentage oftrainees aged 50 and older, and as training implementation agencies-related circumstances,
the total number of persons (staff members) in the entire agency. Also used as explanatory
variables are the average effective job opening-to-application ratios (2012) for the prefectures where agencies are located, which were selected as indicators of the labor market environment in regions where agencies conduct courses.
The analysis with employment rate as the explained variable shows a significant positive correlation between recruiting and leading participants in joint briefing sessions held
outside of training implementation agencies, as a measure to support job seekers, and theemployment rate. It can be inferred that agencies’ actively seeking to create employment
opportunities for trainees, rather than merely collecting information on job openings, contributes to a higher employment rate. On the other hand, there was a statistically significant
negative correlation between the employment rate and information exchange or partnershipwith temporary employment agencies. As outlined in the discussion of the cross-tabulation
analysis earlier, this outcome hints at the possibility that training implementation agencies
with low employment rates tend to engage in such information exchange or partnership withtemporary employment agencies so as to prevent employment figures from declining further.
As for the non-fixed-term employment rate, there is a statistically significant positive
correlation with the number of times career counseling is offered. It seems likely thatthrough repeated career counseling, trainees are better able to identify their own strengths,
or they become more serious in their endeavors to find work, leading to a higher rate ofnon-fixed-term employment. Meanwhile, there was a negative correlation with prefectures’
effective job opening-to-application ratios. One might think that the higher the effective job
opening-to-application ratio is, the higher the non-fixed-term employment rate will be, but
in reality regions with higher effective job opening-to-application ratio tend to have higher
rates of fixed-term employment, and both trainees and training implementation agencies
106Analysis of the Support System for Job Seekers

Table 7. Multiple Regression Analysis of Employment Rates for Individual Courses(Basic Course)

Notes: 1. For “Number of times career counseling is offered,” three or fewer times per trainee
during a training course is considered standard, and when it is offered four or more times, adummy variable with the value of “1” is shown.
2. Among “measures adopted by training implementation agencies to support job seekers,” for“information exchange and/or partnership with agencies other than the Public Employment
Security Office” and for each of the “points prioritized when selecting instructors,” when theitem in question is implemented, a dummy variable with the value of “1” is shown.
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < . 05, +p < .10.

107

Japan Labor Review, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 2016

placing a priority on finding work as soon as possible tend to be drawn into fixed-term contracts.
However, for both the overall employment rate and the non-fixed-term employment
rate, the adjusted R-square (coefficient of determination) value is extremely low, particularly that of the non-fixed-term employment rate. This indicates that in the case of the basic
course, trainees’ ability to secure employment is significantly affected by factors other thantraining implementation agencies’ course management and measures in support of job seekers. These factors may include trainees’ own attitudes or behavior, which were not assessedby this survey, or the manner in which the Public Employment Security Office approaches
trainees, and in similar future surveys and analyses of employment outcomes, these factors
ought to be taken into consideration.
Of support measures adopted by training implementation agencies, those employed as
explanatory variables in the analysis of post-completion employment rates for the practicalcourses (Table 8) are: (i) Number of times career counseling is offered, (ii) Number of times
guidance on preparation of resumes and application forms is offered, (iii) Number of times
job interview practice is offered, (iv) Presence or absence of staff specifically in charge ofdeveloping potential job offers, (v) Adoption of measures to support job seekers such asproviding guidance in having the correct mentality toward finding a job and working,providing explanations and information about the labor market in that region or industry,observation of actual workplaces, group job interviews to which corporate representatives,
etc. are invited, recruiting and leading participants in joint briefing sessions held outside oftraining implementation agencies, recruiting and leading participants in job interviews held
outside of training implementation agencies, and (vi) Whether the agency engages in information exchange or partnership with industry associations in specific fields in relation to
trainees’ employment. Also, among agencies’ measures related to course management, those
selected as additional explanatory variables were (i) Whether review of documents such as
resumes and/or written tests were conducted during the process of selecting prospective
trainees and (ii) Whether the agency prioritizes qualifications and/or academic degrees, inappointing instructors. Added to the explanatory variables are total number of persons atbusiness location (reflecting the circumstances of the agency), the number of trainees in thecourse and the percentage of trainees aged 50 and older (reflecting the character of thecourse), and the effective job opening-to-application ratio for the prefecture where theagency is located, as a benchmark of the labor market environment in the region. These are
the same explanatory variables applied to the basic course, but in analyzing the practicalcourses, the course field and the percentage of female trainees in the course were added aswell.
Examination of the analysis results reveals that in the case of practical courses, thecontent of training courses has a statistically significant correlation with employment status.
The long-term care and welfare field has a statistically significant positive correlation withboth overall employment rate and non-fixed-term employment rate, and the medical admin108

Analysis of the Support System for Job Seekers

Table 8. Multivariate Analysis (Multiple Regression Analysis) of Courses andEmployment Status (Practical Courses)

109

Japan Labor Review, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 2016

Table 8. (Continued)

Notes: 1. For “Guidance on preparation of resumes and application forms is offered,” and “Guidance on job interviews,” one or two times per trainee during a training course is considered
standard, and when it is offered 3‒5 or six or more times, a dummy variable with the value of“1” is shown.
2. As for the variables corresponding to “Designation of personnel in charge of developing potential job offers,” “measures adopted by training implementation agencies to support job seekers,”and “information exchange and/or partnership with agencies other than the Public Employment
Security Office,” and “Whether the agency prioritizes qualifications and/or academic degrees,in appointing instructors,” when the item in question is implemented, a dummy variable withthe value of “1” is shown.
***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < . 05, + p < .10.

istration and construction fields have significant positive correlations with non-fixed-term
employment rate. The hairdressing and beauty course is also positively correlated withhigher overall and non-fixed-term employment rates. These findings underscore the fact that
it is relatively easy to secure work in these fields (long-term care and welfare, medical administration, construction, hairdressing and beauty). Meanwhile, courses in sales, retail andoffice work are negatively correlated to employment rate, and appear to be the practicalcourses least likely to lead to employment.
Of support measures adopted by training implementation agencies, those with a statistically significant positive correlation to the employment rate are: Designation of personnel in charge of developing potential job offers, providing guidance in having the correct
mentality toward finding a job and working, and recruiting and leading participants in joint
briefing sessions held outside of training implementation agencies. Conversely, there is astatistically significant negative correlation between the employment rate and having noother agency with which to exchange information or form partnerships in relation to train-

110

Analysis of the Support System for Job Seekers

ees’ employment. Designation of personnel in charge of developing potential job offers,
utilizing joint briefing sessions held off agency premises, and exchanging information or
forming partnerships with some other agency to secure employment for trainees are allmeasures that facilitate the matching of trainees and job offers, and the outcomes of thesemeasures can be seen in the actual employment results. Meanwhile, providing guidance inhaving the correct mentality toward finding a job and working can cause trainees to adopt a
positive stance and assuage their anxieties, encouraging them to find employment.
As for the non-fixed-term employment rate, there are statistically significant correlations with both guidance on preparation of resumes and application forms and job interview
practice being offered six or more times to each trainee during the course, as well as withinformation and explanations about the labor market in the community or industry; partnership and exchange of information relating to trainees’ employment with industry associations in specific fields; and having no other agency with which to exchange information orform partnerships in relation to trainees’ employment. This last is negatively correlated with
the non-fixed-term employment rate, and all of the others are positively correlated.
The above findings of the analysis of the non-fixed-term employment rate appear toreflect the following: (i) It is easier for training implementation agencies to obtain information on job opportunities leading to non-fixed-term employment when they exchange
information and form partnerships with industry associations in specific fields, (ii) It is easier for trainees to locate job opportunities leading to non-fixed-term employment whentraining implementation agencies offer explanations and information about the labor market
in the community or industry, and (iii) Having many sessions of guidance on preparing resumes and application forms and undergoing job interviews enables trainees to gain more
opportunities for non-fixed-term employment.

V. Conclusion
With regard to the Support System for Job Seekers, which has a different target groupthan conventional training for people lacking employment, this article has focused on the
training implementation agencies that play a central role in the system’s implementation,and has sought to gain a picture of these organizations and their activities, and to analyze
how individual agencies achieve the system’s goal of securing employment for trainees.
For the basic course, which aims to impart fundamental skills applicable to a wide
range of fields, the analysis revealed that recruiting and leading participants in joint briefing
sessions held outside of training implementation agencies is correlated with higher rates ofsuccess in securing employment. However, in a model where employment rates after completion of the basic course are the explained variables and measures adopted by training
implementation agencies, course circumstances, etc. are the explanatory variables, the coefficient of determination is extremely low, and to effectively analyze and consider factors
impacting employment status as pertains to the basic course, it is necessary to pay adequate
111

Japan Labor Review, vol. 13, no. 1, Winter 2016attention to factors outside the scope of agencies’ activities, such as trainees’ attitudes andbehavior and the manner in which the Public Employment Security Office approaches
trainees.
Meanwhile, regarding the practical courses, which encompass both basic skills andhands-on skills applicable to specific fields, there is considerable diversity depending on thecourse field. Employment rates were relatively high in the fields of long-term care and welfare, medical administration, construction, and hairdressing and beauty. However, evenwhen controlling for the influence of the course’s field, there are other factors that contribute to improved employment rates, including measures to secure job opportunities fortrainees such as designation of personnel in charge of developing potential job offers andrecruiting and leading participants in joint briefing sessions held outside of training implementation agencies, as well as providing information and explanations about the labor market in the community or industry and giving a generous amount of guidance on preparationof resumes and application forms and practice with job interviews.
Also, when we examine exchange of information and formation of partnerships related to trainees’ employment, it is apparent that training implementation agencies having
no other agency with which to exchange information or form partnerships have lower employment rates, whereas practical courses run by agencies that exchange information andpartner with industry associations in a specific field have higher rates of non-fixed-term
employment. Practical courses are aimed at imparting specialized knowledge and skills in
specific fields, and employers in these fields have a strong need to hire and utilize personnel
over the long term. For this reason, training implementation agencies can more effectively
match employers’ needs with trainees when they actively engage in information exchange
and form partnerships with industry associations in these fields.

112