EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 11.4.2019 SWD(2019) 154 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION 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) 155 final}







Contents Glossary 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose and scope 6 2. Background to the intervention 7 2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives 7 2.2 Baseline and points of comparison 9 3. Implementation / state of play 10 3.1 Current policy and economic context 10 3.2 Registration of the long-term unemployed 14 3.3 Individual assessments and job-integration agreements 15 3.4 Coordination of services and single point of contact 22 3.5 Cooperation with employers 27 3.6 Measures for vulnerable groups 33 3.7 European Commission and Member States working together 35 3.7.1 Monitoring progress 35

3.7.2 Mobilising EU funds to support implementation 37 4. Method 40 4.1 Sources of information 40 4.2 Limitations and robustness of findings 41 5. Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 43 5.1 Effectiveness 43 5.1.1 Registration of long term unemployed 45 5.1.2. Individual assessments and job-integration agreements 47 5.1.3. Coordination of services and single point of contact 51 5.1.4. Cooperation with employers 53 5.1.5. Reach of vulnerable groups 56 5.2 Efficiency 57 5.3 Relevance 58 5.4 Coherence 60 5.5 EU value added 65 6. Conclusions 66 Annex 1: Procedural information 70 Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 72 Annex 3: Intervention logic 87 Annex 4: Evaluation questions 88

Annex 5: Country Sheets 90 Annex 6: Case Studies 148 Figures Figure 1: Trends in long-term unemployment rates and share of long-term unemployment among unemployed (EU28) – quarterly data Figure 2: Long-term unemployment rates in Member States, 2014 versus 2017 Figure 3: Share of unemployed who are long-term unemployed per Member State, 2014 versus 2017 Figure 4: Transition rates from long-term unemployment to employment per Member State, 2015 versus 2017 Figure 5: Member States’ degree of implementation of the single point of contact Figure 6: Change in policy, 2015 to 2018 Figure 7: Changes in quality of measures encouraging registration of LTU (2015-2018) Figure 8: Share of LTU registered with PES, 2015-2017 (%, 25-64) Figure 9: Changes in quality of measures linked to individual assessments Figure 10: Changes in quality of measures linked to JIA Figure 11: Use of JIAs amongst LTU registered for at least 18 months (%, 25-64) in 2017 Figure 12: Changes quality of measures for the aspect of Interinstitutional coordination and SPOC (2015-2018) Figure 13: Changes in quality of measures for the aspect of employer involvement 2015-2018 53 Figure 14: ALMP-expenditures on employment incentives (category 4), % of GDP in 2014 and 2016 and changes in the policy area of employer involvement from the mapping exercise (ranging from 0-2) 54 Figure 15: ALMP expenditures on public works and job creation (category 6), % of GDP in 2014 and 2016 55 Figure 16: LTU participations by Member State, 2014-2017 (% of total ESF participations) and LTU rates (% of active population) in 2017 62

Figure 17: LTU participants for period 2014-2017 (ESF) as ratio of LTU population in 2017 63 Figure 18: ESF financial allocation (2014-2020) and expenditure on LMP measures (2014-2016) related to LTU (annual average) 64 Figure 19: Intervention logic for the Recommendation 87 Tables Table 1: Higher expected impact Table 2: Changes in measures in place aiming to increase registration Table 3: Changes in measures for individual assessment and personalised guidance Table 4: Coordination mechanisms between organisations dealing with LTU Table 5: IT infrastructure to allow access to individual data of LTU for several organisations Table 6: Organisations participating in coordination Table 7: Single point of contact for LTU in place, responsible for benefits and LTU support Table 8: Measures to establish closer links with employers related to the placement of LTU Table 9: Closer links with employers - characteristics Table 10: Support to social enterprises Table 11: Country-specific recommendations related to the Recommendation, 2016-2018 Table 12: Scoring definitions Boxes Box 1: Examples of new measures to increase registration of inactive and to prevent deregistration

Box 2: Examples of measures to enhance the individualised approach Box 3: Examples of differences in individual assessments/guidance between the long-term unemployed and other groups Box 4: Examples of improvements linked to JIA Box 5: Examples of measures to increase coordination between service-providers Box 6: Example of a fully operational single point of contact Box 7: Examples of financial incentives for employers recruiting long-term unemployed Box 8: Examples of new measures for employer services Box 9: Examples of new measures involving employer partnerships Box 10: Examples of measures addressing outreach and support to certain vulnerable groups Box 11: Example of ESF support to the long-term unemployed Box 12: Example of ESF policy and funding prioritisation in response to the Recommendation



Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition ALMP Active Labour Market Policies CSO Civil Society Organisation CSR Country Specific Recommendation EaSI Employment and Social Innovation Programme EMCO Employment Committee ESF European Social Fund ESF Committee European Social Fund Committee IAP Individual Action Plan refers to documents to which jobseekers and employment service providers subscribe, stating rights and obligations, goals and steps to achieve the goals. In most cases these can be renewed and revised to adjust to the changing situation of a jobseeker. JIA Job integration agreement is a written agreement between the jobseeker and single point of contact with the objective of facilitating transition into employment. Such an agreement should detail a package of individualised measures from different organisations, define goals, timelines, obligations of the long-term unemployed person and the service providers and should indicate available integration measures. LTU Long-term unemployed NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PES Public Employment Services SPC Social Protection Committee SPOC Single point of contact refers to an authority responsible for supporting the long-term unemployed persons through a coordinated service offer involving available employment and social support services. This point of contact could be based on a framework of inter-institutional coordination and/or be identified within existing structures. AT Austria BE Belgium BG Bulgaria HR Croatia CY Cyprus CZ Czech Republic DK Denmark EE Estonia FI Finland FR France DE Germany EL Greece HU Hungary IE Ireland IT Italy LV Latvia LT Lithuania LU Luxembourg MT Malta NL Netherlands PL Poland PT Portugal RO Romania SK Slovakia SI Slovenia ES Spain SE Sweden UK United Kingdom 1.Introduction 1.1 Purpose and scope The aim of this evaluation is to assess actions taken by the 28 Member States and by the Commission in response to the Council Recommendation on the integration of the long term unemployed into the labour market of 15 February 2016 (2016/C 67/01), (hereafter ‘the Recommendation’) in line with the reporting obligation set therein. The evaluation results feed into the Commission report to the Council and are used to shed light on future possible action. The evaluation assesses to what extent the general and specific objectives of the Recommendation have been achieved, to what extent the guidelines provided in the Recommendation have translated into new policies and planned changes, as well as, the way these have influenced the use of structural funds in the Members States. In addition, the evaluation highlights the strong points and the weaknesses as well as innovative measures. The evaluation covers all five criteria set out by the Better Regulation requirements, namely, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value. It covers the period from first half 2015 (H1 2015) until November 2018 in order to capture the preparatory work and negotiations on the Recommendation which may have influenced policies prior to adoption of the Recommendation. Due to the relatively early stage in the intervention's lifecycle and the influence of a number of external factors, the evaluation focuses on the extent to which the provisions of the Recommendation have been planned and implemented, and to which extent this led to the expected outputs and short-term results rather than on more long-term results and impacts such as inclusive growth, public finances or well-being.

The document is largely based on an external supporting study , complemented by qualitative data gathered via the European Network of Public Employment Services and quantitative data collected by the Employment Committee (EMCO) (see Annex 1), as well as, on input gathered via a broad stakeholder consultation process described in Annex 2.

2.Background to the intervention 2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives Need for action The economic crisis which started in 2008 resulted in a sharp increase in the long-term unemployment rate in the EU between 2008 and 2013 (Figure 1), especially in some Member States. At the peak of the crisis at the end of 2013, more than 12 million people were unemployed for more than one year, of which around 60% were jobless for at least two years in a row. At the time, the European Council and the European Central Bank recognised long-term unemployment as a major impediment to growth, while President Juncker's Political Guidelines identified the toll of unemployment as a key political challenge of the Commission's jobs and growth strategy. With the economic recovery that followed, improvements could be observed in unemployment trends but mainly for the short-term unemployed, while the job finding rates among the long-term unemployed continued to be low. These trends led to a continued increase of the share of the long-term unemployed in unemployment in most Member States, and higher risk of entrenchment in high structural unemployment , especially in countries with high long-term unemployment. These diverging trends carry negative economic impact and undermine social cohesion across the EU. Intervention logic In order to speed up the return to work in the short/medium run, the Council Recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market aims to improve the effectiveness of support structures by specifically tackling three identified problems: the insufficient coverage of activation support for long-term unemployed; the ineffective design of activation models, both in terms of individualised support to jobseekers and of employer involvement; and the lack of coordination between relevant services and actors supporting the long-term unemployed. While several factors can seriously hinder the return to employment, including structural issues such as low job creation, investment constraints, unreformed labour markets, benefits trap and low educational achievement levels, these are not specific to the long-term unemployed, and yield results in the longer term. Hence, these are outside of the scope of the Recommendation. The Recommendation proposes the following actions to be undertaken by Member States: ·Encouraging registration of jobseekers with an employment service; ·Increasing individualised support for the long-term unemployed through a detailed assessment of needs and prospects for employment (at the latest by 18 months); ·Ensuring delivery of a Job Integration Agreement (at latest by 18 months) in writing that defines the relevant services and measures that will be offered by different organisations to facilitate return to work, with mutual obligations of employment service and jobseeker; ·Improving the continuity of support by coordinating the provision of the various services available to the long-term unemployed (e.g. relating to their social, health and housing as well as employment situation) though a single point of contact; ·Encouraging and developing partnerships between employers, social partners, employment services, government authorities, social services and education and training providers, and developing services for employers. Given the differences in labour market contexts in Member States and the various approaches to addressing insufficient support to the long-term unemployed, the Recommendation essentially seeks to provide guidance on how, rather than what, should be done in order to improve transitions from unemployment to employment, and to reduce the number of long-term unemployed falling into inactivity. This in turn should contribute to inclusive labour markets and growth, as well as improved public finances and social situation in the EU (see Annex 3 for a graphical presentation of the intervention logic).

In addition, the Recommendation calls upon the Member States and the Commission to assess and monitor its implementation and to cooperate to make best use of the European structural and investment funds. The Commission is invited to support and coordinate voluntary initiatives and alliances of companies engaged in the sustainable integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market as well as to support social innovation projects to integrate the long-term unemployed into the labour market, in particular through the Employment and Social Innovation programme (EaSI). In this way, the Recommendation aims not only to reinforce the European Employment Strategy and the Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States , but also to complement the 2008 Commission Recommendation on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market and the 2013 Council Recommendation establishing a Youth Guarantee . 2.2 Baseline and points of comparison This section summarises the expectations on the impact of the Recommendation at the time of its adoption. A more detailed overview of the actual situation before the adoption of the Recommendation (points of comparison) and subsequent developments will be presented in section three. Without the EU intervention, existing national and EU initiatives were expected only partly to address the identified problems given, firstly, that measures were mostly programme-based and not systematically implemented and, secondly, that cooperation often relied on technical exchanges rather than lasting partnerships between different actors. Hence, the Recommendation was expected to complement and strengthen existing policies in Member States, especially with regards to individual assessments, creation of a single point of contact and services for employers. It was expected that most changes would take place in the countries with: ·Both high long-term unemployment rates and high shares of long-term unemployed among unemployed (relative to the EU average) and low registration rates; ·Weaker support structures, or where the services proposed did not exist. Table 1: Higher expected impact High LTU rate and share of LTU among unemployed Low registration rate No or little continuity in support delivery Limited individualised support Large share of public work schemes Member States BG, EL, ES, HR, IE, IT, PT, SI, SK BG, EE, IT, LV, RO BG, EL, HR, IT, LT, LV, MT, RO CY, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HU, IT, LU, PL, RO, SK CZ, DE, FR, HR, LV Source: Staff Working Document (SWD) accompanying the Recommendation, 2015.

Furthermore, the Recommendation was expected to lead to gradual changes and, in the case of countries with “consolidated” systems, the Recommendation would provide a further point of intervention for the long-term unemployed, i.e. a “last call” for further intensification of activation efforts. Low levels of overall administrative capacity – mainly related to staff competence and resources for an individualised approach to jobseekers – were identified as one of the main implementation risks. 3.Implementation / state of play This section aims to provide an overview of the broader macroeconomic context in which the Recommendation is embedded, as well as to describe how and to what extent the various elements of the Recommendation have been implemented by Member States and the Commission. These findings are then analysed in section five in order to answer the evaluation questions (see Annex 4). 3.1 Current policy and economic context In the last five years, the EU has experienced uninterrupted economic growth which has been accompanied by a recovery in investment, stronger consumer demand, improved public finances and continued job creation, although at a different pace across countries. Since the peak of the crisis at the end of 2013, long-term unemployment is gradually improving in line with recent overall unemployment trends (Figure 1). The number of long-term unemployed in the EU has declined each year reaching around 7 million in the second quarter of 2018, 25% fewer than when the Recommendation was adopted at the beginning of 2016. At the EU level, the long-term unemployment rate decreased from 4.7% in the second quarter of 2015 to 3% in the second quarter of 2018. Source: Eurostat data (quarterly seasonally adjusted survey data). Long-term unemployment: >12 months unemployed. Very long-term unemployment: >24 months unemployed. Reference population 20-64 years. Only Luxembourg, Finland and Austria have seen an increase in long-term unemployment between 2014 and 2017, albeit from low rates (Figure 2). Importantly, strong decreases are visible in Member States with high rates of long-term unemployment, such as Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain. Still, long-term unemployment rates continue to vary from 1-1.5% in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, Sweden and the UK, to 4.5-8% in Cyprus, Spain, Italy and Slovakia, and 15.3% in Greece. Figure 2: Long-term unemployment rates in Member States, 2014 versus 2017 Source: Eurostat data, Labour Force Survey. Reference population aged 25-64 years. Some groups are still facing higher risks of becoming long-term unemployed than others. Workers with low qualifications are twice as likely to experience long-term unemployment. This is also the case for third country immigrants whose share in all long-term unemployed increased from 12% in 2015 to 15% in 2017 – and reached 20% or more in nine Member States. Moreover, people with disabilities, minorities and people younger than 30 and older than 55 years are disproportionally affected. The proportion of unemployed who are long-term unemployed continued to be high in 2017, at around 49.5% across the EU, down from 53.3% in 2014 (Figure 3). The shares declined in all but seven Member States since 2014 with the largest falls experienced by Croatia (-16.7pp), Poland (-12.0pp), Estonia (-11.3pp) and Ireland (-10.1pp). Nevertheless, there are still considerable differences between Member States – in Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Slovakia the share continues to surpass well above 50%. Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey. Reference population aged 25-64 years .Note: There is a break in the series between 2016 and 2017 in the data for BE, DK and IE, between 2015 and 2016 for DK and between 2014 and 2015 for LU. Largely in line with the decreasing long-term unemployment rates, transition rates improved between 2015 and 2017 in a majority of Member States for which data is available (Figure 4). This improvement is visible in eight out of the 11 Member States that had long-term unemployment rates above the EU28 average. A few countries had declining transition rates between 2015 and 2017, but these were mainly countries with low long-term unemployment rates. Large discrepancies in the EU remain, however, with Greece suffering from a stagnant labour market with under 5% transitions, in contrast to the more mobile labour markets, such as Denmark and Slovenia with over 20% transitions. Long-term unemployed aged 25-54 were more likely to transition into employment than those aged 55-64 in all countries but Sweden. Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey. Experimental statistics, annual averages of quarterly transitions. Reference population aged 25-64 year s. Data not available for EU28, BE, DK (2016 only), DE, LU, MT and RO (2015 only).

Exits to inactivity tend to diminish during downturns, but increase during recoveries. Different characteristics of the long-term unemployed (e.g. higher motivation, higher job-readiness) or reduced possibilities of exit towards retirement or pre-retirement schemes, can account for this. Since 2015, transitions from long-term unemployment to inactivity increased in 16 out of 23 Member States for which data is available. In 2017 those aged 55-64 were more likely to transition to inactivity than long-term unemployed aged 25-54. This possibly reflects, on the one hand, a reluctance on behalf of employers to take on people approaching retirement and, on the other hand, the fact that transitions to inactivity among older workers are boosted by retirements (whether natural or due to discouragement). At the end of 2016, a Council Recommendation on Upskilling Pathways was adopted that recommends Member States to offer adults support for acquiring a minimum level of literacy, numeracy and digital competences. In 2017, the European Pillar of Social Rights confirmed the provisions of the Recommendation under principle 4 setting out the right to personalised, continuous and consistent support and the right to an in-depth individual assessment at the latest at 18 months of unemployment. This is also reflected in the Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States adopted in 2018. 3.2 Registration of the long-term unemployed The Recommendation calls on Member States to improve registration with employment services in order to tackle the lack of coverage of support measures. The supporting study for the evaluation showed that six countries which had no such measures in place in 2015 introduced changes since the Recommendation was adopted (Table 2). The most common measures introduced were the provision of information to non-registered people on the support available, new service offerings to non-registered people and multi-channel possibilities for initial registration. Table 2: Changes in measures in place aiming to increase registration Changes in measures since H1 2015 Measures in place in H1 2015 No Planned Implemented Yes AT, BE, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK (22) AT, DE, DK, FI, LU, SE, UK (7) CZ, CY, FR, IT, LT, NL, PT, RO, SI, SK (10) BE, CZ, CY, EE, ES, FR, HR, IT, LT, MT, NL, PT, RO, SI, SK (15) No BG, EL, HU, IE, LV,

PL (6) BG, HU, IE (3) BG, EL, HU, IE, LV, PL (6) Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of long-term unemployed into the labour market, Ramboll Management consortium for the European Commission, 2019. Out of the 22 countries that already had measures in place, 15 countries implemented further changes or changed existing measures (Table 2). Outreach actions, usually to specific groups, and services to encourage the long-term unemployed to remain registered were areas where the largest number of countries made changes (ten Member States). Box 1: Examples of new measures to increase registration of inactive and to prevent deregistration In Greece, since August 2018 all recipients of social solidarity income (SSI) – a means tested national minimum income – must register with public employment services. In Slovenia, the Public Employment Service has implemented programmes for social activation of the long-term unemployed and inactive people since 2017. These programmes are coordinated by the Ministry of Labour and delivered by non-profit organisations together with Public Employment Service cooperating with Centres for Social Work (CSWs). Social activation programmes have proven to be more effective at reaching out to inactive people than public employment services programmes. In Romania the incentives for registering have been strengthened by improving the attractiveness of service offerings through increased availability of employment subsidies. Mobile ‘JobCaravans’ were also introduced to reach out to people in the most rural areas, where access to regular employment offices is limited. 3.3 Individual assessments and job-integration agreements Individual assessments The Recommendation explicitly calls for all long-term unemployed to be offered an in-depth individual assessment at the latest by 18 months of unemployment. The individual assessment should take a holistic approach and assess the barriers to employment, skills, experiences and the life situation of the long-term unemployed with the help of profiling and segmentation tools. Almost all Member States (except Hungary and Luxembourg) offered some kind of individual assessments and personalised guidance before the adoption of the Recommendation and 18 Member States planned or introduced changes since then (Table 3). Table 3: Changes in measures for individual assessment and personalised guidance Changes in measures since H1 2015 Measures in place in H1 2015 No Planned Implemented Yes AT, BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK (26) AT, BE, DE, DK, EE, EL, MT, NL, SE (9) BG, CZ, CY, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, PL, PT, RO, SK (12) BG, CZ, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, UK (16) No HU, LU (2) LU (1) HU (1) Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of long-term unemployed into the labour market, Ramboll Management consortium for the European Commission, 2019. In 2015, the individual assessments covered, in most cases, education and work experience, distance from work, health and substance abuse as well as family obligations. Debt issues, however, were covered by individual assessments in only eight countries . Changes to individual assessments have been introduced since 2015, but they tend to cover similar aspects as before, with debt issues remaining less covered. Meanwhile, skills “audit” (assessment) is still not a standard practice and in the majority of cases it is not used to identify gaps in basic skills such as literacy, numeracy and digital skills. Furthermore, basic skills are not always embedded into support measures for low skilled adults while they are fundamental for successful progression towards further learning or qualifications.

In most countries in 2015 the long-term unemployed were already encouraged to consult other service providers (e.g. in the fields of health, counselling or training). Yet since then, 15 countries planned or implemented further changes. Only Greece and Poland did not have any measures in place in this area in 2015 and did not implement changes since. Finally, in 2015, eight countries did not provide individual guidance and information about job offers in different sectors or regions, but since then, all but Malta implemented measures to this end. Out of the ten Member States that did not provide information on job offers in other Member States in 2015, five implemented measures thereafter. Box 2: Examples of measures to enhance the individualised approach Croatian Public Employment Service developed in 2017 a new profiling tool that helps classify clients’ distance from the labour market based on specific variables. The model estimates the probability of employment within 12 months following registration. It is designed to take into account variables such as human capital (education and experience), history of employment and unemployment, economic sector of previous employment and any skills they may have gained, belonging to a vulnerable group and region of residence. Jobseekers with a high risk of becoming long-term unemployed are referred to motivation counselling, workshops and additional in-depth counselling. In France intensive support seems to lead to the best results, as well as counselling that aims at removing social and/or personal barriers that jobseekers may face. Experience of Public Employment Service with intensive support schemes within the framework of professional security contract (Contrat de sécurisation professionnelle) and the reinforced/global support schemes demonstrate this. In Slovakia, the clearest development in line with the Recommendation has been a greater focus on providing individualised support, specifically via a more in-depth and comprehensive individual assessment. The sharing of information between staff (e.g. via meetings) proved to be beneficial for providing a more holistic and tailor-made assistance. In Italy, a new online tool has been developed called PIAAC10. It enables adults to evaluate and validate their skills and provides the opportunity to create a plan on how to raise their competences. The aim is to promote learning among unemployed people and thereby increase their employability. The current target group is long-term unemployed individuals. In Lithuania, a new customer service model was introduced within PES which refers registered jobseekers who have been identified as having a lack of work motivation, social skills, and behavioural problems to a special career counsellor. The task of this specialist is to strengthen their motivation by advising them individually and in groups on their career choice, to prepare them for employment and teach them about the functioning of a business organisation etc. Counselling activities encompass three forms: general, psychological and vocational. More than half of the Public Employment Services (PES) offer long-term unemployed a different and more tailored individual assessment and guidance than other groups (although in practice even those PES which indicated that they do not apply differentiation seem to be applying a more personalised approach to the long-term unemployed). The differences are usually linked to frequency and nature of contact, and also whether tailored support or other services are offered. Overall, the long-term unemployed tend to be consulted more frequently than other unemployed groups, and they are also able to access different services (e.g. motivational counselling). Counsellors appointed to work with the long-term unemployed receive special training, while different employability assessment and re-assessment approaches are applied. Finally, since 2016 some Member States, namely Croatia, Greece, Luxembourg and Slovakia, started to develop client profiling practices and segmentation of job-seekers to identify high risk of long-term unemployment and better target support. The Estonian Public Employment Service has special case managers counselling the long-term unemployed. They consult fewer clients than job mediation consultants and can use networking, e.g. reaching clients’ families, local authorities, social workers or other specialists. This means they can provide real individualised support. In Finland, after 12 months of unemployment, long-term unemployed individuals are contacted more frequently by a counsellor than other groups of unemployed and preferably face-to-face. Counsellors receive special training on how to assess needs and how to act in extraordinary situations. In Slovenia since January 2017, all the long-term unemployed receive a structured in-depth individual assessment within 12-15 months of registration with the PES. This includes job counselling but also other types of counselling such as rehabilitation, in-depth psychological counselling, or medical counselling. In Portugal a specific intervention strategy was introduced in early 2017 with the goal of consulting long-term unemployed individuals on concrete action to re-enter the labour market. The ‘Follow-up support in the search for employment’ included the creation of technical tools in order to help the staff in Public Employment Service to provide more efficient assistance to long-term unemployed persons in utilizing the available employment measures. The aim of the project is to enhance the long-term unemployed individual’s pro-activity in pursuit of their professional goals, support them to adopt better organised and more systematic job search behaviour, and to use various tools and resources themselves to become employed. In the Netherlands, the ‘Work Profiler’ system is a science- and evidence-based profiling tool which the PES uses to screen jobseekers upon registration. It assesses the risk of a person becoming long-term unemployed. Medium or high risk cases receive immediate face-to-face interventions and targeted strategies for their activation and integration into the labour market, whereas lower risk cases receive less personalised support. The Danish PES introduced a similar system, where a data profiling tool identifies clients that have an increased risk of becoming long-term unemployed. It is used in the first, intensive contact phase. After 18 months of unemployment, clients receive a re-assessment and further measures are taken, for example in the form of a personal job counsellor. Hungary is carrying out a programme to further develop the services of the PES with special emphasis on a new profiling tool and Individual Action Plan system. The focus of the programme is on assessing the employability of job-seekers, in particular long-term unemployed. This programme was financed partly by ESF. Job Integration Agreement A Job Integration Agreement (JIA) refers to a written agreement which defines goals, timelines, and mutual obligations, and indicates available integration measures. It should be offered at the very latest when reaching 18 months of unemployment and include, as a minimum, an individualised service offer (e.g. employment, social support, health, education, early childhood care, debt counselling, transport etc.) aiming at finding a job and the identification of a single point of contact. The PES Network Quality Standards aimed to complement the Recommendation with further guidance on how to define the JIA, and are used in the evaluation. The standards emphasise that the JIA needs to be based on an individual in-depth assessment, to propose realistic job goals and a clear offer of support by different providers as well as to specify frequency and method of contact. Finally, administrative capacity, including the provision of adequate human resources , needs to be ensured to allow for regular monitoring and reviews/updates as well as mechanisms to exchange relevant information between services. However, the evaluation process showed that the JIA concept is still differently understood across countries and also by different actors. Different sources analysing JIA implementation looked at different aspects of it and by triangulating them it is possible to get a more comprehensive view and understanding of the state of play. This section looks in particular at the timing of the JIA, whether an in depth-assessment takes place or not, whether there is a written mutual obligation and whether a package of services is offered. In terms of timing, in 2015 six Member States did not offer a Job Integration Agreement nor a similar instrument which could serve as basis for it such as an Individual Action Plan (IAP) before 18 months. Since then all but Greece planned or implemented this feature. Among those countries which already did so in 2015, 14 countries implemented further changes. The qualitative information collected via EMCO shows that, by now, most PES routinely provide all, or most, registered unemployed with an IAP within a relatively short period after registration (maximum six months) after an initial assessment/profiling. With regards to re-assessments, IAPs are generally reviewed on an ongoing basis, with the frequency and content of the reviews varying between countries and sometimes with the level of need (i.e. employability of client). Reviews generally focus on the fulfilment of steps/activities previously agreed and specified in the IAP and planning of future steps/activities. However, only half of the Member States offer either a new specific action plan or modify the existing plan on the basis of an in-depth assessment (countries that have dedicated JIA for LTU or IAP with individual assessment for all in Figure 5) which goes over and above the routine “progress” review once the person becomes long-term unemployed. Source: DG EMPL elaboration of the JIA delivery groups in the Data collection for monitoring the LTU Recommendation: 2017. Note: Countries are grouped according to the availability of the in-depth assessment once persons become long-term unemployed. The grouping does not take into account the quality of the JIA itself and whether offered by a single point of contact. Within the Slovakian ‘Action Plan on Enhancing the Integration of Long-Term Unemployed on the Labour Market’ that was launched in 2016, the Public Employment Service launched the ‘With Increased Activity Towards Employment’ project in 2017. It aims to increase the internal motivation of long-term unemployed to find a job. It concerns a four month project where participants are given the assignment to identify reasons and obstacles that prevent them from entering the labour market. The project is supposed to identify jobseekers strengths and increase their self-confidence. Furthermore, participants receive advisory services and job offers that match their profile. In 2017, 20.74% of the participants found a job. In Italy the new guidelines introduced with the Ministry Decree in 2018 specifically require that between the 12th and the 18th month of unemployment a new in-depth individual assessment is conducted and a new JIA is drawn up. In Belgium, implemented within the Job Integration Agreements a ‘work and health’ programme, in order to provide additional support for people far from the labour market. Jobseekers with medical or mental health issues can participate in a temporary work-care plan. This is an internship programme, where participants receive guidance to work, combined with care counselling at a welfare institution, psychiatric hospital or public social welfare centre.

Concerning the mutual obligation principle, in 2015 two thirds of Member States had a written offer with mutual obligations in place according to the study. By now this has been planned or implemented by all Member States. A more structured procedure implies clear attribution of responsibility for follow up actions. In 2015, almost half of the Member States did not have such provisions and since then, eight countries have planned or implemented these while another seven made changes to the existing provisions, according to the study. The study showed that 17 countries did not combine service offerings of different organisations as a part of the JIA in 2015. Since then three Member States started combining services and another five are planning to do so. In some cases like in Croatia combining services is not possible due to confidentiality issues. Among those countries which already did this in 2015, six countries introduced further changes. In the package of services, job-search assistance and education and training were covered in almost all Member States already in 2015 (the “traditional” parts of an action plan), and the few countries which did not include them, made changes since, according to the study. The number of countries which covered in-work assistance, health and other social services as well as support for increased mobility as a part of the JIA increased from around half in 2015 to more than two thirds in 2018. Childcare services and debt counselling featured as a part of the JIA in a relatively smaller number of countries both in 2015 (12 MS and 6 MS respectively) and in 2018 (16 MS and 9 MS respectively). Finally, Member States differentiate sometimes between IAPs offered to all clients and those offered to long-term unemployed specifically. According to the PES survey, this is most often linked to a broader range of services being included in the latter case, e.g. a jobseeker can be directed to other institutions to receive relevant support , but also via more intensive support for the unemployed or specific staff training . 3.4 Coordination of services and single point of contact The Recommendation calls on Member States to put in place the necessary arrangements to ensure continuity of support and identify a single point of contact. This contact should be responsible for supporting the long-term unemployed through a coordinated service offer, involving different service providers – and particularly employment and social support services. Coordination of services Establishing a single point of contact requires putting in place coordination processes between relevant institutions such as data sharing mechanisms or processes for referral of the individual from one organisation to another. Different ways of coordination can be effectively implemented (from informal to formal cooperation, or from joint needs assessment and follow-up to colocation and one-stop shops). Prior to the Recommendation, five Member States did not have coordination mechanisms in place between organisations dealing with the long-term unemployment (Table 4). Since then, four of these have introduced measures. The vast majority of Member States that did have coordination mechanisms in place have also further planned or implemented measures in this area. Table 4: Coordination mechanisms between organisations dealing with LTU Changes in measures since H1 2015 Measures in place in H1 2015 No Planned Implemented Yes AT, BE, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI, UK (23) AT, DK, FI, MT, UK (5) CZ, CY, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SI (12) BE, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, SI (17) No BG, EL, LU, RO, SK (5) SK (1) BG, EL, LU, RO (4) BG, LU, RO (3) Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of long-term unemployed into the labour market, Ramboll Management consortium for the European Commission, 2019 The types of mechanisms put in place to increase coordination vary. Data sharing practices between relevant organisations are among the more common arrangements. This is an area which poses technical and legal barriers related to data protection legislation as well as IT infrastructure. Member States are working towards overcoming these barriers. IT infrastructure to allow data sharing is implemented or planned in seven out of 16 countries where it did not exist prior to the Recommendation (Table 5). Furthermore, out of the 12 Member States that already had such infrastructure in place before the Recommendation, two thirds have further planned or implemented measures since the Recommendation in this area (Table 5). Table 5: IT infrastructure to allow access to individual data of LTU for several organisations Changes in measures since H1 2015 Measures in place in H1 2015 No Planned Implemented Yes AT, CY, DK, ES, FI, FR, IE, MT, NL, SE, SI, SK (12) AT, DK, MT (3) CY, FR, IE, NL, SE, SK (6) CY, ES, FI, FR, IE, NL, SE, SI, SK (9) No BE, BG, CZ, DE, EE, EL, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, PL, PT, RO, UK (16) BE, CZ, DE, EE, EL, HR, HU, RO, UK (9) BG, IT, LU, PL, PT (5) BG, IT, LT, LV, PT (5) Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of long-term unemployed into the labour market, Ramboll Management consortium for the European Commission, 2019 Coordination mechanisms introduced since the Recommendation are often based upon formal agreements between institutions. Nine out of the 12 Member States that did not have formal agreements in place have since then implemented or planned to implement them. The supporting study also shows that in all Member States, cooperation – in whichever form - now includes PES and Social Services, in 21 it involves or is planned to involve also civil society organisations (CSOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) service providers, and in 18 Member States, private service providers (Table 6). Table 6: Organisations participating in coordination Changes in measures since H1 2015 Measures in place in H1 2015 No Planned Implemented PES Yes AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK (23) AT, DK, MT, SE, SI (5) CY, FR, IE, IT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK (9) BE, CY, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, UK (17) No BG, CZ, EL, HU, LU (5) BG, CZ, EL, LU (4) BG, CZ, HU, LU (4) Social Services Yes AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, UK (22) AT, DK, EE, MT (4) CY, FR, IE, IT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI (10) BE, CY, DE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, UK (16) No BG, CZ, EL, HU, LU, SK (6) BG, CZ, EL, HU, LU,

SK (6) BG, CZ, HU, LU, SK (5) NGO service providers Yes BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, PL, PT, RO, SI, UK (18) DK, PT, SI (3) CY, FR, IE, PL, RO (5) BE, CY, DE, EE, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, PL, RO, UK (15) No AT, BG, CZ, EL, FI, LU, MT, NL, SE, SK (10) AT, CZ, EL, FI, MT, NL, SE (7) SK (1) BG, LU (2) Private service providers Yes BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, HU, IE, LT, MT, NL, RO, SE, SI,

UK (14) DK, MT, SE, SI (4) FR, IE, LT, NL, RO (5) BE, DE, ES, FR, HU, IE, LT, NL, RO, UK (10) No AT, BG, CZ, CY, EE, EL, FI, HR, IT, LU, LV, PL, PT,

SK (14) AT, CZ, CY, EE, EL, FI, HR, LU, PT, SK (10) BG, PL (2) BG, IT, LV (3) Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of long-term unemployed into the labour market, Ramboll Management consortium for the European Commission, 2019

Box 5: Examples of measures to increase coordination between service-providers In Greece, Community Centres that were established in 2016, co-financed by the European Social Fund, are a positive example of increasing coordination between relevant authorities. The Centres operate at the municipal level and integrate information on all types of social benefits at a single point, referring beneficiaries to the appropriate specialised service where needed. They involve various actors, from employment and social services, to volunteer organisations and local authorities, thus facilitating the long-term unemployed person’s access to support through increased coordination. In the Czech Republic, the PES introduced new processes related to data exchange and assessment in cooperation with local authorities in order to improve collaboration between different service providers. This also involves a cooperation process to prepare a Job Integration Agreement between PES, local authorities, non-profit organisations, social service providers and the National Board of People with disabilities. In London, United Kingdom, through EaSI funding, the Housing and Employment Learning Project was set up. It functions as a one stop shop integrating housing and employment services. Support is being provided through a co-located team of Special Care Handlers, social workers, health trainers, job counsellors, benefit specialists and a virtual network of other services. The project targets 500 clients over two years with the end goal to provide them with an improved housing status, education and employment outcomes. The ‘Italian Strategy for labour market integration of long-term unemployed’ was a direct consequence of the Recommendation. It entails a preventive, personalised and multidisciplinary approach, based on the integration of employment services with services delivered by other local actors (social services, training services, housing and health services). It involves the reinforcement of the IT infrastructure, qualitative profiling and setting up a personal action plan for employment including other services based on the long-term unemployed’ needs. In Germany, Netzwerke ABC that was introduced in 2016, aims to support local PES offices in expanding their networks by building on the networking experience of a former program that was initiated by the Federal Employment Agency. It aims to disseminate experiences and knowledge on networking activities to all PES and expand their local networks. It is a voluntary program which transfers knowledge through an online platform, through local workshops, national conferences, checklists, a magazine and handbooks. In Hungary, a programme co-financed by the European Social Fund supports NGOs to provide labour market services (such as counselling, mentoring, and psychological counselling) to disadvantaged jobseekers in order to alleviate the burden on the Public Employment Services. The budget for this programme is HUF 6 billion, allocated among the counties according to the composition of jobseekers. The projects are implemented with close cooperation between NGOs and PES, and will involve approximately 93,000 jobseekers, 15% of whom need to be inactive according to the target defined in the project. The effective services of the NGOs started in early 2018 and by the end of June 2018, 3750 people have been involved in the programme. Single point of contact Whilst coordination is increasing across the board, this does not necessarily translate into a fully functioning single point of contact. The Recommendation calls Members States “to put in place the necessary arrangements to ensure continuity and identify a single point of contact responsible for supporting the long-term unemployed persons through a coordinated service offer involving available employment and social support services.” The Recommendation states that such a point of contact could be based on a framework of inter-institutional coordination and/or be identified within existing structures. The set-up of the single point of contact can significantly vary, dependant on Member State’s institutional framework for delivery of support to the unemployed as well as on cultures of cooperation between organisations. The evaluation process showed that the concept is differently understood across countries and also by different actors. The PES Network Quality Standards which were developed to provide further practical guidance on implementation of the single point of contact, have been used in the evaluation to allow for a comparable analysis across Member States. As a minimum therefore, the single point of contact should fulfil at least the minimum standards of service defined in the PES Network Quality Standards, such as registration with a registration service, capability to conclude and implement Job Integration Agreements with people, provide an individual service offer for registered long-term unemployed people, and have mechanisms in place for transmission of relevant information of job vacancies between service providers. Based on these criteria, the supporting study shows that fifteen Member States did not have a single point of contact in place before the Recommendation was adopted. Out of these, nine have since planned or implemented changes to set one up (Table 7). Table 7: Single point of contact for LTU in place, responsible for benefits and LTU support Changes in measures in place from H2 2015 Measures in place in H1 2015 No Planned Implemented Yes AT, BE, DE, DK, EE, FI, FR, IE, LV, MT, NL, SE, UK (13) AT, BE, DE, EE, DK, NL, SE, UK (8) FR, IE (2) FI, FR, IE, LV, MT (5) No BG, CY, CZ, EL, ES, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK (15) CY, EL, ES, HR, PT,

SI (6) BG, CZ, HU, IT, LT, PL, RO, SK (8) BG, CZ, LU, PL (4) Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of long-term unemployed into the labour market, Ramboll Management consortium for the European Commission, 2019 However, the single point of contact is not fully operational in all of these Member States. Whilst progress has been made, only one Member State has newly established a single point of contact since the Recommendation. As it stands, therefore, half of Member States have a fully operational single point of contact, eight have several of the SPOC minimum criteria of the PES Network Quality Standards in place, whilst the remaining six have still to implement measures to make their nominated single points of contact operational (Figure 5). Source: European Commission clustering based on external supporting study and EMCO review conclusions In Finland, a cooperation model between several services is in place that allows the long-term unemployed to have access to a diverse range of support that meets their need. The cooperation is between the PES, that provides employment services, the municipality that provides social and health care services, and the Social Insurance Institution that provides vocational rehabilitation – all from the same location, a physical one-stop shop, or sometimes a mobile facility. The service design is intended to be customer orientated, based on a needs assessment that leads to a comprehensive individualised employment plan. 3.5 Cooperation with employers The Recommendation calls on Member States to develop closer links with employers, to encourage partnership between them and other actors such as social partners, social services and education providers, and to develop services for employers – such as placement support and screening services, to facilitate the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market.

Table 8: Measures to establish closer links with employers related to the placement of LTU Changes in measures since H1 2015 Measures in place in H1 2015 No Planned Implemented Yes AT, BE, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LV, LU, MT, NL, PT, SE, SI, SK, UK (24) DK, FI, MT, SE, UK (5) BE, CZ, CY, DE, EL, FR, IE, IT, LT, NL, PT, SK (12) AT, BE, CZ, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PT, SI, SK (19) No BG, HU, PL, RO (4) BG, HU, PL, RO (4) BG, HU, PL, RO (4) Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of long-term unemployed into the labour market, Ramboll Management consortium for the European Commission, 2019 Prior to the Recommendation, only four Member States had no measures in for establishing closer links with employers. All four have since implemented or planned such measures (Table 8). Furthermore, of the Member States that did have measures in place before the Recommendation, a vast majority (19) implemented or planned further measures in this area. The types of measures introduced vary. Incentives, work place mentoring and training and job placements tend to be the most common. Recruitment subsidies were introduced in three of the seven countries where they were not used for the long-term unemployed before the Recommendation. Incentives through reduction of social security contributions are slightly less common, introduced in three of the 12 countries where they did not exist prior to the Recommendation. Box 7: Examples of financial incentives for employers recruiting long-term unemployed In Ireland, JobsPlus is a financial incentive for employers recruiting people from the Live Register who are long-term unemployed. Since 2013, more than 12,000 long-term unemployed gained employment through the scheme, over 8,000 employers benefitted from JobsPlus grants, and 87% of the participants remained off the Live Register between 30 and 36 months after their commencement date. The tiered nature of the incentive has been effective in targeting the long-term unemployed. Employers receive EUR 7,500 for each person recruited that is unemployed between 12-24 months, and EUR 10,000 for those unemployed for more than 24 months. In Latvia in 2017, in order to make hiring of long-term unemployed more attractive, the regulatory framework for social enterprises was improved. Private entrepreneurs, NGOs and municipalities can employ people at the risk of social exclusion by providing jobs in social services, environmental protection etc. Next to local government support, social enterprises are granted tax reliefs and additional state subsidies for the creation of jobs for vulnerable groups, including the long-term unemployed. In Romania, additional incentives for employers have been introduced to support sustainable integration of the long-term unemployed. For employers retaining a person for at least 18 months, the amounts related to activation measures have been increased (to about 490 Euros per month), for a period of 12 months. In terms of services from PES, the number of PES that provide tailored services to employers using specialist staff has steadily increased since 2014 from 15 PES to 20 PES. Between 2016 and 2017, 11 PES have also increased the number of staff dedicated to this target group. The study shows that all Member States have planned or implemented placement support services for employers – five of these, since the Recommendation - whilst four of the five Member States that did not previously offer screening services, now do (Table 9). Workplace mentoring and training has also been increased since the Recommendation, now offered in seven of the eleven Member States that did not have such measures in place before (Table 9). Some services to employers appear less widespread though. Only seven of the 19 Member States that previously did not offer post-placement support now do (Table 10). Similarly, support for social enterprises was introduced or planned since the Recommendation in only seven of the 16 countries where it did not exist before (Table 10). Table 9: Closer links with employers - characteristics Changes in measures in place from H2 2015 Measures in place in H1 2015 No Planned Implemented Screening of suitable candidates Yes AT, BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, MT, NL, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK (23) AT, DK, EE, FI, MT, SE, UK (7) BG, CZ, CY, DE, EL, FR, IE, IT, LT, RO, SK (11) BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, NL, RO, SI, SK (16) No HU, LU, LV, PL, PT (5) PL (1) PT (1) HU, LU, LV, PT (4) Placement support Yes AT, BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, IT, LT, MT, NL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK (23) AT, DK, FI, SE, UK (5) BG, CZ, CY, DE, EL, FR, IT, LT, PT, RO, SK (11) BE, BG, CZ, CY, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, IT, LT, MT, NL, PT, RO, SI,

SK (18) No HU, IE, LU, LV, PL (5) IE, PL (2) HU, IE, LU, LV, PL (5) Workplace mentoring and training Yes AT, BE, BG, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, LT, NL, PT, SE, SI, UK (17) AT, DK, FI, NL, SE,

UK (6) BG, CY, DE, FR, LT,

PT (6) BE, BG, CY, DE, EE, ES, FR, HR, LT, PT, SI (11) No CZ, EL, HU, IE, IT, LU, LV, MT, PL, RO, SK (11) CZ, EL, MT, PL (4) IE, RO, SK (3) HU, IE, IT, LU, LV, RO, SK (7) Post-placement support Yes CY, DE, DK, EE, MT, SE, SI, SK, UK (9) DK, MT, SE, UK (4) CY, DE, SK (3) CY, DE, EE, SI, SK (5) No AT, BE, BG, CZ, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO (19) AT, BE, CZ, EL, ES, FI, HR, IT, LU, NL, PL,

PT (12) BG, FR, IE, LT, RO (5) BG, FR, HU, IE, LT, LV, RO (7) Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of long-term unemployed into the labour market, Ramboll Management consortium for the European Commission, 2019



Table 10: Support to social enterprises Changes in measures in place from H2 2015 Measures in place in H1 2015 No Planned Implemented Yes AT, BE, CZ, DE, ES, FR, IE, IT, LT, SE, SI, UK (12) IT, SE, SI, UK (4) CZ, DE, FR, IE (4) AT, BE, CZ, DE, ES, FR, IE, LT (8) No BG, CY, DK, EE, EL, FI, HR, HU, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK (16) CY, DK, EE, FI, HR, MT, NL, PT, RO (9) BG, HU, PL, SK (4) BG, EL, HU, LU, LV, PL (6) Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of long-term unemployed into the labour market, Ramboll Management consortium for the European Commission, 2019 Box 8: Examples of new measures for employer services In Ireland, an Employer Relations Unit was set up in the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. It includes a range of relevant groups with the aim of staying up to date with current and future trends and requirements of industries. This knowledge feeds into planning of training to develop jobseekers’ skill sets, and matching jobseekers from the live register with national and regional job opportunities. One approach taken by the unit to link the long-term unemployed directly to employers is through the organisation of job fairs, which in the past two years have gained enough momentum to now turn into “national job week”. Employers are invited free of charge to have a stand, ideally have vacancies, and be matched with people who attend on the day. In a recent evaluation, employers, for the most part, were very satisfied with the results, having received CVs from many suitable candidates at these events. Equally, job seekers expressed positivity that they had been interviewed on the day or invited to apply for positions. Employers also welcomed the opportunity to network with each other. As a result, over 500 companies have signed up to the Employment and Youth Activity Charter where they agree to engage with the Department for recruitment but also to provide Corporate Social Responsibility services, whereby companies provide supports, sponsorship events of facilities in order to provide customer and community support. In Sweden, the Stockholm Labour Market Administration has also set up a Unit for Business Collaboration. This unit coordinates the collaboration with networks of employers in sectors with job shortages. The collaborations are based on a commitment of employers to provide internship/apprenticeship/employment opportunities for students and unemployed. A ‘Coaching and Mentoring in the Workplace’ tool is being used to support employers and involves social clauses. In April 2017, the Lithuanian PES set up a new unit consisting of counsellors dedicated to working with employers, i.e. PES counsellors were separated between those working with jobseekers and those working with companies. Existing PES work coaches were retrained to take up the new positions as employer specialist counsellors. The employer specialists have a case load of around 600 employers. They carry out at least two visits to employers per week. In particular, they seek to visit employers that are new to PES services and will try to gain information about the employer’s skills needs. They also outline the types of services that the PES can offer.

Box 9: Examples of new measures involving employer partnerships In France, the project Territoires zero chômeur de longue durée was launched as an experiment at the end of 2016. The objective of this project is to have zero long-term unemployment in the participating localities by creating “employment-oriented companies” that recruit long-term unemployed. Through these companies, the long-term unemployed are offered paid permanent employment contracts for their chosen number of hours. To avoid competition with local businesses, an assessment is conducted to identify the community’s needs, with unfulfilled community needs then serving as the basis for the job offers. PES provides candidates to fill these job vacancies, firstly preparing them for integration through skills trainings, and managing mobility issues. In addition, the PES consults the companies on the potential for business development. In 2017, the pilot was conducted in 10 localities; it will grow to 50 in 2019 and will continue until 2021. In Spain the Launching Pads for Employment and Entrepreneurship (Lanzaderas de Empleo y Emprendimiento Solidario) scheme is an integrated scheme that aims to help the long-term unemployed enter self-employment or return to work through business “launching pads”. It includes coaching and motivation activities for long-term unemployed to get them ‘off the ground’ and supports a change from a passive to an active approach. Support is provided for a team of unemployed who have a mentor. The scheme provides information, refers participants to business professionals, provides training, coaching and mentoring, and offers psychological support where needed. It is based on a collaborative, supportive model that focuses on personal development, teamwork, all the while working on the collective empowerment of individuals. It is available to registered and non-registered long-term unemployed, is organised at the regional level and is supported by the European Social Fund. In Austria, certain socioeconomic enterprises (Sozialökonomische Betriebe - SöB), which are not-for-profit social enterprises, provide temporary jobs for long-term unemployed. These so-called transit jobs are designed for people that have been unemployed for a long time and combine employment with training and continual support to overcome any problems the individual may face throughout their time within the enterprise. The Austrian PES allocates long-term unemployed persons to the different enterprises and finances the activities, which are partly supported by ESF. In Cyprus, the government introduced a scheme for employer involvement in June 2016. It lets employers design, create, and implement programmes for training and gaining work experience in jobs available to long-term unemployed. The employer will pay the worker the wages stipulated in collective agreements, or, if no such agreement exists, will pay the minimum wage. After six months of employment, employers will be reimbursed for 80% of the costs incurred (with a monthly cap). The training and experience programmes will run for four months, plus two without the subsidy, and employment must be full and permanent. 3.6 Measures for vulnerable groups The Recommendation aims to ensure an individualised approach for all the long-term unemployed and does not focus on any specific target group within the long-term unemployed. However, the majority of countries which had measures in place in 2015 targeting different groups , introduced changes across all policy areas of the Recommendation for all the groups. The two groups for whom most changes took place were people aged 54-65 and people with physical disabilities. Among those countries which did not have targeted measures in place, most changes were implemented with regards to people with mental and intellectual disabilities across the different policy areas of the Recommendation. Overall, most changes have been implemented with regards to people with physical or mental disabilities and people aged 54-65, followed by people with low skills, according to the study. The Social Protection Committee’s thematic report on social services for people furthest away from the labour market confirms the picture that Member States put in place a range of specific support services and measures targeting various groups such as people with disabilities, older, inactive, ex-offenders, homeless and migrants. Box 10: Examples of measures addressing outreach and support to certain vulnerable groups In order to increase registration, in Malta since 2017 the Public Employment Service has set up three new measures targeting different, vulnerable, long-term unemployed groups: 1) in cooperation with, amongst others, migrant associations and NGOs, the Public Employment Service is running job-seeking advisory services for Migrants with International Protection; 2) in cooperation with various stakeholders, including the LEAP project coordinators and social workers, outreach activities are being implemented to identify and register long-term unemployed single parents; 3) in cooperation with educational institutions, information sessions targeting youth are taking place. In Germany, the ESF-funded project ‘Zukunftswege’ aims to integrate severely disabled people into the labour market permanently. This is done by intensive profiling, individual career path planning, special qualifications, and in-house training and qualifications at the workplace. Luxembourg introduced targeted measures for people with disabilities. Since 2017, the PES runs a guidance and re-integration project for people with disabilities. The project involves a wide range of stakeholders such as the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Integration, hospitals, psychologists, a socio-professional guidance centre, a re-education centre and employers’ associations. Furthermore, through a program called ‘Relaunching my career’ long-term unemployed between the age of 45 and 65 are targeted. Job seekers are supported through a 54-hour program in which they set professional goals, boost their network and adapt to labour market opportunities. Bulgaria introduced ‘Joint Mobile Teams’ to improve individualized services to Roma population. Individuals from the Roma community work as mediators between PES and the Roma communities in order to overcome the mistrust that many Roma have vis-à-vis official institutions. The mobile teams visit the Roma communities and perform individual assessments that are suitable to the needs of the Roma communities and guide them to institutions offering training or to companies that could employ them (temporary). In the Prudnik district in Poland, a project was launched for the economic activation of the unemployed, especially those in particularly difficult situations on the labour market. Apart from long-term unemployed, it targets people with disabilities, persons over 50 years of age, persons with low qualifications, return migrants or immigrants. The support to these groups includes traineeships, vocational training, intervention works or one-off measures for starting a business. The project is co-financed by the ESF. The Estonian government launched a ‘Work Ability Reform’ in 2016 with the aim to increase the participation of inactive people with reduced work ability in society and improve their employability. The reform includes assessments, pilot projects, rehabilitation services, personal assistive devices, social services and services based on ALMPs. These ALMP measures are financed by the ESF and are targeting risk groups, such as the long-term unemployed, who need longer-term support, training and a more personalised approach. Through the ESF also local community activities are financed that are providing specific solutions based on local circumstances and opportunities. Within the Work Ability Reform Programme, also employers are targeted as they receive compensation for workplace adjustment costs and training from a specialist on how to work with people with a reduced work ability. Additionally, the Unemployment Insurance funds provides support to employers in the acclimatisation period. 3.7 European Commission and Member States working together 3.7.1 Monitoring progress The Recommendation assigns an active role to both the European Commission and Member States in terms of monitoring of its implementation. In particular, the Employment Committee (EMCO), in close cooperation with the Social Protection Committee (SPC) with regard to social services and income provision, as well as the European Network of Public Employment Services have been tasked with contributing to this monitoring. Since the adoption of the Recommendation, several actions have been taken to track progress. Multilateral surveillance and the European Semester In 2015 the Commission identified long-term unemployment as a priority to be tackled in the Annual Growth Survey. Annually, unemployment and long-term unemployment developments have been assessed in the Commission’s country reports and in December 2016 and October 2018 two specific qualitative EMCO reviews took place to discuss progress in implementing the Recommendation. Based on these, country-specific recommendations have been issued to Member States since 2016 on related areas, as follows: Table 11: Country-specific recommendations related to the Recommendation, 2016-2018 2016 Reinforcing coverage and/or effectiveness of ALMPs Integrating support/services PES capacities BG, HR, ES, FI, HU, LV, LT, PT, RO, SK BG, ES, PT, RO CY, ES, IT 2017 ALMPs targeting/ Quality of ALMPs delivery Integrating support/services PES reform Better activation BG, HU, RO, SK/ CY, IT, LT BG, ES, IE, RO CY, IT PT, SK 2018 Effectiveness of ALMPs Effectiveness of support (employer cooperation, integrated services, individualised services) PES reform Better activation BE, CZ, HU, IT SK, ES, FI CY BG, SK In 2018 the Joint Employment Report (JER) presented for the first time the Social Scoreboard that monitors Member States' performance in relation to the European Pillar of Social Rights . It allows to detect key employment and social problems and to assess convergence or divergence patterns across Member States. In 2018, long-term unemployment rate was added as one of the 14 headline indicators. As a way to further integrate the Social Scoreboard in European Semester, the 2018 and 2019 Country Reports have provided an in-depth analysis of country-specific challenges identified by the Social Scoreboard. Finally, discussions in EMCO on a benchmarking framework on Unemployment Benefits (UB) and ALMPs have been ongoing since 2016. This comes in the context of a growing common understanding of the importance of viewing ALMPs in a more holistic way as part of a set of comprehensive and supporting activation policies, which is also a key component of the Council Recommendation on long-term unemployment. This benchmarking framework, once finalised by EMCO, will lead to a strengthening of the basis for cross-examination of relative performances and identification of best policy practices and country challenges, both in the context of the European Semester and with respect to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights.

Annual quantitative data collection From the outset, a quantitative monitoring framework was developed by the Employment Committee Indicators Group, with the support of the Commission, to measure progress in implementation of the Recommendation at three levels: aggregate, direct and follow-up level. The framework is mainly based on existing indicators with quality aspects built into some of the indicators. In October 2016, it was endorsed by the Council. Starting in 2017, the Commission has collected yearly data for 2016 and 2017 which were presented to both EMCO and SPC. Issues impacting the quality and comparability of data as well interpretation of some results, e.g. linked to JIA and certain definitions have been tackled by EMCO in 2018 via methodological improvements. European Network of Public Employment Services In 2016, a dedicated working group on long-term unemployment of the European Network of Public Employment Services (PES Network) was established at the request of the Commission. The working group designed a set of quality standards for implementing the single point of contact and a Job Integration Agreement. These standards were adopted by the PES Network, subsequently endorsed by EPSCO and then incorporated into the self-assessment questionnaires proposed by the Commission for the EMCO reviews on long-term unemployment in 2016 and 2018. To further underpin qualitative monitoring of the Recommendation in 2018, the PES Network, with support from the Commission, launched a specifically designed questionnaire as a part of its annual PES Capacity Survey . Finally, as of 2018, additional information on the implementation of the Recommendation was incorporated into the qualitative assessments conducted within the Benchlearning project. In parallel, since mid-2015, the Network has been issuing specific recommendations to each PES, based on a structured and systematic analysis of PES performance within the Benchlearning project, to help PES steer their national action plans for improvement. It also collected potentially transferable practices for learning purposes. The focus has been on developing strategies and services for employers , making the individual assessments of jobseekers more holistic and improving the profiling process. In almost half of the countries assessed, recommendations have been on improving the staff capacities and their qualifications via trainings . In 2017, the Network started the second cycle of PES visits in order to assess changes and progress made. 3.7.2 Mobilising EU funds to support implementation Promoting the use of the European Social Fund The Recommendation was not accompanied by dedicated financing to support its implementation. This was unlike the 2013 Recommendation on establishing a Youth Guarantee, which aimed also to support access to employment for a vulnerable group and had dedicated financing in the form of the Youth Employment Initiative. To support implementation, the Recommendation called instead on both Member States and the European Commission to make best use of the European structural and investment funds in accordance with the relevant investment priorities for the 2014-2020 programmes. The European Social Fund in particular was expected to be a key EU funding source for implementation. The ESF Committee confirmed in its Opinion on the Recommendation that substantial amounts of the ESF were available for putting in place integrated long-term unemployed support structures and for the groups further away from the labour market. Following adoption of the Recommendation, the European Commission published a thematic guidance fiche for Member State ESF Managing Authorities in May 2016 outlining where new actions on long-term unemployment could be programmed, and including existing good practices in line with the Recommendation, to encourage and facilitate use of the ESF to implement the Recommendation. To further support the implementation of the Recommendation via the European Social Fund, the Commission’s allocated ESF Technical Assistance is funding an innovative project set up in September 2017, under the ESF Transnational Platform’s Thematic Network on Employment. This Network brings together ESF Managing Authorities and relevant actors in Member States working on employment. The 2-year project aims to develop ‘support packages’ for Member States to help them implement measures in line with the Recommendation with the ESF. These support packages are being designed currently and include: ·a toolkit for governments on how to design systems which enable holistic and dynamic recording of an individual jobseekers situation, to enable a single client-centred view; ·a set of videos showcasing how individuals’ successful integrations have been enabled through employment support services offered post-placement, to the individual and the employer; On the basis of theses support packages, recipient countries and regions – Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, the Autonomous Province of Trento, Greece, Spain, Slovenia and Slovakia are developing pilot projects. In Croatia, Lithuania and the Autonomous Province of Trento, for example, these are focused on improving the provision of integrated service support to the long-term unemployed, through putting in place either a case management approach or stronger information sharing mechanisms between PES and social services. The aim is that these pilot projects will eventually be scaled up with the use of the ESF. Employment and Social Innovation Programme The Mutual Learning Programme (MLP) under the European Employment Strategy financed by EaSI aims to support, coordinate and encourage mutual learning between EU Member States in order to assist progress towards the goals of the employment strategy. Two Peer Reviews under the MLP took place specifically on long-term unemployment, one in Germany in October 2016, on ‘Approaches to integrate long-term unemployed persons’ and another in Croatia on ‘Improving measures for integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market’ in November 2017 . A peer Review on ‘Way to Work - strengthening the links between active labour market policy measures and social support services’, in Lithuania, June 2018 also provided opportunities for mutual learning on areas related strongly to the Recommendation. Furthermore, two calls for projects with a link (direct and indirect) to long-term unemployed have been financed through EaSI. One call concerned the integration of third country nationals into the labour market (an at-risk group for long-term unemployment). The other call targeted people who are unemployed over 35 years, and the long-term unemployed, to increase mobility in Europe and offer individualised support packages and improve labour market integration. In addition, the EaSI programme promotes the involvement of civil society through financial support for the key EU-level NGO networks active in the inclusion of the vulnerable groups to the labour market, enabling them to carry out various projects and support the exchange of knowledge and good practices. As an example, the European Network of Social Integration Enterprises (ENSIE) developed a methodological tool to measure social and economic impact of Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISE’s), which was applied in ten member organisations from nine EU countries in 2016. Another example is Eurocities, where the exchange of good practices among cities on refugee and migrant integration, the group that has a higher risk of being long-term unemployed, lead to a significant policy change in Gdansk in 2016. In 2018, the European Investment Fund (EIF) has signed the social entrepreneurship guarantee agreement for €50 million with seven member banks of the Erste Group in Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Serbia. This will provide financing to over 500 social enterprises during the next five years. The finances will be provided under the EU Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI). The Erste Group plans to offer financing to socially-oriented organisations, groups in education, health-care and social services. Moreover, the financing will target projects to encourage the employment of disadvantaged or marginalised groups.

An Expert Group on Social Economy and Social enterprise has been set up in 2018 to advise the Commission on “Social investment and the social window of the Invest EU Fund” and on “the role of clusters and similar forms of business cooperation in fostering the development of the social economy”. Recommendations are expected for end 2019. 4.Method The evaluation of the Recommendation was based on evaluation questions linked to the five criteria defined by the Better Regulation Guidelines. These questions were broken down into sub-questions and developed as operational questions appropriate for stakeholder responses. An evaluation matrix describing this process is included in the evaluation supporting study. In addition, the analysis of the criteria built on the intervention logic represented graphically in Annex 3. 4.1 Sources of information Following the Evaluation Roadmap published in June 2017, the evaluation has been carried out on the basis of evidence from different sources. An external and independent supporting study (‘the study’) was conducted to support the evaluation, between February 2018 and November 2018. The methodological approach to the study combined quantitative and qualitative data, which have been systematically triangulated to answer the evaluation questions. The supporting study includes a mapping of policy changes undertaken by independent national experts to document the policy changes implemented in Member States following the adoption of the Recommendation in February 2016. It also includes eight case studies, conducted by independent national experts, on Croatia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Slovakia and Romania. Input from consultations with a range of actors has also contributed to the evaluation. An open internet-based public consultation ran from 2 May 2018 to 31 July 2018. In the context of the study, relevant stakeholders, including social partners, civil society organisations and European Social Fund national managing authorities were consulted in a targeted way through several fora, as detailed in Annex 2. Member States were consulted through three seminars with nominated national contact points on long-term unemployment that took place from March to November 2018, as part of the study. The Recommendation assigns an active role to both the Employment Committee, the Social Protection Committee and the European Network of Public Employment Services in monitoring its implementation. The Employment Committee multilateral surveillance on implementation of the Recommendation took place in October 2018, following a first review in October 2016, and contributed qualitative data to the evaluation. The Employment Committee monitoring data reports on long-term unemployment for 2016 and 2017, based on the EPSCO-endorsed monitoring framework, have provided the main source of quantitative data for the evaluation. Contribution from the European Network of Public Employment Services has also fed into the evaluation. This includes the Network’s annual capacity surveys, which in 2018 included an ad-hoc section on long-term unemployment, results of the benchlearning process, which covers aspects related to the capacity of the public employment services to deliver services to the long-term unemployed, and results of ongoing mutual learning. The evaluation also draws on various other secondary sources, cited throughout in the text, including a report on ESF support to the long-term unemployed, also undertaken for the purpose of the evaluation (overview in Annex 1). 4.2 Limitations and robustness of findings The following limitations of the evaluation should be taken into account: One limitation is the lack of a quantified counter-factual scenario on two levels. Firstly, there is no counter-factual scenario for the evaluation of the direct effect of the Recommendation, that is, ‘what would have happened in the absence of the Recommendation.’ Secondly, there is no counter-factual scenario, for the evaluation of the actions taken by the 28 Member States and by the Commission in response to the Recommendation, that is, ‘what would have happened in the absence of the actions taken in response to the Recommendation.’ The SWD of 2015 included some statements on the expected future situation if the Recommendation had not been adopted. However, due to the voluntary nature of the Recommendation and given that measures are mostly taken at national and/or even local or regional level, it would not be possible to present a robust quantitative counterfactual scenario that could reflect the absence of EU action. Limited time has passed between the adoption of the Recommendation in February 2016 and the start of the present evaluation, which is expected to deliver a report to the Council in early 2019. For a Recommendation that, to a large extent, requires institutional change, implementation takes time and is still ongoing in many Member States. This means that it is too early to assess fully to which extent the integration of long-term unemployed to the labour market has improved due to the Recommendation. Furthermore, because of the close interaction between the policy area addressed by the Recommendation and other policy areas, and the influence of other policies and the economic situation on the target group and on the institutions and structures relevant to the Recommendation, it will probably remain difficult to establish such a direct link also in the future. As a result, whilst the evaluation takes into account results - changes in transition rates, the share of long-term unemployed - such findings are interpreted with care since it cannot be expected that more long-term effects have already materialised, also given that many other contextual factors will have a strong influence on the labour market development in Europe. The supporting study has used a large amount of secondary data, from statistical data to monitoring data. Some statistical data was only available with a significant time-lag: the data from the Labour Market Policy database is only available up to 2016, thereby rendering comparability with other more recent data challenging. Where this data has been analysed in the evaluation, it is therefore treated with caution. Furthermore, capacities to deliver follow-up data for the quantitative data collection are rather patchy given that registers are often not linked. Also, there are no benchmarks to judge the results. This means that for the moment it is quite difficult to draw firm conclusions on transitions and the delivery of sustainable outcomes for the long-term unemployed. The issue of considerable time-lag linked to some of the indicators persists. Furthermore, as the EMCO quantitative framework does not take into account the quality of JIAs and their ongoing management via a single point of contact nor information on the client journeys, there is a gap in terms of monitoring the quality of implemented elements in a more systematic manner. For now, the two qualitative strands (EMCO reviews and PES survey) appear are visibly aligned. They could be further differentiated with the aim of collecting information to monitor the qualitative aspects of JIA or client journeys, linked also to the coordination of services via the single point of contact. Reaching the long-term unemployed themselves proved challenging in the evidence-gathering. In the case studies of the supporting study, it was not possible to reach any long-term unemployed people in Finland, Italy and Germany. It was also not possible to reach any non-registered long-term unemployed people. Whilst the Open Public Consultation (OPC) did reach a few more long-term unemployed individuals (33 people - 16% of individual respondents to the OPC), the views and opinions from long-term unemployed themselves remain few. This means that the study cannot draw conclusions on whether the end target group have themselves experienced a change in national policies and practices since the Recommendation was adopted. Defining and setting appropriate criteria to ensure a comparable assessment across countries and different contexts proved challenging for certain measures in the Recommendation, namely for Job Integration Agreements and single points of contact. The starting point for the definition by the independent national experts from the supporting study was that stipulated in the Recommendation. However, it appeared from consultation with stakeholders, in particular national contact points within Member States, that these definitions of the JIA and the single point of contact were differently understood across Member States. The PES Network Quality Standards, which were developed in order to provide guidance to Member States in implementation, were used by national experts of the supporting study when evaluating implementation of these measures. This, alongside triangulation of results with various other sources, has helped mitigate this issue, and allowed for a comparability of results across Member States. 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions

5.1 Effectiveness The question of effectiveness concerns whether the objectives of the Recommendation have been achieved. The assessment uses evidence on points of comparison, expected impacts and state of play presented in section two and three. The analysis is largely process-oriented, that is, to what extent the Recommendation influenced Member States activities to improve support offered to long-term unemployed and its effectiveness. The overall finding is that the Recommendation’s influence on Member States’ activities to support the long-term unemployed has been stronger in countries which had a less favourable starting position in terms of the quality of support. This appeared both from the mapping exercise within the supporting study, as well as from the case study interviews. It matches the expectations outlined in the Staff Working Document accompanying the Recommendation (2015) (Figure 6). No change Minor change Mixed change Strong change Very strong change



Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of long-term unemployed into the labour market, Ramboll Management consortium for the European Commission, 2019 Note: Countries with no change show no changes in the mapping exercise for any policy area. Countries with minor change show improvement in 1 policy area. Mixed change is change in 2 or 3 policy areas. Strong change is change in at least 4 out of 5 policy areas with at most 1 policy area showing an improvement stronger than 1 point. Very strong change is change in at least 4 out of 5 policy areas with at least 2 policy areas showing an increase stronger than 1 point.

In the supporting study, the changes in measures were qualitatively assessed by experts to determine the level of implementation, using a five-score grading (Table 12): Table 12: Scoring definitions Score Level of implementation Explanation 1 Low No or basic implementation only, only on an ad hoc basis or not fully integrated into the overall services package; significant room for improvement. 2 Low-Medium More than just a basic implementation but falls short of being routinely implemented at national level and integrated into the overall service package; significant room for improvement. 3 Medium Routinely implemented and integrated into the overall service package but recognise that the service/function falls short of guiding elements of the Recommendation guidance. 4 Medium-High Established and well-developed service/function that fulfils most guiding elements of the Recommendation but falls short of realising all of them. 5 High Established and well-developed service/function that fulfils all the guiding elements of the Recommendation. This implies that mechanisms to constantly monitor performance and develop the service/function on the basis of what is or is not working well should be in place. Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of long-term unemployed into the labour market, Ramboll Management consortium for the European Commission, 2019 Ultimately, the value of the Recommendation will depend on whether the measures proposed are effective. There are attempts to analyse this, subject to various limitations. In that respect, the assessment of measures by Member States themselves will play an important role. In general, the stakeholder consultation showed positive feedback regarding the effectiveness of the Recommendation. Most of respondents to the OPC thought that the measures improved mostly for people with low education or skill levels, and that the Recommendation resulted in some changes in policies (e.g. prioritisation, funding and acceleration of measures). EU level stakeholders argued that the Recommendation had been effective in putting long-term unemployment higher on the policy agenda. The case study interviews resulted in differing views on its effectiveness, as it was assessed to range from low (Finland, Germany, Greece and Italy), to being effective in terms of confirming national choice of policy measures (Ireland), to varying per measure (Croatia) and effective (Romania and Slovakia). Furthermore, via various channels CSOs, local level stakeholders and social partners expressed disappointed that they had not been given a more visible role in the Recommendation, and believed that its effectiveness would have been higher if such a role had been foreseen. CSOs in the Strategic Dialogue Meeting also stressed that the Recommendation’s lack of specific, dedicated funding, likely limited its effectiveness. The following sections present in more detail the changes in Member States according to various measures proposed in the Recommendation. 5.1.1 Registration of long term unemployed Between 2015 and 2018, 15 Member States made progress in terms of the quality of measures encouraging registration of long-term unemployed (Figure 7). All Member States with previously very low registration rates and/or all Member States (except Czech Republic) with a low starting point (scores 1-2) in the quality of their measures in 2015, made improvements. Source: Study supporting the evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of long-term unemployed into the labour market, Ramboll Management consortium for the European Commission, 2019 Note: *Countries are coded by LTU registration rates in 2014. LTU registration rate is the share of long-term unemployed who are registered with the PES (LFS data). **Quality scores are based on a rating from 1 – 5, with 1 being no or basic implementation only, while 5 means established and well-developed service/function that fulfils all the guiding elements of the Recommendation. In total, 21 countries strengthened their existing measures or put in place new measures and incentives to encourage registration. Considerable improvements in the quality of these measures were observed in Member States with previously less developed approaches and/or with low registration rates - as was expected. Prior to the Recommendation, most Member States had moderate to high registration with only the UK, Italy, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia and Romania with registration rates below 50%. In 2017, 71.8% of long-term unemployed were registered with the PES , which decreased slightly from 73% in 2015 (Figure 8). Changes in the level of registration between 2015 and 2017 were positive in eight of the countries for which data is available for both years and comparable between years, with Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia and Greece experiencing the largest improvements. However, there is no clear-cut evidence yet that these measures have translated into increased registration rates for the long-term unemployed.

Several factors can influence registration rates, some of which are outside the scope of the Recommendation’s measures and/or of the evaluation. Firstly, developments in registration rates may reflect the impact of improved economic situation on the labour market in some Member States. Other factors can be eligibility for receiving unemployment benefits and how long they have received them; sanctioning mechanisms linked to benefits; fragmentation of state administration, geographical distance to PES, the proportion of the long-term unemployed who have never worked before and the quality and attractiveness of PES services. The findings from the data collection show that in most, if not all, Member States with high overall registration rates (above 85%), a common feature is that the registration with PES is a conditionality to receiving unemployment benefits or means-tested social benefits/assistance. Focus in these countries may be more on incentivising people to remain registered once unemployment insurance has expired. However, when the amount of benefits and assistance are low and thresholds and eligibility criteria are very narrow, this approach appears to have less impact on registration rates, as can be seen in Romania and Italy. In Member States with high rates of unemployment and a high share of long-term unemployment such as Greece and Italy, high caseloads - the limited capacity of PES to handle or to manage support - have been identified as a main obstacle to increasing registration. Given that it takes time to change perceptions amongst the long-term unemployed about the quality and effectiveness of services, as confirmed by the OPC and in the case studies, it is likely that it will take more time before registration rates improve. CEDEFOP underlines that the effectiveness of outreach policies is enh