 Evaluation des Teilhabechancengesetzes - AbschlussberichtJuliane Achatz,
Frank Bauer,
Jenny Bennett,
Nadja Bömmel,
Mustafa Coban,
Martin Dietz,
Kathrin Englert,
Philipp Fuchs,
Jan F. C. Gellermann,
Claudia Globisch,
Sebastian Hülle,
Zein Kasrin,
Peter Kupka,
Anton Nivorozhkin,
Christopher Osiander,
Laura Pohlan,
Markus Promberger,
Miriam Raab,
Philipp Ramos Lobato,
Brigitte Schels,
Maximilian Schiele,
Mark Trappmann,
Stefan Tübbicke,
Claudia Wenzig,
Joachim Wolff,
Cordula Zabel and
Stefan Zins
No 202404, IAB-Forschungsbericht from Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany] Abstract: "Despite the decline in unemployment in recent years, long-term unemployment remains a major challenge for the German labor market. In response, two further labor market programs – ‘Integration of the long-term unemployed’ (section 16e of Book II of the German Social Security Code (SGB II)) and ‘Participation in the labor market’ (section 16i SGB II) – were introduced in 2019. Both provide wage subsidies for employers who hire people covered by the programs, which are open to employers in the private, public and non-profit sectors. Both programs target beneficiaries who are furthest from the labor market. The subsidised employment is intended to boost the beneficiaries’ social participation, employability and employment opportunities. The Institute for Employment Research (IAB) evaluated the use and impact of the programs between 2019 and 2023. As unemployment and claiming benefit become more entrenched, the two programs address one of the main challenges of labor market policy: basic income support for jobseekers. The findings presented in this report indicate that both programs are effectively addressing this challenge, and therefore represent an important reform of labor market policy. This assessment is based on the key findings of the evaluation outlined below: - The statutory access criteria for both programs are met almost without exception, but relevant subgroups – in particular women and people without vocational qualifications – are underrepresented among the participants. - ‘Participation in the labour market’ (section 16i SGB II) reliably reaches the target group of beneficiaries who are furthest from the labor market. In the case of ‘Integration of the long-term unemployed’ (section 16e SGB II), a certain positive selection bias can be identified within the group of those formally entitled to support. - The coaching program reaches a large proportion of those receiving support and is widely accepted, however its implementation could be improved. - Both measures have a positive effect on the participants’ employability and social integration, and on other subjective indicators. - ‘Integration of the long-term unemployed’ has a surprisingly strong positive effect on the participants’ employment opportunities. - No undesirable side-effects, such as ‘deadweight losses’ or the substitution of regular employment, have been identified. However, the observation period for the analyses is still comparatively short. The extent to which the effects on social participation, employability and – in the case of ‘Integration of the long-term unemployed’ – employment opportunities persist over a longer period of time has yet to be empirically ascertained. This is also true of the effects of ‘Participation in the labor market’ on the transition to unsubsidised employment. Due to the significantly longer duration of support compared to section 16e SGB II, the majority of the participants in the reviewed sample are still on the program. As a consequence, there have not been enough transitions into the labor market yet for the net effects to be measurable. The research results suggest only minor changes to the legal structure of the two programs are necessary, although some findings suggest the need for adjustments to the programs’ implementation. These include changes to the way that job centres allocate beneficiaries, which so far has been insufficient to counteract the underrepresentation of certain subgroups of beneficiaries on the program, and fundamental adjustments to coaching. For example, coaching should begin as early as the initial phase and continue throughout the employment phase, and staff changes should be avoided wherever possible. More attention should also be paid to the participants’ employment prospects. Otherwise, the participants’ social participation is likely to decline again, and with it the return on the investment in the programs. All in all, the research results show that the programs are effective and have substantially improved the support of beneficiaries who are furthest from the labor market. Consequently, the evaluation’s results support retaining both programmes. From a scientific point of view, they also demonstrate that the policy decision to permanently establish the program in accordance with section 16i SGB II was the right one to take. Given the tendency for unemployment to become entrenched among a significant proportion of those entitled to basic income support for jobseekers, the measures will remain indispensable in the future." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en)) Keywords: Bundesrepublik Deutschland; IAB-Open-Access-Publikation; Auswirkungen; berufliche Reintegration; Beschäftigungseffekte; Beschäftigungsfähigkeit; Beschäftigungsförderung; betriebliche Integration; Coaching; Erfolgskontrolle; ganzheitlicher Ansatz; IAB-Leistungsempfängerhistorik; Inanspruchnahme; Integrierte Erwerbsbiografien; Jobcenter; Langzeitarbeitslose; Leistungsbezug; Lohnkostenzuschuss; Mitnahmeeffekte; Politikumsetzung; schwervermittelbare Arbeitslose; soziale Partizipation; Substitutionseffekte; Arbeitslosengeld II-Empfänger; Teilhabechancengesetz; Arbeitsmarktchancen; Verdrängungseffekte; 2019-2024 (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:iab:iabfob:202404 DOI: 10.48720/IAB.FB.2404 Access Statistics for this paper More papers in IAB-Forschungsbericht from Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany] Contact information at EDIRC. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.