REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL Evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of the long - term unemployed into the labour market
Date: 2019-04-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU employment policy, employer, employment service, fight against unemployment, integration into employment, long-term unemployment, unemployed person

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 11.4.2019  COM(2019) 169 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL Evaluation of the Council Recommendation on the integration of the long - term unemployed into the labour market {SWD(2019) 154 final} - {SWD(2019) 155 final}  
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION  

Between 2007 and 2013, the number of people in Europe that were unemployed for over 
a  year,  doubled.  At  its  peak,  this  sharp  increase  in  long-term  unemployment  affected 
around 12 million people across the European Union. Addressing this was one of the key 
challenges  of  the  jobs  and  growth  agenda,  set  out  in  President  Juncker’s  Political 
Guidelines1 at the time. 

With the economic recovery that followed, unemployment trends improved, but the job 
finding  rates  among  the  long-term  unemployed  continued  to  be  low.  In  most  Member 
States,  the  share  of  long-term  unemployed  among  unemployed  continued  to  increase, 
with dire social consequences.  

Figure 1: Long-term unemployment rates and share of long-term unemployment, (20-64y), annual 
averages 2008-2017, EU28, Eurostat 

The Council Recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed into 
the  labour  market2,  adopted  in  2016,  aims  at  responding  to  these  challenges  by 
promoting  measures  to  speed  up  the  return  to  work  in  the  short/medium  run.  The 
Recommendation calls on Member States to: 

1.  Encourage  registration  of  the  long-term  unemployed  with  an  employment 

service  

2.  Increase  individualised  support  for  the  long-term  unemployed  through  a 
detailed  assessment  of  needs,  and  ensure  delivery  of  a  job-integration 
agreement (JIA) at the latest by 18 months 

3.  Improve the continuity of support by coordinating services available to the long-

term unemployed through a single point of contact (SPOC) 

1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/president-junckers-political-guidelines_en 
2 2016/C 67/01 

1 

 
 
 
                                                 
4.  Encourage  and  develop  partnerships  between  employers,  social  partners, 
employment  and  social  services,  government  authorities  and  education  and 
training providers, and develop services for employers 

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 States3, but also to complement the 2008 Commission Recommendation on the 
active  inclusion  of  people  excluded  from  the  labour  market4  and  the  2013  Council 
Recommendation establishing a Youth Guarantee5. 

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,  with  a  record-high  240  million  people  in 
employment. Reflecting this, the long-term unemployment rate has continued to decline, 
from  5.2%  in  2013  to  3.5%  on  average  in  the  EU  in  2017.6  Since  the  adoption  of  the 
Recommendation,  the  number  of  long-term  unemployed  decreased  by  more  than  2.5 
million. However, the situation remains varied across the EU and in some Member States 
has yet to reach pre-crisis levels. The share of long-term unemployed among unemployed 
is still around 45%.  

Figure 2: Long-term unemployment rate by country (20-64y), annual averages 2013 and 2017, 
Eurostat 

2.  MAIN EVALUATION FINDINGS  

The Recommendation requires the Commission to report to the Council in 2019 on the 
implementation in Member States and at EU level. The evaluation covers all five criteria 

3 2018/1215   
4 2008/867/EC  
5 2013/C 120/01 
6 Information on the most recent quarterly data is available in the SWD accompanying this Report 

2 

 
 
 
                                                 
of  the  Better  Regulation  requirements  –  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  relevance 
and  EU  value  added.7  The  period  covered  is  from  the  first  half  of  2015  to  November 
2018. 

The evaluation has shown that Member States across the EU have put in place measures 
in  line  with  the  Recommendation.  The  most  considerable  policy  changes  have  taken 
place  in  Member  States  with  less-developed  support  for  the  long-term  unemployed, 
leading  to  increased  convergence  in  policy  approaches  across  the  EU.  However,  given 
that  the  Recommendation  calls  for  changes  that  are  often  structural,  require  political 
backing, and time to take hold, it is too early to conclude on its full effects, including the 
impact on unemployment rates.  External effects on such rates, most notably, the overall 
favourable  economic  developments,  also  play  a  role.  In  general,  it  is  important  to  note 
that  a  more  complete  assessment  of  the  impact  of  the  Recommendation  would  be 
possible only after at least three full years of data on implementation.8    

2.1 Effectiveness 

Encouraging proactive outreach 

Registration with public employment services (PES) is essential to receiving support for 
integration into the labour market.  A common feature among Member States with  high 
registration rates is benefit conditionality.  

Figure 3: Changes in quality of measures encouraging registration (2015-2018)9 

Sources:  Study  supporting  the  evaluation,  Ramboll,  2019.  Note:  Countries  are  coded  by  LTU  registration  rates  in 
2014. LTU registration rate is the share of long-term unemployed registered with the PES (LFS data).  

7 Better Regulation Guidelines, SWD (2017) 350 
8 Better regulation Toolbox, SWD (2017)350 
9 The scores are based on the mapping of policy changes undertaken by national experts as part of the supporting study at two points 
in time - the first half of 2015 and in September 2018. It assesses the quality of measures in place at these two moments, using a 
rating from 1 – 5. 1 is no or basic implementation only, and 5 is established and well-developed service/function that fulfils all the 
guiding elements of the Recommendation. Same applies for Figures 3, 4, 6 and 8.  

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Since the adoption of the Recommendation, 15 Member States have improved the quality 
of  their  measures  encouraging  registration  (Figure  3).  The  most  common  measures 
include providing information to non-registered individuals on the support available and 
outreach  measures  to  encourage  specific  inactive  groups.  Limited  capacity  has  been 
identified as a barrier to  implementation.  Findings show that Member States have been 
targeting  vulnerable  groups  specifically  (e.g.  Roma,  third-country  nationals),  both  by 
changing existing practices and introducing new measures. However, it is not possible to 
conclude  to  what  extent  the  measures  reach  these  groups,  or  if  their  design  and 
implementation are due to the Recommendation, due in part to the gaps in the quality and 
completeness of the data available. There is no clear evidence yet that the measures have 
translated  into  increased  registration  rates.  Several  factors  outside  the  scope  of  the 
Recommendation could be at play, such as favourable economic trends and slow change 
in perceptions of the quality of services.  

Box 1: Example of outreach measures 
Since  2017,  the  PES  in  Malta  has  set  up  new  measures  targeting  different,  long-term 
unemployed  groups.  In  cooperation  with  social  workers,  migrant  associations, 
educational  institutions  and  NGOs,  the  PES  has  run  job-seeking  advisory  services  for 
migrants and implemented outreach activities to identify and register single parents that 
are long-term unemployed. 

Putting the focus on the individual 

The  Recommendation  calls  for  all  long-term  unemployed  to  be  offered  an  in-depth 
individualised assessment and a Job Integration Agreement, at the latest by 18 months of 
unemployment.  The  latter  should  include  an  individualised  service  offer  covering 
employment,  social  and  other  services,  as  appropriate,  delivered  by  a  single  point  of 
contact.  It should indicate goals, timelines, mutual obligations and available integration 
measures for return to work.  

Since 2015, the quality of measures for individual assessments improved in 12 Member 
States  (Figure  4),  including  in  almost  all  Member  States  that  previously  had  weak 
mechanisms in place.   

4 

 
 
 
Figure 4: Changes in quality of measures for individual assessments (2015-2018) 

Source: Study supporting the evaluation, Ramboll, 2019.  Note: Expectations from the Staff Working Document (EC, 
2015) 

In  more  than  half  the  PES,  the  long-term  unemployed  receive  more  tailored  individual 
assessments and guidance than other unemployed groups. They tend to have access to a 
broader set of services (e.g. motivational and debt counselling) and more frequent contact 
with counsellors than other groups.  

The monitoring data10 shows that most PES provide an Individual Action Plan (IAP) to 
all  registered  unemployed  soon  after  registration,  and  often  at  the  latest  by  6  months. 
Provided after an initial assessment, the Individual Action Plan sets out the service offer, 
and  the  rights  and  obligations  of  service  provider  and  client.  It  is  thus  effectively  the 
basis  of  the  Job  Integration  Agreement  called  for  in  the  Recommendation.  Individual 
Action Plans are generally reviewed on an ongoing basis depending on the need.  

The degree of implementation of the Job Integration Agreement varies.  Only half of the 
Member  States  offer  a  plan  that  includes  support  services  beyond  the  typical 
employment-related services offered by the PES such as rehabilitation, health, long-term 
care, or housing services. Only half the PES conduct an in-depth assessment the moment 
the person becomes long-term unemployed (Figure 5). 

10 Data collection for monitoring the LTU Recommendation: 2017 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 5: In-depth assessment linked to Job Integration Agreements or Individual Action Plans  

Source: DG EMPL elaboration of the Data collection for monitoring the LTU Recommendation: 2017 report 

The proportion of long-term unemployed with a Job Integration Agreement ranges from 
25%  to  100%.  The  different  approaches  (Figure  5)  do  not  seem  to  have  had  a  major 
impact on transition rates yet. However, a promising trend is that countries that provide 
long-term  unemployed  with  a  Job  Integration  Agreement  or  an  Individual  Action  Plan 
with  an  in-depth  assessment,  had  a  higher  proportion  of  these  individuals  still  in 
employment one  year later,11 compared to countries that only offer a regular Individual 
Action Plan.  

Box 2: Example of measures to enhance the individualised approach 
Croatia  has  developed  a  statistical  profiling  tool  that  helps  the  PES  segment  clients 
according  to  their  distance  from  the  labour  market  by  estimating  the  probability  of 
employment  within  12  months  following  registration.  Jobseekers  at  high  risk  of  long-
term unemployment are then referred to additional in-depth counselling. 

Breaking down silos to increase coordination 

Coordination of services is important to address the multiple barriers that the long-term 
unemployed  often  face.  The  Recommendation  has  intensified  efforts  to  ensure  more 
joined-up  service  delivery,  with  17  Member  States  improving  the  quality  of  their 
measures in this area (Figure 6). 

11 Data available for 12 countries for 2016 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 6: Changes in quality of measures to increase inter-institutional coordination and establish a 
single point of contact (2015-2018) 

Source: Study supporting the evaluation, Ramboll, 2019 

Coordination  mechanisms  between  PES  and  social  services  –  such  as  data  sharing 
agreements or referral systems – now exist in all Member States, though the form varies. 
Data sharing practices are among the most common. These are essential in setting up a 
single  point  of  contact,  responsible  for  supporting  the  person  through  a  coordinated 
service  offer  involving  employment,  social  support  services,  and  other  services. 
Implementing  the  single  point  of  contact  has  a  strong  institutional  component.  It  is 
affected by the legal framework for sharing information on individuals and can be made 
more complex by different governance levels.  

Box 3: Example of a single point of contact 
In  Finland,  a  cooperation  model  between  several  services  allows  the  long-term 
unemployed to access a range of support. PES, the municipality that provides social and 
health  care  services,  and  the  Social  Insurance  Institution  that  provides  vocational 
rehabilitation, all cooperate, either from the same location, a physical one-stop shop, or 
from a mobile facility.  

Of the 15 Member States that did not have a single point of contact in place in 2015, nine 
have  put  in  place  or  planned  measures  to  set  one  up.  However,  the  degree  of 
implementation  varies.    Some  Member  States  have  put  in  place  key  elements  (such  as 
data sharing mechanisms) whilst others have nominated an authority as the single point 
of contact, without yet ensuring that it is operational (Figure 7).  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7: Implementation of single point of contact 

Source: DG EMPL based on supporting study and EMCO review conclusions. 

Intensifying employer involvement 

Since  the  Recommendation,  14  Member  States  have  improved  the  quality  of  their 
measures to increase employer involvement (Figure 8).  

Figure 8: Changes in quality of measures to increase employer involvement (2015-2018)  

Source: Study supporting the evaluation, Ramboll, 2019 

Employer incentives are the most common form of employer involvement.12 All Member 
States now provide services to employers such as screening of candidates and placement 
support and a vast majority provide workplace mentoring and training (24). 

Developments  are  less  widespread  in  support  for  social  enterprises  and  post-placement 
support services. Employer involvement also depends on the local context, the business 
environment,  and  the  capacity  of  social  partners.  Innovative  approaches  that  involve 
social  enterprises  and  NGOs  are  still  often  at  experimentation  level,  with  fewer  formal 
arrangements in place.  

12 Ad-hoc module to the PES Capacity Questionnaire Survey Report, 2018 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Box 4: Example of measures involving employer partnership 
In  France,  the  project  Territoires  zero  chômeur  de  longue  durée  creates  employment-
oriented  companies  that  hire  the  long-term  unemployed  on  paid  permanent  contracts. 
These companies are created after an assessment of community needs. The PES provides 
candidates to fill vacancies, preparing them for work integration through skills trainings. 
In 2017, this pilot was conducted in 10 localities and will grow to 50 in 2019.  

Keeping track of progress 

Multilateral surveillance via the European Semester has contributed to the monitoring of 
the  implementation  of  the  Recommendation.  To  further  support  this,  Member  States, 
with the support of the Commission, put in place a quantitative monitoring framework, 
through which data has been collected for 2016 and 2017. The European PES Network 
has  developed  a  set  of  quality  standards  for  the  single  point  of  contact  and  the  Job 
Integration  Agreement,  the  basis  for  qualitative  reviews  by  Member  States.  The  PES 
Network  has  also  contributed  to  gathering  qualitative  data  on  the  implementation  via  a 
dedicated survey and the Benchlearning project.13 However, the evaluation showed that 
there  is  scope  to  improve  the  quality  aspect  of  the  monitoring,  which  has  been 
challenging given the complexity of variables and lack of certain data.  

2.2 Efficiency  

The  Recommendation  was  expected  to  generate  economic  benefits  but  in  the  short 
timeframe  of  the  evaluation,  it  is  too  early  to  accurately  assess  whether  these  benefits 
have been realised. This is particularly because the full implementation of measures put 
forward in the Recommendation has not yet occurred at Member State level.  

Qualitative  information  suggests  that  in  some  Member  States  costs  associated  with  the 
implementation  of  the  Recommendation  appear  limited  as  they  are  mostly  associated 
with  changes  in  internal  procedures,  guidelines  and  processes,  and/or  certain  elements 
were  already  in  place.  In  Member  States  that  implemented  new  actions,  policy  makers 
and  practitioners  had  the  view  that  costs  are  not  excessively  high  in  relation  to  the 
perceived benefit. Nevertheless, findings also show that, especially at regional and local 
level, resource constraints are a barrier to implementation.  

Furthermore, it is still too early to assess the full benefits of the Recommendation given 
that  it  there  is  a  time  lag  before  certain  effects  are  visible.  It  is  also  difficult  to  fully 
disentangle the effects from external factors such as favourable economic conditions.  It 
has  thus  proven  difficult  to  find  solid  evidence  to  quantify  costs  or  benefits  directly 
related to the Recommendation in the Member States. The costs incurred at the EU level 
appear  to  stakeholders  to  be  proportionate  to  the  benefits  of  knowledge  exchange  and 
regular monitoring. 

13 Established under Decision No 573/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on enhanced 
    cooperation between public employment services (PES)   

9 

 
 
                                                 
2.3 Relevance 

The  Recommendation  remains  relevant.  The  quality  of  support  to  the  long-term 
unemployed  still  varies,  and  discrepancies  in  unemployment  rates  persist.  The 
Recommendation  has  been  more  relevant  for  Member  States  with  less  developed 
systems, where it raised awareness of challenges and helped set the policy agenda. It is 
also relevant for countries with more developed systems, as changes in demography and 
tightening  labour  markets  make  it  increasingly  important  that  everyone  that  can  work 
does. As Member States have favoured earlier action and practically all Member States 
provide individual assessments and Individual Action Plans/Job Integration Agreements 
at a much earlier stage to registered unemployed, the specific reference to 18 months as a 
cut-off point has become less relevant.  

2.4 Coherence 

to  support  people  back 

There is strong coherence between the Recommendation and other EU policy instruments 
aiming 
the  Commission 
Recommendation  on  active  inclusion,  the  Council  Recommendations  establishing  a 
Youth  Guarantee  and  on  Upskilling  Pathways14  as  well  as  the  Action  Plan  on  the 
integration of third country nationals.15 

into  employment,  such  as 

Its  provisions  are  also  in  line  with  the  European  Pillar  of  Social Rights16  and  the  latest 
Employment  Guidelines. There are synergies  with  both  the European Semester and the 
work  of  the  PES  Network.  The  measures  proposed  in  general  correspond  to  national 
priorities.  

Member  States  have  also  been  using  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  to  support 
implementation. By the end of 2017, the number of long-term unemployed participants in 
ESF  interventions  was  around  2.6  million,  representing  17%  of  all  ESF  participants  to 
date.17  

2.5 EU value added 

The  Recommendation  has  helped  keep  the  issue  high  on  the  political  agenda  at  the 
European level and in Member States. Particularly in Member States where high impact 
was  expected,  it  influenced  the  focus  of  efforts  and  guided  implementation.  This  is 
confirmed  in  the  relevant  Employment  Committee  (EMCO)  2018  key  messages,  as 
endorsed by the Council.18  

The  Commission  has  played  an  active  role  in  supporting  Member  States’  efforts  in 
integrating  the  long-term  unemployed  into  the  labour  market.  It  has  contributed  to 
building  a  monitoring  framework  and  collecting  qualitative  data  across  all  Member 
States. The Commission has also contributed to mutual learning between Member States 

14 2016/C 484/01 
15 COM (2016) 377 final 
16 Right to personalised, continuous and consistent support and right to an in-depth individual assessment at the latest at 18 months of 
    unemployment 
17 Thematic note on the ESF and YEI support to the long-term unemployed, European Commission, 2019 
18 http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14409-2018-INIT/en/pdf 

10 

 
 
                                                 
via  the  Employment  and  Social  Innovation  Programme  (EaSI)  and  the  PES  Network, 
which has  also  set  the ground for future policy  discussions. The Commission is  further 
supporting  mutual  learning  through  an  innovative  project  under  the  ESF  Transnational 
Cooperation’s network on Employment. The project has matched good practice projects 
with Member States wishing to develop their support to the long-term unemployed. Pilot 
projects are underway with a view to being scaled up through the ESF.19  

3.  REMAINING GAPS IN IMPLEMENTATION  

Member States have adopted a range of measures to encourage registration but this has 
not  yet  translated  into  higher  registration  rates.  There  is  still  room  to  increase  targeted 
outreach from public services.  

While  there  is  a  more  holistic  approach  towards  providing  individual  support,  the 
quality  of  individual  assessments  varies.  This  depends  on  caseloads  and  on  whether  an 
in-depth assessment with a targeted offer takes place once the person becomes long-term 
unemployed.  There  is  also  room  for  an  increased  focus  on  skills  forecasting  and  skills 
assessment at an early stage to better support preventative approaches. This is important 
to  avoid  long-term  unemployment  coming  into  play  as  an  additional  factor  of 
vulnerability. 

Although Job Integration Agreements exist in some form in almost all Member States, 
some key features are missing. They tend to include only regular employment services, a 
shortcoming linked to weak cooperation between service providers.  

Member States are making clear efforts to increase coordination of services.  However, 
gaps  remain  in  single  point  of  contact  implementation.  The  capacity  of  key  actors  to 
steer  integration,  and  political  backing  to  ensure  institutional  and/or  legislative  change, 
are  barriers.  There  is  also  room  to  involve  more  actors  in  coordination  agreements, 
particularly civil society.  

Employer  involvement  is  on  the  increase,  but  financial  incentives  remain  the  most 
common  form  of  engagement.  Post-placement  support  services,  and  support  to  social 
enterprises  are  less  advanced.  Multi-stakeholder  partnerships  to  ensure  sustainable 
integration in the labour market tend also to be less common.  

As regards monitoring, Member States have substantially progressed in collecting data, 
allowing  better  comparability  based  on  the  Indicator  Framework  developed  by  the 
Council’s  Employment  Committee.20  However,  further  efforts  are  required  to  improve 
the  quality  and  completeness  of  the  data  as  well  as  the  capacity  of  Member  States  to 
collect  information  on  where  people  are  after  they  move  out  of  unemployment,  for 
example  by  linking  different  registers.  In  terms  of  EU  support,  the  Commission  has 
played an active role in monitoring and mutual learning. There may be room for further 
action to support social innovation through EaSI, or voluntary initiatives and alliances of 

19 https://ec.europa.eu/esf/transnationality/content/three-support-packages-fight-long-term-unemployment  
20 http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=16934&langId=en  

11 

 
 
                                                 
companies supporting the long-term unemployed – the latter being very much dependent 
on demand on the ground.  

4.  WAYS FORWARD TO STRENGTHEN IMPLEMENTATION   

Ensuring  that  everyone  that  can  work,  does  work,  is  crucial  against  the  backdrop  of 
demographic trends, tightening labour markets, and a rapidly changing world of work. To 
strengthen implementation, Member States could increase their efforts in: 

Increasing registration 

 
Increase capacities of employment and social services to reach out to the inactive  
  Engage civil society, local actors and the unemployed themselves in the design of 

 

outreach measures  
Increase focus on preventative approaches, through early warning systems,  skills 
forecasting and skills matching 

Improving the quality of individual support 

 

Increase capacities of public employment services to  provide individualised and 
holistic support early on 

  Ensure Active Labour Market Policy (ALMP) measures offered to the long-term 

unemployed are targeted and tailored to their needs 

Continuing coordination of services 

  Speed up the shift towards implementation of the single point of contact through 
political  backing  and  institutional  and  legislative  change  to  enable  data  sharing 
and coordination between organisations, for example by linking different registers 

Intensifying employer involvement 

 

Increase  post-placement  support  services  offered  to  employers  by  the  PES,  also 
through strong partnerships with civil society organisations and social partners 
  Support  the  development  of  social  enterprises  offering  job  and  training 

opportunities for the long-term unemployed 

  Encourage supported employment and ‘job carving’ approaches 

Monitoring 

  Continue work on improving the quality and completeness of the data, including 

on the coverage of vulnerable groups  

  Ensure  a  more  complete  set  of  follow-up  data  to  monitor  the  sustainability  of 

outcomes 

The  European  Commission  can 
implementation of the Recommendation by:  

support  Member  States 

in 

strengthening 

12 

 
 
 
  Monitoring  the  quality  aspects  of  individual  assessments  and  Job  Integration 

Agreements with the support of the PES Network 

  Exploring ways to monitor the level of integration of services and single point of 
contact  implementation  and  to  further  improve  the  quality  and  completeness  of 
data, including on the coverage of vulnerable groups  

  Establishing  quality  criteria  for  effective  ALMPs,  building  on  the  ALMP 

benchmarking work of the EMCO 

  Promoting mutual learning through the PES Network, the ESF Committee, Peer 

Reviews, and other relevant stakeholders  

  Making use of EaSI to: 

o  Encourage policy experimentation with employers, social support services 

and civil society organisations 

o  Support policy impact evaluations of programmes and measures targeting 

the long-term unemployed in Member States 

  Encouraging  the  use  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds, 
particularly the European Social Fund, the Structural Reform Support Service as 
well as the future European Social Fund Plus, the Reform Delivery Tool and the 
InvestEU programme, to: 

o  Provide 

financial  support 

long-term 
for  measures 
unemployed, as well as, measures improving the employability and labour 
market  integration,  in  particular  of  people  at  risk  of  labour  market 
exclusion 

targeting 

the 

o  Contribute  to  capacity-building  of  different  services  working  with  the 
long-term  unemployed,  including  investments  in  single  point  of  contact 
set-up and IT infrastructure. 

13