Short training for welfare recipients in Germany: which types work?

Abstract

Purpose -Various types of short training programmes exist in Germany. This article aims to evaluate short training courses for welfare recipients and to detect which programme type works best with respect to different outcome indicators. Design/methodology/approach -The author measures the impact of six short training programmes on the participants. She uses propensity score matching and large-scale administrative data to find suitable comparison groups. She compares treatment to non-participation as well as participation in different training types directly. Findings -The results demonstrate that in-firm training has large positive effects on individual employment prospects and stability. Furthermore, classroom skill training is more effective than other classroom types while application training is rather ineffective. Treating some of the application training participants with an alternative sub-programme would improve the effectiveness.Research limitations/implications -The results show which training types work best. However, the results do not imply macro or cost-benefit effects. Practical implications -Several of the short training courses, mostly occupation-specific subprogrammes, are short and relatively inexpensive options to activate welfare recipients. Originality/value -The paper analyses the effects of six short training programmes for welfare recipients that have not been analysed before. The sensitivity of the results is examined using a wide range of estimators and different outcomes.

Courses or individual counselling: does job search assistance work?

“…OECD (2005) lists several studies that report positive effects of JSA and state that these programmes 'can facilitate and promote transitions from welfare to work'. Nevertheless, they admit that other studies have inconsistent or negative findings (Gerfin and Lechner, 2002;Bloom et al, 2003;Stephan et al, 2006;Van den Berg and Van der Klaauw, 2006;Rosholm, 2008;Wunsch and Lechner, 2008;Kopf, 2013;Thomsen et al, 2013). These articles indicate that individual JSA may not be substantial enough to leave unemployment, especially in the case of disadvantaged jobseekers.…”

“…The literature finds both positive and negative effects of JSA programmes for participants (Gerfin and Lechner, 2002;Stephan et al, 2006;Van den Berg and Van der Klaauw, 2006;Rosholm, 2008;Card et al, 2010;Kopf, 2013). Such different effects are, among other things, explained with different programme designs.…”

“…Outcome variables in evaluation studies of JSA are usually employment or unemployment rates (Gerfin and Lechner, 2002;Blundell et al, 2004;Stephan et al, 2006;Wunsch and Lechner, 2008;Kopf, 2013;Thomsen et al, 2013) or transition rates out of unemployment or into employment (Van den Berg and Van der Klaauw, 2006;Van Ours, 2008a, 2011;Rosholm, 2008 …”

“…Usually, the evaluation window covers at least a minimum duration of 25 weeks (Graversen and Van Ours, 2008a) after a JSA started. But most evaluation studies additionally observe mid-term and long-term effects two or more years after the start of JSA (Stephan et al, 2006;Wunsch and Lechner, 2008;Kopf, 2013) because the effects may change over time. Most studies estimate overall effects for the entire group of participants, while very few studies conduct separate estimates for various labour market groups, allowing for effect heterogeneity (Thomsen et al, 2013).…”

“…Bernhard and E. Kopf analyse job quality (Graversen and Van Ours, 2011), job stability (Kopf, 2013), earnings (Cebi and Woodbury, 2010) or equilibrium effects (Gautier et al, 2012). Usually, the evaluation window covers at least a minimum duration of 25 weeks (Graversen and Van Ours, 2008a) after a JSA started.…”