EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 11.4.2019 SWD(2019) 155 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL on the evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market {COM(2019) 169 final} - {SWD(2019) 154 final}



Context – Council Recommendation on long-term unemployment The 2016 Council Recommendation on the integration of long-term unemployed into the labour market stipulates that the Commission shall ‘evaluate, in cooperation with the member states and after consulting the stakeholders concerned, the actions taken in response to this recommendation and report to the council by 15 February 2019 on the results of that evaluation’. The goal of the stakeholder consultation was to collect data, experiences and opinions on the Recommendation’s key criteria from relevant groups and the public. This is in line with the Better Regulation guidelines . This report summarises the consultations and their main results. Evaluation Roadmap The Commission invited interested parties to provide feedback on the Evaluation Roadmap , available online from 29 June 2017 to 27 July 2017. This yielded six responses: four from NGOs, one from a business’ association and one indicated ‘Other’. Comments related to the Recommendation itself, and included calls to focus more on quality job creation, to involve Work Integration Social Enterprises, civil society organisations and to increase Member State cooperation and were reflected in the evaluation work. Open Public Consultation An open public consultation (OPC) for interested citizens and stakeholders was open on Commission’s online consultation platform in all 24 official EU languages except Irish, from 2 May 2018 to 31 July 2018. It yielded 482 responses, from 205 individuals and 277 organisations. Respondents from Bulgaria were overrepresented in the OPC as they represented 48% of the total sample. 75% of respondents answered that the Recommendation is still relevant in addressing long-term-unemployment (where agreement was higher among organisations than among individuals). When excluding the Bulgarian sample, the relevance of the Recommendation was viewed more positive. Including Bulgaria, 40% of respondents replied that the EU should also pursue other measures to help the long-term unemployed find a job, while when excluding the Bulgarian responses, this changes to 66%. The majority of respondents thought the measures of the last two years improved for people with low skills or qualifications and those with mental and/or psychological disabilities. The majority of respondents disagreed that improvements were made for other vulnerable groups among the long-term unemployed. A third of respondents replied that there were synergies between EU policies helping long-term unemployed. 89% of the respondents found it useful having an EU policy targeted to long-term-unemployment. Most respondents said that the Recommendation resulted in some changes in policies (prioritisation/funding/acceleration of measures). 23 complementary documents were received, mostly resembling position papers of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs). Three stressed the importance of integrated services and four noted that outreach towards people with disabilities could be improved. Three others mentioned that in-depth intervention should happen as early as possible, and that the 18 months cut-off period is too late. Three CSOs noted that implementation could have been more effective with dedicated funding, and one criticised that civil society organisations were not assigned a role. Two mentioned the importance of including a skills element. One Finnish paper resembled a good practice and was used as an example in the Staff Working Document. Seminars with national long-term unemployment contact points Three seminars with national contact points were held. These contact points were nominated by Member States following the 2016 EMCO review on long-term unemployment. The objectives of the seminars were to obtain informal input on the evaluation, in particular the supporting study, and to share lessons learned in implementation. The first seminar, held on 19 March 2018, focused on the supporting study and the data collection method. The second seminar, held on 28 June 2018, presented the mapping exercise of the study, and two examples of socially innovative projects from civil society. The last seminar, held on 6 November 2018, facilitated discussion on challenges in implementation. The seminars helped refine the mapping exercise and clarify definitions used for the evaluation. Strategic Dialogue Meeting with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) A strategic dialogue meeting was held with EU level CSOs on 15 November 2018 to receive feedback from organisations directly or indirectly working with or representing the long-term unemployed. The meeting included group discussions on the role of CSOs, current practices, and recommendations for the future. All participants agreed on the relevance of guiding service providers in helping long-term unemployed. The Recommendation’s approach was seen as holistic and inclusive. The recurring challenges were that the Recommendation lacked dedicated funding, thus limiting its effectiveness, and that the cut-off time of 18 months for JIAs was too long. Participants also stressed that the Recommendation left little room for innovation as its approach was quite strict. They called for more qualitative indicators for monitoring, on the services provided and the quality of jobs. They also stressed the lack of after-placement mentoring and training. Lastly, participants expressed concern that CSOs were not given any role. Strategic Dialogue Meeting with Social Partners On 28 June 2018 EU level Social Partners discussed the Recommendation. Business Europe called for more focus on employing the inactive. ETUC emphasised their disappointment that the role of trade unions was not recognised, emphasising their role in providing training and support in the workplace. Consultation of the European Network of Public Employment Services The PES Network contributed extensively to monitoring and conducted a capacity survey among their PES offices dedicated to the implementation of the Recommendation, as detailed under in Annex 1. Between 29 June and 9 July the Advisers For European PES Affairs were consulted on the report presenting the results of this survey, which eventually led to an ex-post testing of the interpretation of its findings. Consultation of the European Social Fund Committee

The ESF Committee’s Informal Technical Working Group was consulted on 5 October 2018. An ad-hoc report on the use of the ESF to support the long-term unemployed was produced, feeding into the evaluation. Consultation of the Social Protection Committee The Social Protection Committee (SPC) was consulted on 30 October 2018 and gave its consent to using its 2018 thematic report for the evaluation. Targeted interviews on EU level Interviews on EU level were executed in the framework of the supporting study with nine stakeholders, including three civil society organisations , four social partners , and two public authorities. Interviewees were asked their opinion on the Recommendation’s relevance, effectiveness, coherence and EU added value. There was consensus among all interviewed stakeholders that the Recommendation was and is still relevant in fighting long-term unemployment. Employers’ organisations and CSOs emphasised the relevance of the individualised approach and coordination of services. Two CSOs criticised the 18 months cut-off point as mentioned in the JIA, and one CSO and one social partner noted that an assessment of the specific labour market situations causing long-term unemployment within Member States was lacking. Trade unions underlined that they were given no role in the Recommendation. Most interviewees argued that implementation of the Recommendation is a task for Member States and that the EU has a limited role. The majority argued that the EU should monitor and follow up on implementation, also pressuring Member States where limited progress has been made. Other suggestions were that the EU should help break down social stigma towards long-term unemployed (one CSO) and facilitate exchange on practices between Member States (one social partner). One trade union thought that the Recommendation had put long-term unemployment higher on the policy agenda. CSOs argued that the Recommendation has had a positive impact. One public authority said it had harmonized approaches related to the integration of long-term unemployed persons. The majority of interviewees argued that the Recommendation was coherent with other EU policies tackling unemployment. It was noted that the use of EU funds could be improved, for example by using ESF to overcome PES capacity issues, as suggested by one social partner. The EU added value of the Recommendation had been to place the issue of long-term unemployment (higher) on the policy agenda and provide guidance on measures, according to most of the interviewees. One CSO argued that it could contain more minimum standards for those member states with low-developed support systems. Nevertheless, hypothetically repealing the Recommendation was seen as negative by all interviewees. Targeted interviews conducted for the case studies Eight case studies were conducted as part of the external supporting study for Croatia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Romania and Slovakia. Information was gathered through fieldwork by the appointed national experts, supplemented by targeted interviews with stakeholders from Member States. The national long-term unemployment contact points were consulted on the results. For further information please see Annex 5: Case Studies. Croatia National level interviewees reported that the Recommendation was a breaking point for national policy, leading to changes in legislation and redesigning of internal procedures. This was seen by most as the EU added value of the Recommendation. However, its effectiveness varied across the measures proposed. The interviewed employers were positive on the use of financial support, but in general were not interested in partnerships related to hiring the long-term unemployed. Most stakeholders thought that the costs of implementation of the Recommendation would not be excessive, as most measures were already in place, particularly when comparing to the assumed benefit of the Recommendation (lowering long-term unemployment). Most saw synergies with national policies. More mutual learning was welcomed. Finland The relevance of the Recommendation was not assessed to be high apart from an increase in awareness of the opportunities for employers to hire long-term unemployed persons. The effectiveness of the Recommendation was seen as low in Finland, as all measures proposed were already in place. PES staff mentioned that there have been some incremental changes in some operational measures, but that these were not an effect of the Recommendation. All elements are in line with Finnish employment policy. Germany The Recommendation was deemed not relevant for Germany as it did not initiate any policy changes (all measures proposed were already in place or even more advanced). Only half of the national interviewees were aware of the Recommendation prior to the interview. Case managers in PES mentioned that there should be more freedom in ESF projects. As no measures were introduced, their effectiveness cannot be assessed. Greece It seems that measures taken under the Financial Assistance Programme 2012 are in line with the policies set out in the Recommendation. They included a restructuring of PES services through modernisation, retraining of staff to provide more individual support and the set-up of Community centres. PES beneficiaries were satisfied with services provided and the individual action plan that was used. PES counsellors stressed that an individual approach is crucial, and that implementing the JIA would be beneficial. Employers and employers’ associations expressed reluctance to use PES services, due to perceived bureaucratic burden or lack of flexibility. Businesses expressed disappointed at not being involved in ALMP development. Stakeholders saw EU added value in ESF funding and in knowledge sharing. At national and local level, it was noted as a concern that policies were designed top-down without much targeted measures. Ireland The interviewees agreed that the Recommendation remained relevant. It led to a better understanding of the target group and the identification of vulnerable groups among long-term unemployed. National level stakeholders mentioned that it confirmed measures taken prior to the Recommendation and led to increased cooperation and a more integrated approach. This was confirmed by regional level interviewees. Stakeholders felt that employer support had strengthened. Stakeholders did not report any financial consequences of the Recommendation. It was argued to be in line with other EU initiatives. The EU added value was identified as bringing a common goal to different institutions that support long-term unemployed. Stakeholders also suggested more mutual learning between Member States.