Evaluation of Active Labour Market Policies Implemented by

Transcription

The European Union’s PHARE 2005 programme for Croatia
Phare 2005 project „Evaluation, design of recommendations, capacity building and
grant scheme management in the field of active employment measures in Croatia“
Evaluation of Active Labour Market
Policies Implemented by Croatian
Employment Service
June, 2008
EuropeAid/123198/D/SER/HR
„Evaluation, design of recommendations, capacity building and grant scheme management in the field
of active employment measures in Croatia“
”Evaluation of Active Labour Market Policies
Implemented by Croatian Employment Service”
FINAL REPORT
June 2008
This report has been produced with
the assistance of the European Union.
The content of this report is the sole responsibility of the
consortium GVG-BA-ESS and can in no way be taken to
reflect the views of the European Union.
2
Evaluation of Active Labour Market Policies Implemented by Croatian Employment Service
Author: Liliana Anghel
Contributors: Branka Meštrović, Benno Savioli (Short-Term Experts)
Members of Project Implementation Unit: Nada Kerovec, (Head of Department for Implementation of
Projects), Tatjana Tihomirović, (Head of Division for Monitoring of Projects)
Language editor: Mirjana Travar
Technical Editors: Mirjana Travar, Melani Marković
Graphic layout: Ermego d.o.o.
Printed at: Studio DIM d.o.o.
Copies: 100
November, 2008
3
Technical Report
Evaluation of Active Labour Market Policies implemented by CES
Project Component 1
June, 2008
Project Facts:
Sector of activity:
Human Resources Development. Social Cohesion
Contracting authority:
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Croatia, Central Finance and Contracting Agency
Project partner:
Croatian Employment Service
Project ref no:
123198/D/SER/HR
Contract no:
2005-0505-040101
Project duration:
10 April 2007 – 9 December 2008
Contractor:
Gesellschaft für Versicherungswissenschaft und –gestaltung, Germany (Lead Company)
Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Germany
Employment Service of Slovenia
Project Director:
Birgit Garbe-Emden
Team Leader:
Heinrich Duffner
4
Acknowledgement:
This evaluation report is based primarily on research conducted by a team comprised of Liliana Anghel, the
key expert, and supported by Benno Savioli, international expert, and Branka Mestrovic, local expert. This team
was complemented by other seven local experts (especially involved in implementation of field visits): Jasna
Belamaric, Davor Iljasic, Visnja Jelic-Mueck, Branka Novosel, Vesna Tomasevic, Vesna Vertovsek, Mirta Vukelic.
Of a great help was the support received from interpreters, Mirjana Travar and Gordana Podvezanec, during
different meetings and workshops as well as with the translation of materials and evaluation report.
The evaluation would not have been possible without the effi cient support received from Croatian Employment
Service, Central Office, different departments and the Project Implementation Unit. Special thanks also to the
directors and staff of 4 Regional Employment Offices: Zagreb, Osijek, Cakovec and Sibenik.
We also would like to express appreciation to several individuals and groups who actively participated in different
meetings and regional workshops.
The Working Group 1 (a list of the members can be found in the annex 5) was of great support for necessary
undertakings in evaluation field.
Last but not least we wish to thank all beneficiaries of ALMPs, respondents of our research instruments
(questionnaires, interviews and focus groups). They shared their experience with ALMPs in the hope that further
improvement will be of their benefit and the system in general.
Table of contents
1 Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.1 Introductory note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2 The research plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Organising feedback and participative approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 Main findings of current ALMPs evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4.1 Positive general judgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4.2 Central issues at stake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 Objectives of the evaluation, approach and methodology/research plan. . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.1 Objectives of evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2 Outputs, approach and evaluation methodology/research plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3 Setting the scene
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.1 Croatia and EU
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 Socio-economic and demographic trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4 Main findings, Conclusions
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.1 ALMPs implemented by the Croatian Employment Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2 Programming the ALMPs measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.2.1 Summary: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.3 Implementation of ALMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.3.1 Summary: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.4 Outputs and some selected effects of ALMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.4.1 Outputs of measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.4.2 Some aspects related to the impact of ALMPs measures - Effects of
the measures at the individual level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.5 Summary of output and effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.6 Monitoring, evaluation, reporting of the results of ALMPs measures . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.6.1 Summary: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.7 Cooperation between local stakeholders/social partners, local partnerships for
employment, CES cooperation with employers, local stakeholders and social partners . . 103
4.7.1 Summary: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5 Conclusions
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6 List of Annexes
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5
6
Table of fi gures
Figure 1 Registered unemployment rate – 2000 - 2006 –total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 2 Registered unemployed – 2000 - 2006 – shares by gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 3 Registered unemployed – 2000 - 2006 – shares by age groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 4 Registered unemployed – 2000 - 2006 – shares by period of unemployment . . . . . . . 38
Figure 5 Registered unemployed – 2000 - 2006 – shares by educational attainment . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 6 Registered unemployed – 2000 - 2006 – shares by period of work-experience. . . . . . . 39
Figure 7 ALMP - Participants - breakdown by measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Figure 8 ALMP - Participants and registered unemployed-shares by age-group. . . . . . . . . . 89
Figure 9 ALMP-participants and registered unemployed – shares by gender. . . . . . . . . . . 90
Figure 10 ALMP-participants and registered unemployed – shares by unemployment period . . . . 91
Figure 11 ALMP-participants and registered unemployed – shares by educational attainment . . . . 91
Figure 12 ALMP-participants and registered unemployed – shares by work experience. . . . . . . 92
Figure 13 Counties by unemployment rate and shares of ALMP-participants . . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 14 ALMP-expenditures by measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Figure 15 ALMP-measures by share of expenditure and participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Table of tables
Table 1 Output of measures - Coverage to registered unemployment and ALMPs
participants by counties, persons, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
Table 2 Basic macroeconomic indicators for Croatia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
Table 3 Structure of gross value added per economic sectors, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
Table 4 Population data [persons] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
Table 5 Working age population (15-64), activity, employment and
unemployment rates, 2000-2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
Evaluation of Ac tive Labour M ar k et Policies I mplemented by Croatian Employment S e r v i c e
1 Executive summary
1.1 Introductory note
This is the final evaluation report elaborated under the Component 1 (Evaluation) of the EU-PHARE Project
„Evaluation, design of recommendations, capacity building and grant scheme management in the field of active
employment measures in Croatia“.
Evaluation started at June 2007 and the process of information gathering ended at January 2008, covering data
up to June 30 2007.
The main findings of this evaluation are the basis for continued work under the project Component 2, developing
recommendations on:
t*NQSPWJOHDVSSFOU"DUJWF-BCPVS.BSLFU1PMJDZ"-.1
t%FTJHOJOHOFXNFBTVSFTXIFSFSFHBSEFEOFDFTTBSZBOE
t*NQSPWJOHUIFDBQBDJUZPG$&4UPQSPHSBNNFJNQMFNFOUNPOJUPSBOEFWBMVBUFUIF"-.1T
At the same time results of the evaluation were used for planning specific activities under the Component 3 of
the PHARE project, that related to capacity building for CES. Last but not least, the activities carried out under
this component are intended to transfer know-how to the stakeholders within and outside the CES on how to
evaluate ALMP measures.
The expected outcomes of the evaluation have been defined in order to provide:
a) An overview and comprehensive assessment of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and outcome
of ALMP measures (inventory) with the description of the measures that meet the needs of the
target groups;
b) A description and assessment of the management system and the capacity of the CES for the
formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of ALMP measures
From this perspective some key questions, in sketching the scope of the evaluation that was to cover the
Croatian Active Labour Market Policy (ALMP) and its active measures:
1. Are these measures properly designed according to the given (and perceived) needs?
2. Are they working well in their implementation?
3. Do they deliver the expected output, and is there some evidence for that?
4. Are they in line with European Employment Strategy (EES)?
Besides, the evaluation questioned whether the ALMP is
a) “Modern”, in a way that it is:
– Inclusive,
– Non-discriminative
– Transparent and flexible, and
7
Phare 2005 projec t
“ Evaluation, design of recommendations, capacit y building and grant scheme management in the field of ac tive em p l oy m e n t
measures in Croatia“
8
b) Follows in the course of implementation some general principles as
– Publicity,
– Regional focus;
– Regular monitoring, and
– Partnership /participation.
All in all these are principles of EU Structural Policies governance that will be of relevance in the near future
within the framework of Instruments for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA).
In practise the evaluation was to concentrate on two elements of fundamental importance in gaining full
understanding of the programme:
tThe outcome of measures’ – i.e. what has been implemented (output) and with what results for the
direct beneficiaries; and the
t"ENJOJTUSBUJPOBOEJNQMFNFOUBUJPOQSPDFTTPGNFBTVSFToJFIPXUIFPVUDPNFTBSFHPJOHUPCF
achieved, and - particularly - how the programme was managed (including the partnership issues)..
These needs were guiding when developing the research plan and implementing the related evaluation
activities:
t3FHBSEJOHUPPVUQVUTBOESFTVMUTPGNFBTVSFTPOFQSJPSUBTLGPSUIFFWBMVBUPSTXBTUPFEJUBOEBEBQU
statistical data provided by CES to the needs of the evaluation
t"TUIFQSPHSBNNFUPCFFWBMVBUFEXBTRVJUFwGSFTIiBUJNQMFNFOUBUJPOoUIFOFXDZDMFIBETUBSUFE
in 2006 – there was simply not enough statistical evidence from monitoring data, which is why these
had to be complemented by own data gathering, mainly done via a set of questionnaires.
t$POTJEFSJOH UIF QSPDFTT JOUFOTF EJSFDU JOUFSWJFXT GPDVT HSPVQT
BOE JOEJSFDU DPNNVOJDBUJPO
(questionnaires) was to be organised, as this issue was not anyway to be derived just from statistics.
In this context the establishment of a central level Working Group (WG 1) was of utmost importance: Composed
of representatives of CES central and regional level, MoELE, Trade Unions, Employers’ Associations and CROSTAT,
this group was accompanying the design and implementation process of the evaluation, and was of great
support for the necessary undertakings in the evaluation field. The PHARE project itself (the TA) was represented
by the key expert for the component ‘Evaluation’ and – whenever necessary – local and international, short term
experts were invited to the WG 1 too.
This working group’s approach assured a tight co-ordination of evaluation activities with the beneficiary, CES,
and, in the same time this was regarded an element of capacity building to smoothly transfer knowledge and
expertise on evaluation issues to the stakeholders.1
1.2 The research plan
In respect to resources provided it was clear from the project’s ToR not to cover all of Croatia by evaluation field
research activities but to choose exemplarily four target counties/CES-regions instead.
The selected counties were:
t(SBE;BHSFC
1
The working group was also useful as – due to restrictions in time and resource - no regular pre-tests of evaluation tools
(particularly the questionnaires) where possible to be performed – the circulation and discussion of these tools thus
provided a second best solution for that methodological issue.
t.FŜJNVSTLB
t4JCFOJLBOE
t0TJKFL
They have been selected according to the need to get as much a comprehensive picture as possible of
implementation under the variety of regions and regional labour market conditions. In the same time it was to
be ensured that the target regions were covering all ALMP-measures (incl. those addressing Roma-community).
Last but not least a relevant number of (potential) beneficiaries (unemployed / employers), data availability
and data quality, capacity of CES regional-/county office to actively cooperate with the evaluation, have been
relevant criteria for selection.
The development of a set of combined quantitative and qualitative evaluation-instruments was at the core of
the research plan that mainly comprised:
1. Desk research: review of available materials, documents, legislation, statistics etc. and analysis of
relevant statistics and documents;
2. Field studies in the four target counties, based on2
– Structured group interviews with
Regional CES staff,
Employers from these regions,
– Focus Group meetings in each target region, covering additionally trade union representatives,
representatives of employer associations, local government, and civil-society representatives from NGOs
– Launch of 5 questionnaires, addressing to individual participants (for each kind of measure), as well
as to employers.
3. Focus Group meeting at national level with CES and main stakeholders
Apart from these more specifically designed instruments, numerous formal and informal meetings to gather
and to clarify issues of documents and statistics provided by the beneficiary, have complemented the set of
tools used.
The development of questionnaires was also organised with paticipation of the aforementioned working
group.
1.3 Organising feedback and participative approach
Altogether 4 143 questionnaires have been distributed, of which 1 286 to employers and 2 857 to participants
in ALMP-measures, covering all contracts concluded in 2006 and until 30th of June 2007 in the 4 target regions.3
Amounting to more than 27% of sent questionnaires, the overall rate of response to the questionnaires was very
good.4
Based on results from the questionnaires, and interviews, etc., in February 2008 a first summary draft of main
findings was presented at four regional workshops. These workshops were attended by representatives of all 22
2
For details on methods used and instruments cf. chapter Outputs, approach and evaluation methodology/research plan
and ANNEX A
3
Compared to the total of contracts concluded over all Croatia this is about 10-11% (cf. 2.2)
4
In more detail: employers: 29,0%, employees/ trainees: 26,4%
9
Phare 2005 projec t
10
regional- /county employment offices in Croatia, and by representatives of stakeholders from local, regional, and
central level (104 participants altogether).
Feed-back received at these workshops then was included in a first draft evaluation report to be presented and
further discussed at a 1 day workshop, with labour market experts.
1.4 Main fi ndings of current ALMPs evaluation
Below the main findings from the evaluation results are shortly presented and discussed. Where necessary,
links to the main document are given for those interested in more detail and in-depth results.
1.4.1 Positive general judgement
A positive message at the very beginning: the overwhelming majority of respondents agreed with the necessity
and usability of Active Labour Market Policies in Croatia.
This overall judgement we found with all types of stakeholders (employers, individual participants in training
and employment/work schemes, CES staff, representatives of trade unions and employers associations, local
government representatives, and NGOs as representatives of civil-society), despite all critics in details that might
have occurred while communicating with these stakeholders and beneficiaries. We found this explicitly stated
as well as implicitly, when receiving answers on questions like e.g. “would you recommend such measures to
friends /colleagues?” or “Do you plan to continue with using ALMP measures?” In figures: more than 60% within
both major groups (employers, individual participants) would recommend it unreservedly, a third to a quarter
would recommend it with some hints to caution, but only 4% or even less would not do so, respectively would
not apply themselves again.
This positive assessment was also maintained for the comparison between the previous measures cycle (2002 –
2005) and the current one (2006 – 2008): The new measures are considered as better programmed and designed
than the previous ones – even if some of the rules and conditionalities were perceived as more cumbersome,
but for the good of preventing misuse.
As the design and implementation of Labour Market Policies in general need the commitment and work of a
multitude of stakeholders, this positive general result is a good starting point for any further development and
future reform of active labour market policies for Croatia; only few respondents have shown a-priori (but based
on their individual experience) negative attitude towards active policies’ necessity and /or implementation.
1.4.2 Central issues at stake
The key questions raised in the beginning were:
1. Are these measures properly designed according to the given (and perceived) needs?
2. Are they working well in their implementation?
3. Do they deliver the expected output, and is there some evidence for that?
4. Are they in line with European Employment Strategy (EES)?
Ad 1) Design according to needs – stakeholder involvement and tri-partism
Actually, it has been agreed by all relevant stakeholders that the basic design and target group definitions for the
new period 2006 – 2008 measures have been based on the socio-economic statistics available, and were in line
with the Strategic Guidelines for European Employment Policy; this partially was only based on hear-say as not
all respondents had direct knowledge about the process. Nevertheless, and despite the elaboration of numerous
strategic documents in recent times (e.g. NAPE and SCF), it was stated from respondents at central level that
a comprehensive Employment Policy for Croatia is not yet in place. Lack of coordination and particularly of
inter-ministerial cooperation has been stated, and in some fields problems were said to emerge simply due to
understaffing compared to the multitude of tasks. But it was also stated, that at central level the involvement of
social-partners was a working approach.
However this is not sufficient when it comes to principles of partnership and decentralisation /subsidiarity as key
elements for modern governance. Thus, when it came to the question of integration of regional or county level
into the overall policy development, from the regional perspective the design and establishment of measures
first of all have followed a top-down approach, and it was often stated – by different types of stakeholders – that
there was little or none, but definitely not enough, involvement to designing measures, tailored more suitable
for the specific regional needs.
This should not be considered just an easy complaint as there was explicit commitment and readiness stated
by all stakeholders (including employers and representatives of employer organisations) to get more involved in
policy design: Local stakeholders/social partners are willing to be involved in ALMPs process and they are well
informed on the needs at the county level, but according with their opinion, under the current situation they
have no possibility/opportunity/authority to influence on the process. That’s why decentralized process, and
„bottom-up approach”, would be highly welcomed by all respondents and the proposal was made to extent the
preparatory phase of ALMPs, thus to allow for better communication and exchange of information.
Considering the topic of integrative approaches to combine different policies, such as ALMPs, infrastructure of
development policy (municipality, tourism, etc.), economic development policy, staff recruitment /development,
settlement of new enterprises, etc., the general opinion across all categories of respondents was that there are
some initiatives but a real combination of above stated has not yet been established in Croatia.
Initiatives mentioned referred to (amongst others):
t5IF 4USBUFHJD $PIFSFODF 'SBNFXPSL BEESFTTJOH NBOZ BSFBT FDPOPNJD TPNF FNQMPZNFOU
education, etc.), or to
t3FHJPOBM0QFSBUJPOBM1MBOT301T
UIBUBSFPSDPVMECFBGSBNFXPSLGPSUIJTDPNCJOBUJPOPGEJGGFSFOUQPMJDJFT
However, even ROPs are not fully operational for several reasons – lack of cooperation/ coordination, and lack
of knowledge transfer between institutions involved, lack of knowledge and experience in integrated strategic
planning and implementation, inertia of institutions, lack or uncertainty of funds in terms of time-frame and
availability, lack of related framework legislation, etc..
The decentralised policy approach is also promoted as good governance as it allows for the use of concrete and
more detailed knowledge than is usually managed at a central level institution alone. Thus the respondents gave
several hints on the character of specific needs of regions that are currently not at focus in policy delivery
Major issues in that respect were:
1. The centrally fixed calculation base for salaries in employment schemes is not properly designed, as
it can lead, and in some cases has lead, to at least two negative side effects:
– The basic salary is higher than the regional and /or sectoral standard for this kind of work, thus
subsidised employees would even earn more than their colleagues hired and paid on a regular
contract without subsidy,
– The need for co-financing a higher than usual salary degrades the incentive for the employer
provided by the measure and can outrule the intended effect of the incentive offered with the
consequence of employers not using the measures.
11
Phare 2005 projec t
12
2. The need to show complementary investment in work-places when hiring a subsidised unemployed
is difficult for economic activities in service jobs like tourism that have not so much work-place
investment (machinery etc.). Thus it constitutes a disadvantage for specific regions
3. The eligibility criterion of average employment increase in the past is a problematic condition for any
seasonal work or employment, employment that is nevertheless relevant e.g. for the coastal regions
with its focus on tourism, but also for construction work and agriculture.
4. By consequence the same situation makes the conditionality of job-maintenance after subsidy phase
a prohibitive condition5
Besides such concrete examples regarding to the programmatic for the current period, and pointing to the
related to that weaknesses, the more general approach of tri-partism (i.e. integrating social-partners and civilsociety in the frame of policy design and delivery on different layers of state or societal organisation) was in
general at the regional level considered as only weakly developed, respectively implemented as a sooner formal
exercise.6
But this is not only an issue to be tackled by state organisations and institutions like CES alone but also by the
stakeholders themselves, and by their organisations: Internal spread of information along horizontal and vertical
lines is a pre-requisite for a good functioning of partnership, and from the respondents answers and remarks it
got clear, that even the regular internal dissemination of information alone still is an unsolved issue. It was also
mentioned that some representatives sent to tri-partite boards at local level didn’t have sufficient influence
at their ‘home base’ to empower the local partnership approach to the necessary extent. In other words: the
importance of local partnerships for local employment is considered as being still underestimated.
In this context the exclusion of Organisations of Unemployed and of NGOs in general from partnerships was
critically marked. The exclusion of NGOs, also an issue with regard to eligibility criteria for applicants, could prove
crucial in principal as not only social-partner-organisations are to be involved but also civil-society partners, and
this also may hinder the development of local partnerships, as most likely non-profit activists will have to play a
role in complementing the set of tools necessary for integrated and integrative /inclusive local development.
This finding is relevant insofar that strengthening local partnerships from the respondents’ point of view would
be very welcomed, and also the statements of enterprises regarding to their HRD-strategies show that a more
focused approach could be helpful. There has been a lot of awareness of problems visible while the interviews
and focus group meetings, and also from the questionnaires, but currently each enterprise is ‘muddling through’
in a more or less ‘private’ and isolated way: HRD strategy – although considered a strategic necessity – mainly
is done ad hoc or on demand, only a minority of employers declares to have a strategy designed. Especially
– and this is not Croatian specific at all – Small and medium sized enterprises (SMES) feel the need for such
strategy, but can not manage it alone but need help, preferably from the CES. The employers consider in this way
employment policy as a common responsibility, with the state setting the necessary legal (and funding) frame
and the enterprises streamlining their HRD strategy.
Regarding to the state of HRD strategy, this result was confirmed indirectly by participants at employment
schemes. They reported their integration into the workplace was mainly supported by colleagues or at least for
a huge minority the support provided by the employer was sufficient only to medium extent, if not insufficient
at all.
5
If e.g. tourism is regarded as “bad job opportunity“ than this consequence might be by purpose – if not, a more flexible
strategy could be of some help
6
In some counties however there are exceptions from this general picture: well functioning local partnerships, seemingly as
a result of the EU CARDS programme
Finally, coming to the design of incentives, it was stated at several occasions that the Agency for Protection of
Market Competition has to approve all measures and sets the general rates of subsidies for entire Croatia. The
disadvantages seen with this overall approach already have been referred to. But in this context it might be
also of interest to consider if the incentives are suffi ciently selective and specific to promote the target groups.
An analysis of the ‘total cost of ownership’ of a subsidy for enterprises, i.e. comparing the subsidy paid with the
own contributions requested from the employer, including the conditionality period, has shown only small
differences if any at all despite the numerous parameters that are relevant and to be taken into consideration.
The differences identifiable are related to the level of educational attainment, and the based on that basic
salaries, but not on the labour market status. In other words: The incentives to hire unemployed people with a
less attractive profile (e.g. elder long-term unemployed) simply may be too small to compete with the ones paid
for e.g. young unemployed (cf. ANNEX 6).
Related to that there was a demand for more specific activities to be designed for most vulnerable target groups
(i.e. disabled people and the long-term unemployed).
Ad 2) How is the implementation working?
This topic has been dealt with by the evaluation under different aspects and from different perspectives.
Starting with general conditions set by the legal frame: A basic context feature influencing the implementation
of Active Labour Market policies is given by the annual delivery cycle with its regular interruption from November
to March /April. Although this is a central pattern, it is not an issue of design but an issues of unavailability of
funds as a consequence of the still prevalent annual budgeting. Nevertheless it has different and biased effects
even on different region-types. Particularly in areas with lots of seasonal work this restriction has been mentioned
to be impeding training activities for e.g. quality of service development in the usually job-less periods after
summer. A better design of programme could buffer the regular jobless period instead by training activities for
the otherwise unemployed..
Besides, there is a side-effect to be expected that usually is linked to strict annual budgeting: Dominance of
spending money as a goal of its own. Without options to shift money to another period there is pressure to focus
on activities that allow easy spending. Actually the effective contracting period under the current regulatory
regime is quite short (March/April – November) and when considering the figures from programme’s financial
implementation in 2006 it is visible that direct subsidies on employment (Measures M1, M2, and M3) were much
above the planned budgets7, while others (e.g. training) are substantially below. The fact that corresponding
figures of persons subsidised are not so much above plan indicates that the costs per head for these measures
have been a lot higher in the average than has been estimated while planning.8
In any case – facing the strategic policy approach of the EU, starting with IPA – a multi-annual approach of
budgeting is to be developed for the near future in the frame of Strategic Coherent Framework (SCF).
Another basic issue of delivery is the missing of clear budgets according to regional needs. Although often
mentioned the need for more regionally focussed policy, a more detailed budgeting has not yet been a topic
of broad discussion so far. The principle of “first came – first served”, sometimes described as kind of a ‘softbudgeting for regions, could cause strong and unwanted side-effects, and be leading to an untimely expiration
of funds in combination with a regionally and economically strongly biased use of funds, favouring regions
strong by experienced applicants/beneficiaries.
7
These budgets on the measure level seem to be just indicative and flexible to be changed according to different absorption
rates.
8
This most probably is related to different categories of subsidised employees receiving different salaries.
13
Phare 2005 projec t
14
As we had no financial data by region available (expenditures on ALMP) we could not analyse the empirical
reality of this potential effect. But we have to have in mind, that for 2006 only 60% of funds available have
been used, thus there was no competition for funds. The thread described above yet stays and is not merely
hypothetical but can get quite real when the absorption of funds will improve.
Leaving those framework related issues aside and coming to delivery of services to beneficiaries: In general both
types of beneficiaries are satisfied with CES implementation of ALMP respectively with the direct experience
they made.
Nevertheless, although in many aspects employers assessed the situation better than for the previous ALMP
cycle (e.g. regarding to increased subsidies, and faster administrative procedures), there is a long list of wishes
ranging from more, and more flexible, funding to less conditionality and bureaucracy. Nevertheless, the great
majority of employers is satisfied with the procedures: from the respondents to questionnaires 57% stated they
can easily handle them, and for another 37% it is manageable
Major problems stemmed from conditionality criteria, particularly when a subsidised employee resigned and
replacement was necessary. The replacement process was considered cumbersome and unsatisfactory for
many employers, what most probably is directly linked to the fact that the ‘original’ selection of the unemployed
mainly has been done by the employer, directly contacting with the unemployed, and CES placing service was
not so much involved. With the replacement this changed regularly and employers didn’t get the proper person
for their needs, and complained about the mismatch or even about the obligation to pay back subsidies when
no proper and eligible for funding replacement person could be found in the short period foreseen – even
when the employee had quitted by its own.9
In general the placement was criticised as inappropriate and not offering the right candidates out of the pool
of unemployed – bigger enterprises perceived here their major problem, stating that the salary as such is not as
big a problem for them as it often was for small employers. But also small enterprises raised this issue – for them
misplacement is even more expensive than for a bigger company that anyway has better opportunities to check
and select, simply by market power and institutional preparation.
One aspect in this was linked to the profiling of unemployed. This, it was said, is mainly based on their formal
qualification and not according to their actual work experience, and thus the matching of unemployed and
vacancies is not at its optimum for systematic reasons. But also the form to announce the vacancies should be
improved, so to include more detailed requirements for the job vacancies and to enable the CES staff for better
matching vacancies and jobless people. Often raised too were doubts about the willingness of unemployed
to take a job instead of receiving subsidies, thus one proposal was to introduce a 1 month testing phase (a
probation period) for job subsidies.
Bureaucracy is another major topic raised by employers – too much ‘red tape’ they said is hindering them,
particularly small enterprises, as it costs time and money they hardly can afford. The main topic here is the
need to deliver documents, either to show eligibility for funding, or to give evidence regarding to conditionality
fulfilled.
It was suggested by many respondents to have better coordination between the public institutions issuing the
requested documents, thus to reduce either the number of documents (repeatedly) requested or at least to
reduce the steps to be taken by each employer individually. Although the term was not mentioned explicitly,
the proposals were targeting to one-stop-shop solutions, with one institution (preferably CES) providing the
integrated service of coordinating public offi ces issuing the necessary documentation regarding to individual
applicants (employers).
9
In 2007 there has been an improvement in procedures in a way that there is now a specific investigation foreseen for each
single case to avoid this general and potentially unfair treatment.
On the other side, the unemployed, clients of CES, confirm the impression received from employers that the
original placement is more often done by direct contact between employer and employee than by the placement
service of CES.10 This is leading to an overall satisfaction at first look. In detail there is some unease related to the
fact e.g. that subsidised employment is not guaranteeing a job for the future; here – comparable to employers
– the list of wishes is long, but more than half of respondents to questionnaires, that were unemployed before
entering the measures, appreciated they received a good counselling from CES.
Generally, regarding to CES, the publicity of measures and information available was stated not to be suffi cient.
According to some opinions, especially big sized employers, the media coverage is poor, rather politically
misused and thus non-reliable. Failures for example are not published at all, although everybody can learn from
failures
This critical view on publicity is related to general information on ALMP as well as to specific information (e.g. on
target groups eligible for funding), and according to some of the opinions expressed during the CES interviews,
the ALMPs publicity is done ad-hoc, it seems there is no strategic plan for it, and each of the employment offices has its
own approach. Regional/county CES offices feel a lack of in-house capacity and of financial support (budget limits) for
marketing actions so there is a big need for improvement in this respect. On the other hand side good information
has been considered a success factor, thus the insight in the need for more and better information on planned
activities as well as on output and results was perceived an urgent issue and genuine task of CES.
Regarding to transparency of information one issue of discussion at the regional workshops is definitely worth
to be mentioned: Transparency given to participants about their status as subsidised person. It appears that
in fact there are no standard procedures, used by all local employment offi ces, on informing the individuals
(unemployed) of their involvement in ALMPs measures, especially the subsidised employment. The situation
differs form office to office; but in general unemployed beneficiaries are not informed on their status. The
reason for that – as it was the opinion of major part of CES representatives – is to prevent the unemployed from
considering themselves as ‘privileged’ employees, and that - no matter how they perform their work - employers
have to keep them as long as the subsidy is paid. This approach or attitude towards unemployed – no matter
how realistic the assumptions behind – will be not feasible when European Funding will be involved in ALMP, as
it is not in compliance with publicity principle and rules.
To improve accessibility of measures for target groups a broad range of activities have evolved in labour market
policies around Europe. Instruments of different type have been developed and are financially supported or
even fully covered, from offering part-time trainings to distant learning facilities, from additional subsidies or
infrastructure for child-care to mobility support (travel expenses, support for moving to another workplace,
etc.), from modularisation of trainings to investment support for workplaces of handicapped people, and to
individual coaching of young people at their transition from school to workplace, a lot of ideas has been used to
improve the access and to on-going support for the most vulnerable groups.
Regarding to such type of accompanying measures the general conclusion across respondents was that such a
system is not in place in Croatia, definitely not in place in the way it is in developed countries and that changes,
especially in the related legislation, are necessary.
Besides legislative steps mentioned to be necessary, e.g. for promotion of part-time work /part-time measures,
here too the factual exclusion of NGOs from most of measures can prove problematic – at least when considering
the situation in member states where many of such activities are invented and implemented by non-profit
organisations in the frame of EU-funded programmes.
10
It has to be noted here yet, that a third part of responding employees have been employed before starting the training for
known employer – so it is quite logic that CES was not really involved from these individuals’ point of view at least.
15
Phare 2005 projec t
16
Regarding to the needs of changing legal frame with respect to work flexibility the statements were a bit
ambiguous. While CES representatives considered changes in the laws as necessary, in all 4 regions almost all
employers expressed the opinion that work flexibility in terms of part-time/full-time employment is possible to
be applied (no major legal obstacle / constrains) but in reality is not “a practice”, mainly due to
t&NQMPZNFOUDVMUVSFUSBEJUJPOUIJTJTOPUiVTVBMw
t-BDLPGiFNQMPZFSTDSFBUJWJUZw
t5IFHFOFSBMMBDLPGRVBMJGJFEBOEFYQFSJFODFETUBGGDBVTFTDPNQBOJFTUPQSFGFSQFPQMFUPXPSLGVMM
time;
t4QFDJGJDOFFETPGUIFCVTJOFTTGPSJOTUBODFDPOTUSVDUJPOHPFTPGUFOGPSFYUSBIPVST
PSUIFOBUVSFPG
production process that require non-stop attendance at the assembly line
t/PSFRVFTUTQVUGPSXBSECZUIFFNQMPZFFT
t$PNQMJDBUFEQSPDFEVSFTFTQFDJBMMZGPSTNBMMTJ[FDPNQBOJFT
Employers also expressed their readiness to consider whatever kind of demand for flexible working
conditions.
Ad 3) Is the expected output delivered and what about the results?
The primary tool to get regular information about output and results of measures is the routine monitoring
process and related database systems to store and retrieve such information in a standardised way.
Regular and complete monitoring of activities is not yet well established. The main monitoring approach is
compliance and control oriented, i.e. related to register of applications and contracts, to formal check and control,
and to finance and conditionalities.11 When it comes to documentation of output and to measurement of
results the system shows the usual weakness of a project monitoring, the definition of success mostly following
quite a simplicist approach:
a) Number of subsidies reached out /number of participants, and
b) Money spent
Quite typical for that approach is e.g. that drop-outs – i.e. unemployed skipping a training measure – are not
registered at all, not to talk about reasons for such a dismissal, or the results of it. So the current state might be
characterised as administrative but not strategic monitoring. Strategic monitoring would cover more information
and details and would cover also the results of activities for unemployed beneficiaries, preferably beyond the
conditionality period of employment schemes.
The need for such more comprehensive and strategic monitoring already has been recognised, and the lack
of a more comprehensive and explicit set of success criteria was explained by some of the CES representatives
mainly due to the fact that funds for measures and also conditions (eligibility and conditionality) were not known
in advance and were changed from year to year. In the same time, it was stated that the IT support should be
improved in order to allow more detailed analysis of results of ALMPs; the employment situation of beneficiaries
(ex unemployed) at the end of conditionality period, in 6 months time after finishing training, should also be
monitored /analysed when assessing the success of ALMPs measures.
11
The interviewed employers pointed to the fact that the monitoring system of ALMPs is mainly based on “checking the
documents to be provided by the beneficiary companies”. Less or no activities are implemented by the CES in order to
have a view from the “ground-field”, such as visits to the companies, beneficiaries of ALMPs, although such visits would be
a great help for employers. All employers have agreed that monitoring is necessary, but it should be improved, simplified
and controls should have an “on-site advice” character too.
In addition, stakeholders /social partners at central level stated that there is still a need for improvement in the
field of statistics, as the data collection and the statistics are not harmonised at the national level as well as with
the EU methodology. But there is some improvement already visible from the published reports that are for 2007
more detailed with regard to breakdowns of participants by age group, gender, education, etc..
Despite such problems in detail there is some information available that can be presented and will be
complemented by findings from the evaluation’s own information gathering.
Starting with the overall absorption of funds, it must be stated that a roughly 60% absorption seems to indicate
that either the budget was oversized or that there exist severe problems in absorption. As we understood from
respondents’ answers the availability of funds hasn’t ever been a problem in the past period too, and is not yet a
problem in the new period, but for certain measures obviously absorption is a real problem..
More detailed: The 60% overall absorption is partially the result of an overuse of funds in the measures M1 to
M3, amounting to 40% over planned expenditures for these measures related to direct employment subsidies.
For the rest of measures the effective absorption rate is very poor and amounts to just 21%. Correspondingly
the figures on participants show that 57% of estimated potential was reached overall. But isolating the a.m.
measures M1 to M3 from the rest, the picture gets different again: a 36% implementation rate by participants for
the ‘underused’ measures12 is contrasting with a 109% average rate for M1 to M3.13
Thus, globally spoken the quantitative implementation is still far from optimum. Considering two further
aspects of targets: regional coverage and target group coverage will refine the picture regarding to output of
measures.
Although there is no regional budgeting, statistics (and strategic concepts) give us criteria at hand. Assuming
the relative need of a region for support by measures to be presented by its relative share of unemployed people
could serve as a good approximation14 for a regional target share to be compared with share of participants and
funds. The more burdened by unemployment the more use of funds would be considered a proper strategy.
Measurement is simple: Divide the share at measures (funds used /participants) by the share of unemployed.
Is the result 1, than it is considered a proportionate share of participants respectively of funds.15 Results above
1 indicate a relative overcompensation, below 1 a relative under-implementation vice-versa16. The calculation
shows 10 regions above and 11 below the proportionate line (cf. next table).
Assuming in addition that the higher the unemployment rate, the more severe the structural problem, and
combining this with the proportionate indicator (divide the coverage by the unemployment rate), then we see
that not necessarily the most affected by unemployment regions are also the ones at the peak of coverage rates.
Actually only 6 regions stay above the average in the ranking list (cf. col. V b in the table), the rest is below.
Thus – despite the availability of funds given at a high level – regions are very differently covered, compared to
their needs as identified by the statistics. Some regions have a really severe lack of support and/or absorption
12
Without the Public Works for Roma (M J) (194% of participants) the result for the ‘rest’ would even get worse, down to
33%.
13
This value, 109%, is much lower than the financial absorption of approximately 140%, thus indicating that the estimation
base for cost per participant (and by that number of participants covered by a given budget) is not very precise.
14
To refine this indicator the figures of unemployed could be further processed to reduce the number to those actually
available for participation in measures, respectively to participants with the status of unemployed. Such kind of
adjustment but needs corresponding preparations in the monitoring process, and e.g. within the registry and profiling of
unemployed.
15
Funds used by regions were not available figures
16
This indicator is a modification of the simple coverage indicator [participants /unemployed] per region – actually it’s a
normalisation of this to the proportionate line at value 1 by dividing the individual regional rates by the total overall rate.
17
Phare 2005 projec t
18
as either their coverage rate is low compared to the average, or their unemployment rate is high above the
average, or as even both factors are in place.
Table 1 Output of measures - Coverage to registered unemployment and ALMPs participants by counties, person
Counties
Zadarska
Karlovačka
Ličko-senjska
Zagrebačka
Brodsko-posavska
Dubrovačko-neretvanska
Vukovarsko-srijemska
Splitsko-dalmatinska
Sisačko-moslavačka
Požeško-slavonska
Šibensko-kninska
Virovitičko-podravska
Osječko-baranjska
Primorsko-goranska
Istarska
Bjelovarsko-bilogorska
Koprivničko-križevačka
Varaždinska
Krapinsko-zagorska
Grad Zagreb
Međimurska
TOTAL
Registered
unemployment
2005 [aps.]
share of total
(= I a /total)
11 361
3,7%
13 546
3 730
13 432
15 788
8 314
19 260
39 653
18 290
5 470
9 850
9 771
31 288
17 832
7 076
12 302
7 870
10 099
6 058
39 841
7 020
307 851
4,4%
1,2%
4,4%
5,1%
2,7%
6,3%
12,9%
5,9%
1,8%
3,2%
3,2%
10,2%
5,8%
2,3%
4,0%
2,6%
3,3%
2,0%
12,9%
2,3%
100,0%
ALMP
share of total
participants
(= II a /
2006
total)
[aps.]
69
1,3%
116
28
100
218
75
324
490
337
76
177
197
584
177
52
323
200
319
214
835
356
5267
2,2%
0,5%
1,9%
4,1%
1,4%
6,2%
9,3%
6,4%
1,4%
3,4%
3,7%
11,1%
3,4%
1,0%
6,1%
3,8%
6,1%
4,1%
15,9%
6,8%
100,0%
coverage
rate (= II
a/ I a)
relative
unemployment Combined
coverage (=
rate 2005 [%] (= III b / IV)
III a /total)
ranking
(= V a /
total)
0,61%
0,355
20,9
0,017
0,302
0,86%
0,75%
0,74%
1,38%
0,90%
1,68%
1,24%
1,84%
1,39%
1,80%
2,02%
1,87%
0,99%
0,73%
2,63%
2,54%
3,16%
3,53%
2,10%
5,07%
1,71%
0,501
0,439
0,435
0,807
0,527
0,983
0,722
1,077
0,812
1,050
1,178
1,091
0,580
0,430
1,535
1,485
1,846
2,065
1,225
2,964
1,000
27,6
22,4
16,7
29,5
18,3
32,1
22,3
29,9
20,9
26,5
29,6
26,1
13,4
8
25,6
16,8
14,2
14,7
7,8
15,5
17,8
0,018
0,020
0,026
0,027
0,029
0,031
0,032
0,036
0,039
0,040
0,040
0,042
0,043
0,054
0,060
0,088
0,130
0,140
0,157
0,191
0,056
0,323
0,349
0,464
0,487
0,513
0,545
0,577
0,641
0,692
0,705
0,709
0,744
0,771
0,956
1,067
1,574
2,314
2,500
2,795
3,404
1,000
Source: CES and own calculation of the bases of database received from CES.
Similar calculations can be done according to coverage of target groups.
Compared to the registered unemployed at the end of the respective previous year in 2006 the total number
of participants in ALMPs measures (all except measure 5.1.b – addressing employees) covers only 1,6%, and in 2007
(by 30.06) only 0,9% respectively.17 The total number of participants in the current ALMPs cycle (one and a half year)
equals only 10,1% of total number of participants in the previous one, 2002-2005 (3 years).18
t5IF CJHHFTU QBSUJDJQBUJPO o BT BMSFBEZ NFOUJPOFE o XBT SFHJTUFSFE JO NFBTVSF DPGJOBODJOH
education for unknown employer, followed by the measure 2, co-financing employment for longterm unemployed.
17
Having in mind that implementation activities regularly start March/April of a year, the 2007 figure (0,9%) – representing
roughly 3 months of implementation - seems even a bit better than the 2006 total figure (1,6%) for 9 months
implementation.
18
The comparison is not fully accountable as for the new period we are still in the inception phase, but it allows for a first
estimation that the figures will stay much lower compared to the previous period if no specific activities are started to
increase implementation. //previous period: NGOs eligible /participants 1 month registered unemployed /
t&YDFQU NFBTVSFT GPS 3PNB QFPQMF UIBU IBWF JO HFOFSBM WFSZ MPX OVNCFS PG QBSUJDJQBOUT UIF
smallest measure was Measure 5.1.a, Co-financing education for known employernewly-employed,
and Measure 4, Co-financing employment of special groups of unemployed persons..
Comparing the structure of participants in 2006 with the structure of registered unemployed (end of
year 2005), the coverage rates for specific groups of participants show:
t"HFHSPVQTBCPWFZFBSTBSFVOEFSSFQSFTFOUFE
t1FPQMFXJUIOPTDIPPMJOHVODPNQMFUFECBTJDTDIPPMPSCBTJDTDIPPMBSFVOEFSSFQSFTFOUFE
t'FNBMFQBSUJDJQBOUTBSFVOEFSSFQSFTFOUFE
t.BJOMZQFPQMFXJUIBOVOFNQMPZNFOUQFSJPECFUXFFONPOUITBOEZFBSTDBOCFGPVOEJOUIF
measures, what means that real long-term-unemployed neither benefit even corresponding to their
share at unemployment, nor get additional support to overcompensate their deficiencies. A person
below 6 months unemployment usually is not eligible.20
t'JOBMMZBMMHSPVQTXJUIBOENPSFZFBSTXPSLFYQFSJFODFCFGPSFFOUFSJOHUIF"-.1TNFBTVSFT
IBWF
been overrepresented in measures. This covers particularly young people (up to 29 years) with none
at all, or with short experience of up to 1 year.
Several reasons may be leading to this biased output:
t5IF FNQMPZFST UIFNTFMWFT NBJOMZ TFMFDU QBSUJDJQBOUT JO FNQMPZNFOU NFBTVSFT BOE UIFTF BSF UIF
measures dominant by implementation,
t%FTQJUFTUBUFNFOUTPGBQQSFDJBUJPOGPSFYQFSJFODFEFMEFSFNQMPZFFTUIFGBDUVBMFNQMPZNFOUTJUVBUJPO
in the enterprises is much different: Only 9% of employees are above 55 as the employers in the field
research have frankly admitted,
t0UIFS NFBTVSFT BEESFTTJOH NPSF UIF DPSF UBSHFU HSPVQT SFTQFDUJWFMZ PGGFSJOH OPU POMZ EJSFDU
employment, but also training for unknown employer, or public work schemes, have a very poor
implementation so far - as has been already tackled above,
t/(0TBSFBMNPTUDPNQMFUFMZPVUPGUIFGJFMEPGBQQMJDBOUTGPSNFBTVSFTCVU/(0TPGUFOBEESFTTDPSF
target groups more specifically and more targeted.
Ad 4) Are they in line with European Employment Strategy (EES)?
From a formal point of view it must be said, that the ALMP is in line with the EES. The measures have been
designed in the frame set by the National Action Plan for Employment (NAPE), the Croatian adoption of the EES
/Integrated Guidelines ‘Job & Growth’, and the ALMP measures have been assigned according to the specific
guidelines.
At the other hand side it got clear from many comments and answers of stakeholders – particularly at regional
level – that the EES is not yet well known and the European Policy Frame in general is not yet common knowledge
nor guidance.
But actually many elements of a more modern governance concept, as requested by stakeholders too, are part
of the broader strategy for European policy making and reform – including major topics like decentralisation and
partnership, publicity and transparency/accountability, involvement of civil-society and Gender Mainstreaming
(what is definitely more than compliance with non-discrimination rules), social-inclusion and ageing society.
19
But Public Works for Roma has a participation of 194%, at an absorption rate of funds of 76,2%.
20
Only few exceptions are allowed
19
Phare 2005 projec t
20
Thus, taking all this into consideration, and confronting it with the information and statements received at
central and regional levels, it can be said, the compliance is given with the view on the strategic orientation of
actors – even if not always explicitly referring to the EES.
Further and more concrete proposals regarding to adaptation and further development of Active Labour Market
Policies will be subject to a special report to be delivered under Component 2 of this project.
2 Objectives of the evaluation, approach and
methodology /research plan
2.1 Objectives of evaluation
The overall objective of the PHARE Project “Evaluation, design of recommendations, capacity building and grant
scheme management in the field of active labour market measures in Croatia” is to
”Promote economic and social cohesion for achieving better professional integration of the most vulnerable groups in
the Croatian labour market”
More specifically the project is aiming to develop the capacity of the labour market agents to carry out ALMP
measures, and to increase the employability of the groups threatened by social exclusion by using the pathways
approach to labour market integration.
Under these considerations the project component no. 1 “Evaluation of the Active Labour Market Policies
(ALMPs) implemented by the Croatian Employment Service (CES)” set the starting point of the project.
The main findings of this evaluation are the basis for developing recommendations on further improving the
Croatian ALMPs, the design of new measures if the case and improvement of the capacity of CES to programme,
implement, monitor and evaluate the ALMPs (Component 2 of the project).
In the same time results of the evaluation were used in planning specific activities under the capacity building
for CES (Component 3). Moreover, the activities carried out under this component are expected to transfer
know-how on the evaluation of ALMP measures to the stakeholders within and outside the CES.
2.2 Outputs, approach and evaluation methodology/research
plan
As defined by the ToR of the project the expected outputs of the evaluation are:
t"OPWFSWJFXBOEDPNQSFIFOTJWFBTTFTTNFOUPGSFMFWBODFFGGFDUJWFOFTTFGGJDJFODZBOEPVUDPNFPG"-.1
measures (inventory) with the description of the measures that meet the needs of the target groups
t" EFTDSJQUJPO BOE BTTFTTNFOU PG UIF NBOBHFNFOU TZTUFN BOE UIF DBQBDJUZ PG UIF $&4 GPS UIF
formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of ALMP measures
The Technical Assistance (TA) was requested by the ToR, and as it was also underlined in meetings with
CES representatives, to evaluate the current ALMPS measures which makes sense insofar as the measures
implemented follow the new programme launched in 2006. In view of the changes involved in the current
programme as compared to the programme implemented from 2002 to 2005 an evaluation of the previous one
would have been, from one point of view, of a limited practical use. On the other hand a thorough evaluation
was asked, including aspects related to the programming process of the ALMPs.
Moreover, most of measures were still under implementation when we started the evaluation. So the Technical
Assistance felt it is a little chance to make a standard evaluation of outputs/results; in the same time the impact
and sustainability of these measures regarding placement rates or and skills gained could not be properly
measured within the time frame of this project, by means of the available project resources and without an
adequate preparation (including data base, control groups etc.) of impact evaluation methodologies (usually
impact evaluations are implemented in at least 6 months time after the measures are finished).
In the case of active measures programmes, the ultimate aim is to increase the employability of individuals who
have faced difficulties in finding a job and to improve the functioning of the labour market by improving the
matching process between labour supply and demand. The policy effects may be considered at the individual
level (micro level evaluations) or at the aggregate level, by estimating the effects of the policy on aggregate
employment, unemployment and wages (macro or aggregate evaluations).
At the micro level the main impact evaluation question is the effect of the policy on participants. That is: “How did
their labour market outcomes change relative to what would have occurred in the absence of the programme?”
At the aggregate (macro) level the main evaluation questions are concerned with the effect of the policy on
participants and non participants, and whether any changes in aggregate labour market variables have been
due only to the programme.
However, these studies usually only measure the economic effects of active measures programmes, which
clearly also have social implications. Even the measurement of the economic effects seems to be too narrow, as
only the employment effect (has the person been integrated in the labour market) and the wage effect (have
wages increased after participation) are typically measured.
There are two elements of fundamental importance in gaining a full understanding of the programme during
the evaluation:
tThe outcomes – what has been implemented and with what results; and
tThe process – how the outputs were achieved, including how the programme was managed (including
the partnership issues).
Broadly speaking:
“Impacts” = overall (long-term general) objectives
“Results” = specific/immediate effect on the participants, according to objectives /programme purpose
“Outputs” = the implemented activities, counted by e.g. number of participants and volume (in time) of their
participation
“Inputs” = expenditure for activities.
Most evaluations tend to focus on outcomes – what was achieved by a programme, and whether or not
this represents success or failure. The main focus is on labour market outcomes for participants. One or a few
quantitative outcome variables may be measured, such as rates of employment, unemployment and earnings.
However, very often the essential “message” of evaluations is simply a yes or no answer to the question whether
an impact is significant - i.e. whether the programme features under study make a difference.
Such analysis is partial in two respects. Firstly, it does not consider all possible goal variables. Secondly, due to
the focus on outcomes, impact studies treat programmes as “black boxes”, ignoring most questions on how they
work. It is crucial that evaluation should also cover processes, i.e. it should draw out the learning points from the
programme’s overall approach, such as:
tProgramme design and methodology;
tProgramme management;
tService delivery mechanisms;
21
Phare 2005 projec t
22
tFeasibility of the programme’s outcomes
The design and implementation of Labour Market Policies in general need the commitment and work of a
multitude of stakeholders. This process does not only deliver (intended and unintended) outputs, results and
impacts of a programme, but influences and changes the knowledge, working methods, social competences,
etc., of the stakeholders themselves. Process evaluation may also look at these other less tangible features, e.g.
the quality of the co-operation with partner organisations, and innovation.
All these aspects have been considered in developing the research plan and implementing the present
evaluation. The research plan was developed with permanent involvement of a Working Group 1 (WG1)
composed by representatives of CES central and regional level, MoELE, trade unions, employers associations
and CROSTAT. The Phare Project has been represented by the key expert and -whenever necessary- local and
international short term experts were invited to the WG 1 too. In this way we assured a tight co-ordination of
evaluation activities with the CES and, in the same time this approach was regarded as a capacity building
measure through which a smooth transfer of knowledge and expertise has to be achieved.
Aspects already mentioned above have been discussed with the WG 1 and the research plan was developed in
order to meet the requirements of the ToR but also to be in line with the needs and interests of main relevant
stakeholders: the CES (senior management, department managers, analysts, county employment offices), the
Ministry of Economy Labour and Entrepreneurship (MoELE), trade unions and employers associations.
The Research Plan (see annex A) was a combination of quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods/
instruments, composed of following main evaluation instruments/methods:
1. Desk research/review of available materials, documents, legislation, statistics etc.
2. Analysis of relevant statistics and documents;
3. Field visits in 4 selected counties
4. Focus Group/other meetings with CES and main stakeholders, national level
The research plan including the personalised research instruments have been developed in order to cover the
following aspects, (established by the ToR:
1.Types of measures implemented at county level for all unemployed (inventory) and especially for the
unemployed threatened by social exclusion
2. Definition and specification of target groups and goals of the activities launched;
3. Special arrangements within the measures to meet the needs of the target groups (for example: support
of the participants by psychologists or social workers, organization of “how to learn” trainings etc.).;
4. Extent of the measures in terms of number of participants, characteristics of participants including an
age-gender-education breakdown, allocation of target groups, coverage (level of participation and rate of
beneficiaries out of the potential pool).
5. Some aspects related to the impact of ALMP measures and their effectiveness in terms of participants’
placement rates and skills gained in the measures;
6. Success and failure factors
7. Expenditure levels
8. Comparison of different measures in terms of cost-benefit aspects
9. The management system and the capacities for formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation
of the ALMP measures, involvement and coordination with relevant stakeholders, more specifically: The
capacity of the national and regional bodies of the CES for management and evaluation of ALMP and the
capacity of the CES staff for the implementation and monitoring of ALMP measures.
In addition to these, the following aspects have been included to be assessed during the field visits:
tThe current situation of CES cooperation with local stakeholders/local partnerships for employment, also an
important input in developing a concept note on CES cooperation with relevant stakeholders
tPrevious training and CES training needs on implementation, monitoring and evaluation of ALMPs – feedback used in designing an appropriate training programme for the CES staff (Component 3)
More precisely, we focussed our research plan/evaluation to figure out whether or not the ALMPs:
tAre properly designed according to the given (and perceived) needs,
tAre working well in their implementation and,
tHave the output expected and proven by some evidence at the least
tAre in line with European Employment Strategy (EES).
Besides, we tried to find out, if the ALM (Active Labour Market) policy is
a) “Modern” in a way that it is:
- Inclusive,
- Non-discriminative,
- Transparent and flexible, and
b) Whether or not the implementation follows general principles as
- Publicity,
- Regional focus,
- Regular monitoring, and
- Partnership /participation
According with ToR the evaluation (the field visits) had to be piloted in 4 counties. The criteria used for selection
of the 4 counties for the field visits were:
tNumber of beneficiaries (unemployed/employers) of ALMPs (in order to have necessary feed-back for
drawing-up general conclusion to cover a big percentage of total beneficiaries/participants in the ALMPs)
tCoverage of all ALMPs -implementation of all ALMPs including the measures addressing the Roma
population
tTo be representative/to catch as much as possible the different regional labour market and economic
characteristics/differences
tQuality of data and information at the county level Quality of data and information at the county level
tWillingness and availability of the regional/county employment offices to take on board additional tasks
The 4 selected counties for the field visits are:
1. Grad Zagreb
23
Phare 2005 projec t
24
.FŜJNVSTLB
3. Šibenik
4. Osijek
The target population addressed in this evaluation was composed by the
a) Direct beneficiaries of ALMPs (unemployed, trainees, employed people, employers), and by
b) Relevant stakeholders /social partners as well as representatives of the implementation agency, that is CES
central and regional level (for more details see please annex A)
9 personalised research instruments were developed addressing different categories of the target evaluation
population and in close relation to the outputs of the evaluation/aspects to be addressed (each instrument
presented in the research plan, annex A):
tQuestionnaires for employers beneficiaries of ALMPs21
tQuestionnaires for employees-employment subsidies
tQuestionnaires for employees-Public Works
tQuestionnaires for trainees- training for known employer
tQuestionnaires for trainees – training for unknown employer
tInterviews for employers beneficiaries of ALMPs
tInterviews for CES staff regional/county level
tFocus Groups for stakeholders/social partners regional/county level
tFocus Group stakeholders/social partners central level (including CES central level)
In order to check if the personalised research instruments are “user-friendly” and in line with the purposes of the
evaluation, the draft personalised research instruments have been circulated and discussed 3 times: 2 rounds of
discussions during 2 meetings of the WG 1, third round, via email, between members of the WG 1.
The general approach of the personalised research instruments was to get information from the respondents
on:
tProfile of those questioned (as far as relevant to the topic) to have a base for comparison with Guidelines
and with general statistics
tTheir experience /type of involvement in ALMPs measures preparation and implementation in past (if
possible) and present
tAssessment of own benefit from the system and
tConclusions for further (potential) involvement, respectively expectations, and recommendations, to further
design and implementation
The personalised research instruments were developed so to be possible to “cross-check” the main findings
within the same instruments but also across different instruments.
21
Except those in Measure 5.2 – as we did not intend to address in this evaluation special issues related to training programmes
development
Besides these more specific designed instruments numerous formal and informal information meetings to gather
documents, clarify issues of documents and statistics provided by the beneficiary, etc., have complemented the
set of tools used.
The initial plan, agreed with WG 1 and some other representatives of CES (central level), was that electronic/
automatic tools such as email, Access, web questionnaires etc are to be used both, for administrating the
questionnaires, and collecting, processing the feed-back. But the contact details information necessary for
the administration of the questionnaires to employers, beneficiaries of ALMPs, was only partially available at CES
central level so the Regional Employment Offices in the 4 selected counties were asked to provide the e-mail
addresses of the companies participating in the measures during the year 2006 and until 30 June 2007.
Still, after input of the 4 regional offices around 40 % of companies (beneficiaries of ALMP measures) had no
e-mail address registered by CES central or regional level, so the initial methodology of administration of
questionnaires via email and internet / project website had to be changed to administration via regular
mail.
The administration of questionnaires is a complex task and time-consuming and activities already at that time
registered some delays, so the TA agreed with CES to receive the data-base and to process it for this purpose.
The data available from the CES had to be edited for the specific purpose of administration of questionnaires, in
particular it was necessary to complete the contact data of all employers and to eliminate rejected applicants
from the list of employers participating in ALMP measures, the duplication etc.
Furthermore, since the beginning of the project the TA requested to CES detailed statistics on ALMPs
implementation/results for the purpose of evaluation. As these statistics have not made available to the TA, at
least in due time and in a detailed structure i.e breakdowns per age-groups, duration of unemployment, gender,
educational attainments etc. TA decided, in agreement with CES, to process the ALMPs data-base received
form CES central level, this time in order to obtain specific ALMPs statistics, suitable for evaluation purposes.
All these additional activities performed by the TA caused some delays in implementing evaluation specific
activities and they required more time and resources than initially planned.
In order to assure a substantial feed-back for drawing-up some relevant conclusions on general experiences with
the current ALMPs, possible results/effects of ALMPs participation, we decided to administrate questionnaires
to all beneficiaries/ participants in ALMPs (4 selected counties), contracts concluded in 2006 and by 30 June
2007.
TA distributed the questionnaires by regular mail: to the companies mail addresses or to the individuals personal
main addresses, except Measure 5.1 where employers participating in the measure were requested to distribute
the questionnaire to those employees who retained their work place or to newly employed people, since their
current addresses are not registered by the CES. Each questionnaire was accompanied by 2 cover letters, one on
behalf of the CES and one on behalf of TA, explaining the objectives/purpose of the instruments, of evaluation
in general and the fact that questionnaires are anonymous. Details on this exercise and results are presented in
the following:
t4143 Questionnaires have been distributed, 1286 for employers and 2857 for individuals (all contracts
concluded in 2006 and by 30 June 2007 in 4 selected counties) - details in the annex 1.
tRespondents of questionnaires - 1126, an overall rate of response of 27,2%, with the following structure:
– Employers – 373 respondents - 29,0% of the total companies beneficiaries of ALMPs in 4 selected
counties (2006 and by 30 June 2007) ; coverage of 10, 6% of total number of employers benefiting of
ALMPs measures at the country level (2006 and by 30 June 2007)
– Individuals-employees, trainees – 753 respondents - it represents 26, 4% of total beneficiaries in 4
selected counties (2006 and by 30 June 2007) and 10,0% of total number of beneficiaries/ participants in
all ALMPs measures at the country level
25
Phare 2005 projec t
26
tA number of 58 questionnaires returned due to changes in the mail addresses of companies and individuals;
another number of around 30 questionnaires arrived after the mailing dead-line, specified in the cover letter
of each questionnaire.
Database for data entry of questionnaires was developed by the TA. TA also assured the manual input of filled
questionnaires in the database, and a sample of 10% of the input in the database was checked in terms of data
correctness – only 2 mistakes detected (0,01% of the total input). Input of questionnaires in the database was
collated and processed and it is presented in the annexes C and D. Feed-back or information gather through the
questionnaires are very detailed; due to time and resources constrains we tried to focus, in the current evaluation,
on main issues; as the entire database of filled questionnaires is an output/outcome of the evaluation/project,
more detailed analyse can be done by CES, the final beneficiary of the database and processed information.
8 interviewers, local specialists, have been selected and trained to carry-out the field visits, to run the
interviews and focus-group meetings in the 4 selected counties. As the questionnaires, interviews and
FG were also anonymous and special instructions were developed and discussed with the local specialists.
Implementation of the field visits was assured with a close cooperation between TA, CES central/ local level and
WG 1 and with the support of the regional employment offices in the 4 selected counties, as following:
t64 employers, selected by the TA among those participating in both cycles of ALMPs, participated in group
interviews,
t4 group interviews were organised with CES staff at the regional level,
t4 focus group meetings have been held with representatives of relevant stakeholders in the 4 selected
counties.
Altogether 136 people, representatives of employers, of CES central and regional level, and of other relevant
stakeholders, have been included in the interviews and FG meetings (details in annex 1)
A focus group meeting and other meetings with some of the relevant stakeholders at the central/national
level have also been organised.
Daily reports of interviews and FG meetings have been processed and summarised for each of the selected
4 counties and a report on FG meeting national level was produced. Each report consisted of a summary
statement for each element/topic covered by the instruments in question (annex 2). The reports were analysed
and a composite report on the findings from each type of interview and focus group in all 4 counties, plus
focus group national level, was produced (see please annex 3). The report was cross-checked against reports
generated in 4 counties and report from questionnaires to ensure accuracy and consistency of information.
Desk research was done including relevant country reports developed by national and international institutions,
relevant legislation and procedures, different country strategies/polices etc.- a list of these materials is presented
in annex 4.
Registered unemployment statistics (CES source) have been processed and analysed by the TA. Other
different statistics (CROSTAT, CES, EUROSTAT etc) concerning socio-economic, labour market situation have
also been analysed.
In the same time, on the basis of the database received from CES, we produced and analysed specific ALMPs
statistics, including breakdowns by age-groups, gender, educational attainment, duration of unemployment,
work experience etc., for each of the 10 ALMPs measures, Croatia and each county (see annex B).
On the basis of desk-research, analysis of relevant statistics, main findings of interviews, focus groups and
statistical results of questionnaires first draft of summary main research findings was developed and presented
in 4 regional workshops.
The 4 regional workshops were organised with participation of representatives of all 22 regional/ county
employment offices in Croatia as well as representatives of stakeholders, regional/local and central level. The
workshops were mainly aimed to discuss, “to check/ cross-check” if the first main research findings are in line
with general experiences with ALMPs in other counties than the ones selected to pilot the evaluation. 104
persons participated in these regional workshops.
Feed-back received during these 4 regional workshops was included in the first draft evaluation report that
was presented and discussed, in a 1 day workshop, with other labour market experts22 than the ones in
Steering Committee of the project. Specific comments and feed-back have been addressed and than
the comprehensive evaluation report was presented to the key CES staff and SC in another one-day
meeting. Final evaluation report included also feed-back received during this last mentioned meeting.
Nevertheless the evaluation has its limits, mainly due to the fact that the project resources- in terms
of experts, financial resources, and time were very limited in comparison with the wide range of topics/
aspects to be covered.
Although the findings of evaluation could be cross-checked in different research instruments and
then in discussions with CES and stakeholders representatives from all counties, in discussions with
other labour market experts, the evaluation was planned to be piloted only in 4 regions/counties so the
results have to be interpreted in the limit of these evaluation pilots.
3 Setting the scene
3.1 Croatia and EU
The relations between Croatia and the European Union are governed by the Stabilisation and Association
Agreement (SAA) signed in October 2001 and in force since February 2005. From January 2002 until the entry
into force of the SAA, an Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters was applied.
After the Commission’s positive opinion on Croatia’s application for membership in April 2004 and the European
Council’s decision in favour of Croatia’s candidacy in June 2004, accession negotiations were formally opened
on 3 October 2005.
In February 2006 the European Partnership was updated to an Accession Partnership that reflected Croatia’s
new status as a candidate for EU membership.
Most of the priorities identified in the Accession Partnership pertain to institution building in support of the
adoption of the acquis communautaire by Croatia but in those areas related to economic and social cohesion,
financial assistance has increasingly been allocated to “pre-Structural Funds” activities that are intended to
support capacity-building through “learning by doing”.
22
Participants in the meeting were representatives of Economic Institute, Institute of Social Science, Faculty of Law, Adult
Training and VET agencies, Development and Employment Fund , MojPosao (private employment agency) etc.
27
Phare 2005 projec t
28
3.2 Socio-economic and demographic trends
Croatia is generally considered to be a functioning market economy, characterised by stable growth, an
improving fiscal condition, low inflation, and a stable exchange rate23.
Since independence in 1992, Croatia has experienced a process of de-industrialisation less severe than
in other transition countries. The main macroeconomic indicators are presented in Table 2; the current key
macroeconomic challenges in Croatia include high external vulnerability (due to large deficit of the current
account and high level of foreign debt) and relatively slow structural reforms.
Table 2 Basic macroeconomic indicators for Croatia
Indicators/years
Gross domestic product, % annual change (real growth)
Gross domestic product, market prices (current), mln kunas
Gross domestic product, market prices (current)1, mln euros
Gross domestic product per capita in euros
Consumer price index, annual change, %
Average net monthly salary (in kunas)
ILO Unemployment rate, annual average, %
General government debt % GDP (end period)
Average exchange rate EUR/HRK
Current account deficit (% of GDP)
Average year-on-year inflation rate2 25
External debt (% of GDP) (end period)
2000.
2,9
152,519
19,976
4,560
4,6
3,326
16,1
7,63
-2,4
4,6
60,6
2001.
4,4
165,639
22,170
4,997
3,8
3,541
15,8
7,47
-3,7
3,8
60,7
2002.
5,6
181,231
24,467
5,507
1,7
3,720
14,8
40,0
7,41
-8,6
1,7
61,5
2003.
5,3
198,422
26,230
5,905
1,8
3,940
14,3
41,0
7,56
-7,1
1,8
75,5
2004.
4,3
214,983
28,677
6,460
2,1
4,173
13,8
43,2
7,50
-4,9
2,1
79,4
2005.
4,3
231,349
31,260
7,037
3,3
4,376
12,7
43,7
7,40
-6,3
3,3
81,7
2006.
4,8
250,590
34,220
7,704
3,2
4,603
11,2
40,8
7,32
-7,6
4,6
84,8
Sources: Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), Ministry of Finance (MoF), Croatian National Bank (CNB) as quoted in “Strategic
Coherence Framework, 2007-2013, Instrument for pre-accession assistance, May 2007”- see at http://www.
strategija.hr and in CNB Bulletin February 2007
As a result of the Yugoslav succession wars, real GDP fell by a cumulative 40,5% between 1989 and 1993, but
by 2003 GDP had recovered to 91% of the 1989 level.26 Following the implementation of the stabilization
programme in October 1993, aimed primarily at stopping hyperinflationary trends, the Croatian economy
has recorded relatively stable growth path accompanied by a low inflation. The average growth rate in the
period 1995-2006 amounted to 4,4%. According to Eurostat, in 2005, GDP measured by the Purchasing Power
Parity (PPP) was close to 49% of the EU-25 average27.
In recent years output growth has been driven by growth in domestic demand, in particular by growth in
investments and personal consumption.
23
Operational Programme for Human Resources Development 2007-2013, Instrument for Pre Accession Assistance, 2007; ETF
country analysis for IPA programming in the field of Human Resources Development, Croatia, 2006; Strategic Development
Framework 2006-2013
24
ICalculated by applying the average annual exchange rate (HRK/1 EUR) to the GDP in kuna terms
25
Inflation rate was measured by the Retail Price Index (RPI) in the 1994-1998 period. From 1999 on, it is measured by the
Consumer Price Index (CPI).
26
See UN Economic Commission for Europe: Economic Survey of Europe 2004/1
27
However, Croatian and EU statistics are not fully comparable since Croatia does not adjust GDP figures for the effects of
grey economy. Preliminary estimates of grey economy suggest that the offi cial GDP figures should be adjusted which
would bring Croatian GDP per capita expressed in PPP approximately to 52% of EU average in 2005.
Compared to the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEECs), Croatia was among those with the
lowest inflation. Inflation was kept stable and relatively low due to appreciation of the HRK/EUR exchange rate,
slow nominal wage increase, mild labour productivity growth, and intense competition in the retail trade.
Wages and salaries in Croatia are relatively high on average, higher than in practically all the other transition
countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Average monthly net pay per employee at the end of 2004 was about €
600 (about €650 in 2006). Total labour costs (wages/salaries plus various social security contributions) in Croatia
in the year 2004 were around €935, lower than in the EU-15 (€2.767), but much higher than in some of the EU
new member states.28
From the structure of gross value added (2006) presented in Table 3, one can notice that the highest
contribution was registered by the tertiary sector/ services sector (68,1%), followed by the secondary sector/
industrial production (24,5%) and primary sector/agriculture (7,4%). Although the share of agriculture in GDP
declined it still stands above 7%, thus reflecting the move to agricultural self-employment of persons who lost
their jobs in the manufacturing sector.
Table 3 Structure of gross value added per economic sectors, 200629
Year
Primary sector30 (% of GVA))
Secondary31 (% of GVA)
Tertiary532 (% of GVA)
2000.
9,1
25,5
65,4
2001.
9,3
25,2
65,5
2002.
9,0
23,8
67,2
2003.
7,3
23,7
69,0
2004.
7,8
24,3
67,9
2005.
7,6
24,8
67,6
2006.
7,4
24,5
68,1
Source: Central Bureau of Statistics as it is presented in “Strategic Coherence Framework, 2007-2013, Instrument for pre-accession assistance,
May 2007”- see at http://www.strategija.hr
The structure of the economy has been changing towards a greater role of services, particularly market
services, and towards a greater number of private firms and institutions. That process is expected to continue
and its influence on the labour market is obvious, so new appropriate measures and especially solutions for
the problem of matching the offer with the new demand in terms of skills, redundant workers, etc. are to be
considered for the near future.
The structure of business entities by economic sectors (annex 5) follows, more or less the same patterns
as the ones of GDP; data show that more than three quarters of active legal entities belong to the secondary and
28
Joint Memorandum of Social Inclusion of Republic of Croatia, 2007- see at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social /
social_inclusion/jmem_en.htm
29
The economic activities are presented according to NACE Classification of Economic Activities in the EU : a) the primary
sector (activities A and B); b) the secondary sector (activities C, D and E); and the tertiary sector, consisting of public sector
(activities L, M and N) and other service sector (activities F, G, H, I, J, K, O and P)
30
Primary sector: A – Agriculture, hunting, forestry, B – Fishing
31
Secondary sector: C – Mining and quarrying; D – Manufacturing; E – Electricity, gas and water supply
32
Tertiary sector: F – Construction; G- Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles, personal and household
goods; H – Hotels and restaurants; I – Transport, storage and communication; J – Financial intermediation; K – Real estate,
renting and business activities; L – Public administration and defence; compulsory social security; M – Education; N –
Health and social work; O – Other community, social and personal services activities; P – Activities of households
29
Phare 2005 projec t
30
tertiary sectors, more specific: wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and personals and
households - 29,9%; manufacturing -11,2%; real estate, renting and business -19,4%; other community, social
and personal services -12,9%.
The situation is a little different when we analyse the structure of entities in crafts and trades and free lances
(98.889 registered at 30 June 2007- annex 5) by economic activities. Although the most frequent crafts and free
lances activity section is again wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and personal and
household goods, its share is slightly higher than one fifth. Four other activities (manufacturing; construction; hotels
and restaurants; real estate, business and activities) cover two thirds of the total number of entities.
The structure of active legal entities by ownership types (annex 5) shows that the private ownership was
predominant with 81,0% entities, 0,9% of entities were owned by the state, 1,5% of them were in the mixed
ownership and only 1,3% of entities were in co-operative ownership, while the ownership of 15,3% legal
entities was not monitored. The ownership structure by activities shows that privately owned entities were
predominant in services, e.g. - wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and personal
and household goods -97,4%; Real estate, renting and business activities -97,5%, and Transport, storage and
communications -95,3%. Approximately the same share of private ownership existed in the productive activities
such as Construction, 96,6%, Manufacturing, 93,5%, and Fishing, 85,9%.
Nowadays, the majority of private companies in Croatia are small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Out of the
total number of registered business entities in Croatia 99% are SMEs, which compares with EU-15 where SMEs account
for 9,6% of the enterprises. Most SMEs are micro-enterprises and they have significant potential to contribute to
increased competitiveness and employment over the coming years. The sector’s contribution to the GDP has
been continuously increasing, up to some 44% by the end of 2005, while its contribution to export reached 60% of
total exports33.
Poverty and inequality have increased in Europe as a whole over the past few decades and this increase has
been particularly marked during the past decade in the transition countries. In Croatia the at-risk-of-poverty
rate34 varied between 17% and 18% in the period 2001-2005 (in 2003 the average for the EU-25 was 16%, and for
the New Member States 15%). The income in kind (own production in gardens, gifts in kind and the like) has a
positive impact on the at-risk-of-poverty rate. Quite favourable economic trends registered by Croatia in the last
years had a positive influence on poverty, so according to the absolute poverty rate (4.30 USD per person per
day), only less than 5% of Croatia’s population falls below the international poverty line35.
Poverty in Croatia is particularly prevalent among unemployed, the elderly, the retired, and people with lower
education. Single-person households, one-parent families and families with three or more children have an
above-average risk of poverty36. Poverty is deeper, more severe and widespread in rural areas than in urban areas.
The education and region of residence are the two factors driving poverty in Croatia, the most affected regions
being the ones in Central (except Zagreb) and Eastern Croatia.37 Poverty and its patterns is also a factor to be
considered in developing appropriate labour market policies.
Poverty among the Roma is also considerably more widespread than in other groups or in society as a whole
and it is often deep and permanent in character, affecting almost all aspects of the standard of living (housing,
education, health and so on).
33
Source: Croatian Financial Agency as it is cited in “Strategic Coherence Framework, 2007-2013, Instrument for pre-accession
assistance, May 2007”-see at: www.strategija.hr
34
Joint Memorandum of Social Inclusion of Republic of Croatia, 2007- see at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/
35
UNDP-Human Development Report, Croatia 2006
36
Poverty and Social Transfer in Croatia, Zoran Šuæur, Law Faculty, Zagreb 2003
37
Regional Poverty in Croatia 2002-2004, Conference on “Social Policy and Regional Development” 2006 – see also http://
www.eizg.hr
According to the last population census from 2001, 9.463 Roma lived in the Republic of Croatia, or 0,21% of
the total population, although it is known that many Roma either are not registered or fail to declare them as
Roma. The exact number of Roma who nowadays live in the Republic of Croatia and their territorial distribution
are difficult to be established for different reasons, so the results of the official population census are just an
indication of the real situation. However, it is estimated that there are between 30 and 40 thousand Roma in
UIF3FQVCMJDPG$SPBUJB3PNBBSFCZGBSUIFNPTUOVNFSPVTJOUIFDPVOUZPG.FŜJNVSKFPGUIFUPUBM
population), which is the only county where they account for over 1% of the population.
The most vulnerable groups/at risk of social exclusion38 in Croatia are those on low incomes (the unemployed,
the elderly with no pensions, single-parent families, families with more than two children, single mothers
and older women), internally displaced persons and refugees (around 315.102 persons at the end of 2003)39,
vulnerable ethnic minorities (the Roma). In addition it is to be mentioned that persons with special needs (people
with disabilities, persons with mental problems, sick persons) and other groups that are not so numerous are
faced with the challenges of extreme poverty (the homeless, former addicts) so exposed to social exclusion .
According to the 2001 census, people with disabilities represented 9,7% of the population. Krapina-Zagorje
county has the highest share of people with disabilities (13% of the county’s population), while Istria county has
the lowest (7,3% of the county’s population). The incapacity of 10,7% of all persons with disabilities is caused by
the Croatian Homeland War.
Persons exposed to over-indebtedness and loan sharking may also face poverty and social exclusion. The
estimated household debt to GDP ratio was 34% in the middle of 2005, and the average debt per employee was
a little less than 7 000 euros. It may be assumed that young, educated persons are the most indebted, because
they represent the most credit worthy segment of the population but also that with the least assets.
Croatia is facing demanding demographic changes, as the other European countries. Projections indicate
that the country is aging at one of the fastest rates in Europe. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) forecasts a
reduction of the Croatian population by 700 thousands (-16%) by 2050 while the share of older people (over
64 years) in the total population could increase from 17% in 2005 to 27% in 2050, and the share of youth (15-24
years) may drop from 13 to 10%. The population of working age (15-64 years) could well fall by 780 thousands.
The demographic changes and its present and future influence on the labour market should be considered in
any policy on ALMPs.
In administrative terms, Croatia is organised into 21 counties, (the City of Zagreb has the dual status of a
county and a city), another 126 cities and 429 municipalities. Although Croatia is a relatively small economy,
there are significant socio-economic differences between counties in terms of demographic trends, economic
activity and growth rates. All these aspects are related to the labour market and its specific needs and specific
measures are to be considered in order to attenuate the regional disparities.
Data on the location of active business entities for 2007 show that economic activity is to a great extent based
in major urban centres (Zagreb, Split and Rijeka) and their surrounding areas. The lead is taken by the City
of Zagreb whose share at 30 June 2007 amounted to 32,5%. At the other extreme is Lika-Senj County where this
share was 0, 8%. Fairly low presence of registered business activity has been also recorded in Virovitica-Podravina
County and Požega-Slavonija County. The same characteristics can be noticed if data on crafts and trades and free
lances on counties is analysed (annex 5).
38
Joint Memorandum of Social Inclusion of Republic of Croatia, 2007 - see at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/
39
The Report on the Return of Displaced Persons and Refugees in The Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Public Works,
Reconstruction and Construction,2003 - see at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/
UNPAN015746.pdf
31
Phare 2005 projec t
32
According with available data in 2004 the most developed Croatian county had 3,2 times higher GDP per capita
than the least developed one. The three most developed locations in terms of GDP per capita are the City of Zagreb,
the County of Istria and the County of Lika-Senj (see annex 5). Beyond these, only the County of Primorje-Gorski
Kotar has reached the GDP per capita level above the Croatian average. The least developed counties are VukovarSrijem and Slavonski Brod-Posavina, where the GDP per capita levels are less than 60% of the national average.
According to Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2003 Croatian levels of GDP per capita (in PPP) compared to the
average GDP per capita in EU 25 ranged from 82% in the City of Zagreb to 26% in the counties of Vukovar-Srijem
and Brod-Posavina40.
The geographic characteristics, the legacy of wide variations in socio-economic development at the time of
independence in 1991 and the effects of the homeland war in the form of economic and social devastation
of many parts of the country are some of the factors that influenced the differences among regions. The war
had especially significant impact on the difference of GDP and unemployment levels amongst the counties (see
annex 1 – tables 4). The areas lagging behind the national development average face the problems of poor basic
infrastructure, mine contamination, lack of social and human capital caused by depopulation trends and long-term
unemployment.
According to the 2001 census, the Republic of Croatia had 4.437.460 inhabitants. Although data are not
strictly comparable, this represents a 6,1% fall in total population compared to 1991 (based on the 1991 census
definition). This is partly explained by a negative rate of natural increase (-8559 in 2001 compared with -3003
in 1991), which is the effect of a long and steady decline in the birth-rate while death rates have been stable in
recent years. In 2006, Croatia had a population (estimation) of 4.440.700 inhabitants, compared with 4.437.460
inhabitants according to the 2001 Census. As mentioned before the natural increase was negative but on the
other hand, net immigration, particularly from Bosnia and Herzegovina, has been positive, offsetting the
negative natural increase (Table 4). Therefore the estimated population in 2005 and 2006 was somewhat larger
than the Census figures. The size of net immigration has declined in the last several years, but the number of live
births has increased.
Table 4 Population data [persons]
Year
2000.
Live births
Deaths
Natural increase
Immigration
Emigration
Net immigration
Population estimation
43746
50246
-6500
29389
5953
23432
4381000
2001.
40993
49552
-8559
24415
7488
16927
4437000
2002.
40094
50569
-10475
20365
11767
8598
4443000
2003.
39668
52575
-12907
18455
6534
11921
4442000
2004.
40307
49756
-9449
18383
6812
11571
4439000
2005.
42492
51790
-9298
14230
6012
8218
4442000
2006.
42404
51172
-8768
14 978
7692
7 286
4440700
Source: Croatian Bureau of Statistics
There has also been internal migration flows within Croatia from 1994. According with CBS data, in 2006,
there were 80.757 persons who changed their place of permanent residence- moved from one settlement to
another within Croatia. Within the total number of migrating population, the largest number of persons (39,6%)
migrated between counties; 38,1% of persons migrated between towns/municipalities of the same county, and
22,3% of persons moved between settlements of the same town/municipality. The largest number of migrated
population within the Republic of Croatia was aged 20 − 39 (47,5%).
40
Strategic Coherence Framework, 2007-2013, Instrument for pre-accession assistance, May 2007- see at http://www.
strategija.hr
According with Census 2001 women accounted for 52% and men for 48% of the population. In terms of ethnic
composition, the most numerous were Croats (89,63%), followed by Serbs (4,54%), Bosnians (0,47%), Italians
(0,44%), Hungarians (0,37%), Albanians (0,34%), Slovenians (0,3%) and others.
Regarding age structure the share of the old has been growing and the share of the young has been declining,
the most obvious trend being the ageing of the population (annex 5). In this respect, Croatia is similar to the
majority of European countries, where older persons account for about 16,5% (EU-25) or 17% (EU-15) of the
population41.
The number of young persons entering the labour force has been falling and will fall further in the future. Both
the growth of older population and the shrinking of work-age population have been and will be a challenge for
the labour market and related employment policies. Moreover, the implications of demographic change have
a pervasive influence on social protection. The present burden of the retired is looming over the employed in
the formal sector, exerting a tremendous pressure on the contribution rate and thereby increasing the already
high cost of labour.
Working age population, Activity, Employment and Unemployment
At the end of 2006 Croatia had a population of working age (15-64 years) of 2758 thousand persons, age group
25-49 years representing 48,4% of total. The active population was 1752 thousand people while the inactive one
was 1006 thousand people (see also annex 5).
Table 5 Working age population (15-64), activity, employment and unemployment rates, 2000-200642 43
Indicators/Years
2000.
2001.
2002.
2003.
2004.
2005.
2006.
Working age population 15–64 yearsthousand
2957
2761
2779
2785
2742
2769
2758
Active population-thousand
1839
1718
1749
1739
1734
1746
1752
Employed population thousand
1517
1429
1491
1480
1489
1524
1560
Unemployed- thousand
321
289
258
258
246
222
191
Activity rate %- Croatia
62,2
62,2
62,9
62,4
63,2
63,1
63,5
Activity rate % - EU 25
68,7
68,7
69,0
69,3
69,7
70,3
70,6
Employment rate %-Croatia
51,3
51,8
53,6
53,2
54,3
55,0
56,6
62,4
62,8
62,8
62,9
63,3
63,8
64,7
Unemployment rate Croatia -%
17,0
16,3
14,4
14,4
13,8
12,3
10,5
Unemployment rate% - EU 2543
8,6
8,4
8,7
9,0
9,0
8,7
7,9
Employment rate % - EU 25
42
Source: EUROSTAT for EU 25, CBS, CES for Croatia
41
42
43
Joint Memorandum of Social Inclusion of Republic of Croatia, 2007- see at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/
LFS, total unemployment rate, 15+, 2nd half of each year
Total unemployment rate -15-74 years
33
Phare 2005 projec t
34
The working age population registered a decreasing trend so at the end of 2006 it was 199 thousand people
less then in 2000.
The active population (15-64 years) registered a slightly decrease so in 2006 it represented only 95,3 % of
the active population in 2000. Gender structure did not change too much during the recent years so women
represent 46, 2% of the active population and men 53, 8%. Regarding age structure (annex 5), similar as to the total
population, the share of the elderly people (50-64 years) has been growing while the share of the young has been
declining. The age group 25-49 years registered a slightly decrease but it still represents 63, 8% of the active
population.
The activity rate of the population aged 15-64 (see also annex 5) registered a slightly increase, fluctuating
between 62,2% in 2000 and 63,5% in 2006, when it was about 7,1 percentage points lower than in EU 25. Female
activity rates were in general much lower (58,2%) than the males ones (68, 9%), but registered a slightly increase
along the reference period (58, 2% in 2006 compared with 56, 0% in 2000). A breakdown of the activity rates by
gender and age groups shows that the activity rate for the age group 15-24 decreased over the period 2001/II to
2006/II (from 41.9% to 38 %), and the decrease has been more pronounced for women than for men. For the age
group 25-49 the activity rate has been stable at an overall level around 83.3%. The activity rate for men in this age
group is higher than for women with a tendency to decrease slightly from 2003 and onwards (87, 2% in 2006).
For the age group 50-64, the activity rate increased from 40,2% in 2000 to 48,5% in 2006. According with some
reports on labour market in Croatia the pension reform has contributed considerably to the large increase of the
labour force participation of the older.
The employed population (15-64 years) registered also a slightly increase so in 2006 it was 1560,0 thousand
persons compared with 1517,0 in 2000 (see annex 5). Men represent 54, 5% of the employed population while
women only 45,5%. Over the reference period, all the age groups registered a slightly increase except the one of
25-49 years that decreased from 1074 thousand persons in 2000 to 1017 in 2006. The persons with VET background
represent more than 58% of the employed population so it seams they have a better chance on the labour market
to become employed. Moreover, the share of people with 1-3 years secondary VET school in the total employed
population increased from 21,0% in 2000 to 32% in 2006, while all the other groups registered a decreasing
trend, except the group with basic school background that showed a slightly increase (see annex 5).
The structure of employed population by economic sectors changed during the recent years, following the
economic patterns so the share of employed people in agriculture, in total employed population (age 15+)
decreased from 14,9% in 2002 to 13,8% in 2006. A slightly decrease was also registered by the employed people
in industry (from 29,5% in 2002 to 28,4% in 2006) while the share of employed people in services sector increased
from 55,4% in 2002 to 57,8% in 2006 (see annex 5).
In the recent years it has also been noticed a considerable growth of the private sector share of employment, a
consequence of both privatization of state-owned firms and employment growth in the private establishments.
In 2006, second half, the share of employment in private companies was 68,8% while the share of employees in
state and transition sector was only 31,2 % (see annex 5).
As mentioned in the 2006 ETF Country analysis for IPA programming, many Croats are involved, in one way
or another, in informal work. According with the same report a survey published in January 2006 showed
that almost one third of payments to employees are done under the counter. Illegal work quite often creates
a supplementary income source more lucrative than the primary and perceived high income taxes and social
security contributions (estimated at between 31% and 47%) discourage people from ‘legalising’ their jobs.
The employment rate (see also annex 5) in Croatia has been on an upward trend in recent years. According to
LFS, the employment rate of the population aged 15-64 decreased up to the year 2001 and then, after 2001,
the trend reversed, so the employment rate was 56,6 % in the second half of 2006. In general the employment
rates for males were higher than for women. The development of employment rates of most age and gender
groups followed a similar pattern over the recent years, largely reflecting the impact of fluctuations of economic
growth.
In particular, the employment rate of the age group 25-49 years (prime-age), both males and females has been
strongly correlated with economic growth. The acceleration of growth after the 1999 recession brought an
increase of the primeage male employment rate from 76% in 2000 to almost 80% in second half of 2006 and primeage women from 65% to 71% in the same period. Lately the employment rate of persons aged 50-65 has been
constantly growing. It went up from 36,3% in 2000 to 45% in 2006, reflecting not only accelerated economic
growth but also the increased retirement age.
Despite the previously described positive trends, Croatia is still lagging behind the average level of employment
in the EU. According to EU LFS, in 2006 the average employment rate for the population aged 15-64 in the EU
25 amounted to 64,7%, while in Croatia it was 56,6%. The difference was higher for men (62,3 vs. 72 %) than for
women (51 vs. 57,3%).
Although there are currently no standardised and reliable empiric assessments of skills inventory among
Croatian students or employees, several research efforts have been undertaken during the last several years, in
which employers specified their assessed demand for workers, as well as demands in term of knowledge and
skill requirements from specific educational profiles.
A research on the labour force competitiveness44 in the autumn of 2003 included 334 companies in Croatia
in its field survey. Employers assessed the importance and presence of various traits, knowledge and
skills of their company’s employees. The greatest importance was attached to ethics and loyalty of the
employees, literacy and ability to read, and basic and expert vocational knowledge. The competences
deficit in employees with secondary education is estimated to be largest in the fields of basic occupational
knowledge and vocational knowledge, as well as in self-initiative, self-motivation and interpersonal skills.
Within CARDS 2002 “Local partnerships for employment” project (CES, 2005) at the beginning of 2005, a survey
was conducted among employers in four counties (Sisak-Moslavina, Sibenik-Knin, Vukovar-Sirmium and Zadar
county). All employers consider to be most important the attitude towards the job.45 This is followed by a set of
“flexible” characteristics: adaptability, teamwork and readiness to learn. Expert, technical and practical skills, as
well as organisational skills, communication and relation with customers are placed somewhere in the middle
of the scale, while less importance is given to general skills of numeric competence and written expression, as
well as (formal) education of candidates, tenure and computer literacy.46.
In terms of registered unemployment, almost 16% at the end of 2006, Croatia was among the Central and
Eastern European countries with the highest rates.
However, in terms of the LFS unemployment rate — which does not reflect the specific features of national
systems and therefore provides a much better basis for comparison — Croatia did not differ much from the
other countries in the group. In 2006, the LFS unemployment rate in Croatia was 10, 9% (CBS) compared with
7,9% in the EU-25.
And even though the number of unemployed as well as the unemployment rates have been decreasing over
the past few years, the women unemployment rate (12,4%- 2006/II) continues to be higher than the males one (9,6%
-2006/II) and in terms of age-groups the highest unemployment rate (LFS) is registered by the age-group 15-24 years
44
Lowther, 2004, Pološki Vokić and Frajlić, 2004
45
Although seemingly self-explanatory, it cannot be precisely determined what employers mean by “attitude towards the
job”; i.e. if it is an objective set of characteristics, or merely a subjective expectation of an individual employer on “what the
worker should be like”. Findings of the research on labour force competitiveness indicate that “the attitude towards the job”
could include components of ethics and loyalty that all the employers require.
46
Reports CARDs 2003
35
Phare 2005 projec t
36
old, 29% in 2006 compared with 18,5% in EU 2547.Croatia’s long-term unemployment rate of 7,4% in 2005 (LFS data)
is extremely high compared to the EU 25 average of 3,9 %. Particularly worrying is the high female long-term
unemployment rate of 8, 4% in 2005.
The fact that women are affected by unemployment more than men derives also from analysis of registered
unemployment structures. The registered unemployment had also a decreasing trend in the last years, both
in terms of numbers and rates.
Figure 1 Registered unemployment rate – 2000 - 2006 –total
Registered unemployment rate
2000-2006
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
XII. 2000.
XII. 2001.
XII. 2002.
XII. 2003.
22,3
22,8
21,3
18,7
XII. 2004. XII. 2005.
18,5
17,8
XII. 2006.
16,7
Source: CES Unemployment Statistics
Although the registered unemployment rate decreased from 22,3% in 2000 to 16,7% in 2006 the share of
women among all registered unemployed increased from 53% in 2000 to 61% in 2006.
Figure 2 Registered unemployed – 2000 - 2006 – shares by gender
Registered unemployment-2000-2006
shares by gender
2006
2005
% of women in total
registered unemployed
2004
2003
% of men in total
registered unemployed
2002
2001
2000
0%
20%
40%
60%
47
See at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa
80%
100%
Even worse is the situation of unemployed aged 50 and over. While in 2000 their share represented only
11,4% among all registered unemployed people, it has been constantly rising and reached 24,9% in 2006. The
share of unemployed of 50-54 years of age in total unemployed has doubled from 2000 to 2006, and more
or less the same trend was registered by the age-group 55-60 years. Age group 45-49 years also registered a
slightly increase. On the other hand, the share of young unemployed people between 15 and 24 years of age
among all registered unemployed decreased from 28,8% in 2000 to 20,1% in 2006. Slightly decrease was also
registered by the age-groups between 25 and 40 years.
Figure 3 Registered unemployed – 2000 - 2006 – shares by age groups
Registered unemployment 2000-2006
shares by groups
>60
100%
55-60
80%
50-54
45-49
60%
40-44
35-39
40%
30-34
20%
25-30
20-24
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
15-19
Long term unemployment remains a major problem, people with 12 months and more duration of
unemployment registered a slightly increase over the previous years so they represent 56% of all registered
unemployed in 2006 (52,5% in 2000). The share of unemployed with 1-2 years duration of unemployment
decreased, but share of unemployed with more that 5 years unemployment duration had an increase of
more than double. The share of people with 0-3 months duration of unemployment also increased, while the
other categories registered a slightly decrease (see also annex 5). The same patterns derive from analysis of
duration of unemployment by gender.
37
Phare 2005 projec t
38
Figure 4 Registered unemployed – 2000 - 2006 – shares by period of unemployment
Registered unemployment 2000-2006
shares by period of unemployment
100%
8 years and more
80%
5 - 8 years
3 - 5 years
60%
2 - 3 years
1 - 2 years
40%
9 - 12 months
6 - 9 months
20%
3 - 6 months
0 - 3 months
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
By educational attainments, the share of unemployed with no schooling or uncompleted basic school
registered an important decrease between 2000 and 2006, the share of unemployed with basic school
significantly increased, while the share of unemployed with 1-3 years vocational secondary school increased
by 2005 and then registered a slightly decrease, still being the biggest share in total registered unemployed that
is 35,9% (see also annex 5).
Figure 5 Registered unemployed – 2000 - 2006 – shares by educational attainment
University level and
postgraduate
Registered unemploymen 2000-2006.
shares by educational attainment
Non -university degree
100%
4 or more years
vocational secundary
school, gramar school
1 to 3 year vocational
secundary school
80%
60%
40%
Basic school
20%
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
No schooling
uncompleted basic
school
Looking to the structure of registered unemployed by work experience one can notice: the share of people without
work experience in total unemployed constantly decrease between 2000 (27,7%) and 2006 (22,4%), while the
share of unemployed with more than 10 years of experience registered an increasing trend, so they represent
now around 35 % of total unemployed (see also annex 5).
Figure 6 Registered unemployed – 2000 - 2006 – shares by period of work-experience
Registered unemployment2000.- 2006.
shares by period of work experience
> 10 years
100%
5 -10 years
80%
3 - 5 years
60%
2 -3 years
40%
1 -2 years
20%
< 1 years
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
No work
experience
It can be concluded that the Croatian population and labour force is ageing and that the development in
labour force participation and particularly employment have been strongly affected by economic fluctuations,
education and the pension reform. Meanwhile, the structure of employment has been moving towards a greater
role of services and the private sector share of employment has been growing steadily. Activity and employment
rates, particularly of older persons, are on an upward trend, still behind the EU levels. Unemployment registered
a decreasing trend during the previous years, but it is still quite high especially among women, older workers
and young people. There are significant regional variations within the country and in the same time long-term
unemployment remains a persistent problem.
4 Main findings, Conclusions
This chapter presents the main research findings, based on feed-back received during the interviews, focus
groups, other meetings, and questionnaires as well as from analysis of registered unemployment, ALMPs
statistics, relevant reports and materials. We have addressed the aspects mentioned by the ToR but we regrouped them in order to have a logical structure in our presentation, following also the structure of investigated
topics in the personalised research instruments
There are five sections in this chapter (see the following). Within each section, findings are presented from each
research instrument in turn (specific questions and related feed-back received is specified in the brackets), so as
to make clear the sources of evidence for all findings. At the end of each section, a summary of research results
is provided.
1. ALMPs implemented by CES (covering ToR aspects number 1, 2, 3 )
2. Programming the ALMPs (covering ToR aspects number 2, 3 and 9)
3. Implementation of ALMPs including some aspects related to experience with measures, procedures, some
aspects related to results, effects expenditures with ALMPs, etc. (covering ToR aspects number 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8
and 9)
4. Monitoring, evaluation, reporting of the results of ALMPs measures (covering ToR aspects number 6 and 9)
5. Cooperation between local stakeholders/social partners, local partnerships for employment, CES cooperation
with employers, local stakeholders and social partners (covering ToR aspects number 9)
Analysis of the implications of the findings for future action is contained in chapter 5.
39
Phare 2005 projec t
40
4.1 ALMPs implemented by the Croatian Employment Service
The current ALMPs, implemented by the CES, established by the National Action Plan for Employment (NAPE),
that have been included in the current evaluation are the following:
Measure 1. Co-financing employment of young people without previous work experience
(Programmed under Guideline 1, Active and preventive measures for unemployed and inactive- according
with NAPE)
Specific objective:
t#FUUFSFNQMPZNFOUSBUFPGZPVOHQFPQMFVQUPZFBSTPMEXJUIPVUXPSLFYQFSJFODFDPOTJEFSJOH
their high share in the overall unemployment that is 23%.
Target groups:
tUnemployed up to 25 years of age without previous work experience (according to the
internationally recognized definitions of young people)
tUnemployed up to 29 years of age without previous work experience
Eligibility criteria for the target groups:
t6OFNQMPZNFOUSFHJTUSBUJPOBUMFBTUNPOUITPSXJUIJOUIFQFSJPEPGEBZTGSPN
t8JUIPVUXPSLFYQFSJFODFJOPSPVUTJEFUIFPDDVQBUJPOJORVFTUJPOXJUIPVUXPSLFYQFSJFODFPSXJUIMFTT
than 6 months work experience outside the main occupation/ qualification .
Support:
t&NQMPZNFOUTVCTJEJFTGPSBMJNJUFEQFSJPEoEJõFSFOUJBUFEBMTPCZUZQFPGFNQMPZFSTTNBMMNFEJVNBOE
big size), and by different levels of educational attainment/qualification
t:PVOHVOFNQMPZFEXJUIMPXMFWFMPGFEVDBUJPOBMBUUBJONFOUTIPVMECFTVQQPSUFEUPJOUFHSBUFUPUIF
working place through well thought-out programmes of introduction in the business specific for certain
employers and activity within which they are to be employed
t'PS QFPQMF XJUI TFDPOEBSZ BOE UFSUJBSZ FEVDBUJPO BO JOUFSOTIJQ QSPHSBNNF IBT UP CF EFMJWFSFE UIF
mentor should be at least the same level of the education as the employed person
t&NQMPZNFOU TVCTJEJFT BSF QBJE UP FNQMPZFST POFUJNF JO BEWBODF BGUFS FNQMPZFST DPODMVEF UIF
contracts with CES.
In 2006 and 2007 (by 30 June):
tA total number48 of 1333 unemployed (16,5% of total participants/beneficiaries of all
t"-.1TNFBTVSFT
IBWFCFFOFNQMPZFEVOEFSUIJTNFBTVSFiBDUJWFwQFSTPOTJOUPUBMBDUJWF
participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures); drop-outs = 186 persons (14%) out of which 123 persons
have been replaced, 63 persons- “inactive” ; out of the total “active” participants 47,5% are women (details
on beneficiaries’ structures in annex B and annex 6.
tAround 33 mil.HRK spent in 2006 and 2007 (by 30 June) for this measure- 23,7% of total expenditures with
ALMPs
48
Explanation for all boxes : Persons beneficiaries/participating in ALMPs measures who, according to the explanation
received from CES central level are the following: active=still employed, in training programmes, finished employment
subsidised period according to the procedures/conditionality, or graduates from training courses; on hold= army
service, no replacement during service; inactive=contract terminated before the end of conditionality-no replacement;
dropouts=persons stopped working/training before the end of conditionality/training, replacement is/was being seeking
for the employed (if already found, a replacement is active)
41
Measure 2. Co-financing employment of long-term unemployed
(Programmed under Guideline 1, Active and preventive measures for unemployed and inactive- according
with NAPE)
tCo-financing employment of all the registered unemployed persons regardless their previous work
experience and age and who have been registered at the CES for at least 12 months, that is, 6 months
(persons younger than 25 years of age)
tIncreasing employability of young and older persons, especially women with the emphasis on the
flexible work force
Target groups:
tsAll unemployed persons registered at the CES for at least 12 out of the previous 16 months regardless of
their work career duration, years of age and level of education
tUnemployed persons registered at the CES for at least 6 out of previous 8 months and who are younger than
25 years of age, regardless of their work career period and education level.
tAs mentioned above, unemployment registration with CES of at least 12/6 months out of the previous
16/8 months regardless of their work career duration, years of age and level of education
Support:
tEmployment subsidies for a limited period – differentiated also by type of employers (small, medium and
big size), and by unemployed different levels of educational attainment/qualification
tEmployment subsidies are paid to employers, one-time, in advance, after employers conclude the
contracts with CES
In 2006 and 2007 (by 30 June):
tA total number of 1875 unemployed (23,2% of total participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures) have
been employed under this measure, out of which:
t”Active” = 1615 persons (21,5% in total active participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures); drop-outs
= 260 persons (13,9%) out of which 193 persons have been replaced, 67 persons= “inactive”; out of the
total “active” participants 63 % are women
tDetails on beneficiaries’ structures in annex B and annex 6.
tAround 40,4 mil.HRK spent - 29,0% of total expenditures with ALMPs
Phare 2005 projec t
42
Measure 3. Co-financing employment of women over 45 and men over 50 years of age
(Programmed under Guideline 1, Active and preventive measures for unemployed and
inactive- according with NAPE)
tCo-financing employment of women over 45 years of age and men over 50 years of age that have
been registered at the CES as unemployed for more than 6 months, who lost their jobs due to technical
redundancy factor (10% out of the total registered unemployed) and persons who lost their jobs due to
technical redundancy and are under termination period.
Target groups:
tWomen over 45 and men over 50 years of age who, regardless their previous work experience and level of
education have been registered with the CES for at least 6 months
tWomen over 45 and men over 50 years of age whose employment was terminated due to the technical
redundancy, regardless the period of the unemployment status and the level of education of a person
and already have a signed Professional Employment plan
tWomen over 45 and men over 50 years of age, regardless the level of education, who are under termination
period that has occurred due to the technical redundancy factor - subvention is applied during the
termination period and before registering with the CES .
tAs mentioned above, unemployment registration with CES of at least 6 months or
tLay-offs due to technical redundancy having signed a Professional Employment plan
tPeople of the target population losing their jobs due to technical redundancy and being under the
termination period
Support:
tEmployment subsidies for a limited period– differentiated also by type of employers (small, medium and
contracts with CES
n 2006 and 2007 (by 30 June):
tA total number of 832 unemployed (10,3% of total participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures)
have been employed under this measure, out of which: ”active” = 773 persons (10,3% in total active
participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures); drop-outs = 59 persons (7,1%) out of which 30 persons
have been replaced, 29 persons= “inactive”; out of the total “active” participants 60,7 % are women,
tAround 27,9 mil.HRK spent - 20,1% of total expenditures with ALMPs.
43
Measure 4. Co-financing employment of special groups of unemployed
(Programmed under Guideline 7, Promoting integration and anti-discriminative measures against persons
that are at a disadvantage in the labour market- according with NAPE)
tInclusion in the labour market of all the persons who, due to illness or some other personality traits,
were unable to equally compete on the labour market. The aim is to make possible for them to be
independent financially without using the services of social welfare system.
tIncrease employability of special groups with the emphasis on social inclusion
Target groups:
tPersons with low level of employability estimated by the Vocational guidance
tUnemployed single parents of underage children
tUnemployed women who have used maternity leave rights for third and every other child before registering
as unemployed
tUnemployed war veterans, children and spouses of dead and missing war veterans
tWomen who are victims of violence
tHuman trading victims
tPersons in exile
tRehabilitated drug addicts
tFormer convicts
tParents with 4 or more underage children
tPersons with disabilitie
tAll target groups need to be registered with CES for at least 6 months, except persons with disabilities,
drug addicts, women who are victims of violence, human trading victims, persons in exile, former
convicts
Support:
tEmployment subsidies for a limited period – differentiated also by type of employers (small, medium and
contracts with CES.
In 2006 and 2007 (by 30 June):
tA total number of 411 unemployed (5,1% of total participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures) have
been employed under this measure, out of which: ”active” = 366 persons (4,9% in total active participants/
beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures); drop-outs = 45 persons (10,9%) out of which 24 persons have been
replaced, 21 persons= “inactive”; out of the total “active” participants 13,7 % are women
tDetails on beneficiaries’ structures in annex B and annex 6.,
tAround 13 mil.HRK spent 9,3% of total expenditures with ALMPs.
Phare 2005 projec t
44
Measure 5. 1 Co-financing education for known employer (newly-employed and employed with the
objective of maintaining the job position)
(Guideline 4. – Promoting development of human capital and life-long learning)
Specific objectives:
tCreating conditions for faster employment of long-term unemployed persons
tEnable acquiring additional skills and knowledge requested on the labour market in order to adjust the
discrepancy between supply and demand
tAbating the deficit related to certain occupations/professions
tIncreasing employability of unemployed persons with occupations/professions that are in surplus in the
labour market;
tAcquiring skills and knowledge in line with new technology introduction
Target groups:
5.1 a) Newly-employed
tAll unemployed persons regardless of the work qualifications and previous work career
5.1 b) Maintaining the working place/old employees:
tOld employees – participants in the professional training programme
Eligibility criteria:
tAt least 90 days of unemployment registration with CES, providing the subject persons signed Professional
Employment Plan, in case of sub-measure 5.1 a
tAccording to the employer’s selection, in case of sub-measure 5.1b
Type of co-financed training programmes:
tGeneral training/professional training
t1PTFCOPVTBWSÝBWBOKFTUKFDBOKFEPEBUOJI[OBOKBJWKFÝUJOBWF[BOJIV[[WBOKF[BOJNBOKF
tSpecified training (acquiring additional skills and knowledge related to occupation/profession)
Maximum duration of the training programmes- 6 months; training programmes have to be completed
in the same calendar year they started
Support:
tCo-finances of the training programmes, differentiated by type of employers and by type of training
programmes, plus participation in the wages of training participants in the amount of minimal money
compensation, in 2006 (not in 2007)
tPayment of incentives is done in two parts: 70% of the incentives at the beginning of programmes, and
30% of the incentives upon completion of professional training
In 2006 and 2007 (by 30 June):
tMeasure 5.1.a - a total number of 57 unemployed (0,7% of total participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs
measures) participated in the training programme under this measure (+ employment), out of which:
”active” = 53 persons (0,7% in total active participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures); drop-outs
= 4 persons (7,0%) out of which 4 persons have been replaced; out of the total “active” participants 77,4
% are women
tMeasure 5.1.b - a total number of 639 persons (7,9% of total participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs
measures) participated in the training programme under this measure, out of which: “active” = 637
persons (8,5% in total active participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures); drop-outs49 = 2 persons
(0,3%) out of which 2 persons have been replaced; out of the total “active” participants 41 % are women
tAround 4,1 mil.HRK spent - 2,9% of total expenditures with ALMPs
49
Drop-outs in training measures are in fact not monitored so these figures do not give a real picture of drop-outs
45
Measure 5.2. Co-financing education for unknown employer
(Under Guideline 4. – Promotion and development of human potential and life-long learning)
tEducation of 1500 unemployed persons for the needs of local labour market in particular counties,
tImproving skills and knowledge of 600 unemployed seasonal workers
tEducation of 600 unemployed for occupations which are in deficit in shipbuilding and construction in
order to decrease the labour market deficit.
Target groups:
tAll unemployed persons who have been registered with CES at least 12 months regardless of the years
of age, level of education and previous work experience,
tAll registered unemployed up to 25 years of age registered for longer than 6 months or within 90 days
since they finished education; except unemployed of categories: rehabilitated drug addicts, persons
with disabilities, women victims of violence, human-trafficking victims, persons in exile, ex-convicts
tAll registered unemployed up to 35 years of age willing to have seasonal employment regardless of how
long they have been registered as unemployed, work qualifications and work experience
tAll registered unemployed willing to take on jobs in shipbuilding and construction
tAs mentioned above, 12, 6 months or 90 days unemployment registration with CES, or age- 35 years
old for persons willing to have seasonal employment, or willingness to take-on jobs in shipbuilding and
construction
Selection of unemployed, training programmes and training providers
tAccording to Professional Plan
tThe training providers are also selected in the basis of some criteria
tThe participant signs the professional training contract with the CES - the participant is obliged to
complete the training and to accept the possible employment opportunity which may result from the
completed training programme
tMaximum duration of the training programmes- 6 months; training programmes have to be completed
in the same calendar year they started .
Support:
tCo-financing 100% of training costs
tMinimal money compensation to participants for the period of unemployment, travel costs and insurance
in case of work accident
In 2006 and 2007 (by 30 June):
tA total number of 1708 of unemployed (21,1% of total participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures) have
participated in the training programme under this measure, out of which: “active” = 1707 persons (22,8% in
total active participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures); drop-outs = 1 persons (7,0%) in fact only the
successful participants (graduates) are monitored, drop-outs are not recorded/monitored; out of the total
“active” participants 51,9 % are women
tAround 10,4 mil.HRK spent -7,5 % of total expenditures with ALMPs.
Phare 2005 projec t
46
Measure 6. Public works
(Under Guideline 7. – Promoting integration and anti-discriminative measures against persons who are at a
disadvantage in the labour market)
Specified objective:
tTo affirm social inclusion with community work and to alleviate social consequences of unemployment
through a cooperation of the units of local self-government and their institutions and NGOs.
tTo increase employability of long-term unemployed persons with the special emphasis on their social
inclusion
Target groups:
tUnemployed persons with low level of education (persons without occupation, with certain auxiliary
occupations and with secondary school education) who have been registered on the unemployment
roll for at least 12 months.
tUnemployed persons younger than 25 who have not continued their education after elementary school
or have not been able to finish secondary school education which is why those persons possess no
formal occupation, beneficiaries of unemployment benefits, beneficiaries of rights given to them by Law
on social welfare, human-trafficking victims, persons in exile, rehabilitated drug addicts, former convicts,
parents with 4 or more under aged children who have been registered on the unemployment roll for at
least 6 months.
tThe target population mentioned above under the condition of 12 or 6 months registration with CES.
Support:
tEmployment subsidies for a limited period
tTravel expenses
tProgrammes should be community based, non profit, with focus on projects from social welfare area,
environmental protection, and communal system works
tNumber of persons to be included in the Public works programme is set against planned funds for every regional
office in accordance to the unemployment rate criteria per specific county. Counties with the unemployment
rate above Croatian average can include up to 100 persons in the public works programme, while counties
with unemployment rate below Croatian average can include up to 20 persons in public works programme
In 2006 and 2007 (by 30 June):
tA total number of 907 unemployed (11,2 % of total participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures)
have been employed under this measure, out of which: ”active” = 900 persons (12 % in total active
participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures); drop-outs = 7 persons (0,8%), out of which inactive 7
persons; out of the total “active” participants 13,6 % are women
tDetails on beneficiaries’ structures in annex B and annex 6
tAround 6,6 mil.HRK spent -4,7 % of total expenditures with ALMPs
47
Measure O/N. Co-financing education for unknown employer
(Under Guideline 7. – Promote the Integration and Combat the Discrimination Against People at a
Disadvantage in the Labour Market)
tImproving employability of Roma, especially young and women, through the inclusion in occupational
training and training with employment programmes
Target groups:
tUnemployed young Roma up to 25 years of age and women without primary education or secondary
school drop-outs provided
tLong term unemployed Roma
tThe target population mentioned above, unemployment registration with CES for at least 30 days,
respective 12 months with CES
tSelection of unemployed according with Professional Employment Plan
Support:
tMoney compensation during training, reimbursement of travel expenses
tCo financing of the training programme, not more than 4 months training programmes
In 2006 and 2007 (by 30 June):
tA total number of 15 unemployed (0,2 % of total participants/beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures) have
been employed under this measure, out of which: ”active” = 15 persons (0,2% in total active participants/
beneficiaries of all ALMPs measures); (; out of the total “active” participants 53,3% are women
tAround 3,4 mil.HRK spent in 2006 and 2007 (by 30 June) for this measure 2,5 % of total expenditures with
ALMPs
Phare 2005 projec t
48
Measure O/P. Co-financing education for known employer –Roma population
(Under Guideline 7. – Promote the Integration and Combat the Discrimination Against People at a
Disadvantage in the Labour Market)
tImproving employability of Roma, especially young and women, through the inclusion in occupational
training and training with employment programmes
Target groups:
tUnemployed young Roma up to 25 years of age and women without primary education or secondary school
drop-outs resulting in no occupation and provided they have been registered on the unemployment
rolls for at least 30 days
tLong term unemployed Roma at least 12 months registration with CES
tThe target population mentioned above, unemployment registration with CES for at least 30 days or 12
months with CES
tSelection of unemployed according with Professional Employment Plan
Support
tEmployment subsidies (training for known employer)
tMoney compensation during training, reimbursement of travel expenses
tCo finance of the training programme, not more than 4 months training programmes
In 2006 and 2007 (by 30 June):
tNo participants.
Categories of employers, eligibility and conditionality criteria for employers, potential beneficiaries
under the ALMPs programmes
Employment subsidies (Measures 1, 2, 3 and 4)
Categories of employers eligible for employment subsidies:
49
tsmall size employers - employers with an average annual number of employees under 50, generating total
turnover not ecxeeding16 million HRK
tmedium size employers- employers with an average annual number of employees under 250, generating
total turnover not exceeding 60 million HRK
tbig size employers - employers with an average annual number of employees over 250 employees,
generating total turnover exceeding 60 million HRK
Main eligibility criteria:
tPayment of all taxes and contributions without any delays
tIncrease in average number of employees in the previous 12 months before claiming the employment
subsidies, except newly registered trades and crafts that can receive employment subsidies (a limited
number) and other employers who do not meet the criteria of average of additional employment but do
provide new job openings, under the condition of providing evidence on investments in the new work
places
tBig size employers should co-finance minimum of 25% of gross salary per person
Conditionality criteria:
tPayment of all taxes and contributions without any delays
tConclude working contracts with the unemployed of the target population for at least 25, respective 26
months
tMaintaining the increase in the number of job openings for at 24, 26 months
t)JSFQFSTPOTPGUIFTBNFDBUFHPSZPGUBSHFUQPQVMBUJPOJODBTFUIFJOJUJBMMZIJSFEPOFTIBWFCFFO
fired or quitted the working places (under specific conditions)
Payments
tEmployment subsidies are paid one-time, in advance, after conclusion of contract with CES
Training for known employers- Measure 5.1a and 5.1b
tMore or less the same eligibility and conditionality criteria, payments are done in 2 steps, at the beginning
and at the end of training programmes.
Public works
Categories of PW initiators/implementing programmes: Units of local self-government and their institutions,
as well as NGOs and similar organizations
tEmployers have to co finance 50% of the wages of hired unemployed
Measures addressing the Roma Population
tMore or less the same eligibility and conditionality criteria as mentioned above for different ALMPs
measures.
49
According with specific procedures the term employer relates to every legal entity and natural entities that independently
and with continuity performs economic activity with the purpose of making profit; Employers from shipbuilding and
maritime transport sector are not eligible for employment incentives
49
Phare 2005 projec t
50
4.2 Programming the ALMPs measures
It is increasingly clear that the design features of particular active measure as well as accompanying measures
in order to ensure full access of people to the ALMPs may have important implications for its outcomes. So the
design/programming process was investigated under different aspects mentioned below.
Employment Policy provides the framework for the impact of labour market policies (active and passive labour
market policies) in the short and medium run. That’s why special questions in our research instruments have
addressed issues such as Employment Policy in Croatia, Human Resources Development strategies within the
companies.
We also tried to find out how the ALMPs measures have been assessed, especially by their beneficiaries – i.e.
people participating in measures and employers:
General statement on Active Labour Market Policy- is it useful, is it necessary, is it oblivious?
What is really good of ALMPs? Would beneficiaries of ALMPs recommend the measures to friends, colleagues,
or members of their families? Will companies continue to use the ALMPs?
Questionnaires participants/individuals
64 % of respondents, individuals, appreciated the ALMPs measures worked well, are good/useful for different
reasons, 22 % did not know to appreciate and for the rest measures did not worked well (q.38).
The main positive aspects related to ALMPs are the following:
tMeasures promote better employment opportunities
tMeasures promote opportunity for development
tMeasures promote opportunity for acquiring work experience and new skills
tPeople became more confident about employment status
tSelf esteem improved,
tReduce unemployment,
tImprovement of financial situation
tOpportunity for training and re-training
tNew work experience
In addition to this, 59 % of respondents would unreserved recommend similar measures to a friend, 26% would
recommend the measures but with some reservation to take care of her/his own interests, while only 4 % would
not recommend such measures to a friend or anyone else and , around 11% could not say (q.37).
Questionnaires employers
t98 % of respondents appreciated the positive aspects of ALMPs as being the following: employment
opportunities for all
tMoney incentives/employers’ motivation to hire unemployed
tMoney incentives for educating staff and opening new work places
tShort-term help of employers and financial help to unemployed
tReduction of unemployment
tImprovement of social status of long term unemployed
tQuick processing of co-financing request and cooperation with CES, quality of CES services, help and
better selection of future employees etc.
Only around 2 % of respondents considered ALMPs measures had no positive aspects (q. 52).
Around 65% of respondents would unreservedly recommend the ALMPs measures to other companies, 33%
would do it but with some hints on caution and only 2 % would not recommend the measures, because (q.33).
t„“Implacable bureaucracy” that shows no understanding for small companies
t“Employees hired through measures think they are protected and do not work well;“
t“ There is a great risk in employing such workers and two-years period of having them employed is too
long”
t“Applying for measures is time-consuming”
81% of respondents, mentioned they will continue to use ALMPs measures, around 16 % will continue but with
some caution, and only 3% will not continue to use the ALMPs, mainly because (q.34):
t“Measures are not flexible and do not adjust to the needs and work of companies”
tDissatisfaction with the co-financed persons – ”they are not interested in the job, do not work hard enough
and misuse the whole situation“.
Interviews employers
The general statement of almost all interviewed employers, in all 4 counties, was that the ALMPs measures are
good and in line with employers’ needs, they are useful and in the same time necessary. The employers also
mentioned there is a need for improvement, especially on aspects mentioned under other questions during the
interviews (q.2.7, 3.2, 4.7).
Only in 1 county, big size employers expressed a different opinion, considering the measures are more or less
useless, since CES do not provide/send prospective employees. So the companies stated they have spent
additional own resources (funds, time, etc.) in order to recruit and educate newly employed people while “lots
of unemployed are registered with CES” (q.2.7).
Under these general statements on ALMPs, detailed aspects investigated and related feed-back are presented
in the following:
1. Is employment strategy/policy in place in Croatia?
FG National level
The National Action Plan for Employment (NAPE) was developed by a Task-Force, Working Group at national
level, involving relevant ministries, research institutions, some social partners; Annual Promotional Actions Plans
are developed on the basis of National Action Plan for Employment (NAPE). The Strategic Coherence Framework
2006-2013 was also developed and it includes employment issues, but Croatia still lacks of a real employment
strategy/policy (q.2.2).
51
Phare 2005 projec t
52
2. Is the Employment Policy the responsibilty of companies or of a ruling politic?
In 3 out of the 4 counties the major part of the interviewed employers (ca. 7o %) considered the Employment
Policy should be a joined responsibility of Government and companies. Government should be responsible
for the design of general Employment Policy framework while the companies should be responsible for
development/ implementation of Human Resources Development strategy at the company level, within the
general framework developed by the Government
Only in 1 county the major part of interviewed employers (67%) stated the design and implementation of the
Employment Policy should be solely Government’s responsibility while one-third (33%) considered employment
policy is to be managed both, by businesses, on micro (own business) level, while the government should
pursue it on macro (national) level (q.2.1)..
Focus Group (FG) National level
At the national level, participants in the FG expressed the opinion the employment strategy/policy should be
responsibility of all stakeholders/ social partners, and the approach in developing it should be the “bottom-up”
one. Government should be responsible for setting-up the general framework, including the legislation.
In real practice it can be noticed there is still lack of coordination and cooperation on employment issues and
some ministries/state relevant institutions lack of staff working in this field.
The most striking weakness in the chain is the inter-ministerial cooperation, still very poor (q.2.1).
3. Do the companies develop human resources (HR) strategy?
In 2 counties 58% of employers mentioned their companies have developed HR strategy, while in the other 2
cca. 63 % of interviewed employers stated they have no HR strategy developed.
Out of the total number of 64 employers participating in interviews, cca 14,1% of them mentioned they have no
Human Resources Development- HRD strategy for the moment but they plan to develop it (q.2.2).
Some of the employers, especially small size companies, being aware of importance of the HR strategy would
like to receive some support in developing it (q.6.2).
34% of respondents have developed HRD strategy, around 26% have no HRD but they plan to develop it while
40% have no HRD strategy developed (q. 16).
53
4. How the companies develop the employees’ training programmes/strategy?
In all 4 counties more than 50% of interviewed employers (65,7%) develop employees’ training strategy (as part of
the HRD companies strategy) ad-hoc or on demand and only 32,8% of them by regular needs assessment. Only
0,6 % of the companies use a combination of ad-hoc and regular needs assessment in developing employees’
training strategy (q.2.3).
61% of respondents organise training programmes for their staff ad-hoc/on demand and only 39 % by regular
needs assessment (q.17)
5. How the companies organise the training of the staff?
About 59% of the total employers participating in the interviews (in all 4 counties) organise the staff’s training
mainly by contracting training companies while 39% of them implement internal training programmes.
Some of the interviewed employers also mentioned they use both approaches, internal and external training
programmes (q.2.4).
33% of respondents mentioned their companies organise the training of their staff by internal programmes,
27% contracting training companies, 23% do not organise training of their staff and 17% use other ways
such as (q.18):
t“Old employees” train the new ones
tThrough performing regular work tasks under the supervision of a person in charge
tTraining through work - practical experience
tVarious seminars
tAcademy, business skills, courses (sales and repair) at business partners’ premises
tInternet, fairs, specialized texts and programmes
6. Have the companies any strategy of promotion for ageing people employment?
Employers are aware of major “advantages” of hiring aged people due to their reliability, loyalty, good working
habits, motivation, work experience and some times companies prefer to select such type of employees for their
vacancies. Still, none of the interviewed employers in all 4 counties developed a structured strategy promoting
employment of aged people (q.2.6).
Only around 9% of staff is of age 55 years and more, 25% of age 45-54 years old, 14% of age less than 25, the rest,
more than 52% in the age group 25-44 years (q.8)
Phare 2005 projec t
54
7. Is any work flexibility assured by the companies - part time/full time work? Gender issues? Are there
any obstacles in ensuring flexibility conditions?
In all 4 counties almost all employers expressed the opinion that work flexibility in terms of part-time/full-time
employment is possible to be applied (no major legal obstacle / constrains) but in reality is not “a practice”,
mainly due to:
t“ Work culture/tradition” (this is not standard procedure)
tLack of “employers’ creativity”
t“Lack of employees with necessary qualification/experience” and therefore companies need/require people
to work full-time/ “lack of staff” problem
tSpecific needs of the business (for instance construction goes often for extra hours) or the nature of
production process that require non-stop attendance at the assembly line;
tNo requests put forward by the employees;
tComplicated procedures, especially for small size companies
Employers also expressed their readiness to consider any kind of demand for flexible working conditions.
As for the gender issues it seems that the share of women in total number of employees is directly influenced by
the type of economical activity- e.g. big share of women in services, textile industry etc., smaller share of women
in construction, metal processing industry etc. (q.2.5)
tAround 63% of staff in the companies respondents are male and only 37 % are women (q.7).
tMore than 99% of staff in the companies, respondents, have “full-time” contracts and only 0,7% “part-time”
(q.10).
tAt the question if part-time work is possible 58% of respondents said yes and 42 % no (q.11).
t79% of staff in the same companies have “non fixed-term” (permanent) contracts and 21% “fixed-term”
contracts (q.10).
8. Are the ALMPs measures in compliance with the National Action Plan for Employment (NAPE)?
Interviews CES
All CES representatives consider the current ALMPs are in line with NAPE, as the measures have been established
in the frame of NAPE. It was also mentioned that 4 regional employment offices were directly involved in the
National Working Group responsible for the design of NAPE (q.2.8).
Focus Groups- 4 selected counties
Stakeholders participating in all FG presumed the ALMPs are or should be in line with Croatian NAPE, but they
had no detailed information on this aspect, so no opinion (q.3.8)..
55
9. Are the ALMPs/NAPE in compliance with European Employment Strategy (EES)
tAre the current ALMPs/NAPE promoting gender equality at the labour market and following the
principles of Gender Mainstreaming and employment equality (non-discrimination)?
tWhat kind of accompanying measures are in place in order to ensure full access of people to the
ALMPs measures: e.g. child-care measures, logistic measures such as part-time work /part time
training option etc.?
Interviews CES
Representatives of CES in 3 out of the 4 counties expressed the opinion the current ALMPs measures are in
compliance with EES. Current ALMPs/NAPE promotes gender equality on the labour market and follows the
principles of Gender Mainstreaming and employment equality (non-discrimination).
In 1 county it was also mentioned the ALMPs are in compliance with EES, but CES staff have this opinion because
“this was told by the CES central level”.
According with a general opinion of CES representatives, in all 4 counties, there are no accompanying measures
in place in order to ensure full access of people to the ALMPs measures, and related changes in the law are
necessary especially the ones referring to part time / flexible working conditions (q.2.9).
In 2 of the 4 FG, representatives of stakeholders presumed the current ALMPs are in compliance with EES, but
they did not know exactly.
In another county the stakeholders mentioned they understand the necessity of aligning the measures to the
EES, but they have not so many information on this aspect -“we don’t know too much”. In the same time some of
them considered the unemployment problems in Croatia are different than the ones in the EU (i.e. “it is two times
higher”) and that “alignment process should have been done in a more selective way, taken into consideration
the local/country reality”.
In another county, the stakeholders considered the current ALMPs are in full compliance with EES and formally,
the current ALMPs/NAPE promotes gender equality at the labour market, following the principles of Gender
Mainstreaming and Non-discrimination in employment.
As for the accompanying measures being in place in order to ensure full access of people to the ALMPs measures
in 1 county stakeholders mentioned they have some information about such type of measures (“they heard
about the existence of such measures”) but they have not enough details to come-up with a proper opinion.
In another county, stakeholders expressed the opinion that such type of accompanying measures are in place,
can be applied only by big company. Generally, for small size companies it is diffi cult or even impossible to
establish/apply such measures. In the same time stakeholders considered the appropriate work flexibility is also
hindered by too strict regulation/legislation as well as by over-regulation (q.3.9)..
Focus Group- National level
The current ALMPs measures are in line with the EES, Croatian NAPE being developed in the basis of EU
employment guidelines.
Some accompanying measures are in place, like the ones on child-care. Nevertheless it was stated that a system
of accompanying measures that would enable full access of people to the ALMPs measures is not in place, and
definitely not in place in the way it is in developed countries (q.3.7).
Phare 2005 projec t
56
10. Except the ALMPs implemented by the CES are there other ALMPs developed and implemented in
Croatia, by other ministries/ institutions etc.?
Some other ministries implement different ALMPs for different target groups. The different target groups and
measures are co-ordinated in the frame of NAPE, in order to avoid overlaps of measures/financial support for
the same target groups.
Ministry of Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship, for example implements some measures in order to
promote entrepreneurship, for start-ups of trades and crafts, loans for entrepreneurs etc. Ministry of Sea and
Tourism implements some incentives measures for employers in the islands, Ministry of War Veterans measures
addressing the war veterans, The Fund for Rehabilitation of Disabled People measures targeting this people,
some other measures are implemented by the Ministry of Health and Social Affaires (q.3.12)
11. How is/was the link between different ALMPs measures, implemented by different ministries/
institutions assured (avoiding over-laps etc.)?
Some other ministries implement different ALMPs for different target groups. The different target groups and
measures are co-ordinated in the frame of NAPE, in order to avoid overlaps of measures for the same target
groups. Moreover, the Agency for Protection of Market Competition is involved in approval of all measures, no
matter the implementing/funding institutions, so in this way measures are “co-ordinated”, funds are not spent
only for some target groups the other ones being left out of the support (q.3.13).
12. What was the involvement of stakeholders in designing the ALMPs measures, tripartite boardfunctions and responsibilities?
tDoes the tri-partism really work or is it only a formal exercise?
tAre the stakeholders willing to be involved in designing/monitoring of ALMPs process?
Interviews CES
Although as it was mentioned by representatives of CES the tripartitism works (in 3 out of the 4 counties), the
stakeholders were not directly involved in ALMPs design, or they have been involved only this year in some
discussions on budget proposals for example.
In 1 county it was stated the tripartitism is only a formal exercise and the stakeholders were not involved in
designing the ALMPs. Local stakeholders are willing to be involved in ALMPs process and they are well informed
on the needs at the county level, but they have no possibility/opportunity/authority to influence on the process
(q.2.5).
Almost all employers stated they were not involved in designing the ALMPs measures, they do not know how
the measures were designed and have not even been informed about the process of designing the ALMP
measures. The tri-partism concept is virtually unknown for employers, but once the idea was explained the
necessity of it was mostly recognised.
The employers’ general view of possible tri-partism is a positive one, and they feel employers should really be
involved in designing the ALMPs measures (q.3.1 and 3.3).
69% of employers respondents to the questionnaires mentioned they have not been involved, directly or by their
representatives, in planning/programming the ALMPs measures, 25% did not know about such involvement,
and only around 6% mentioned they have been involved (q.51).
The general opinion is that tripartitism at central level works, and it is not a “formal exercise”. The stakeholders’
involvement in designing ALMPs measures, at the central level was assured as the entire programme was
designed by the national working group/task force.
According with major opinions, local stakeholders were not involved in the process of designing ALMPs or this
was done only ex-post, without the opportunity of real intervention somewhere in the process.
General opinion in all 4 counties is that tripartism at the local level is limited to a “sort of general advisory” or it is a
“formal exercise” that is not enforced by legal framework or financial support. Moreover, in 1 county, stakeholders
participating in the FG did not know about the existence of the CES tripartite board. That’s why decentralized
process would be most welcome by all stakeholders, and in this way better possibility of their involvement in the
process of decision making. In the same time it was proposed the preparatory phase of ALMPs should be longer
so to allow institutions to better communicate and exchange of information (q.3.6).
Focus Groups- National level
CES national level established a working group (WG), with involvement of social partners. NAPE and the key
measures have been disseminated to the regional employment offi ces for related proposals, in a process of
stakeholders’ involvement at the local level; in the basis of feed-back received from the regional employment
offices, national WG sent their proposals to the WG/Task Force established by the Ministry of Economy, Labour
and Entrepreneurship. The final proposals were sent to the Agency for Protection of Market Competition, for
approval, especially on the financial aspects related to state- aid support to different companies. The ALMPs plan
was then sent to the Ministry of Finance for construction of related budget. The final plan including the budget
was sent to the Government for approval (q.3.6).
13. Was the process of designing and programming the ALMPs measures a “top-down” or a „bottom-up”
approach? I.e. Have the ALMPs measures been designed and programmed based on proposals from
local/county level or established by the central level alone?
Interviews CES
According with opinions expressed in all 4 counties the process of designing and programming the ALMP
measures was definitively a “top-down” process. However, it was mentioned the regional employment offices
have been asked for some proposals and received reports on activities of national working group. Instead no
feedback on specific proposals done by regional employment offices was provided to them so far (q.2.3).
All participants in the FG meetings expressed the opinion the process of designing and programming the
ALMPs measures was a “top-down” approach (some of them have no information about the approach), with
final decision taken by the central level (Government).
In 2 of the 4 FG, the participants in the meetings mentioned the process of designing and programming the
ALMPs had no “window” of opportunity for local proposals, there has been no opportunity for real involvement
of stakeholders and in most of the cases stakeholders learn about new acts, laws and regulations only when they
are approved already and published on Internet.
In another FG some representatives of stakeholders considered the ALMPs measures “have been imposed” to
the local level (q.3.1).
57
Phare 2005 projec t
58
Feed-back was similar to the one under topic 12, question 3.1- Focus Group national level (q.3.1).
14. How were the ALMPs measures designed and programmed? How were the target groups
(unemployed/employers) established? (needs analysis, SWOT analysis, data/statistics analysis, etc.);
Are the target groups the ones in real need for employment support?
Interviews CES
The ALMPs measures were designed for entire Croatia, at the country level, and adjusted according with relevant
EU guidelines and got approval of the Agency for Protection of Market Competition - it was mentioned in all 4
counties.
An Working Group/National Task Force composed by representatives of Central Government, CES central office,
trade unions, etc. have established the target groups for ALMP measures on basis of analysis of labour market
situation, structure of registered unemployment and on the basis on following information ::
tExisting data/statistics within the CES
tNational Policy – as it was the case with, for example, war veterans
tEU directives and guidelines
tProposal/recommendations of some regional employment offi ces
Regional/local employment offices had not a direct involvement in establishing target groups. However, as it
was mentioned in 1 county, CES staff in regional employment offices was asked to give their suggestions and
remarks on the measures and was informed about activities of the national working group/task force (q.2.1).
The target groups were in general well defined in the current ALMPs cycle, being the ones in real need for
employment support (q.5.1).
All employers in the 4 counties mentioned they do not know how the ALMPs target groups have been
established/identified and they had no directly involvement or by their representatives in this process (or they
do not know about this involvement) (q.3.4).
Still major part of employers participating in interviews considered the current ALMPs cover a wider range of
unemployed target groups (q.4.8)
Focus Groups – 4 selected counties
All participants in the 4 FG meetings (except the CES representatives) did not know how the target groups have
been established and mentioned they have not been involved in this process.
Still, in 1 county representatives of Economic Advisory Committee mentioned they gave some proposals to the
regional CES upon its request, and in another county the same approach was mentioned by the representatives
of employers’ associations (q.3.2).
With some exceptions, such as disabled and long term unemployed that should be better supported/activated,
the target groups were in general well defined in the opinion of stakeholders/social partners (q.6.1).
Focus Group- national level
The ALMPs target groups were identified by the NAPE; unemployment analysis (age groups, duration of
unemployment, educational attainment etc) at central and regional level has been done in order to establish
the target groups of ALMPs (q.3.2).
15. How were shaped different incentives (level of incentives) related to different target groups of the
ALMPs measures? Has been considered the level of incentives by different conditions in different
counties (maybe bigger in one county where the level of incomes is bigger and smaller in other
counties where the level of incomes is smaller)?
Interviews CES
As it was mentioned in all 4 counties the level of ALMPs incentives was established at national level. Government
and the national working group/task force decided the level of incentives for all ALMPs measures, for Croatia
as a whole, and then they decided the number of beneficiaries (unemployed), and allocation of financial funds
for each ALMP measure. This is so called “strategic plan”, which is set at the beginning of each year, but can be
adjusted over the year.
According with CES staff in 1 county, the incentives for different target groups have been established mainly
based on their “employability problem”, meaning that the longer the period of unemployment of certain target
group is and more obstacles were identified for employment of the possible target group–more “financially
supported” the measure was.
Regional/counties differences related to the level of specific average incomes and unemployment were not
taken into consideration when designing the level of incentives for different target groups. As it was mentioned
in 1 county, even though it was recognised – the need for differentiation – as long as the current legal framework
is in place (Law on minimum wage, Law on state aid, Law on areas of special state concern) no differences are
possible because the practice of possible differentiation in wages is not stipulated in the legal framework in
place. That’s why, according with opinion of CES staff in that county, cca. 15% of employers abandoned the
measures as they have not been able to ensure the wages stipulated by the ALMPs measures that are higher
than the average usual wages in that county. This is mostly the situation specific for small businesses (q.2.2).
It was also mentioned that the level of incentives is higher in the current cycle of ALMPs (q.3.9)
In all counties employers did not know how incentives were shaped, nor if /or level of incentives is different
around the counties, or how it was defined, but they “think” the amounts/incentives are the same all over
Croatia.
In 1 county employers underlined there are quite big differences between the level of wages in that county
compared with the one in Zagreb, or between different industrial sectors and these differences have not been
considered when the level of ALMPs incentives has been established (q.3.5).
The participants in all 4 FG did not know how the incentives were established/shaped. They also mentioned
there are no differentiations according with specific counties conditions/characteristics and in 2 Focus Groups it
was mentioned the need of differentiation by counties and measures. In the same FGs, it was also pointed out a
legal framework change as a necessary precondition to any localization of ALMPs measures (q.3.3). .
59
Phare 2005 projec t
60
Focus Group - National level
The level of incentives was established on the basis of relevant indicators national level- on different salaries
basis at the national level. Aspects related to state aid support and equal chances of companies on the market
were taken into consideration (q.3.2).
See also feed-back given under topic 12, question 3.1- Focus group national level.
16. Was the process of budget allocation per each measure (national level, county level) based on some
information? What information was considered in making the budget allocation per measures at the
national level, per counties and measures?
tWas the process of budget allocation per counties and measures (at the county level) a negotiation
process? If yes what kind of negotiations?
– Between different stakeholders
– Between central and regional level of CES .
tBudget should be centralised/decentralised? Is it possible to adjust the budget to the counties
needs (shifts between measures/counties)?
Interviews CES
The budget allocation per each measure has been defined at the national level. There was no budget allocation
per each county so there was no negotiation between central and regional level of CES, and as far as regional
office employees know, there were no negotiations on budget allocation per measures and/or between
stakeholders.
In general the regional employment offi ces have no information on how the budget was established per each
measure. Re-allocation of funds between counties and/or measures is possible without limits –provided funds
are available.
Still, in 1 county, regional employment office mentioned they assume the budget allocation per each measure
was established on the basis of number of possible target population.
In another county it was mentioned the budget allocation is based, in principle, on previous year information
in terms of number of unemployed participating in the measures, the amount of paid subsidies/funds, all levels
being increased with 20% margin for annual possible growth (q.2.4).
According with opinions expressed in all 4 counties the budget decentralisation was not a highly discussed/
demanding issue, and did not raised any problems in budget allocation/re-allocation between counties and/
or measures mainly due to the fact that not all available financial resources were used in the previous year. The
budget is centralised, but the CES central level applies a sort of “soft budgeting allocation” in respect to regional
offices/counties needs- allocation of funds in relations with the specific demand- or “first come- first served
approach”. Changes were possible even between measures.
Still, the CES representatives in all 4 counties expressed the opinion that the decision on how to distribute total
funds by measures should be the responsibility of the regional level of CES, as their knowledge of the local
situation is of extreme importance. The regional employment offices already proposed budget decentralisation
as well as allocation of more funds to the counties less developed. All these aspects will become real issues if the
funds for ALMPs will be exhausted /limited in the future (q.3.3).
Stakeholders participating in all 4 FG have no information on the process of budget allocation per each measure
and per each county (q.3.4).
Some of the stakeholders participating in the FG mentioned they have no reliable information on this aspect,
some of them considered the centralised system worked quite well, some of them replied the budget is definitely
not decentralised.
Stakeholders’ representatives in 2 counties expressed the opinion the ALMPs budget should be designed since
the beginning according with counties needs (q.4.3).
The level of incentives was established on the basis of relevant indicators national level- on different salaries
basis at the national level. It was no budget allocation per counties.
The budget allocation per counties is planned to be introduced in the year 2008 (q.3.4 and 3.5).
17. Are the ALMPs measures in line with counties characteristics & needs?
t"SFdifferences between the counties taken into consideration in ALMPs? (LM, unemployment)
In 3 counties stakeholders considered ALMPs are not in line with counties specific needs and characteristics.
Specific counties differences (average wages level, income per capita, number of users of welfare system) are
analysed at the national (and even local level) but these differences are not taken into consideration when
designing the local needs. According with stakeholders/social partners’ opinion local needs might be higher
in some counties than in the rest of the country and if the support stays the same the gap will be widen
furthermore.
The differences and specific needs are only considered in the measure targeted to Roma public works where
counties were allowed to allocate more funds according to the percentage of minority specific population.
In 1 county, participants in the FG mentioned they do not know very well the measures but they appreciated
the measures are satisfactory (q.3.5).
“From implementation we could noticed some differences, for example the biggest number of participants
in big centres like Zagreb. The measures have been designed to address, in the first place, the general
needs of special groups of unemployed” (q.3.9).
18. Are the current ALMPs in line with employers needs? What are the employers’ needs in terms of
measures to support employment and staff development?
Most of the interviewed employers in all 4 counties considered “the measures to be good” and generally the
ALMPs measures are in line with employers’ needs, but there is also a need for improvement. The employers
emphasized that they gave their opinion on this aspect only in relation to the AMLPs measures they have
benefited, without being able to have a feed-back on all measures.
As for the employers’ needs in terms of measures to support employment and staff development the following
were pointed out (q.3.2):
t“Additional support to training, retraining, up-dating the employees/unemployed skills, either through
creation of a new measure or developing the existing ones”;
61
Phare 2005 projec t
62
t“As sometimes companies face some problems with the group of young employees it is expected
from CES to take actions in this field in order to better prepare young people for work”, to improve
their “work culture”
t“CES to provide support in finding adequate persons to be employed- and here most mentioned
more support to work force mobility- possible measures could relate to co-financing travelling,
accommodation and/or food costs for such new employed from another regions”
t “CES should be more supportive to companies, especially by providing a better pre-selection of
candidates for related vacancies, pre-selection that should be in line with employers’ requirements” (a
problem typicall for small size businesses)
t“Successful measures should be co-financed for a longer period in the future” (small companies)
t“Better and more detailed information on employer’s eligibility/procedures”
t“Continuity in using/funding the ALMPs measures” - period from November to March/April when
funds are not available
tEligibility criteria for unemployed – “length of unemployment registration with CES for the candidates/
unemployed should be shorter” – proposal of 2 months
t“Eligibility criteria for companies (average number of employed people in the previous 12 months)
should be changed as for the moment reduce the opportunities of some companies to benefit of
ALMPs measures”
t“Conditionality should be less demanding – it is diffi cult for employers/companies to maintain the
same number of employees for the requested period, many of employees leave the companies in
searching better paid jobs”
As stated by participants the current ALMPs measures “have been designed to be in line with the needs of
unemployed, not employers” (q.3.8).
19. How is the success of the ALMPs defined and assessed/measured? What are the main criteria for
success?
Interviews CES
The number of employed people and the total amount of subsidies/funds spent annually are the main criteria
measuring the success of ALMPs, as it was mentioned by all interviewed regional employment offi ces.
In 1 of the 4 counties it was also mentioned more IT support is necessary in order to allow detailed analysis
for example breakdown of employment by gender, age-groups, qualifications and economical sectors that
currently is not analysed in detail. The analysis should also include indicators trends or economic and financial
impact on businesses.
The employment situation of beneficiaries (ex unemployed) at the end of conditionality criteria, in 6 months
time after finishing training, should also be monitored /analysed when assessing the success of ALMPs measures
- pointed out in 2 of the 4 counties.
In 1 county the regional employment offi ce mentioned there was no predetermined goal or definition of
ALMPs success, mainly due to the fact that funds for measures and also conditions (eligibility and conditionality)
were not known in advance and were changed from year to year. Since eligibility criteria and conditionality
for employers are proven to be the main factors that decide the number of beneficiaries in the end, regional
employment offi ces could not define success firmly or well in advance. The same offi ce was of the opinion that
decentralisation could create better conditions for budget allocations at the regional/local level, definition of
success and indicators of success (q.2.6).
20. How was the publicity of the ALMPs measures organised?
Interviews CES
The main tools/channels for ALMPs publicity used by employment offi ces are:
t.FEJBMPDBMSBEJP57OFXTQBQFSTFUD
t1SPNPUJPOBMNBUFSJBMCSPDIVSFTnZFSTFUD
t3PVOEUBCMFTXJUIEJõFSFOUTUBLFIPMEFST
t$&4XFCTJUF
t*OGPSNBUJPOEJTQMBDFEPOUIFCPBSETPGFNQMPZNFOUPöDFT
Still, in 1 county it was mentioned the ALMPs publicity is done ad-hoc, it seems there is no strategic plan for it,
and each of the employment offices has its own approach. Regional/local CES offices lack in-house capacity and
financial support (budget limits) for professionally planned and implemented marketing actions (q.2.7).
In general it was concluded that big and medium-size private companies as well as public institutions (state
owned) have an “easy” access to the relevant information, obtained either directly form CES or via website, media
etc.
In the group of small companies the answers ranged from “non-sufficient” to “satisfactory” ALMPs publicity. Very
often private networks are the most efficient means of obtaining information for small companies.
Moreover, as it was mentioned in 2 of the 4 counties, the available information is “too formal”, and therefore
“too boring” to attract the employers’ attention and additional effort is necessary to improve publicity and
dissemination of related information (q.3.6).
Employers also considered the publicity was better organised for the previous cycle of ALMPS than for the
current one (q.4.8, and 4.9).
The most used way to find information about employment subsidies/public works was the mass-media, press,
internet - 37% of answers options, around 30% from information received from CES (displaced information or
during the counselling sessions), 28% privately (friends, colleagues etc.), and information received from CES
(during the counselling or displaced) as well as other sources-5% (q.29).
Participants in all 4 FG found the related information on ALMPs in different ways. Some of them have noticed
information in media, some were particularly looking for it on the Internet, some received the CES monthly
statistical bulletin (but admit they “don’t read them”) and some as for example the Chambers of Commerce
advise their members to contact the CES.
General view was that information/publicity was done, still it should be improved in the way it is presented and
also funds have to be allocated in order to have a proper and institutionalised publicity/marketing strategy at
central as well as regional/local level (q.3.7).
63
Phare 2005 projec t
64
4.2.1 Summary
4.2.1.1 General statement on ALMPs
The major part of respondents appreciated that in general, the current ALMPs measures are good, useful and
in the same time necessary as they promote:
t#FUUFSFNQMPZNFOUPQQPSUVOJUJFT
t0QQPSUVOJUZGPSEFWFMPQNFOU
t0QQPSUVOJUZGPSBDRVJSJOHXPSLFYQFSJFODFBOEOFXTLJMMTBOE
t1FPQMFCFDBNFNPSFDPOmEFOUBCPVUFNQMPZNFOUTUBUVT
t4FMGFTUFFNJNQSPWFEPSNFBTVSFTDPOUSJCVUFEUPSFEVDJOHVOFNQMPZNFOUFUD
Major part of beneficiaries of the measures (individuals and employers) would recommend the measures to
friends, colleagues and major part of employers will use measures in the future.
4.2.1.2 Employment policy in Croatia, Human Resources Development (HRD) strategy in companies
A lot of documents have been developed in the previous years such as: NAPE, Annual Employment Actions Plans
on the basis of NAPE, the Strategic Coherence Framework 2006-2013 or the Regional Operational Plans (ROPs)
that include employment issues, but Croatia still lacks of a comprehensive Employment Policy (as it was stated
in Focus Group national level). Moreover, in real practice there is still lack of coordination and cooperation on
employment issues and in some ministries/state relevant institutions lack of staff working in this field. The most
striking weakness in the chain, at the central level, is the poor inter-ministerial cooperation.
All respondents expressed the opinion the Employment Policy should be a joined responsibility of Government
and companies. Government should be responsible for the design of general Employment Policy framework while
the companies should be responsible for development/ implementation of Human Resources Development
strategy at the company level.
More than 50% of employers, respondents, have no Human Resources Development strategy, and if in place, staff
training strategy is developed mainly ad-hoc or on demand. It seems that many of the companies are aware of the
importance of a HRD strategy within the companies, some of them planned to develop such strategies, some
of them, especially the SMEs feel they need some support in developing such strategies and proposed this support
comes from CES.
Moreover, employers are aware of major “advantages” of hiring aged people due to their reliability, loyalty, good
working habits, motivation, work experience but none of the interviewed employers in all 4 counties developed
a structured strategy promoting employment of aged people and only around 9% of staff of companies
respondents to the questionnaires is of age 55 years and more.
In respect to the gender issues it seems that the share of women in total number of employees is directly
influenced by the type of economical activity- e.g. big share of women in services, textile industry etc., smaller
share of women in construction, metal processing industry etc. and as it is in practice (at least some evidences)
around 63% of staff in the companies respondents are male and only 37 % are women.
4.2.1.3 Accompanying measures in order to ensure full access of people to the ALMPs measures
As for the accompanying measures in order to ensure full access of people to the ALMPs measures (e.g. childcare measures, part-time work /part time training option etc.) some, like the ones on child-care are in place.
Moreover, major part of interviewed employers expressed the opinion that work flexibility in terms of part-time/
full-time employment is possible to be applied (no major legal obstacle / constrains) but in reality is not “a practice”
(more than 99% of staff in the companies, respondents, are full-time contracts and only 0,7% part-time) and
this mainly because of: employment culture/tradition (this is not “usual”), lack of staff problem, no requests put
forward by the employees, complicated procedures especially for small size companies.
Some of the stakeholders stated that such type of accompanying measures are in place, or possible to be
applied only in big companies. Generally, for small size companies it is diffi cult or even impossible to establish/
apply such measures. In the same time stakeholders considered the appropriate work flexibility is also hindered
by too strict regulation/legislation as well as by over-regulation.
The general conclusion across the respondents (is that a system of accompanying measures in order to allow
full access of people to the ALMPs measures is not in place, definitely not in place in the way it is in developed
countries and changes, especially in the related legislation, are necessary.
4.2.1.4 The process of programming/designing the measures, ALMPs and NAPE, EES, promotion of gender
mainstreaming and employment equality
There was also a general agreement across all categories of respondents that the current ALMPs were
better programmed and designed than the previous ones, a better coordination of all ALMPs measures,
implemented by different institutions/ ministries has been assured in the frame of NAPE.
Croatian NAPE was elaborated in the basis of EU employment guidelines and European Employment Strategy. As the
current ALMPs measures have been established in the frame of NAPE they are in line with it, thus, as it was stated
mainly by CES representatives and stakeholders, national level, current ALMPs/NAPE generally promotes gender
equality at the labour market and follows the principles of Gender Mainstreaming and Non-discrimination.
Major part of the stakeholders/social partners at the regional/county level did not know if the ALMPs are in line
with NAPE or EES, or some only “presumed” this is the case. In the same time some of the stakeholders considered
the unemployment problems in Croatia are different than the ones in the EU (for ex. it is two times higher) and
demanded the “alignment process” should be done in a more selective way, thus taken into consideration the
local/country reality.
4.2.1.5 Stakeholders/social partners’involvement in designing/programming the ALMPs, social partnership,
stakeholders willingness to be involved in programming the ALMPs
At the national level the stakeholders/ social partners’ involvement in designing NAPE and ALMPs measures
has been assured in the form of a Working Group within CES and a National Task Force in the Ministry of Economy,
Labour and Entrepreneurship, responsible for developing related proposals. NAPE and the key measures have
been disseminated to some the regional employment offi ces for related proposals.
At the regional/local level the process of programming/designing the ALMPs measures was perceived as
being definitely a “top-down” approach. Employers as well as relevant stakeholders/ social partners (with
few exceptions) at the regional/county level mentioned they practically had no involvement in the process,
neither directly nor by their representatives, and in most of the cases stakeholders/social partners learn about
new acts, laws or regulations only when they are already approved and published on Internet. Major part of
stakeholders/social partners regional/ county level did not know how the target groups were defined, how the
level of incentives has been established, what kind of information was used in programming/ designing the
measures.
According with local stakeholders/social partners’ feed-back, tripartitism at the central level seems to work but at the
regional/county/local level it is limited to a “sort of general advisory” or it is a simple formal exercise.
Nevertheless, local stakeholders/social partners are willing to be involved in ALMPs process and they are well informed
on the needs at the county level, but according with their opinion, under the current situation they have no
possibility/opportunity/authority to influence on the process. For employers the tri-partism concept is virtually
65
Phare 2005 projec t
66
unknown, but once the idea was explained the necessity of it was mostly recognised. The employers’ general view
of possible tri-partism is a positive one; employers feel they should really be involved in designing the ALMPs measures.
That hat’s why decentralized process and „bottom-up approach” was most welcome by all respondents and in this
way better possibility of their involvement in the process of decision making. In the same time, as it was proposed,
the preparatory phase of ALMPs should be longer so to allow institutions/stakeholders/social partners to better
communicate and exchange of information.
4.2.1.6 ALMPs target groups
The ALMPs measures were designed to address general unemployment issues for entire Croatia, on the country
level. The ALMPs target groups have been identified by NAPE, on the basis of some analysis of unemployment
situation, other national policies and some proposals of the regional CES; in addition, EU directives and employment
guidelines have been considered when designing/establishing the ALMPs and the target population.
Major part of respondents, regional employment offi ces, stated they had no direct involvement in the process
of identifying/defining the target groups.
With some exception (i.e disabled people, long-term unemployed should be better supported in the future)
the ALMPs target groups were perceived, by major part of respondents as being well defined and matching
those in real need for employment support. Employers also considered the current ALMPs cover a wider range
of target groups than the previous cycle, and generally are in line with employers’ needs.
4.2.1.7 ALMPs incentives
The level of incentives (e.g. the financial support given per head of target group and per measure) was
established for Croatia as a whole, on the basis of relevant indicators at national level- different wage
levels by type of education /occupations at the country level. As described by the CES regional offices The
Government and the national working group/task force decided the level of incentives for all ALMPs measures
and Croatia as a whole, as well as the number of beneficiaries (unemployed) and budget allocation for each
measure. This is so called “strategic plan”, which is set at the beginning of each year, but can be adjusted over the
year. Aspects related to state aid support and equal competition policies were also taken into consideration.
According with opinions of almost all target evaluation population, regional/ counties differences related
to the level of specific average incomes and unemployment were not taken into consideration when
designing the level of incentives for different target groups. That’s why, as it was mentioned in 1 county, 15%
of employers abandoned the measures as they have not been able to ensure the wages stipulated by the ALMPs
measures that are higher than the average usual wages in that county. This is mostly the situation specific for
small businesses.
Nevertheless, with some exceptions, the level of incentives was appreciated as being higher in the current cycle
than it was in the previous cycle of ALMPs.
4.2.1.8 The ALMPs budget/budget allocation per measures and counties
The ALMPs budget and budget allocation for each measure has been defined at national level. This was
established on the basis of relevant indicators national level- i.e salaries at the national level, possible
number of participants in different measures etc. It was no budget allocation per counties that is planned
to be introduced soon, and as far as regional office employees know, there were no negotiations on budget
allocation per measures, counties and/or between stakeholders.
The ALMPs budget is centralised. The budget allocation is done on the principle of “first came- first served”
what has been considered by some counterparts kind of “soft budgeting procedures”” in respect to regional
offices/counties needs- allocation of funds in relations with the specific request. As the funds for ALMPs were
still available and not yet exhausted, this „soft” approach of „budget allocation” made possible different changes,
even between measures, and the issue of budget decentralisation was not a high priority.
In general at the regional level there is no specific information or no information at all in the case of stakeholders/
social partners on how the budget was established per each measure.
Stakeholders in 1 county considered the centralised system worked quite well.
Nevertheless many stakeholders’ representatives and major part of representatives of CES regional expressed the
opinion the ALMPs budget should be designed since the beginning according with counties need, and so should be
decentralised.
4.2.1.9 ALMPs and counties characteristics/needs, ALMPs and employers’needs
According with FG national level the ALMPs measures have been designed to address, primarily, the general
needs of special groups of unemployed, to cover the needs of Croatia as a whole.
Although major part of employers appreciated measures are good and in line with their needs, under the
condition of further improvement in some aspects, major part of the respondents at the regional/county level
considered ALMPs are not in line with counties specific characteristics and needs. As respondents mentioned
specific counties differences (average wages level, income per capita, number of users of welfare system) are
analysed at the national and local level but these differences are not taken into consideration when designing/
programming the measures, when establishing the level of incentives. Local needs might be higher in some
counties than in the rest of the country and if the support stays the same the gap will be widen furthermore.
The differences and specific needs are only considered in the measure targeted to Roma public works where
counties were allowed to allocate more funds according to the percentage of minority specific population.
Respondents expressed the opinion measures should be programmed according to each county needs, as there are
big regional differences in Croatia
4.2.1.10 Definition, assessment and measurement of ALMPs success
Currently the number of employed people and the total amount of subsidies/funds spent annually are the
main criteria measuring the success of ALMPs. Some of the CES representatives were of opinion that it was no
predetermined goal or definition of ALMPs success, mainly due to the fact that funds for measures and also conditions
(eligibility and conditionality) were not known in advance and were changed from year to year.
In some counties CES representatives mentioned the IT support should be improved in order to allow more
detailed analysis of results of ALMPs and the employment situation of beneficiaries (ex unemployed) at the end
of conditionality criteria, in 6 months time after finishing training, should also be monitored /analysed when
assessing the success of ALMPs measures.
4.2.1.11 Publicity/transparency of ALMPs
A general agreement across all the respondents was that to some extent publicity of ALMPs measures was
organised but employers considered the publicity was better organised for the previous cycle of ALMPs than for the
current one.
However, the available information is perceived, especially by the employers as being “too formal”, and
therefore “too boring” to attract the public attention and additional effort is necessary to improve publicity
and dissemination of related information, especially at the regional/county/local level. Moreover, according
with some of the opinions expressed during the CES interviews the ALMPs publicity is done ad-hoc, it seems
there is no strategic plan for it, and each of the employment offices has its own approach. Regional/county CES offices
feel they lack in-house capacity and financial support (budget limits) for marketing actions so there is a big need for
improvement in this respect.
67
Phare 2005 projec t
68
4.3 Implementation of ALMPs
Under this topic the more specific investigated elements and feed-back received are the following:
1. How was the access to the measures when considering procedures, eligibility and conditionality
criteria (easy to work with, too bureaucratic, too many documents and checks etc.)?
tAre the procedures transparent enough?
Interviews CES
CES representatives in all 4 counties appreciated the procedures are “acceptable”, they are absolutely transparent
and in case of necessity Regional CES provides additional information/explanation.
The access to the measures significantly improved in the period 2006-2007 compared with the previous cycle
of ALMPs measures. It was also mentioned by CES representatives the employers show tendency to criticize the
procedures, that there are too many documents requested in order to be able to benefit from the measures.
The employers’ suggestion is that the Regional CES directly networks with other institutions (such are Tax Office
or REGOS) and ask for requested information, so employers are not anymore requested to obtain and present
different documents to prove their eligibility for ALMPs measures (q.3.1).
The procedures improved compared with the previous cycle of ALMPs, was a general opinion of almost all
employers in all 4 counties – “procedures including contracting are transparent and quite clear”.
The major employers’ criticism was directed at obligations to submit too many documents for checking/ proofs,
when applying for the measures but also for monitoring during the implementation phase. In this respect, the
main proposal was CES to network with other state offices/institutions (tax offices, REGOS, Ministry of Finance,
Pension, Fund etc) and obtain directly, if possible on-line, the necessary documents/certification that employers
fulfil the eligibility criteria.
In the same time, the employers, beneficiaries of more than one measure, mentioned 1 dossier/one “guarantee
(jamstvo)” with all necessary documents, would be enough to cover all the measures.
Additionally, small companies raised their “time and money” problem, as they have to spend quite a long time
to obtain and provide necessary documents, and the costs are not insignificant for them (for example, costs of
the notaries).
Regarding the eligibility and conditionality criteria the major part of interviewed employers in 1 county expressed
the opinion the conditionality matrix for current ALMPs is more complicated and restrictive than it was for the
2002-05 measures.
Major difficulties in fulfilling eligibility and conditionality criteria, mentioned by employers in all 4 counties, are
the following:
t&MJHJCJMJUZDSJUFSJPOPSNPOUITPGSFHJTUFSFEVOFNQMPZNFOUSFTUSJDUJPOPGQPUFOUJBMCFOFmDJBSJFT
and
t%JöDVMUJFTFTQFDJBMMZJOmOEJOHSFQMBDFNFOUTGPSJOJUJBMMZIJSFETVCTJEJTFEVOFNQMPZFE
t$POEJUJPOBMJUZ BOE QSPDFEVSFT TIPVME CF NPSF nFYJCMF JO PSEFS UP BMMPX TPNF LJOE PGiQSPCBUJPO
working period” of e.g. 1 month;
t&MJHJCJMJUZDSJUFSJBGPSDPNQBOJFTUPPSFTUSJDUJWF
– Average increase in number of employees in the previous 12 months and/or investment in new
equipment
– Restrictions in applying, especially for those companies with seasonal activities (like e.g. tourism,
construction, agriculture) as seasonal business is difficult to show continuos increase over previous
12 months
tMaintaining “additional employment” - conditionality criterion, i.e. increase in number of the job
openings for next 3 or 2 years.
– This is difficult to be fulfilled as it implies to find replacement people with qualification matching
the employers’ requirements on a market that has a shortage of qualified people looking for jobs
t/VNCFSPGQPTTJCMFFNQMPZNFOUTVCTJEJFTBSFMJNJUFEJODBTFPGOFXMZSFHJTUFSFEDSBGUTBOEUSBEFT
just one for a start-up craft, two for a Ltd start-up - regardless of total number of employees
t4PNFFNQMPZFSTFODPVOUFSFEEJöDVMUJFTJOFNQMPZJOH3PNBQFPQMFGPSQVCMJDXPSLT
t*OBDDFTTJCJMJUZPGNFBTVSFTJOUIFQFSJPE/PWFNCFSUP.BSDI"QSJMXBTWFSZVOQMFBTBOUGPSBMMUIPTF
who experienced it; a solution for continuity of measures should be found (q.4.1)
53% of respondents to the specific question mentioned the procedures are easy to go, for 37% the procedures
are not so easy but they are manageable for them and only for around 10% procedures are very complicated
and bureaucratic (q.23).
The major problems encountered by employers in the process of application and benefiting of employment
subsidies are: for 25% of employers eligibility criteria are too complicated, 22% encountered diffi culties
in recruiting target groups, 16% - difficulties in access to sources of information on ALMPs measures, 15% difficulties in fulfilling the conditionality, 6% problems of communication / cooperating with CES, 16% other
problems (q.24).
61% of respondents appreciated procedures improved (a lot, fairly, medium extent) in the current cycle of
measures comparing with the previous one, 26% - to some extent and only 13 % saw no improvement (q.36).
The rules for employment incentives have been appreciated as being suffi ciently transparent by 91% of employers,
respondents to the questionnaires. Only 9% of them considered the rules are not sufficiently transparent; 16%
of those employers considering the rules are not suffi ciently transparent mentioned the access to sources of
information on ALMPs measures was difficult, 40% - eligibility criteria are too complicated or had difficulties
in fulfilling conditionality, 22% had difficulties in recruiting target groups, 6 % - problems of communication /
cooperating with CES, 16% other problems (q.27)..
Focus Groups-4 selected counties
The different stakeholders expressed different opinions in this aspect, but major part of them concluded that
procedures have been improved in the current cycle compared with the previous cycle of ALMPs measures.
Still, according to NGO representatives in 1 county, the procedures are complicated, especially when employing
disabled persons, when lots of documents are necessary, and people don’t believe they would get money from
the state.
In another FG, representatives of county authorities considered, in the basis of the feed-back received from
employers benefiting of the current ALMPs, the procedures are quite complicated, with too many requests/
documents to be provided.
In another county, stakeholders appreciated the procedures are not so complicated but they become
complicated in administrative practice, in the same time the access criteria can be improved.
69
Phare 2005 projec t
70
Another issue raised by the Association of Unemployed, in 1 FG, was the one of NGOs that are not anymore
eligible for ALMPs in the current cycle, while they were in the previous cycle of measures. And in this respect, the
association considers the access to the measures was better in the previous cycle and thus a higher number of
employers were able to use the ALMPs (q.4.1).
2. Was it difficult to fulfil the conditionality of AMPs measures -e.g. assurance of minimum wage etc.
Except the difficulties already mentioned under question 4.1, employers in 3 counties considered they did not
encountered major problems related to the minimum wage requirement.
In 2 counties, the interviewed employers (especially big and medium-size employers – i.e. in construction or
metallurgy branches) expressed the opinion that for companies it is less a problem to finance the salary, than it
is to find adequate and willing-to-work employees, or substitute persons in case the initially employed people
quite the subsidised jobs.
In 1 county almost all interviewed employers mentioned they had serious problems with the difference in wage
levels set out by the ALMPs subsidies/employment incentives. Private sector was more hit by this problem than
the public one where the average wages are higher for a similar level of expertise and experience. In some cases,
minimum wages caused a stir between the old and new employees because it happened that new are better
paid than the old ones (q.4.4).
3. Experience with employers, what were - if any - the major difficulties of employers in accessing the
measures? (documents to be provided, different checking, fulfilling the eligibility and conditionality
etc., difficulties of employers in monitoring the implementation of measures).)
Interviews CES
According to experience of CES regional employment offices in implementing the ALMPs measures, the general
opinion was that employers did not face big diffi culties in accessing the ALMPs measures, but a lot of documents
are to be provided by them. Getting all the documents established by the procedures is time- consuming, and
also money problem for employers that often complained in relation to this aspect.
In addition to this aspect, some eligibility criteria, especially the new ones comparing with the previous cycle of
ALMPs, mentioned in all 4 counties, were found difficult to be fulfilled by employers:
t*ODSFBTFPGBWFSBHFBEEJUJPOBMFNQMPZNFOUJOSFMBUJPOUPQSFWJPVTZFBSBOEPS
t*ODSFBTFPGDBQJUBMJOWFTUNFOUFMJHJCJMJUZDSJUFSJPOGPSDPNQBOJFTXJUIOPJODSFBTFPGBWFSBHFOVNCFS
of employees
t*O UIF DBTF PG .FBTVSF /P o 1VCMJD XPSLT UIF TVCTJEZ QSPWJEFE CZ UIF "-.1T JT OPU FOPVHI
motivating employers – “assurance of 50 % of co-financing salaries is a big problem especially for the
underdeveloped local governments”
As for monitoring, it seems employers had no major problems but often CES has to remind employers to send
the required documents/reports.
A problem encountered by employers in implementing the measures was the one of replacement of initially
hired unemployed, for reasons already mentioned (q.3.6).
71
4. Experience with the target groups of the ALMPs measures- unemployed persons:
t8BTJUEJöDVMUGPS$&4FNQMPZFSTUPmOEVOFNQMPZFEXIPNBUDIFERVBMJmDBUJPOTSFRVJSFEBWBJMBCMF
for work - are the unemployed really willing to get a job, are they active in searching a job?
t5IFDBQBDJUZBQUOFTT
PGVOFNQMPZFEUPQFSGPSNUIFJSKPCT
t5IF FYUFOU UP XIJDI UIF VOFNQMPZFE RVBMJmDBUJPOT BOE TLJMMT BSF JO MJOF XJUI KPC SFRVJSFNFOUT
problems encountered etc.
Interviews CES
The general approach (mentioned in all 4 counties) was that employers found themselves the candidates
(unemployed of the specific target groups) for the jobs subsidised by the ALMPs measures. In this way CES did
not encounter big problems in the initial phase of implementing ALMPs/hiring people of the target population.
The real difficulties appeared when employers needed replacement of initially hired unemployed (persons
quitting the subsidised jobs), considering also the period for replacement established by the procedures. These
difficulties were related first of all to the existing mismatch between employer’s needs in terms of qualified staff
and the qualification structure of the unemployed.
In the same time, according with CES representative’s opinion many of unemployed register with CES in order
to become eligible for some type of social benefits or support (non-regular students, retired people, mothers,
etc.). These categories of unemployed are not really looking for jobs, are not motivated to get employment, as
the social benefits are equal with possible salaries (quite low in some particular counties).
Some of the regional employment offices considered the legislation in place has to be reviewed in order to
avoid such situations and or to” reward”, to better motivate the unemployed who are really willing to work and/
or to get new qualifications (q.3.5).
The majority of the interviewed employers mentioned they try to find themselves the suitable persons
(unemployed of specific targets) for the subsidised jobs, and not only for subsidised jobs, using their own
“networks”- employees, colleagues, friends, family etc.
In relation to difficulties in finding suitable unemployed in terms of necessary qualifications/skills, availability to
work the employers’ judgement was that many of unemployed would register with CES in order to become eligible
for some type of social benefits or support, but were not really looking for jobs, nor motivated to get employment, as
the social benefits are equal or even higher than the potential salaries (quite low in some particular counties). And in
this respect the main suggestion was to review the legislation in place in order to avoid such situations and/or to
”reward” and better motivate the unemployed who are “really willing” to work and/or to get new qualifications.
Due to aspects mentioned above many of employers granted CES is confronted with real difficulties in making a proper
pre-selection and sending suitable candidates for vacancies, and that’s why, especially small size companies were
not satisfied with pre-selection services provided by CES. Same employers also considered the form to announce
the vacancies should be improved, so to include more detailed requirements for the job vacancies (q.4.5).
52% of employers, respondents use the direct contact to recruit their staff, around 33% use Croatian Employment
Services, 14% -media and 1% other agents. (q.14)
The fact that the selection of people of target population was done directly by employers is confirmed by the
questionnaires; 68% of employers mentioned the selection of unemployed for recruitment was done by their
Phare 2005 projec t
72
company, 26% did the selection together with CES, for 5% the selection process was changed from case to case
and only 1% did the selection via CES (q.25).
69% of employers, respondents of questionnaires appreciated they had no major problems in recruiting the
unemployed of ALMPs target population, 31% encountered some problems. The most common problems
encountered by employers are the following: “it is difficult to find qualified workers in line with the needs of
companies”/mismatches between the qualifications needed by employers and the ones offered by the labour
force, “unemployed are low qualified, not willing to work, not experienced, with big expectations in terms of
wages, arrogant”, etc. (q.40).
Except these difficulties the most recent problems encountered by employers in the recent past in recruiting the
necessary staff, in general and not only for the ALMPs are the following: “the qualification of job-seekers do not
correspond with the ones need in their companies”, “there is a lack of workers in specific occupations”, and “the
expectations regarding salaries are inadequate” (q.15).
Around 69% of respondents are satisfied (a lot and fairly) with the unemployed capacity (aptness) to perform
their jobs, for 20% the satisfaction is to a medium level, 9% -to some extent and 2% are not at all satisfied,
mainly because: “young persons are not prepared to work”, “practical experience is scarce”, “insufficient basic
knowledge”, “lack of motivation to work”, etc. (q.42)
84% of respondents appreciated the unemployed succeed to integrate at the working places (a lot, fairly), 11%to a medium extent, 4% -to some extent and only 1% of employers mentioned unemployed encountered some
problems in this respect (q.45).
94% of employers also mentioned they will continue to hire unemployed for future vacancies, only 6% no
(q.43). S obzirom na raspon u kojem kvalifikacije i vještine odgovaraju zahtjevima za posao, poslodavci su
procijenili sljedeće: 63%, znatno i prilično, 24% srednje, 11% - donekle, 2% -nimalo (q.44).
Regarding the extent to which the unemployed qualifications and skills are in line with job requirements, the employers
appreciated as following: 63%, a lot and fairly, 24% to a medium extent, 11% -to some extent, 2%-not at all (q.44).
5. Experience of target population/individuals with ALMPs, services provided to the target population in
order to access the ALMPs and integration to work places
tThe most annoying aspect related to the ALMPs measures
Questionnaires individuals/participants in ALMPs
The fact that most employers contacted directly the people of target population is confirmed by findings of
questionnaires for individuals, participants in ALMPs measures. 66 % of respondents mentioned they learned
about the measures either directly form employers/training providers (46 %), or from friends, colleagues,
neighbours etc. (12%), or from media (8%) and 1 % from other sources such as Action plan for Roma-Roma
Decade, local government, etc.. Only 33% learned about the ALMPs measures from CES either from information
received during the counselling sessions or from information displaced by CES (q.22). Still it is to be mentioned
that out of 753 total respondents 244 (32,4%) were respondents participating in measure 5.1.b- co-financing
education for known employer, retaining the working place, that means their first contact with the measures
was normally via employer.
As for the way the decision to participate in the ALMPs measures was taken, 40% of respondents did their own
decision, for 42%- the employers addressed them directly, and only around 17% mentioned CES via integration
plan, around 1 % other situations (q.23)
Around 71% of respondents feel comfortable with the way the decision was taken and only 7% no, while around
22% cannot say (q.24).
57% of respondents mentioned also they received alternatives to the ALMPs measures such as training
(computer/languages), volunteer work, re-qualification, other jobs, jobs that required moving in other region,
help in writing CV, etc., 17% did not received any alternatives while 26 cannot say (q.26).
Around 55% of respondents, being in the position of unemployed before entering the measures, appreciated
they received a good counselling from CES, 18% on the contrary, have not been satisfied with the CES counselling
services, while 27% cannot say (q.25).
As for services/support received from employers in order to meet the requirements of a job and successfully
integrate to work place surroundings (question addressed only to participants in employment incentives
measures) around 88 % of respondents mentioned they received different type of support; the most common
one (according with feed-back) was introductory training at workplace by guidance from colleagues, followed
by training within the company, introductory training at workplace by guidance from a mentor, and preparatory
training outside the company; 12% mentioned they did not received any kind of support from employers (q.18).
For 60% of respondents (same category) the received support helped them a lot or fairly to integrate into the
workplace, 16% considered the support was to a medium extent, 11% -to some extent and 13% considered the
received support in fact did not helped them at all to integrate into the working place (q.19).
The following aspects were mentioned by respondents as the most annoying in relation to the current ALMPs
ti-PXRVBMJUZOPUBQQSPQSJBUFTFSWJDFTQSPWJEFECZ$&4BOEJOTVöDJFOUQVCMJDJUZJOGPSNBUJPOw
ti 5IFNFBTVSFTQSPNPUFFNQMPZNFOUPOMZGPSTIPSUUFSNBOEUIFSFBSFOPHVBSBOUFFTGPSLFFQJOHUIF
jobs after the measures finished”,
ti6OQSPGFTTJPOBMCFIBWJPVSPGFNQMPZFSTw
ti*OBEFRVBUFNFBTVSFTGPSEJTBCMFEPMEFSBOEZPVOHQFPQMFBTXFMMBTGPSXPNFOXJUIDIJMESFOw
ti5IFXBHFTTFUCZUIFNFBTVSFTBSFMPXPSFNQMPZFSTQBZBSCJUSBSZXBHFTw
ti#BEPSHBOJTBUJPOPGUSBJOJOHPSJOTVöDJFOUQSBDUJDBMUSBJOJOHw
ti.FBTVSFTBSFOPUQSPHSFTTJWFFOPVHINFBTVSFTBSFDPSSVQUFEwFUDR
More or less the same type of provided support is mentioned by employers in the questionnaires, so the most
common support provided by employers to the newly employees is the introductory training at workplace
with mentoring, followed by preparatory training within the company, introductory training at workplace with
counselling; around 92 % of respondents provide support while 8% of respondents mentioned they do not
provide any type of support to the employees (q.19). Moreover, 84% of employers, respondents of questionnaires
appreciated the unemployed succeeded to integrate to the working places a lot or fairly, around 11% considered
this integration was to a medium level, 4% - to some extent, and only 1% of employers mentioned unemployed
encountered some problems in this respect (q.45).
Employers, respondents to the questionnaires mentioned the following aspects as the most annoying aspect
related to the current ALMPs:
t1SPCMFNTJOmOEJOHRVBMJmFEFNQMPZFFTXJMMJOHUPUBLFPOCPBSEEVUJFT
t5PPNBOZWFSJmDBUJPOTUISPVHIEPDVNFOUBUJPO
t1SPDFEVSFBOECVSFBVDSBDZ
t$POEJUJPOTJOHFOFSBMBOEFMJHJCJMJUZDSJUFSJBGPSVOFNQMPZFEUBSHFUQPQVMBUJPO
t-PXRVBMJUZPG$&4TFSWJDFT
t#BEEJTUSJCVUJPOPGJOGPSNBUJPO
73
Phare 2005 projec t
74
t/PQSPUFDUJPOPGFNQMPZFSJODBTFFNQMPZFFSFTJHOT
t1FPQMFXFSFmSFEJNNFEJBUFMZBGUFSUIFNFBTVSFTmOJTIFE
t3FUVSOPGDPmOBODFEGVOET
t*NQPTTJCJMJUZPGIBWJOHBUSJBMQSPCBUJPOXPSLJOHQFSJPE
t5IFOFXFTUNFBTVSFTBSFOPUTVJUBCMFGPSTNBMMFNQMPZFSTFUDR
6. How was the money flow/payment to employers, beneficiaries of ALMPs - in due time, delays etc?
Interviews CES
In the current cycle of ALMPs measures the payment process improved, the deadline of 30 days is fully respected
and payments usually take place in 15-20 days. CES staff had good feed-back from employers that expressed
their satisfaction for payments improvements (q.3.2).
All interviewed employers in all 4 counties mentioned there were unreasonable payment delays (some time a
year or even more) in the previous cycle of ALMPs measures but the situation improved considerable in the new
cycle, and only occasional delays were experienced (q.4.2).
Still, as it was mentioned by employers in 1 county, difficulties appeared when work under employment incentive
was interrupted by employees (people hired under the ALMPs measures left the working places by their own
initiatives) and in some cases it was impossible to find appropriate substitute persons/unemployed (of the same
target population) in the due time, thus causing reimbursement of the non-used incentives funds (q.4.2).
Employers, respondents of questionnaires had the same feed-back: 92% of them did not encounter any problems
with the payment of employment incentives (q.28).
Focus Groups -4 selected counties
Although some of the stakeholders participating in FG had no information on this aspect, the major part of them
agreed the previous set of ALMPs measures “did suffer from delays (over a year was needed to transfer funds)
but in the new cycle payments are done in due time and delays were only of an exception to general the rule
“(q.4.2).
7. Decentralisation of ALMPs:
tIs it possible to adjust the budget to the counties needs? (changes if necessary between funds
allocated per measures/ between counties etc)
Interviews CES
The budget is centralised. Until recently budget decentralisation was not a highly discussed /demanding issue, and
did not raise any problems in budget allocation/re-allocation between counties, and/or measures, as financial
resources were sufficient. All these aspects will become real issues if the funds for ALMPs will be exhausted /
limited in the future.
Changes were possible due to the approach already described under point 4.2.1.8.
Still, the CES representatives in all 4 counties expressed the opinion that the decision on how to distribute total
funds by measures should be the responsibility of the regional level of CES, as their knowledge of the local
situation is of extreme importance (q.3.3).
Some of the stakeholders participating in the FG mentioned they have no reliable information on this aspect,
some of them (especially in 1 county) considered the centralised system worked quite well, some of them
replied the budget is definitely not decentralised.
Stakeholders’ representatives in 2 counties expressed the opinion the ALMPs budget should be designed since
the beginning according with counties needs (q.4.3).
8. Continuity of ALMPs:
t*TJUQPTTJCMFUPDPODMVEFDPOUSBDUTXJUIFNQMPZFST$&4CFOFmDJBSJFTPG"-.1TBMMPWFSUIFZFBS Is the continuity ensured? I.e.: Coverage of November-March period in terms of contracting the
measures and ensuring continuity of the measures
t.VMUJBOOVBMJUZPGUIFCVEHFU*TUIF"-.1TCVEHFUBZFBSMZPSBNVMUJBOOVBMCVEHFU
t1SFQBSBUJPOGPS*1"GVOET"SFBOZJOJUJBUJWFTUBLFOGPSQSFQBSBUJPOGPS*1"GVOET
Interviews CES
As respondents stated the continuity of ALMPs measures is not possible as funds are not available between
November each year till March-April following year, when the sate budget is approved. According with CES
representatives’ opinion the measures related to training are the most affected by this lack of continuity, as many
employers (especially those with seasonal activities-tourism, construction) would like to organise training in the
so called “dead season” so to have qualified workforce when necessary.
The ALMPs budget is an annual one, following government’s procedures. As it was mentioned by CES
representatives, a closer coordination with Ministry of Finance could trigger a change towards multi-annual
budget planning.
As for preparation for IPA funds/programmes, it seems they are not organized in a systematic way or in some
counties there are no preparation actions taken up to now (q.3.4).
Some of the interviewed employers (especially state-owned as well as small private companies) were aware of
the fact that it is not possible to conclude contracts for ALMPs measures all over the year and considered this
aspect should be changed.
Another part of interviewed employers were not aware of the lack of possible continuity, some mentioned it
is not a major problem for them as the ALMPs measures/employment incentives do no solve all their staffi ng
problems (big companies).
Although the major part of employers considered they did not face major problems in this respect they all
suggested a solution should be found in order to have continuity in the measures and even multi-annual budget
allocation (q.4.3).
75
Phare 2005 projec t
76
9. Good examples/practice of ALMPs
tExamples of ALMPs measures that worked well - criteria on the basis of which ALMPs is a good example,
why?
tPositive aspects of current ALMPs
Interviews CES
In 1 county CES representatives mentioned it is not easy to assess measure per measure, because of their different
nature and objectives, target population etc. - in some ALMPs measures there is a great range of opportunities to
be used (ex. Measure 2 –Co-financing employment of long term unemployed), in others each new employment
can be considered as a success (ex. Measure 4-Co-financing employment of special groups of unemployed).
In the same time representatives of CES specified the way of “marking results” – the process of assessing the
success of the measures is not yet, in all aspects, adjusted to the needs of a detailed evaluation process.
As for good examples/ measures that worked well, the following have been mentioned:
t.FBTVSF$PmOBODJOHPGFEVDBUJPOGPSVOLOPXOFNQMPZFSXBTNFOUJPOFEBTBHPPEFYBNQMF
in all 4 counties- and this due to the fact that unemployed participating in training found jobs after
graduating (estimation of 80% employment in 1 county, almost 100% in another county, employment
in seasonal jobs etc.)
t"MUIPVHIUIFmOBMOVNCFSPGIJSFEVOFNQMPZFEJTOPUIJHIUIFSFHJPOBM$&4JODPVOUZDPOTJEFSFE
measures related to Roma population as being successful –“ it as a great success since the employability
of this target group is very low”
t1VCMJDXPSLTNFBTVSFTQSPWFEUPCFBMTPWFSZFõFDUJWFDPVOUZ
EVFUPUIFJOUFSFTUGPSDPNNVOJUZ
based infrastructure works.
t*O BOPUIFS DPVOUZ HPPE SFTVMUT IBWF CFFO NFOUJPOFE GPS UIF GPMMPXJOH NFBTVSFT .FBTVSF
2-Cofinancing employment of long-term unemployed ; according with CES opinion application
of this measure has been improved – “better definition of long-term unemployed does not permit
“jumping” from one working place to another like in the previous period”; “the request of at least
6-months unemployment contributed to a decrease in number of newly employed, but to a more
efficient result in application”; in addition, representatives of CES in this county also mentioned as
good examples the following measures: Measure 1 –Co-financing employment of young people
without work experience; Measure 3- Co-financing employment of women over 45 and men over 50
years of age (getting good results with elder population, especially when remaining employed after
the conditionality period); Measure 4 Co-financing employment of special groups of unemployed
although with some diffi culties in implementation “the results in 2007 are already with 20% higher
than in 2006” (q.3.7).
On the issue of good examples of ALMPs/ measures that worked well, the interviewed employers stated they
are limited to express their opinions only to the measures they have used, and they did not compared all the
ALMPs measures, some of measures being not known for the employers. As the employers mentioned, generally
companies apply for the measures most fitting to their needs, without analysing or comparing with other
measures.
As it was stated by employers, in line with the objectives of the measures, the following ALMPs measures have
been considered as being good examples by almost all interviewed employers:
t.FBTVSFTGPSZPVUIQBSUJDVMBSMZQPTJUJWFGFFECBDLGPSGPMMPXJOHSFBTPOTB
wXIFOTVDIQFSTPOTTUBSU
to work there are always additional costs to educate them for a particular job”; “the measure helps
employers to overcome this problem- financially (since the cost of that person has partly been paid
by the government)”, b) “the measure has positive effects for the whole society, as the youth shouldn’t
have long (er) period of unemployment because they might “get used to that situation” and become
more and more passive and reluctant to search for a job as time passes- by”
t.FBTVSFTGPS3PNBoQVCMJDJOTUJUVUJPOTIBWFFYQSFTTFEUIFJSQPTJUJWFFYQFSJFODFTBTUIPTFNFBTVSFT
have helped them achieving their objectives. Additionally, Roma (un)employment problem is a real
problem in some regions “so the current measures really supported the process of Roma inclusion”
t.FBTVSFTGPSFMEFSMZQPQVMBUJPOVOFNQMPZFEiQBSUMZCFDBVTFPGIJHIBOEMPOHXPSLFYQFSJFODFPG
such people that can be of benefit for companies; from financial point of view these measures have
been found as satisfactory; in addition necessary training was possible, for up-grading their skills or
for soft skills”
t1VCMJDXPSLTNFBTVSFT
In 2 counties Measure 5- Co-financing education for known employers was too among those of good examples,
and in 1 county Measure 2-Co-financinag employment of long-term unemployed and Measure 4-Co-financing
employment of special groups of unemployed have been given as successful measures (q.4.6).
98% of respondents employers appreciated the positive aspects of ALMPs as being the following:
ti&NQMPZNFOUPQQPSUVOJUJFTGPSBMMw
ti.POFZJODFOUJWFTNPUJWBUJPOPGFNQMPZFSTGPSIJSJOHTPNFPOFVOFNQMPZFEw
ti.POFZJODFOUJWFTGPSFEVDBUJOHTUBõBOEPQFOJOHOFXXPSLQMBDFTw
ti2VJDLQSPDFTTJOHPGDPmOBODJOHSFRVFTUBOEDPPQFSBUJPOXJUI$&4w
ti)FMQBOECFUUFSTFMFDUJPOPGTUBõwFUDR
Questionnaires individuals/participants in ALMPs
Around 64% of respondents to the questionnaires, individuals, appreciated the ALMPs measures worked well for
different reasons such as:
ti#FUUFSFNQMPZNFOUPQQPSUVOJUJFTw
ti0QQPSUVOJUZGPSEFWFMPQNFOUBDRVJSJOHXPSLFYQFSJFODFBOEOFXTLJMMTw
ti1FPQMFCFDBNFNPSFDPOmEFOUBCPVUFNQMPZNFOUTUBUVTBOETFMGFTUFFNJNQSPWFEw
ti*NQSPWFNFOUPGmOBODJBMTJUVBUJPOw
ti3FEVDFVOFNQMPZNFOUw
ti0QQPSUVOJUZGPSUSBJOJOHBOESFUSBJOJOHwFUD
22% of respondents stated they don’t know to appreciate this, 24% mentioned nothing worked well (q.38).
Representatives of stakeholders expressed different opinions related to the good examples of ALMPs
measures:
t4PNFQBSUJDJQBOUTJO'(EJEOPULOPXXIJDIBSFUIFNPTUTVDDFTTGVMNFBTVSFT
t*ODPVOUJFTNPTUVTFGVMNFBTVSFXBTGPVOEUPCF.FBTVSF$PmOBODJOHFNQMPZNFOUPGXPNFO
over 45 and men over 50 years of age- especially because “by this measure older unemployed got
their chance to get job- these persons are usually the least interesting to the employers and they
rarely break the job contact.”
t.FBTVSFTi$PmOBODJOHPGFEVDBUJPOGPSVOLOPXOFNQMPZFSwXBTNFOUJPOFEBTHPPENFBTVSF
in 1 county
t"MTP .FBTVSF o $PmOBODFE FNQMPZNFOU PG TQFDJBM HSPVQT PG VOFNQMPZFE QFSTPOT XPSLFE
well, according with stakeholders in 1 county, especially for disabled persons, as “it is always a great
achievement to employ hardly employable persons” (q.4.4)
77
Phare 2005 projec t
78
10. Bad examples/practice
tSome examples of ALMPs measures that did not work so well. Why?
Interviews CES
The following measures (some of them mentioned also under “good examples”) were some examples of
measures that did not work so well, or have been difficult in implementation for different reasons:
tMeasure 4 co-financing employment for special groups of unemployed - the employment incentive is too low;
moreover, the implementation of this measure encounters problems as employers are not aware of all special
categories of unemployed /target groups covered by this measure; better marketing for this measure started
but results are still to come
tWithin Measure 4 , in case of disabled persons – “low level of employment subsidies as well as the short period of
subsidised employment; This target group should be more specifically addressed, e.g. by a special measure
to provide them a better support”
tMeasures co-financing the employment of Roma population that, “although good in intention planned, had
low (measurable) output for a number of reasons, such as:
– „“The CES data base is not complete and reliable because not all the members of Roma population are
willing to declare their ethnic status (what is according to the law)”,
– “The social benefits are higher than the possible wages so people are not motivated to work”
tMeasure concerning co-financing education of registered unemployed “is not possible to be combined
with measures related to employment incentives; this restriction should be reconsidered as would be
of an added value for the unemployed as well as for employers to have the possibility of a combination
of employment incentives and training measures”
In addition following aspects have been mentioned as difficulties in implementing the ALMPs measures- weak
aspects that need to be improved or changed for better results:
tMeasure concerning co-financing education of registered unemployed cannot be combined with measures
related to employment incentives; this restriction should be reconsidered as would be of an added value for
the unemployed as well as for employers to have the possibility of a combination of employment incentives
and training measures
tLack of experience, especially in the case of newly established companies, resulted in a number of
termination of the contracts with CES in the frame of ALMPs measures and then difficulties with recovery
of received funds/employment incentives
tPossibility of training for some professions/occupations in need on the labour market is restricted by the
eligibility criteria (q.3.8).
Interviewed employers considered that in general the ALMPs measures are “good”, or some of employers had
no answer to this question as they had no opportunity to make comparisons between all the possible ALMPs
measures.
As for measures that did not work well, least attractive measures or difficulties/weak aspects that have to be
improved or changed, the following were mentioned: :
tAs the social benefits in combination with unemployment benefits are higher/bigger than the wages,
unemployed in such cases have no real motivation to work. Many of employers suggested that a serious
coordination of CES and the Social Welfare sector is necessary in order to better motivate the employment
of special target groupsd.
tMeasure 2- co-financing employment for long-term unemployed - according to some of the employers’
opinion this group of unemployed did not perform their work at the level requested by employers, they could not
be supported without spending additional funds
tThere were situations when companies had to ”pay-back” the received employment incentives in case they
fired the persons getting employment through the ALMPs measure- but these persons have been fired
because the companies were not satisfied with the work performance of the unemployed hired through
the measures
In addition the issue of eligibility criteria (unemployment registration) was again mentioned (q.4.7).
According with stakeholders’ opinion, expressed in 3 FG (especially NGOs in the field) employment of disabled
people should be better supported, as disabled people are not really able to compete on the labour market. That’s
why related current measures were considered as not being suffi cient in order to better promote employment
of disabled unemployed, both in terms of low level of employment subsidies as well as the short period of
subsidised employment.
Another big problem mentioned in the FG, especially by the representatives of CES, was the one of finding
replacements (in the same target population) of initially employed people, due to eligibility criteria that are too
strict (period of registration with CES too long).
Representatives of the CES in the FG also mentioned that according with their opinion some well and long
established small craft cannot get the ALMPs benefits because they cannot meet the eligibility criteria (increase
in employment to be maintained, additional investment etc.) (q.4.5).
11. Some examples of success factors/ failure factors
Interviews CES
Related to the success factors CES opinions differ from county to county:
tIn 1 county representatives of CES underlined that marketing is very important, and with a good marketing
employers have understood that the measures bring them reasonable benefits
t“One factor that is affecting success of measures deals with difference in relative and absolute amount
of subsidy that employers receive for newly employed. Even though 50% amount is programmed,
because of the additional charges and “fringe benefits” that employers are obliged to provide for,
the total amount of subsidy received in the end is significantly lower that the advertised 50%”- was
mentioned in another county
As for failure factors, some of them have already been mentioned under other questions and they are
related to (1 county):
tDiscontinuity of implementation of ALMPs measures and consequently impossibility to co-finance some
activities all over the year - and here training was the one mentioned as the most affected;
tToo strict / limiting criteria in general for small size employers, especially when compared to the very “mild”
criteria for newly established companies
According to some opinions in 1 county ALMPs measures did not help too much in creating new jobs (q.3.11).
79
Phare 2005 projec t
80
Success factors can become failure factors or cause failures of the ALMPs measures if not considered or
implemented carefully, according with employers’ opinion; such factors are:
t"EFRVBUFTFMFDUJPOPGVOFNQMPZFEQFSTPOToiJUJTDSVDJBMw
t1FSJPEPGSFQMBDFNFOUToiJOUIFDVSSFOUDZDMFPG"-.1TJUJTUPPTIPSUw
t'MFYJCJMJUZPGDPOEJUJPOTJTBOJNQPSUBOUGBDUPSPGTVDDFTTFTQFDJBMMZGPSTNBMMTJ[FFNQMPZFST
t$PPSEJOBUJPOCFUXFFOSFMFWBOUMBXTBOESFHVMBUJPOTJOUIFmFMEPGFNQMPZNFOUVOFNQMPZNFOUBOE
social benefits
t.PUJWBUJPOPGVOFNQMPZFEGPSXPSL
t-FWFMPGJODFOUJWFToiBTUIFFMJHJCJMJUZDSJUFSJBBSFRVJUFTUSJDUIJHIFSJODFOUJWFTDPVMECFUUFSNPUJWBUF
employers to apply for ALMPs”
t$POUJOVJUZPGUIFNFBTVSFTBMMUIFUJNFBOEIFSFJUXBTNFOUJPOFEUIFJOUFSSVQUJPOCFUXFFOUIF
cycles of ALMPs measures
t1BZNFOUPGJODFOUJWFTJOEVFUJNF
t/VNCFSPGFNQMPZFFTSFNBJOJOHJOFNQMPZNFOUBGUFSDPOEJUJPOBMJUZQFSJPEJTmOJTIFE
Except payment that improved considerably in the current cycle of ALMPs measures all the above mentioned
factors/aspects still need to be considered in improving the measures or designing the new ones (q.4.10).
Success factors identified by the stakeholders differ from FG to FG, the ones mentioned were:
t&MJHJCJMJUZDSJUFSJB
t1VCMJDJUZPGUIFNFBTVSFT
t$PPQFSBUJPOXJUIMPDBMTUBLFIPMEFST
t-FHBMGSBNFXPSLXIJDIQSFWFOUTUIFNJTVTFPG"-.1NFBTVSFT
Failures factors identified by stakeholders in 1 county are the criteria used to define the type of employers’
size -small, medium and big size, criteria based on number of employed/turnover figures and considered as
not being suitable, in line with reality. AS stated by participants” because of these criteria the micro-business
category doesn’t exist, the criteria are not developed to suit these employers, and because of this situation the
crafts, family-run businesses etc. were not using much subsidies”.
As for factors to measure the success of the measures, as they were mentioned in 2 counties they are::
t6OFNQMPZFEQFPQMFCFOFmUJOHPGUIFNFBTVSFT
t*NQSPWFNFOUPGFYQFSJFODFBOETLJMMTUISPVHIUIFNFBTVSFT
t5IFTIBSFPGXPNFOFNQMPZFECZNFBTVSFT
t5PUBMBNPVOUTPGGVOETBCTPSCFEJOEJõFSFOUDPVOUJFT
Stakeholders in 1 county also mentioned the ALMPs measures should be permanently monitored and assessed/
evaluated and then the successful ones should be provided with long-term support (q.4.8).
81
12. What are the main differences between the current (2006-2007) and the previous (2002-2005) cycle
of ALMPs measures?
tprogramming, implementation, funds available etc
Interviews CES
Main differences between the 2 cycles of ALMPs measures, mentioned by CES, are the following:
t/FXNFBTVSFTJOUIFDVSSFOUDZDMFQVCMJDXPSLBOEUIPTFBEESFTTJOHUIF3PNBQFPQMFNFBTVSFT
t*NQSPWFEQBZNFOUT
ti.BJOUBSHFUHSPVQTPGCPUI"-.1TDZDMFTSFNBJOFEJOHFOFSBMUIFTBNFCVUDIBOHFTIBWFCFFOEPOF
in procedures and eligibility/ conditionality criteria”; according with CES representatives in 1 county
“the current eligibility and conditionality criteria is much more complicated but on the other side
better defined criteria prevent misuse of funds/ measures in general”
t5IFMFWFMPGFNQMPZNFOUJODFOUJWFTJTIJHIFSJOUIFDVSSFOU"-.1TDZDMF
t5IFJNQMFNFOUBUJPOBOENPOJUPSJOHQSPDFTTPGUIFNFBTVSFTIBTCFFOJNQSPWFEJOUIFDVSSFOUDZDMF
“due to experience acquired by the CES and employers” (q.3.9)
The current ALMPs cycle compared with the previous one was perceived as being better by the major part of
interviewed employers, in terms of:
t1BZNFOUnPX
t"XJEFSSBOHFPGVOFNQMPZFEUBSHFUHSPVQT
t*OTUFBEBDDPSEJOHXJUIFNQMPZFSTPQJOJPOUIFQSFWJPVTDZDMFPG"-.1TNFBTVSFTXBTCFUUFSJOUFSNT
of:
t4JNQMFSFMJHJCJMJUZDSJUFSJBGPSVOFNQMPZFEUBSHFUQPQVMBUJPOEVSBUJPOPGSFRVFTUFEVOFNQMPZNFOU
registration of only 1 month)
t.PSFGVOETBWBJMBCMFJOUIFQSFWJPVTDZDMFPGNFBTVSFT
t#FUUFSQVCMJDJUZR
Some of the stakeholders’ representatives did not know to answer to the question in matter.
The payments flow was mentioned as a positive aspect improved in the current cycle of ALMPs; the payment is
done in advance, avoiding the delays encountered during the previous cycle of measures.
Differences as “negative” changes were mentioned as following:
t5IFiNBUSJYPGDSJUFSJBwGPS"-.1TJTNVDINPSFDPNQMJDBUFEJOUIFDVSSFOUDZDMFPG"-.1TNFBTVSFT
than in the previous one;
t-BDLPGDPOUJOVJUZPGUIFNFBTVSFTJOUIFDVSSFOUDZDMFiJOUIFQSFWJPVTDZDMFUIFGVOETXFSFTFUBOE
available for the entire programme, a period of three years”;
ti 5IFSFBSFOPPCMJHBUJPOTPGFYUFOTJPOPGKPCXPSLJOHDPOUSBDUTBGUFSUIFDPOEJUJPOBMJUZPGNFBTVSFT
is finished”;
ti/(0TBSFOPUBOZNPSFFMJHJCMFGPS"-.1TNFBTVSFTJOUIFDVSSFOUDZDMFXIJMFJOUIFQSFWJPVTUIFZ
were eligible for measures” (q.4.6).
Phare 2005 projec t
82
13. Comparing the current (2006-2007) and the previous (2002-2005) cycle of ALMPs
t8IBUXPSLFECFUUFSJOUIFOFXDZDMFPG"-.1TBOEXIBUOPU
t8IBUBTQFDUJNQSPWFE
t8IBUBTQFDUEJEOPUJNQSPWF
Interviews CES
In 1 county the CES representatives mentioned there was no evaluation of previous cycle of ALMPs measures
and that’s why it is difficult to appreciate what worked better or not. But, the general opinion is that the current
cycle of ALMPs is an easier process for CES employment offices in terms of implementation and monitoring. In
the same time, regulations of measures are tightened, thus limiting shortcomings of previous measures.
Aspects still to be improved, or did not work well in the current cycle of ALMPs measures have been mentioned
under previous questions 3.8 and 3.9. (q.3.10).
As aspects that did improve in the current cycle of ALMPs measures, interviewed employers mentioned the
following:
t#FUUFSQBZNFOUFNQMPZFSTJOBMMDPVOUJFT
ti3FMBUJPOTIJQCFUXFFO$&4BOEFNQMPZFSTJNQSPWFEwFTQFDJBMMZNFEJVNTJ[FFNQMPZFSTJODPVOUZ
and small size employers in another county)
t4IPSUFOFEQFSJPEPGXBJUJOHGPSUIF$&4EFDJTJPOPOBQQSPWBMPGUIFSFRVFTUT
t*NQSPWFEQSPDFEVSFTJOUFSNTPGTJHOJOHUIFDPOUSBDUTXJUI$&4CJHTJ[FFNQMPZFSTJODPVOUZ
ti.FBTVSF GPS FNQMPZJOH PMEFS XPSLFST JT OPX CFUUFS GVODUJPOJOH CFDBVTF JU JT EJõFSFOUJBUFE CZ
educational attainment, meaning that benefit for that measure is now higher for older workers with
university degree” (small size employers in 1 county)
Aspects related to the current cycle of ALMPs that did not improve, or did not work well and need reconsideration
were the ones already mentioned under topic 1, q.4.1, topic 10, q.3.8 and 12, q.4.8 .
Some employers (1 county) have expressed their “belief” that future measures could be more adapted to their
needs if their opinion will be considered by the decision makers and they also expressed their willingness to be
involved in the process of designing, adjusting the ALMPs measures (q.4.9).
Out of the total employers, respondents to the questionnaires (373), 145 also benefited from the previous cycle
of ALMPs measures. 43% of them appreciated the current ALMPs procedures for eligibility/access to funding
improved (a lot and fairly) in the current cycle of measures, comparing with the previous one, 19% considered
the procedures improved to a medium level, 26% to some extent and 12% had the opinion there were no
improvements (q.36).
The current financial incentives/level of subsidies better motivated companies to use the ALMPs measures for
around 69% of respondents – a lot, fairly, to a medium extent, for 20% -to some extent, 11% saw no improvement
in this respect (q.38).
59% of the same respondents appreciated (a lot, fairly, medium level) that the current payment procedures/
payment flow better motivated companies to use the ALMPs measures, 25%- to some extent and 16% (q.39) .
Quicker payment process, simplified procedures were the main field of improvement mentioned by employers
(q.37).
Focus Groups – 4 selected counties
Some representatives of stakeholders mentioned they can’t give feed-back related to such differences or they
can’t have an appropriate opinion on this aspect, as the time since implementation of new cycle of ALMPs
measures started is too short (in 2 counties).
In the other counties the representatives of stakeholders underlined the following differences:
ti.PSFGVOETBOEBCJHHFSOVNCFSPGVOFNQMPZFEHPUFNQMPZNFOUUISPVHIUIFQSFWJPVTDZDMFPG
measures” (1 county). In the same county it was also mentioned that “in the current cycle of measures
small businesses, i.e. crafts, are using measures much less than in the previous cycle, because presumably
of a limit in subsidies available for business start-ups, according with the new procedures”.
ti4USJDUFSFMJHJCJMJUZDSJUFSJBJOUIFDVSSFOU"-.1TDZDMFCVUJOUIFTBNFUJNFCFUUFSNPOJUPSJOHPGUIF
measures” (another county)
t1BZNFOUIBTCFFOJNQSPWFEJOUIFDVSSFOUDZDMFPGNFBTVSFT"MTPBMM"-.1TNFBTVSFTOPUPOMZUIF
ones implemented by CES) are better coordinated;
t5IFEJTDPOUJOVJUZPGNFBTVSFTUISPVHIPVUUIFZFBS
t4UJMMOPEFDFOUSBMJ[BUJPO
t5PPMPXCFOFmUTMFWFMPGJODFOUJWFTDPNQBSFEUPPUIFSFNQMPZNFOUDPTUTUPCFDPWFSFECZFNQMPZFST
from their own funds (q.4.7)
4.3.1 Summary
4.3.1.1 General assessment of access to the measures in terms of procedures, transparency of procedures
Notwithstanding problems in detailed procedures (and response time of CES on applications) are broadly assessed
as substantially improved compared with the previous ALMP cycle. Nevertheless there is room for improvement:
One of the major requests was better inter-administrative coordination to avoid double-/multiple work for applicants
(e.g. with documents for employers eligibility as applicants), and cumbersome monitoring/reporting duties
while implementation. Last but not least was mentioned restrictions introduced within the new ALMP-cycle
that are effectively prohibitive for NGO’s participation in almost all ALMP measures.
In the same time, employers, beneficiaries of more than one measure, considered that 1 dossier/one “guarantee
(jamstvo)” with all requested documents, would be enough to cover all the measures.
4.3.1.2 Eligibility and conditionality criteria, diffi culties in fulfilling criteria
Considering eligibility and conditionality criteria the major part of respondents found the eligibility/conditionality
matrix for current ALMPs more complicated and restrictive than it was for the 2002-05 measures. Although complicated
current criteria matrix are regarded preventing better misuse of funds/ measures in general.
Major diffi culties mentioned for fulfilling eligibility and conditionality criteria are listed below:
tEligibility criterion 12 or 6 months of registered unemployment -restriction of potential beneficiaries and
tDiffi culties especially in finding replacements for initially hired subsidised unemployed
tConditionality and procedures should be more flexible in order to allow some kind of “probation working
period” of e.g. 1 month;
83
Phare 2005 projec t
84
tEligibility criteria for companies too restrictive
– Average increase in number of employees in the previous 12 months and/or investment in new
equipment
– Restrictions in applying, especially for those companies with seasonal activities (like e.g. tourism,
construction, agriculture) as seasonal business is difficult to show continuous increase over previous
12 months
tMaintaining “additional employment” - conditionality criterion, i.e. increase in number of the job openings
for next 3 or 2 years.
– This is difficult to be fulfilled as it implies to find replacement people with qualification matching the
employers’ requirements on a market that has a shortage of qualified people looking for jobs
tNumber of possible employment subsidies are limited in case of newly registered crafts and trades, just one for
a start-up craft, two for a Ltd start-up - regardless of total number of employees
tEspecially in 1 county, employers had serious problems with the difference in wage levels set out by the ALMPs
employment incentives and the average wages existing for similar jobs. In some cases, wages caused a stir
between the old and new employees as it happened that the new ones were better paid with subsidies
than the regular ones without
tLack of experience, especially in the case of newly established companies, resulted in a number of prematurely
contract terminations by CES and then difficulties emerged with recovery of funds/employment incentives
paid out.
4.3.1.3 Experience with and the target groups, services provided to the target groups (individuals) in order
to access the ALMPs measures and to integrate to the working places
No major difficulties in hiring people of the target groups have been encountered in the initial phase of
implementation, as this then was done directly by employers, using mainly their own networks - friends, colleagues,
employees, family etc. - and less the CES services.
The real difficulties appeared when employers needed replacement of initially hired unemployed (persons quitting
the subsidised jobs) mainly due to the existing mismatch between employer’s needs in terms of qualified staff and the
qualification structure of the unemployed but also due to the eligibility criteria of 6 or more months of unemployment
registration.
Moreover, across all categories of respondents, the judgement was that many of unemployed would register with
CES in order to become eligible for some type of social benefits or support, but were not really looking for jobs, nor
motivated to get employment, as the social benefits are equal or even higher than the potential salaries (quite low in
some particular counties). And in this respect the main suggestion was to review the legislation in place in order
to avoid such situations and/or to ”reward” and better motivate the unemployed who are “really willing” to work and/
or to get new qualifications.
Due to aspects mentioned above many of employers granted CES is confronted with real difficulties in making proper
pre-selection and sending suitable candidates for vacancies. Same employers considered the form to announce the
vacancies should be improved, so to include more detailed requirements for the job vacancies.
Major part of the individual participants of measures, learned about the measures in a private way, either directly
from employers/training providers or from friends, colleagues, neighbours, media etc. and only few individuals
learned about the ALMPs measures from CES. Nevertheless more than half of respondents to questionnaires,
having been in the position of unemployed before entering the measures, appreciated they received a good
counselling from CES.
From discussions in the 4 regional workshops (for presentations of main research findings) it appears that
there are no standard procedures, used by all local employment offi ces, on informing subsidised individuals
(unemployed) of their promotion by ALMPs measures. This is particularly the case in subsidised employment.
The main reason for this way of treatment was – according to the opinion of major part of CES representatives
- to avoid that the unemployed consider him-/herself to be privileged, and therefore would believe, no matter
how the performance, employers would have to keep them in job as long as they receive money from the state.
Nevertheless, this handling is not a rule but differently managed from office to office.
As for services/support received from employers in order to meet the requirements of a job and successfully integrate
to work place surroundings it seems the most common one was the introductory training at workplace by guidance
from colleagues, followed by training within the company, introductory training at workplace by guidance from a
mentor, and preparatory training outside the company. For major part of respondents, individuals, the received
support was helpful in better integrating into the workplace.
According to employers, unemployed in general succeeded to integrate to the working places and employers
were satisfied (to different extents) with the unemployed capacity (aptness) to perform their jobs, so they will
continue to hire unemployed for future vacancies.
In light with their experience, the most annoying aspects related to the current ALMPs mentioned by individuals,
beneficiaries of measures are:
ti-PXRVBMJUZOPUBQQSPQSJBUFTFSWJDFTQSPWJEFECZ$&4BOEJOTVöDJFOUQVCMJDJUZJOGPSNBUJPOw
ti 5IFNFBTVSFTQSPNPUFFNQMPZNFOUPOMZGPSTIPSUUFSNBOEUIFSFBSFOPHVBSBOUFFTGPSLFFQJOHUIF
jobs after the measures finished”
ti6OQSPGFTTJPOBMCFIBWJPVSPGFNQMPZFSTw
ti*OBEFRVBUFNFBTVSFTGPSEJTBCMFEPMEFSBOEZPVOHQFPQMFBTXFMMBTGPSXPNFOXJUIDIJMESFOw
ti5IFXBHFTTFUCZUIFNFBTVSFTBSFMPXPSFNQMPZFSTQBZBSCJUSBSZXBHFTw
ti#BEPSHBOJTBUJPOPGUSBJOJOHPSJOTVöDJFOUQSBDUJDBMUSBJOJOHw
ti.FBTVSFTBSFOPUQSPHSFTTJWFFOPVHIPSNFBTVSFTBSFDPSSVQUFEwFUD
4.3.1.4 Decentralisation and adjustment of the budget to the counties needs
The budget is centralised. According to the opinion of CES representatives until recently budget decentralisation
was not a highly discussed /demanding issue, and did not raise any problems in budget allocation/re-allocation
between counties, and/or measures, as financial resources were suffi cient. All these aspects will become real
issues if the funds for ALMPs will be exhausted /limited in the future.
Other aspects have already been mentioned under the summary of topics: The ALMP budget/budget allocation
per measures and counties (4.2.1.8), ALMPs and counties characteristics/needs, ALMPs and employers’ needs
(4.2.1.9).
4.3.1.5 Continuity of ALMPS measures
The ALMPs budget is an annual one, following government’s procedures. The continuity of ALMPs measures is not
possible as funds are not available between November each year till March-April following year, when the state budget
is approved. According to the CES representatives’ opinion, regional level, the measures related to training are
the most affected by this lack of continuity, as many employers (especially those with seasonal activities-tourism,
construction) would like to organise training in the so called “dead- season” so to have qualified workforce when
necessary.
85
Phare 2005 projec t
86
Although the major part of interviewed employers considered they did not face major problems in this respect
a common conclusion came out that a closer coordination with Ministry of Finance could trigger a change towards
multi-annual budget planning. In addition, the issue of lack of continuity of measures alongside of different cycles
was raised as a negative aspect in programming as well as in implementation of the measures.
4.3.1.6 Money flow/payments
It was a general agreement across all respondents that the payment flow significantly improved in the current cycle of
ALMPs measures, the deadline of 30 days is fully respected and payments usually take place in 15-20 days; delays
were only of an exception to the general rule.
4.3.1.7 Good examples of ALMPs/ ALMPs that worked well/success of the measures
In relation to their specific objectives almost all ALMPs measures have been nominated as good examples/measures
that worked well, mainly because they promote better employment opportunities for people in need on the labour
market. Measure 5.2, the ones addressing Roma people, Public Works, Measure 2, 1, 3 or 4 were good examples, from
different reasons ; on the other side the same ALMPs considered as “good examples” are mentioned as “bad
examples” due to some negative aspects or difficulties in implementation, level of incentives, etc..
As specified by some representatives of CES regional/county level the way of “marking results” – the process of assessing
the success of the measures is not yet, in all aspects, defined or in line with the needs of a detailed assessment/evaluation
process, so it is difficult to really assess the success of the measures. There was no predetermined goal or definition of
ALMPs success, mainly due to the fact that funds for measures and also conditions (eligibility and conditionality)
were not known in advance and were changed from year to year.
4.3.1.8 ALMPS measures that did not work so well in the current cycle/ other diffi culties in implementing
some measures
The following measures (some of them mentioned also under “good examples”) were some examples of
measures that did not work so well, or have been difficult in implementation for different reasons:
t.FBTVSFTUBSHFUJOHEJTBCMFEQFSTPOToiMPXMFWFMPGFNQMPZNFOUTVCTJEJFTBTXFMMBTUIFTIPSUQFSJPE
of subsidised employment; This target group should be more specifically addressed, e.g. by a special
measure to provide them a better support”
t.FBTVSFPGDPmOBODJOHFNQMPZNFOUGPSTQFDJBMHSPVQTPGVOFNQMPZFEoiUIFFNQMPZNFOUJODFOUJWF
is too low; moreover, the implementation of this measure encounters problems as employers are
not aware of all special categories of unemployed /target groups covered by this measure; better
marketing for this measure started but results are still to come”
t.FBTVSFTDPmOBODJOHUIFFNQMPZNFOUPG3PNBQPQVMBUJPOUIBUBMUIPVHIHPPEJOJOUFOUJPOQMBOOFE
had low (measurable) output for a number of reasons, such as:
- “The CES data base is not complete and reliable because not all the members of Roma population
are willing to declare their ethnic status (what is according to the law),
- The social benefits are higher than the possible wages so people are not motivated to work”
t.FBTVSFPGDPmOBODJOHFNQMPZNFOUGPSMPOHUFSNVOFNQMPZFEBDDPSEJOHUPTPNFPGUIFFNQMPZFST
opinion this group of unemployed did not perform their work at the level requested by employers,
they could not be supported without spending additional funds
t.FBTVSFDPODFSOJOHDPmOBODJOHFEVDBUJPOPGSFHJTUFSFEVOFNQMPZFEiJTOPUQPTTJCMFUPCFDPNCJOFE
with measures related to employment incentives; this restriction should be reconsidered as would be
of an added value for the unemployed as well as for employers to have the possibility of a combination
of employment incentives and training measures”
t*O UIF DBTF PG 1VCMJD XPSLTiUIF TVCTJEZ QSPWJEFE CZ UIF "-.1T JT OPU TVöDJFOU UP NPUJWBUJOH
beneficiaries (local governments and NGOs) – 50% of own-resources is a big problem for them,
especially for the underdeveloped local governments”
4.3.1.9 Comparison between 2 cycles of ALMPs - Aspects improved/Aspects did not improve in the current
cycle of ALMPs compared with the previous one
Improvements:
Many of respondents underlined it was no evaluation of previous cycle of ALMPs measures so it is diffi cult to
appreciate what worked better or not; still the current cycle of ALMPs was perceived as better, compared with the
previous one, in terms of:
t*NQSPWFEQBZNFOUT
t/FXNFBTVSFTQVCMJDXPSLTBOENFBTVSFTBEESFTTJOHUIF3PNBQFPQMF
ti 5IFDVSSFOUFMJHJCJMJUZBOEDPOEJUJPOBMJUZDSJUFSJBBSFNVDINPSFDPNQMJDBUFECVUPOUIFPUIFSTJEF
better defined criteria prevent misuse of funds/ measures in general”
t"XJEFSSBOHFPGVOFNQMPZFEUBSHFUHSPVQT
ti4IPSUFSQFSJPEPGXBJUJOHGPSUIF$&4EFDJTJPOPOBQQSPWBMPGUIFSFRVFTUTTJHOJOHUIFDPOUSBDUTGPS
benefiting of ALMPs”
t.FBTVSF GPS FNQMPZJOH PMEFS XPSLFST iJT OPX CFUUFS GVODUJPOJOH CFDBVTF JU JT EJõFSFOUJBUFE CZ
educational attainment, meaning that benefit for that measure is now higher for older workers with
university degree”
ti1SPDFEVSFTNPSFUSBOTQBSFOUBOEJNQSPWFEBDDFTTUPUIFNFBTVSFTBMTPJNQSPWFEw
ti 5IF DVSSFOU mOBODJBM JODFOUJWFTMFWFM PG TVCTJEJFT NPUJWBUFE DPNQBOJFT NPSF UP VTF UIF "-.1T
measures”
ti3FMBUJPOTIJQCFUXFFO$&4BOEFNQMPZFSTJNQSPWFEw
Aspects did not improve:
The aspects did not improved have been already mentioned and they are the ones referring to eligibility criteria
for unemployed target groups, “matrix of criteria” much more complicated, too many documents to be provided,
discontinuity of measures, publicity and informing etc.
4.4 Outputs and some selected eff ects of ALMPs
4.4.1 Outputs of measures
It is important, for any evaluation to find out what, if any, were the effects of the measures at the individual
level. Aspects such as situation at the work place, positive side and work related effects, training effects etc.
are presented in the following on the basis of feed-back received in questionnaires, individuals.
More conclusions on results of ALMPs implementation can also be drawn-up on the basis of analysis of
statistics. It is to be mentioned here the data base of ALMPs participants is quite complicated and the
status of participants, categories and content of different categories of beneficiaries (see please “active”,
“inactive”, “drop-outs”etc.) or contracts concluded with CES is not all the time clear, at least for “an out-side
user”. In the same time, according with explanations received from IT department, CES, the statistics/data
base regarding ALMPs 2006, and 2007, by 30 June may differ from official statistics as it was up-dated –
87
Phare 2005 projec t
88
changes in the status of contracts etc. So we present some results of analysis of ALMPs statistics under
these circumstances.
Total number of participants (unemployed and employees) in ALMPs measures
All in all 807851 persons in total have been included in the current ALMPs cycle, in 2006 and 2007, by 30 June
for more details see annex 6). Out of them, 7503 persons were so called “active” (93,1 % of total participants in
the measures) at the moment of database was given for processing/evaluation, meaning these people were
either in working place, or “on hold”- army services, or successfully finished the measures (graduated the training
courses or finished the subsidised employment period established by specific procedures/ conditionality). Total
number of “drop-outs”52 was 574, representing 7,1% of total participants. The total number of participants in
the current ALMPs cycle (one and a half year) represents only 10,1% of total number of participants in the
previous one, 2002-2005 (3 years).The total number of participants in ALMPs measures (all except measure 5.1.bparticipants having the status of employed before entering the measure) year 2006 represents only 1,6 % of total
registered unemployed at the end of 2005, and in 2007 (half of the year) only 0,9% of registered unemployed,
end of 2006 (see annex B and 6).
Structure of participants by type of measures
Figure 7 ALMP - Participants - breakdown by measure
Source: CES database and own calculations
ALMPs participants, breakdown by measures
2006 and 2007 (by 30. 06)
25
20
15
10
5
0
M. 1
M. 2
M. 3
M. 4
M.
5. 1. a
M.
5. 1. b
M. 5. 2
M. 6
M. J
M. O/N
M. Z
% in total “active” participants
By type of measures 81,8% of total participants (“active”-2006 and 2007 by 30.06) have been included in 5
measures, as following: 22,8% of total participants in measure 5.2, co-financing education for unknown employer,
21, 5% in measure 2, co-financing employment of long-term unemployed, 15,2% in measure 1, co-financing
51
The figure refer to all persons beneficiaries/participating in all ALMPs measures, that according with explanation received
from CES national level are the following: active=still employed, in training programmes, finished the employment
subsidised period according with the procedures/conditionality, or graduating the training courses, on hold= army service,
no replacement during service; inactive=contract terminated before the end of conditionality; drop-outs=person stopped
working/training before the end of conditionality/training, replacement is/was being seeking for the employed (if already
found, a replacement is active)
52
“Drop-outs” in training measures are not recorded, and the content of drop-outs is not very clear; according with explanation
received, “drop-outs” = “drop-outs” -people left the measures for different reasons (or have been fired) and have been
replaced, plus “inactive”- people in the similar situation but these ones have not been replaced
employment of young people without work experience,12,0% in measure 6-public works, 10,3% in measure
3-co-financing employment of women above 45 and men above 50 years old.
The rest of participants (18,2%) are found in the other 6 measures53, with percentages between 8,5%- measure
5.1.b-co-financing education for known employer-retaining the working place and 0,2%, for example
measure Z-co-financing employment of Roma population in duration of 24 months.
Although the data on participants in training measure 5.1 is not consistent54 ( in fact for all measures
database on participants differ in terms of numbers with the one on expenditures) we tried to get a picture
of training participants by type of training. Out of total participants in training measures 34,4% participated in requalification training courses, 28,1% -vocational upgrade, 20,7% in general skills courses and 12,8% in vocational
update training courses.
Distribution of total participants (including those “inactive, drop-outs”) per measures follows the same pattern as
for the “active” ones (see annex B and 6).
Structure of ALMPs participants by age-groups
Figure 8 ALMP - Participants and registered unemployed-shares by age-group
ALMPs- Participants and registered unemployed
shares by age-groups
30
25
20
% in registered
unemployment, 2005
15
% in “active” ALMPs
participants
unemployment, 2006
% in registered
unemployment, 2006
10
5
0
15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54
55 - 59 > 60
% in “active” ALMPs
participants
unemployment, 2007
As it can be noticed from the above graph, the most active participants in ALMPs measures are the ones in
age-group of 20-24 years (23,0 % of total participants55), followed by the ones in the age-group of 25-29 years
(17,3%), and the age-group of 30-34 years (10,9%). Participants of the age-group of 60+ represent only 0,6% of
total participants and of the age-group of 55-59 years- 3,9% in total participants (see also annex B and 6).
53
All in all there are 10 measures in the current ALMPs cycle but measure 5.1-co-financing education for known employer has
2 sub-measures, according with the target population: 5.1.a-newly employed and 5.1.b – retaining the working place,
54
The information about participants in this measure is not detailed as for the other measure(5.2) as according with
explanation received some of the beneficiaries of this measures had the status of “employed” people before entering the
measure.
55
Here total= “Active” participants- still employed, in training programmes, finished the employment subsidised period
according with the procedures/conditionality, or graduating the training courses, and on hold-army service, at the moment
of data-base was received from CES- September 2007;data is presented for 2006 and 2007, by 30.06
89
Phare 2005 projec t
90
If it is to compare the structure of ALMPs participants56 (2006, 2007) with the structure of registered unemployed
(2005,2006) by age-groups the following aspects can be noticed: ALMPs participants of age- groups of
15-19, 20-24, 25-29 and 30-34 years (only in 2007) have much higher shares in total participants than the
shares in total unemployed; the rest of the age-groups registered lower shares in total participants than the
corresponding shares in total registered unemployed(see also annex B and 6).
Structure of participants by gender
In 2006, in almost all measures the participation of women is lower than male’s (see the following graph).
The situation slightly improved in 2007 (by 30.06) but still the women participation in ALMPs measures is low
comparing with the share of women in registered unemployed.
Figure 9 ALMP-participants and registered unemployed – shares by gender
ALMPs participants registered unemployed
shares by gender
70
% in registered
unemployed, 2005
60
50
% in “Active” ALMPs
participants, 2006
40
30
% in registered
unemployed, 2006
20
participants
10
0
Female
Male
Structure of participants by duration of unemployment
ALMPs participants with 1-2 years unemployment registration had the biggest shares in total participants, shares
being higher than the ones in total registered unemployed. Big participation in measures had also people of
the target population with 0-3 months as well as the ones with 6-9 months of unemployment. The lowest share
was registered by participants with 8 and more years of unemployment duration, followed by the ones with 5-8
years (see also annex B and 6).
56
For compatibility of data the structure is presented for all beneficiaries/participants in the measures except measures 5.1 b
Co-financing education for known employer-retaining work place, status of employed before entering the measure
91
Figure 10 ALMP-participants and registered unemployed – shares by unemployment period
ALMPs participants and registered unemployed
shares by unemployment duration
30
25
20
15
% in registered
unemployed, 2005
10
participants, 2006
5
% in registered
unemployed, 2006
or
e
ov
n
m
participants 2007
Un
kn
nd
rsa
8y
ea
5-
8y
ea
rs
rs
5y
ea
3-
2-
3y
ea
rs
rs
th
on
m
1-
12
9-
2y
ea
i
ec
jes
th
9m
on
6-
6m
3-
0-
3m
on
th
s
s
s
0
Structure of participants by educational attainment
Figure 11 ALMP-participants and registered unemployed – shares by educational attainment
shares by educational attainment
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
No schooling and
uncompleted
basic school
Basic school
1 to 3 year
vocational
secondary school
% in registered unemployed, 2005
% in registered unemployed, 2006
4 (or more)year vocational
secondary school,
grammar school
Non-university
degree
University level
and postgraduate
degrees
% in “Active” ALMPs participants, 2006
% in “Active” ALMPs participants, 2007
As for the structure of participants in ALMPs by educational attainment (see also annex B and 6), the most active
seem to be the persons with VET background, 37, 4% participants with 1-3 years vocational secondary school
and 27,0% with 4 (or more) years vocational secondary school and grammar school, followed by people with
basic school background- 17,4% in total participants57 . The least active participants are the ones with non57
Here total= “Active” participants-the same explanation as at footnote 10
Phare 2005 projec t
92
university degree (4,7% in total participants) and no schooling and/or uncompleted basic school (4,4% of
total participants). Comparing the structure of participants in ALMPs58 by educational attainment with the
same structure of registered unemployment, it can be noticed that only people with no schooling and/
or uncompleted school as well as with basic school background registered lower shares in total ALMPs
participants than the shares in total registered unemployed.
Structure of participants by work experience
Figure 12 ALMP-participants and registered unemployed – shares by work experience
shares by work experience
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
No work
expirienc
up to 1 year
% in registered
unemployed, 2005
1 - 2 years
participants, 2006
2 - 3 years
3 - 5 years
% in registered
unemployed, 2006
5 - 10 years
10 + years
participants 2007
As one can notice from the graph above people with no work experience followed by those with 10 and
more years and up to 1 year have been the most active in the measures. Nevertheless the shares of ALMPs
participants with 10 and more years of work experience in total participants are significantly lower than the
ones in total registered unemployed, while people with no work experience and with up to one year had
higher shares in total participants than the ones in registered unemployed (see annex B and 6)
Due to the time and resources constrains, and as the detailed statistics were not available in a processed
form (TA produced the ALMPs statistics) we haven’t been able to make more detailed analysis of the
structure of ALMPs participants and comparison with registered unemployed such as structure by agegroups and duration of unemployment, age-groups and gender or educational attainment and duration,
gender etc. that could lead us to more detailed conclusions. Such analyses are important to see, within
general category of target groups which are more in need for support or where the support should be
more intensive.
58
Same explanation as the footnote 11
93
Distribution of participants per counties
As one can notice from graph bellow the situation differs from county to county, even for counties with similar level
of unemployment rate. For example counties Osijek and Sibenik registered more or less similar unemployment
rate (26,1%, respective 26,5% in 2005) but the number of participants in ALMPs differs substantial : 584 ALMPs
participants (11,1% of total participants in 2006) in Osijek compared with 177 participants (only 3,4%) in Sibenik,
same year. The same situation is registered by counties such as Split and Lika. The biggest participation in ALMPs
is registered in City of Zagreb (15, 9% of total participants in 2006), Osijek (11,1%), and Split (9,3%). Opposite to
these counties the smallest share of ALMPs participants in total number of participants is registered in counties
such as Lika, Pozega, Zadar, although the unemployment rates are higher than the average in Croatia. The full
picture of unemployment rates and ALMPs beneficiaries by counties is presented in annex B and 6.
Figure 13 Counties by unemployment rate and shares of ALMP-participants
Countines by unemployment rate and shares of ALMPs participants
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Co
u
ntr
y
Kra of Z
pin agr
a-Z eb
ag
Sis
o
akMo rje
sla
vin
a
Ka
rlo
va
c
Va
Ko
raž
pri
d
vn
ica in
-Kr
Bje
iže
lov
vci
arBil
Pri
mo og
o
rje
-G ra
ors
Lik
ki
a-S
en
Vir
j
ov
itic
a-P
od
Po
ra
žeg
a-S vina
lav
Sla
Po von onija
sav sk
ina i Br
od
OS Zada
ije
k-B r
Ara
Šib
nja
en
ikKn
Vu
in
ko
va
r
S
Sp
lit- irmiu
Da
lm m
ati
a
Istr
Du
ia
bro
vn
ik.F Nere
ŜJN tva
Cit
VSK
yo
F
fZ
ag
reb
0
Unemployment rate 2005
Unemployment rate 2006
% in total ALMPs participants 2006
% in total ALMPs participants 2007
Number of companies/employers beneficiaries of ALMPs
A total number of 353459 companies benefited of ALMPs measures in 2006 and 2007. Out of them 95,0 % are small
size companies, 4,1% medium size and only 0,9% big size companies. The structure of employers/companies per
each measure and counties is presented in the annex B and 6.
Expenditures for all measures and by type of measures
In 2006 and 2007, by 30 June, 139.031.859 HKN have been spent for ALMPs. More than 72% of total amount
was spent for 3 measures, Measure 1-Co-financing employment of young people without working experience,
Measure 2-Co-financing employment of long-term unemployed persons and Measure 3-Co-financing
employment of women above 45 and men above 50 years of age; 9,3% has been spent on Measure 4-Cofinancing employment of special groups of unemployed persons and 7,5% for Measure 5.2-Co-financing
59
Companies are counted here only 1 time no matter if they benefited for more than 1 measure
Phare 2005 projec t
education for unknown employer; the rest of the funds, 10,4% of total amount has been spent on other 5
measures, with percentages between 4,7%- Measure 6-Public works and 0,1%, Measure O/N-Co-financing
education for unknown employer-Roma. The structure of expenditures is presented in annex B and 6 and the
following graph.
Figure 14 ALMP-expenditures by measure
ALMPs expenditures by measures
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Measure
1
Measure
2
Measure Measure
4
3
Measure
5.1 a i b
Measure
5.2
Measure
6
Measure Measure
J
O/N
Measure
Mjera
Z
% of total expenditures, 2006 and 2007 by the 30.06
The database on financial aspects differs in terms of number of individuals/persons from the database of
participants per measures. According with explanation received from IT department this is mainly due to the fact
that some of the payments have to be recovered, or are under analysis if they should be recovered or not, etc. In
addition the information available for the ALMPs measures was in general not suffi cient and also not suffi ciently
well structured to allow us to perform an effi ciency analysis in terms of: outputs and results compared to the
respective level of costs and cost structures.
A rough comparison of the structure of ALMPs participants and expenditures by type of measures, is given in
the graph below.
Figure 15 ALMP-measures by share of expenditure and participants
ALMPs measures by share of expenditure and participants
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
% of total expenditures,
2006 and 2007 by the 30.06
ur
eZ
Me
as
/N
re
J
re
O
as
u
Me
re
6
Me
as
u
Source: CES database and own calculation
as
u
.2
Me
b
ur
e5
as
Me
Me
as
.1
ai
as
u
ur
e 5 re 4
ur
e3
as
Me
as
ur
e2
Me
Me
as
ur
e1
% in total ALMPs participants,
2006 and 2007
Me
94
4.4.2 Some aspects related to the impact of ALMPs measures - Effects of the measures at
the individual level
Job stability/ Job satisfaction/ Plans for future/ Mobility
79% of respondents, participants in employment incentives measures appreciated the current job is in line with
their qualifications (a lot, fairly or to a medium extent), 12% - to some extent and only 9%- not at all (q.20).
For more than 73% of respondents, same category, the current job is in line with their expectations (a lot, fairly, medium),
17% - to some extent and for only around 9% -not at all mainly because: “the job is below their qualification”,
“tasks are not related to their profession”, “employer is dishonest and treats employees with disrespect”, “the
employer did not stick with the contract” etc. (q.21)
Around 56% of respondents still under the ALMPs measures hope they can stay in the job after the subsidy expires or
can stay with the enterprise and make some job career, 17% take into consideration a move to another enterprise,
14% are not so optimistic but taking into consideration a new unemployment phase, 12% don’t know yet and
around 1% take into consideration a move to another region or county (q.31).
39% of respondents (participants in training for known employer measures) feel more confident/have plans to
switch to a different job within the company after finishing the training programmes, 11% - to move to a different
economic sector/branch, 7% - to move to a different company, 7%- to try new professions and 36% -none of
those options mentioned above (q.62).
39% of respondents, participants in training for unknown employer and public works measures found a job after
finishing the ALMPs measures while 61% did not find a job (q.65).
32% of same category of respondents found the job in 1 month time after participation in the ALMPs measure, 30%
in 1-3 months, 13% in 3- 6 months, and around 10% in 6-9 months and 15% after 9 months (q.42).
77% of respondents appreciated the participation in the ALMPs measures was useful in finding a job (a lot, fairly,
medium, to some extent) while 23% considered this participation was not useful in finding a job (q 43).
27% of respondents (same category) mentioned they could not find a job after participation in the ALMPs measure
because jobs are inadequate (wage, working hours etc), 13% because the qualification they obtained from
various courses is not in demand on the labour market, 6% had not the resources to set up a business, for other
6% adequate jobs are demanding a move, and around 48% other reasons such as : age and gender, nationality,
no work experience, disability, inadequate or insufficient work supply, low educational attainment, pregnancy,
health conditions, no education and Roma nationality, situation on the labour market, Serbian nationality, no
demand for young workers, etc. (q.41)
Other kind of support, instead of the CES financed measures that could have proved more effective in helping
people to find a job have been mentioned as such: financial aid to set-up business career counselling, financial
aid to find a job in another location (aid to move) (q.47)
The attendance of the training for known employer programmes produced the following changes in the
working places: 97% of respondents did progresses in the jobs, 1% were satisfied they finally have a job, and only
for 2% the situation did not change (q.59).
35% of respondents, participants in training programmes, that found a job after finishing the measures
appreciated the quality of their work improved, 11% became more efficient in performing their work, 9% feel
more responsible for the work they undertook, 13% cannot compare as they recently started the work and 13%
saw only insignificant progress, and 19% cannot say any opinion (q.61).
95
Phare 2005 projec t
96
Work related effects: Up-to-date with the profession, job as an incentive to learn, self confidence
related to job chances
73% of respondents (participants in employment incentives measures) appreciated they are able to follow all the latest
updates in their profession or not yet completely but situation improves constantly, while 13% considered they are
not able to do it and 14% cannot say (q.34).
For 86% of respondents (training for known employer) the training programmes were useful in getting more
competent/up-to-date at work (a lot, fairly, medium), 10% of them considered the training was useful to some
extent and only 4% mentioned the programmes were not useful at all (q.58).
As result (effects) of participation in the ALMPs measures 60% of respondents participants in employment
incentives measures, including public works feel more optimistic about job chances in the future or their own
potential to further development and career, 28 % don’t know, while 12% considered the participation did not
help them with that because of : “the misuse of benefits by employers, the age (more than 45, 50 years) that is
not attracting for employers, the jobs are only for fixed period, CES does not help unemployed to find jobs” etc.
(q.32)
47% of respondents (same category as above) found the job under the ALMPs measures an incentive to learn,
they feel well motivated and consider they learn new things, 22% feel more or less the same but they would need
more support and guidance in doing so; 16% of the same respondents consider they already learned what they
need and 15% mentioned they did not find the job an incentive to learn as this will not be helpful after the
contract expires (q.35).
32% of respondents (employment incentives measures and public works)appreciated they would have found a
job even without the subsidy programme, 30% - yes but not so fast, 20% considered they would not have found a
job as the subsidy was a key element for them to get the chance to show their competence, while 17% could
not tell (q.36).
As a result of participation in ALMPs measures (training for unknown employer and public works) 88% of the
respondents of this category appreciated they became more confident (a lot, fairly, medium and to some extent) in
their capacity to find a job because of participation in ALMPs measure while only 12% considered this participation
did not help them at all. (q.46 combined with q.68)
97% of the same respondents also considered the ALMPs measures have been useful (a lot, fairly, medium and
to some extent) as now they are better prepared for the job search-; for 13% participation in ALMPs measure had
no impact (q.45 combined with q.67).
Positive side effects: Financial situation/Social life/ Individual stabilization/Self confidence/
Optimism about the future
For 63% of respondents (employment incentives measures and public works) the social life generally improved
(a lot, fairly and medium) after getting the job in the frame of ALMPs measures, for 29 % it improved to some
extent, for 8% it did not improve, in the last case mainly because: overtime working, low salary, less free time,
health conditions etc. (q.33).
The general financial situation improved for 58% of respondents (same category as above), for 39% it is more or
less as before while for 3% the situation worsened, for the last respondents mainly because salary is minimal, not
enough for to cover living costs, company went into bankruptcy, employer deducts the contributions, cover of
the travel costs from salary, etc. (q.28).
79% of the same respondents consider the current salary is not sufficient for living, but they hope on a future
increase (40%), or have to find an alternative solution (22%) or can rely on other sources too (17%). 21% of
respondents considered the current salary is sufficient for living (q.29).
69% of the same category of respondents have no idea on what is their income prospect, around 23% agreed with
employer for an increase after the introduction phase, and 8% agreed with employer for an increase of wage
when contract will be extended/switched to unlimited (subsidy expires /conditionality expires) (q.30)
The income also improved for 67% of respondents, participants in training for known employer, maintaining the
working-place while for 33% the situation did not improved (q.60).
Training assessment
Around 48% of respondents (participants in training measures M 5.1,5.2 and O/N) participated in internal training
programmes organised by employers, 39% in training courses organised in private profit training companies,
around 13% in courses organised by public VET schools, and only a very small percentage (under 1%) in NGOs
or vendors of specific machinery (q.49).
40% of respondents (same category as above) have been included in vocational update training courses, 31% general skills courses, 21% re-qualification, and 8% in vocational upgrade programmes (q.50).
41% of respondents participated in training courses organised at the working places, 35% in courses organised
as a combination of classroom and training at workplace, and 24 % in classroom training (q.56).
52% of respondents appreciated they achieved, by the training programme attended, specific professional skills
needed by the enterprise of the current job, 30% general professional skills that can be transferred/or useful for
another job too and 18% none of those mentioned above (q.63)
As for the content of the training programmes 77% of respondents, participants in all training measures
considered the content of the training programmes met their requirements (a lot and fairly, to a medium extent), for
14% -to some extent and only 5% were not satisfied with it, while 4% did not know (q.54).
54% of respondents, same category as above, appreciated the training programmes were useful as they were
guiding to improve the participants’ self-learning process/capacity; for 23 % the training were useful as being up-todate regarding to the training methods, for 12 % training programmes were up-to-date regarding to the training
subject, and so useful, for 7 % of respondents the training programmes were not useful. For other almost 4 %
of respondents the training was useful for other different reasons: they found a job, they obtained a training
certificate, “useful and informative” etc. (q.64).
4.5 Summary of output and eff ects
The total number of participants in the current ALMPs cycle (one and a half year) equals only 10,1% of total number
of participants in the previous one, 2002-2005 (3 years).60
Compared to the registered unemployed at the end of the respective previous year in 2006 the total number of
participants in ALMPs measures (all except measure 5.1.b – addressing employees) covers only 1,6%, and in 2007 (by
30.06) only 0,9% respectively.61
The biggest participation was registered in measure 5.2, co-financing education for unknown employer, followed
by the measure 2, co-financing employment for long-term unemployed
60
The comparison is not fully accountable as for the new period we are still in the inception phase, but it allows for a first
estimation that the figures will stay much lower compared to the previous period if no specific activities are started to
increase implementation. //previous period: NGOs eligible /participants 1 month unemployed /
61
Having in mind that implementation activities regularly start March/April of a year, the 2007 figure (0,9%) – representing
roughly 3 months of implementation - seems even a bit better than the 2006 total figure (1,6%) for 9 months
implementation.
97
Phare 2005 projec t
98
Except measures for Roma people that have in general very low number of participants, the measure with least
participation was Measure 5.1.a, Co-financing education for known employernewly-employed, and Measure 4,
Co-financing employment of special groups of unemployed persons.
Comparing the structure of participants in 2006 with the structure of registered unemployed (end year 2005), coverage
rates for specific groups of participants show these are underrepresented in the ALMP measures. This can be found for:
t"HFHSPVQTBCPWFZFBST
t1FPQMFXJUIOPTDIPPMJOHVODPNQMFUFECBTJDTDIPPMPSCBTJDTDIPPM
t'FNBMFQBSUJDJQBOUT
t1BSUJDJQBOUT XJUI NPOUIT NPOUIT ZFBST ZFBST ZFBST BOE NPSF PG EVSBUJPO PG
unemployment, i.e. mainly people between 6 months and 3 years of unemployment have been taken
into measures. This is partially due to the general condition62 of minimum 6 months unemployment,
but indicates that real long-term-unemployed are not benefiting corresponding to their share at
unemployment.
t"MMUIFHSPVQTXJUIBOENPSFZFBSTXPSLJOHFYQFSJFODFCFGPSFFOUFSJOHUIF"-.1TNFBTVSFTJF
particularly young people (up to 29 years) with no work experience, but also with short experience of
up to 1 year, have been over represented in measures
As for distribution of participants per counties the situation differs from county to county, even for counties with
similar level of unemployment rate. The biggest participation in ALMPs is registered in City of Zagreb (15,9%
of total participants in 2006), Osijek (11,1%), and Split (9,3%). Opposite to these counties the smallest share of
ALMPs participants in total number of participants is registered in counties such as Lika, Pozega, Zadar, although
the unemployment rates are higher than the average in Croatia. The total amount of funds spent for the measures
(year 2006 and 2007, by 30 June) was around 139 mil. HRK or around 20.000.000 Euro.
Major part of employers, beneficiaries of ALMPs measures, represents SMEs and only a small part medium or big
sized companies.
Individual participants rated measures in general as having a good impact/effect on:
t+PCTUBCJMJUZKPCTBUJTGBDUJPOQMBOTGPSGVUVSFNPCJMJUZ
t8PSLTVDIBTVQUPEBUFXJUIUIFQSPGFTTJPOKPCBTBOJODFOUJWFUPMFBSOTFMGDPOmEFODFSFMBUFEUP
job chances
t'JOBODJBMTJUVBUJPO4PDJBMMJGF*OEJWJEVBMTUBCJMJ[BUJPO4FMGDPOmEFODF0QUJNJTNBCPVUUIFGVUVSF
t.POJUPSJOHFWBMVBUJPOSFQPSUJOHPGUIFSFTVMUTPG"-.1TNFBTVSFT
62
Only few exceptions are allowed
4.6 Monitoring, evaluation, reporting of the results of ALMPs
measures
1. How the ALMPs measures are monitored? What are the ALMPs monitoring indicators used?
t*TBTZTUFNBUJDBQQSPBDIPGNPOJUPSJOH"-.1TJOQMBDF
t*TUIFNPOJUPSJOHTZTUFNTUBOEBSEJTFETBNFJOEJDBUPSTTBNFQSPDFEVSFTFUD
BOEBSFHVMBSPOF
(periodicity established)?
t*TUIFEBUBCBTFPO"-.1TBQSPQFSPOFDPOUBJOJOHBMMEFUBJMTOFDFTTBSZ
JOPSEFSUPQSPWJEFBHPPE
monitoring?
t*TUIFEBUBCBTFTJNJMBSBUUIFDFOUSBMMFWFMBOEMPDBMMFWFM – Does it contain the same information at central and local level?
– How is the database updated?
Interviews CES
According with opinions expressed by CES representatives, in all 4 counties, the monitoring system is a
standardised one. Monitoring of ALMPs is made on monthly basis.
Specific data and statistics are also published on hard copies and on CES web-site. The results are presented in
tables and additional explanations are provided in short texts. Main indicators used in monitoring ALMPs are the
number of submitted applications, requests approved, number of contracts, of participants, financing etc.
Database was improved if it is to compare with the one related to the previous cycle of ALMPs measures.
Database contains more or less the same information at central and regional level. Regional employment offi ces
use additional Excel data-bases, developed at the county level, with data about employers’ obligations, schedule
of these obligations- this data is not successfully included in the central data-base.
Still, according with opinions expressed in 1 county, the structure and quality of data collected/provided is not
enough, not suitable for analysis of time based data (no trends and comparisons) or more qualitative analysis
such as the ones related to specific occupations of people employed through the measures, type of jobs etc.
(q.4.1)
Stakeholders participating in the 3 FG expressed the opinion the monitoring is a systematic and regular process,
established by the central level of CES; in 1 county stakeholders mentioned they have no detailed information
and they only “believe” the monitoring is a systematic and regular approach.
The existing monitoring system should be improved, including the related ALMPs data base, in order to
allow more qualitative analysis but also for evaluation purposes – ex. effects of the measures at the end of
implementation/ subsidising period of the employment (1 county) (q.5.2)..
99
Phare 2005 projec t
100
2. Are the stakeholders involved in monitoring of ALMPs? If yes, how?
t Tri-partite board etc
Interviews CES
All CES representatives in the 4 counties mentioned the stakeholders are informed about the results of ALMPs
through regular reports, but not directly/actively involved in the process of monitoring and evaluation of the
measures (q.4.2).
Stakeholders in 1 county had no information on the monitoring system and that’s why they could not express
their opinion on the related aspect.
In the other 3 counties, opinions differed according with specific experiences/approaches in the counties, as
the following:
t&DPOPNJDBOE4PDJBM$PVODJMBOE5SBEF6OJPOTBSFSFHVMBSMZJOGPSNFEPOUIF$&4BDUJWJUJFTXIJMFUIF
NGO sector is left out of this information (1 county)
t5IFCPBSEPG-PDBMQBSUOFSTIJQGPSFNQMPZNFOUJTXFMMJOGPSNFEPOUIF"-.1TNFBTVSFTDPVOUZ
t5IFTUBLFIPMEFST SFQSFTFOUBUJWFTJOUIF$&4USJQBSUJUFCPBSEBSFJOEJSFDUMZJOWPMWFEJONPOJUPSJOHPG
ALMPs through monthly reports, bulletin and regular meetings. They use the monitoring results to
discuss about problems, make proposals, take initiatives and divide tasks. But they cannot influence
the ALMPs planning/programming process, as the tripartite board is an advisory forum (q.5.1).
3. What was the employers’ experience with and assessment of monitoring of implementation of current
ALMPs (easy, too complicated)
There are different opinions about this subject. Employers have used different measures, so their experiences
with monitoring differ, especially because, as the employers appreciated, monitoring for measures differs, for
one measure is simpler while for another is much more complicated.
Some of the interviewed employers in the 4 counties (especially the big size companies) considered there are
no big problems regarding the monitoring procedures, reporting towards CES that are simpler and easier than
in the previous cycle of ALMPs.
Other employers (few big companies, but the majority of medium and small size companies) expressed the
opinion that although the monitoring procedure itself is not too complicated (regarding clarity), there is quite
a lot of work in order to provide reports required for monitoring purposes. So, according with their experiences,
monitoring process is still very complicated, some time it was mentioned monitoring is “unreasonable
complicated”. Small size employers also considered it does not make sense for them to bring/present all the
salary-lists to the CES (for monitoring purpose), since the Tax Office has correct and prompt information. The
proposal was that The Tax Office receives a list of contractors (the ALMPs measure beneficiaries- companies) and
send to CES, monthly/weekly/when necessary, salary lists (as requested to be presented by employers) for the
whole country.
According with the experiences shared by the interviewed employers, the monitoring system is mainly based on
“checking the documents to be provided by the beneficiary companies”. “Less or no activities are implemented
by the CES in order to have a view from the ground- field, such as visits to the companies beneficiaries of ALMPs
although such visits would be a great help for employers”, according to their opinion.
All employers have agreed that monitoring system is necessary, but it should be improved, simplified and
controls should have an “on-side advice” character too (q.5.1).
4. How the public in general, stakeholders in particular, are informed about results of ALMPs?
t"SFUIFSFQPSUTiIBSEDPQZSFQPSUTwPSBMSFQPSUT
t"SFUIFSFTUBOEBSEJTFEJUFNTGPSSFQPSUJOH
t%PUIFSFQPSUTDPOUBJOUJNFTFSJFTPSPOMZGPDVTTFEPODVSSFOUTJUVBUJPO
t%PUIFSFQPSUTBEESFTTGPDBMUIFNFT
Interviews CES
The main ways of informing the public and stakeholders on the ALMPs results are:
t.POUIMZTUBUJTUJDBMCVMMFUJOIBSEDPQJFT
t4PNFUJNFTNFEJB
t0ODFBZFBS$&4PöDFTQSFTFOUUIFSFTVMUTPGUIFJSXPSLUPUSJQBSUJUFBEWJTPSZDPNNJUUFF
t)BMG ZFBS BOBMZUJDBM SFQPSU o XIJDI QSPWJEFT B NPSF EFUBJMFE BOBMZTJT PO "-.1 JNQMFNFOUBUJPO o
number of beneficiaries by each measure
t$&4XFCQBHFPOUIFOBUJPOBMMFWFM
t*OGPSNBUJPOPO"-.1JTBMTPQSFTFOUFEJOXPSLTIPQTBOEQSFTFOUBUJPOT
The reports are standardised, the focus is on the current situation plus cumulative period; According with
opinion of some representatives of CES the reports do not capture trends; some of the reports address focal
themes from time to time (q.4.3).
Stakeholders participating in the FG mentioned they are informed on ALMPS results and in general on other
issues related to CES activities, or unemployment/employment by:
t.POUIMZTUBUJTUJDBMCVMMFUJOIBSEDPQJFT
t.FEJBXSJUUFOSBEJP57
t%JõFSFOUQSFTFOUBUJPOT
More effort is necessary for public information, especially on availability of measures, and less on the results, it
was also mentioned in 1 county (q.5.3).
The major outcome of employers’ feed-back on this aspect is that information on results of ALMP is quite poor,
and should be strengthened especially in local media. They also suggested that at least once a year a very
detailed analysis on ALMPs results should be done by the CES and then information should be disseminated to
all parties of interest. The information should also be presented in a way that attracts people to read it, more in
a “user-friendly” way.
Some of the employers mentioned they did not find any information on ALMPs in local media or information is
only from time to time.
101
Phare 2005 projec t
102
According to some other opinions (especially big size employers) the media coverage is poor, rather politically
misused and thus non-reliable. Failures for example are not published at all, although everybody can learn from
failures.
Medium and small size employers expressed the opinion they would like to find more information on availability
of measures.
Majority of employers also mentioned their main interest is on being informed on availability of measures,
procedures etc. instead of results of measures. That’s why even available, for example on the CES web-site,
information on results of ALMPs was not a big interest for employers (q.5.2).
Information on the results of ALMPs is presented to the public in the monthly statistical bulletin and on the CES
web-site.
The VET Adult Agency expressed the opinion there is still a need for improvement in the field of statistics, as the
data collection and the statistics are not harmonised at the national level as well as with the EU methodology
(q.5.4).
4.6.1 Summary:
4.6.1.1 Monitoring system, indicators, public information on results of ALMPs measures
According with general opinion of the respondents the monitoring system is a standardised one, a systematic
and regular process established by CES central level. Monitoring is done on a monthly basis and the public is
mainly informed by monthly statistical bulletin (hard copies), some times media, once a year presentations
in the CES tripartite board, half- year analytical report, CES web page at the national level, other workshops
and presentations.
Main indicators used in monitoring are the number of submitted application, requests approved, number of
contracts, number of participants, etc. Database contains more or less the same information at central and
regional level but regional employment offices use additional Excel databases, developed at the county level,
with data about employers’ obligations, schedule of these obligations- this data is not successfully included in
the central data-base .
Although database was improved compared with the previous cycle of ALMPs, according with some opinions
the structure and quality of data collected and information provided is not suitable for more detailed of
time- based data (no trends and comparisons) or more qualitative analysis and is in this line that the monitoring/
database should be improved. As it was suggested would be very good also to introduce some evaluation of
ALMPs for example would be very interesting and helpful to find out the effects of the measures at the end
of implementation/ subsidising period of the employment.
In addition, stakeholders/social partners central level feel that there is still a need for improvement in the field
of statistics, as the data collection and the statistics are not harmonised at the national level as well as with
the EU methodology
As it is perceived by all interviewed employers, the information on results of ALMP is quite poor and should be
improved, especially in the way it is presented in local media, in a way that attracts people to read it, more in a “userfriendly” way. According to some opinions, especially big size employers, the media coverage is poor, rather
politically misused and thus non-reliable. Failures for example are not published at all, although everybody can
learn from failures. They also suggested that at least once a year a very detailed analysis on ALMPs results should
be done by the CES and then information should be disseminated to all parties of interest.
4.6.1.2 Involvement of stakeholders/social partners in ALMPs monitoring
With few exceptions the respondents concluded the stakeholders/social partners are informed about the
results of ALMPs through regular reports, but not directly/actively involved in the process of monitoring
and evaluation of the measures. Moreover as it was mentioned in 1 county the stakeholders/social partners in
the CES tripartite board use the monitoring results to discuss about problems, make proposals, but they cannot
influence the ALMPs planning/programming process, as the tripartite board is only an advisory forum.
4.6.1.3 Experience with monitoring/reporting on the implementation of ALMPs measures
Some of the interviewed employers (especially the big size companies) considered there are no big problems
regarding the monitoring procedures, reporting towards CES that are simpler and easier than in the previous
cycle of ALMPs. Other employers (few big companies, but the majority of medium and small size companies)
expressed the opinion that although the monitoring procedure itself is not too complicated (regarding clarity),
there is quite a lot of work in order to provide all the reports required for monitoring purposes.
In the opinion of employers such kind of monitoring/checking on fulfilling the conditionality can be done via
direct communication (network) between different state institutions with responsibilities in the field, so in this
way to eliminate the paper reports/documents that have to be provided by the employers.
The interviewed employers pointed out the fact that the monitoring system of implementation of ALMPs
is mainly based on “checking the documents to be provided by the beneficiary companies”. According to
employers’ feed-back less or no activities are implemented by the CES in order to have a view from the
“field”, such as visits to the companies, beneficiaries of ALMPs, although such visits would be a great help for
employers. All employers have agreed that monitoring system is necessary, but it should be improved, simplified
and controls should have an “on-side advice” character too.
4.7 Cooperation between local stakeholders/social partners,
local partnerships for employment, CES cooperation with
employers, local stakeholders and social partners
1. According to your opinion/experience is the tripartism, national level an institutionalised one, does
it really work? If there is a systematic partnership /cooperation: what institution usually mediate/
coordinate it? How is the information circulated from national to local/county level and vice-versa?
CES representatives participating in the FG mentioned that formally the tripartitism/ stakeholders’ cooperation
at the national level is very good. Still, the real cooperation promoted especially in different projects almost
disappears once the projects are finished.
Other ministries participating in the FG national level underlined some of the aspects of the tripartitism,
stakeholders’ cooperation that should be improved:
t*OUFSNJOJTUFSJBMDPPQFSBUJPOoJTWFSZQPPS
t%JTTFNJOBUJPOPGJOGPSNBUJPOXJUIJOJOTUJUVUJPOTJTBMTPBQSPCMFN
t-BDLPGJOTUJUVUJPOBMJTFEDPOUBDUTCFUXFFOUIFJOTUJUVUJPOT
t-BDLPGTUBõJOTPNFNJOJTUSJFTTPTPNFUJNFTR
103
Phare 2005 projec t
104
2. Is there any local partnership in a systematic and organised way or is there only an informal network
of “pressure” groups /lobbies?
tIf there is a systematic partnership: what institution usually mediates/ coordinates it?
Interviews CES
On this aspect experiences, practices differ from county to county.
So, in 1 county, representatives of CES mentioned the local partnership exists but as an” informal network”,
and it functions well, not being necessary to be “formalised”. If this local partnership would be “formalised” the
regional CES suggested to use the Socio-economic committee (GSV) existing at the county level, as a possible
“framework institution”.
In another county CES considered that the local partnership is more or less institutionalised as the tripartite
board has been established, being co-ordinated by the CES.
Local partnership in a systematic and organised way exists in another county, and it is composed by representatives
of Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of trade and crafts, the county and local governments and representatives
of the educational institutions.
In another county it was mentioned real partnerships, as practiced in the EU, have not been established due to
the fact that the regional employment offi ce has not financial means to support the activities of such partnership.
Also the tripartite board of the CES is limited only to expressing support, advising or proposing actions. A kind of
good collaboration with different institutions, NGOs etc. was also established but mainly limited to the regular
activity fields. The CES representatives in this county see a real opportunity for local partnership when they will
have their own co-financing resources (q.61).
In the same way, opinions of the stakeholders participating in the 4 FG differ according with each county
experience/ practice.
In 1 county, stakeholders’ representatives gave examples of some initiatives of different institutions, or proposals
to form a Labour Market Committee that should deal with employment issues, but apparently no institutionalised
local partnership exists.
As it was mentioned in another county, there is a systematic partnership for employment in the form of The
Tripartite Advisory Board/Council (AC) of CES – it consists of three representatives from Croatian Association
of Employers, two representatives from Trade Unions and one of Association of Unemployed. The work of this
board/council is coordinated (providing logistic for meeting, sharing information of activities) by the CES and
regulated by the Institution Act (statute) of the CES. The AC was established in 2000 and its members meet at
least 2 times per year, or more frequent if there is a need. In the same county NGOs representatives expressed the
opinion that the efficiency and impact of more or less formal partnership groups, is questionable. It seems that
stakeholders still do not understand that true meaning and purpose of the partnership is shared responsibility
and joint action. Thus, work should be done on the promotion of partnership principles, as well as on education
of stakeholders.
Trade Unions and Chamber of Trades and Crafts (CTC) representatives in another FG appreciated the local
partnership for employment (LPE) does exist and it is quite well established in that county. The Advisory board
of the local partnership for employment meets on a regular basis (twice a month) on the county level. President
of LPE is member of CTC who coordinates the activities with technical support of CES. Every member of the
board expresses their opinion about topics
Different representatives of stakeholders in another county gave some examples of such local partnerships/local
partnerships for employment: the tripartite board/council of CES regional office, the Economical-Social Board at
the city level. Some of the NGOs participating in the same FG meeting mentioned they have good co-operation
with CES, but the others considered the civil society through NGOs is excluded from the partnerships, except
through some occasional projects. The same opinion was expressed by the representatives of unemployed
associations that in the period from 2001-03 was involved in the CES tripartite board/council at central level but
after 2003 this organization was simply ignored and never invited to any event (q.2.1).
Again, this time according with the employers’ opinion, the situation differs from county to county:
t'PSNBMQBSUOFSTIJQUIBUXPVMEEFBMXJUIFNQMPZNFOUJTTVFTEPOPUFYJTUPSFNQMPZFSTEJEOPUIFBSPG
any local partnership for employment. ; only informal networks are known to very few of the employers
but there is no structured way that would enable such partnership to operate in a systematic waymain outcome of employers’ interviews in 1 county
t/POF PG UIF FNQMPZFST IBWF JOGPSNBUJPOLOPX PG UIF FYJTUFODF PG TVDI MPDBM QBSUOFSTIJQT GPS
employment (other 2 counties)
t*OBOPUIFSDPVOUZBGFXFNQMPZFSTIBETPNFJOGPSNBUJPOPGUIFFYJTUFODFPGBLJOEPGQBSUOFSTIJQTo
for ex. university, Chamber of Crafts, employers in the pharmacy branch. But the majority of employers
in that county had no information on local partnerships for employers (q.7.3)
3. Can you give us examples of good practices and bad practices in local partnerships for employment?
Interviews CES
The good practices in local partnerships referred more to ad-hoc actions and more to the co-operation of
regional employment offices with some of the county stakeholders, such as County and City Committees (2
counties); in another county the good example of co-operation was the one in designing of the two projects
and applying for the CARDS 2004 – one accepted in implementation phase.
The bad practices/negative aspects mentioned were:
t4PNFFNQMPZFSTDPOUBDUEJSFDUMZUIF$&4DFOUSBMMFWFMGPSTPNFJTTVFTBOEOPUUIFSFHJPOBMMFWFMBT
they should do
t3FHJPOBMBOEMPDBMHPWFSONFOUEPOPUVOEFSTUBOETJHOJmDBODFBOEJNQPSUBODFPGUIFQBSUOFSTIJQ
and in the meetings are not involved “influential officials” meaning people that can take decisions-1
county (q.6.2)
Representatives of some stakeholders participating in the FG could not give an answer to this question as they
had no information on local partnerships for employment.
tAs for the examples mentioned by other stakeholders they referred also to isolated initiatives or actions
such as Co-operation on specific initiatives that goes beyond measures
No bad examples were given, as the stakeholders have no relevant information on the topic (q.2.2).
105
Phare 2005 projec t
106
Most employers considered that local initiatives, if they do exist, are fruitless – otherwise they would have heard
of them, or they clearly stated they do not know about such examples. Some of the employers mentioned the
local partnership for employment do exists but they lack of necessary funds for specific activities.
Only few employers were familiar with some local initiatives for co-operation, such as initiatives including
schools, employers and public authorities as a result of local informal partnerships (q.7.4).
4. How would you assess the general contact with CES national/CES county level? (Well established,
from time to time, useful in solving companies demands etc) /If the contact persons in CES is wellinformed on the needs of companies etc.
In all 4 counties interviewed employers were in general satisfied with their contact with CES, or they mentioned
the contact is well established, having also the following comments:
t5IF BEIPD DPOUBDU JT QSFEPNJOBOU BOE JO UIJT DBTF UIF SFTQPOTF PG $&4 XBT BMXBZT RVJDL BOE
appropriate but more pro-active promotion from the CES is welcomed
t5IFSFJTOPJOJUJBUJWFGSPNUIF$&4TJEFTPUIFDPNNVOJDBUJPOJTNBJOMZPOFXBZDPNNVOJDBUJPO
employers towards CES regional offices to ask for information; especially small size employers would
appreciate broader possibilities to communicate and continuity in support and advice (q.7.1)
Moreover, in the feed-back received from questionnaires 81% of respondents employers appreciated that the
CES services have been useful in solving the companies demands to a lot, fairly and medium extent, for 16% CES
services have been useful to some extent while around 3% considered these services have not been useful at
all, mainly because: “the persons sent to us were not properly checked which resulted in them refusing jobs and
us still not managing to employ someone sent by the CES“; “there are no workers with qualifications we require“;
„CES haven’t solved my any problem“; “slow, incomplete and overly bureaucratic service” (q.48).
The information received from CES is in line with the companies, needs for 83% of respondents, a lot, fairly, or
to a medium extent, to some extent for 13% while 4% considered CES services were not in line with companies
needs (q.47).
The contact between companies (not only for ALMPs measures) and CES differs between companies, respondents
of questionnaires: 39% contact CES only when they need some new staff, for 26% of respondents, employersthe contact is regular, already established and from both parties, 20% of employers respondents are contacted
by CES from time to time for information, 11% of employers very rarely address to CES, and 4% have never been
contacted by CES (q.46).
As for the way this contact is realised again the situation differ among the companies (respondents) as such: for
57% of respondents the contact is realised via one permanent contact person in the CES, for 36% the contact
person in the CES changes in relation to the subject, for 7% this person changes regardless the subject of
discussion (q.49).
For 19% of employers respondents the person contact in CES is excellent informed on the companies business
and needs, 52% appreciated the contact person is very good and good informed about companies business
and needs, 21% considered the contact person is enough informed while 8% mentioned the contact person is
not sufficient informed (q.50) .
Representatives of Chamber of Trades and Crafts, Fund for Professional Rehabilitation of disabled people, Adult
VET Agency appreciated as good the co-operation with CES central and local level, from their personal point of
views, but these opinions do not implicitly represent their members’ opinions (q.2.6)
5. What needs have enterprises in terms of CES support, services to be provided by the CES at central /
local level
In general, the employers’ needs in terms of CES services or additional support were already mentioned under
other questions, and it consisted of:
t"TZTUFNBUJDBQQSPBDIUPFNQMPZNFOUJTTVFTJOWPMWFNFOUPGBMMSFMFWBOUQBSUJFT
t#FUUFSNPSFRVBMJUBUJWFQSFTFMFDUJPOTFSWJDFTQSPWJEFECZUIF$&4
t.PSFBEVMUUSBJOJOHQSPHSBNNFTEFTJHOFEFTQFDJBMMZUPJNQSPWFDFSUBJOTLJMMTFHDPNQVUFSTLJMMT
more funds to be allocated to these programmes
t$PPSEJOBUJPOBNPOHEJõFSFOUSFHJPOTJOPSEFSUPQSPNPUFNPCJMJUZPGIVNBOSFTPVSDFTXJUIJOUIF
country
t#FUUFSBOENPSFBEWJDFBOEJOGPSNBUJPOPO"-.1TGSPN$&4
t.PSFBDUJWFDPNNVOJDBUJPOBOEFYDIBOHFPGJOGPSNBUJPO
t.PSFDPOUSPMPOVOFNQMPZFE$&4UPWFSJGZVOFNQMPZFEOPUUPMFSBUJOHUIPTFVOXJMMJOHUPXPSL
t#FUUFS DPPSEJOBUJPO CFUXFFO FNQMPZFST BTTPDJBUJPOT DIBNCFST PG DPNNFSDF $&4 BOE DPVOUZ
authorities on employment issues
t"EWJDF JO EFTJHOJOH )VNBO 3FTPVSDFT TUSBUFHZ PS PO IVNBO SFTPVSDFT NBOBHFNFOU TUSBUFHZ
especially for small size companies (q.7.2)
6. Is any combination in place (at county level), integrating different policies-ALMPs, Infrastructure
development policy (municipality, tourism etc), Economic development policy- staff recruitment,
settlement of new enterprises
Many of interviewed employers had no information on this aspect, or they considered there is a lot of potential for
such combinations – e.g. programmes or measures under the competences of Ministry of Sea, Tourism, Transport
and development, Ministry of Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship but networking and coordination is still
missing
In 1 county small size employers participated in the development of the ROP but they were not aware of any
recent development in its implementation (q.7.5).
In 3 counties representatives of stakeholders agreed that ROPs are or could be a framework for this combination
of different policies. However, these plans are not fully operational for several reasons –lack of cooperation/
coordination and transfer of knowledge between different institutions, lack of knowledge and experience in
107
Phare 2005 projec t
108
integrated strategic planning and implementation, inertia of institutions, lack or uncertainty of funds in terms of
time-frame and availability, lack of related framework legislation etc.
In 1 county the stakeholders considered there are many programmes that can be combined but there is no
coordination between programmes (q.2.4).
The Strategic Coherence Development 2006-2013 was developed and it addresses many areas (economical,
some employment, education etc.) but a real combination of different policies is not yet in place in Croatia
(q.2.3).
7. According to your experience: Can the local partnerships help in local/regional development?
tIs it possible, what should be done, have you good practices in this field etc.?
Focus Group-4 selected counties
In general stakeholders considered the local partnerships certainly can help in local development but in practice
partnerships are not too effi cient because of:
t5IFSFJTBMBDLPGDPPSEJOBUJPOBOEUPTPNFFYUFOUUIFSFJTBMBDLPGUPMFSBODFUSVTUDPPQFSBUJWFTQJSJU
and tradition;
t4UBLFIPMEFSTBSFOPUSFBMMZBXBSFPGUIFJSSPMFTBOESFTQPOTJCJMJUJFT
t$PNQMJDBUFEGSBNFXPSLPGMFHBMSFMBUJPOTIJQTBOEMJBCJMJUJFTUIBUMJNJUTBSFBPGDPPQFSBUJPOBOEIJOEFST
effi ciency of such partnerships
t5PPDFOUSBMJTFETZTUFNTMBDLPGEFDFOUSBMJTBUJPO
Stakeholders also agreed that having in mind future accession to the EU, development of local partnerships
are becoming a necessity since EU integration and utilization of EU funds will not be possible without well
established and functional local partnerships (q.2.3).
4.7.1 Summary:
4.7.1.1 Local tri-partism/stakeholders cooperation
Mentioned before already, at the national level it seems that the tri-partism/ stakeholders’ cooperation is quite
good, and it is not a “formal” one. However, the real cooperation promoted especially in different projects almost
disappears once the projects are finished. In the same time, as the situation is perceived at the central level, the
weak aspects on tri-partism/stakeholders cooperation are: inter-ministerial cooperation, dissemination of
information within institutions, lack of institutionalised contacts between the institutions
4.7.1.2 Local partnerships for employment (LPE)
At the regional/county level, experiences/practices related to local tri-partism, more specific to local
partnerships for employment differ from county to county. In line with feed-back of CES and stakeholders it
seems that more or less such partnerships, in most of the cases informal ones, exist in some counties in the form of the
Tripartite Advisory Board/Council (AC) of CES regional level or the Economical-Social Board at the city level.
In another county local partnership for employment is perceived as a well established one, the president of LPE
is member of CTC who coordinates the activities with technical support of CES.
Another county experience is of some initiatives of different institutions, or proposals to form a Labour Market
Committee that should deal with employment issues, but apparently no institutionalised local partnership do
exists. Moreover, representatives of NGOs felt they are excluded from the partnerships, except through some
occasional projects. The same opinion was expressed by the representatives of unemployed associations
that in the period 2001-03 were involved in the CES tripartite board/council at central level but after 2003 these
associations were simply ignored and never invited to any event.
In the opinion of employers formal partnerships that would deal with employment issues do not exist, or
they have no information on such local partnerships; only informal networks are known to very few of the
employers but there is no structured way that would enable such partnerships to operate in a systematic way.
Moreover, most of stakeholders/social partners, regional level, appreciated such local partnerships for employment
could really be very useful in local development but in practice partnerships are not too efficient because of:
ti 5IFSFJTBMBDLPGDPPSEJOBUJPOBOEUPTPNFFYUFOUUIFSFJTBMBDLPGUPMFSBODFUSVTUDPPQFSBUJWFTQJSJU
and tradition”
ti4UBLFIPMEFSTTPDJBMQBSUOFSTBSFOPUSFBMMZBXBSFPGUIFJSSPMFTBOESFTQPOTJCJMJUJFTw
ti$PNQMJDBUFEGSBNFXPSLPGMFHBMSFMBUJPOTIJQTBOEMJBCJMJUJFTUIBUMJNJUTBSFBPGDPPQFSBUJPOBOEIJOEFST
efficiency of such partnerships”
ti 5PPDFOUSBMJTFETZTUFNTMBDLPGEFDFOUSBMJTBUJPOw
Stakeholders/social partners also agreed that having in mind future accession to the EU, development of local
partnerships is becoming a necessity since EU integration and utilization of EU funds will not be possible without
well established and functional local partnerships.
4.7.1.3 Combination in place to integrate different policies at the local/ central level
In relation to initiatives in place on combination of different policies such as ALMPs, infrastructure development
policy (municipality, tourism etc.), economic development policy, staff recruitment/development, settlement of new
enterprises etc. the general opinion across all categories of respondents was that there are some initiatives
but a real combination of different policies is not yet in place in Croatia. Initiatives referred to The Strategic
Coherence Development 2006-2013, developed and addressing many areas (economical, some employment,
education etc.) or ROPs that are or could be a framework for this combination of different policies. However,
even ROPs are not fully operational for several reasons –“lack of cooperation/ coordination and transfer of
knowledge between different institutions, lack of knowledge and experience in integrated strategic planning
and implementation, inertia of institutions, lack or uncertainty of funds in terms of time-frame and availability,
lack of related framework legislation” etc
4.7.1.4 CES cooperation with stakeholders/social partners and employers
CES cooperation with stakeholders/social partners and employers representatives of was appreciated as
being quite good by representatives of Chamber of Trades and Crafts, Fund for Professional Rehabilitation of
Disabled People, Adult VET Agency participating in the FG national level, from their personal point of views, but
these opinions do not implicitly represent also their members’ opinions.
At the regional level almost all interviewed employers were in general satisfied with their contact with CES, or
they mentioned the contact is well established, having also the following comments, or proposals for areas of
improvement:
ti 5IF BEIPD DPOUBDU JT QSFEPNJOBOU BOE JO UIJT DBTF UIF SFTQPOTF PG $&4 XBT BMXBZT RVJDL BOE
appropriate but more pro-active promotion from the CES is welcomed”
109
Phare 2005 projec t
110
ti 5IFSFJTOPJOJUJBUJWFGSPNUIF$&4TJEFTPUIFDPNNVOJDBUJPOJTNBJOMZPOFXBZDPNNVOJDBUJPO
employers towards CES regional offices, especially to ask for information”
t4NBMM TJ[F FNQMPZFST iXPVME BQQSFDJBUF CSPBEFS QPTTJCJMJUJFT UP DPNNVOJDBUF BOE DPOUJOVJUZ JO
support and advice”
ti"TZTUFNBUJDBQQSPBDIPOFNQMPZNFOUJTTVFTJOWPMWFNFOUPGBMMSFMFWBOUQBSUJFTJTOFDFTTBSZw
ti#FUUFSNPSFRVBMJUBUJWFQSFTFMFDUJPOTFSWJDFTQSPWJEFECZUIF$&4w
ti#FUUFSBOENPSFBEWJDFBOEJOGPSNBUJPOPO"-.1TGSPN$&4w
ti.PSFBDUJWFDPNNVOJDBUJPOBOEFYDIBOHFPGJOGPSNBUJPOw
ti.PSFDPOUSPMPOVOFNQMPZFE$&4UPWFSJGZVOFNQMPZFEOPUUPMFSBUJOHUIPTFVOXJMMJOHUPXPSLw
ti#FUUFS DPPSEJOBUJPO CFUXFFO FNQMPZFST BTTPDJBUJPOT DIBNCFST PG DPNNFSDF $&4 BOE DPVOUZ
authorities on employment issues”
ti"EWJDFJOEFTJHOJOH)VNBO3FTPVSDFTTUSBUFHZPSPOIVNBOSFTPVSDFTNBOBHFNFOUTUSBUFHZ
especially for small size companies is needed”
In our research instruments we asked the participants to make some proposals in order to improve the current
ALMPs. Proposals “per se” are not objective of the evaluation report so they were used as a supporting tool for
the WG 2, to be organised in the frame of Component 2, working group that will be responsible, under the TA
assistance, to develop proposals for improvement of current ALMPs.
5 Conclusions
A positive message just at the beginning: the overwhelming majority of respondents agreed with the necessity
and usability of Active Labour Market Policies in Croatia.
This overall judgement we found with all types of stakeholders (employers, individual participants in training
and employment/work schemes, CES staff, representatives of trade unions and employers associations, local
government representatives, and NGOs as representatives of civil-society), and despite all critics in detail that
might have occurred while communicating with these stakeholders and beneficiaries. We found this explicitly
stated as well as implicitly, when receiving answers on questions like e.g. “would you recommend such measures
to friends /colleagues?” or “Do you plan to continue with using ALMP measures?” In figures: more than 60% within
both major groups (employers, individual participants) would recommend it unreservedly, a third to a quarter
would recommend it with some hints to caution, but only 4% or even less would not do so, respectively would
not apply themselves again.
This positive assessment was also maintained for the comparison between the previous measures cycle (2002 –
2005) and the current one (2006 – 2008): The new measures are considered better programmed and designed
than the previous ones – even if some of the rules and conditionalities were perceived as more cumbersome,
but for the good of preventing misuse.
As the design and implementation of Labour Market Policies in general need the commitment and work of a
multitude of stakeholders, this positive general result is a good starting point for any further development and
future reform of active labour market policies for Croatia; only few respondents shew an a-priori (but based on
their individual experience) negative attitude towards active policies’ necessity and /or implementation.
In the following some – from our point of view central – issues are listed that should indicate potential fields of
improvement. A more comprehensive report related to recommendation will be elaborated under Component
2.
The most obvious from outsiders‘ view when considering ALMP measures is the low absorption of funds. This
is related to many aspects, that might be of different relevance for action but 60% absorption altogether looks
problematic. There are a lot of things that could be done in detail to improve that situation, following the
feedback we gathered from stakeholders.
1. Availability of information
– Often mentioned was the insuffi cient or not proper to the use profiling of unemployed persons, regarding
to their real employability, particularly in terms of work experience. This is not only affecting the quality of
placement services but also the streamlining of active measures in favour of the unemployed and their
capabilities. Besides, a better profiling allows to define and measure indicators of success more easily.
– The information on active policies is not suffi ciently detailed regarding to
º Regional breakdown of measures in financial terms, regarding to
º Individual costs of participation.
With respect to that a more result focussed monitoring, beyond the counting of participants /placements, would
be helpful and complementing the currently sooner administrative monitoring approach:
º Output should be more detailed documented regarding not only to counting participants by
measures but also to register and document planned and actual volume of participation (e.g. in
training hours or working days) to receive a better base for comparisons of measures’ success
º A follow-up of participants beyond the subsidy period, and a clear
º Documentation of seemingly not successful participants (those e.g. who dropped a training or left
the subsidised workplace) is part of such a result oriented monitoring.
– In general the information gathered should be more standardised regarding to an as broad as possible
common minimum, that all regions should collect and provide based on a common understanding
of terms and concepts, Coherence and reliability of information is a key to better strategic steering of
implementation and for improved planning too.
2. Use regularly made out of information available by principle
– Even when available by principle parts of information where not known to be existing to the
stakeholders as they are not part of regular reporting
– The reporting was often mentioned not to be user-friendly and not interesting enough for a broader
audience.
– Different types of information regarding to addressees and purpose of publicity seem to be necessary,
particularly when a better involvement of stakeholders is intended. This comprises
º Better information to potential applicants on labour market measures available and about their
specific features seem to be necessary for better targeting activities in favour of the intended
target groups
º More specific and detailed regular information with regional breakdown and comparing activities
by criteria of success and regarding to different contexts
º Stories of success, but typical failures too, were told to be of interest to learn from
111
Phare 2005 projec t
112
3. Decentralisation and subsidiarity in planning and implementation
– Decentralisation was a major issue. This comprises involvement of regions in planning and budgeting
measures as well as in designing them more specific for regional needs
– The current - mainly as top-down perceived - approach needs a strengthening of complementary
bottom-up involvement
– This comprises regular information flow but also a shift of some competence to regions (with
responsibility on transparent monitoring and reporting to be taken by regions in exchange)
– The effective exclusion of NGOs from most of measures but also from planning seems to have a
negative impact on the involvement of specific core target groups (e.g. disabled people) in active
policies.
4. Addressing clients
– A more active approach regarding both types of addressees (unemployed as well as employers) seems to
be necessary.
º Transparency – particularly in relation to unemployed regarding the measures they are supported by –
is a general element of modern governance and should be followed by principle
– More regular contacts to employers – as potential users of measures – would be helpful to streamline
measures as well as to improve absorption. Also when measures are running, a regular contact – including
on site visits – should be considered a routine task and was also requested by employers
5. Context factors
– An important context factor for the implementation of Active Employment Policy is the annuality of
budgets and the very short periods for their implementation. A shift to multi-annual budgeting is
inevitable facing the upcoming Structural Policy support by EU, but also a necessary pre-condition
for better and more flexible measures
– Besides, a longer planning horizon underpinned by a more flexible multi-annual budgetary system
would allow for policies to evolve a bit more smoothly than was in the transition from the previous
to the current cycle at least.
6 List of Annexes
Annex A: Research plan, including the personalised research instruments (interviews, focus groups, questionnaires)
(please refer to the accompanying CD-Rom)
Annex B: ALMPs statistics, Croatia and counties (please refer to the accompanying CD-Rom)
Annex C: Statistical results of employers’ questionnaires (beneficiaries of ALMPs)
Annex D: Statistical results of individuals’ (trainees, employees) questionnaires (beneficiaries of ALMPs)
Annex 1: Structure of evaluation target population - respondents of questionnaires, participants in interviews
and focus groups meetings (please refer to the accompanying CD-Rom)
Annex 2: Report - interviews, focus groups meetings in 4 selected counties (please refer to the accompanying
CD-Rom)
Annex 3: Summary Report- field visits 4 selected counties (please refer to the accompanying CD-Rom)
Annex 4: List of documents and materials
Annex 5: Economic and labour market statistics (please refer to the accompanying CD-Rom)
Annex 6: ALMPs and registered unemployment statistics
113
ANNEX C
Statistical results of employers’ questionnaires
(Summary of main relevant questions and feed-back)
Phare 2005 projec t
116
3
Type of company /employer – legal form
Total
%
Nothing selected
3
0,80
Trade companies
222
59,52
Crafts
112
30,03
Co-operatives
4
1,07
Institution bodies, NGO, organisation
32
8,58
373
100,00
Total
3. Type of company/employer - legal form
1%
9%
1%
nothing selected
trade companies
crafts
30%
59%
cooperatives
institution bodies, associations
and organisations
4
Type of ownership of the company
Total
%
Nothing selected
4
1,07
State ownership
20
5,36
Private ownership
341
91,42
Co-operative ownership
3
0,80
Mixed ownership
5
1,34
373
100,00
Total
4. Type of ownership of the company
1% 1% 5%
nothing selected
State ownership
Private ownership
Cooperative ownership
Mixed ownership
92%
ANNEX C Statistical results of employers’ questio n n a i re s
117
5
Size of the company / employer’s organisation – according to contract with CES
Total
%
nothing selected
1
0,27
Small (i.e. up to 50 employees)
337
90,35
Medium (i.e. up to 250 employees)
32
8,58
Big (i.e. above 250 employees)
3
0,80
373
100,00
Total
5. Size of thecompany/employer’s organisation - acording to the
contract concluded with CES
1%
9%
0%
nothing selected
Small (i. e. up to 50 employess)
Medium (i. e. up to 250 employess)
Big (i. e. above 250 employess)
90%
6
Current number of employees in your company
Total
%
Less than 10
221
59,25
10-25
80
21,45
26-50
35
9,38
51-100
18
4,83
101-250
15
4,02
251-500
3
0,80
More than 500
1
0,27
373
100,00
Total
6. Current number of employees in your company
5%
4% 10%
9%
Less then 10
10-25
26-50
51-100
21%
60%
101-250
251-500
more than 500
Phare 2005 projec t
118
7
Number of employees by gender
Total
%
Male
5419
62,87
Female
3200
37,13
8619
100,00
Total
7. Number of employees by gender
37%
Male
Female
63%
8
Number of male employees by age groups
F
M
F
M
Less than 25
361
650
11,68
13,31
25 -34
893
1502
28,90
30,75
35 – 44
888
1347
28,74
27,57
45 - 54
745
993
24,11
20,33
55 and older
203
393
6,57
8,05
3090
4885
100,00
100,00
Total
8. Number of male employees by age groups
8%
13%
20%
Less then 25
25-34
35-44
31%
28%
45-54
55 and older
119
9
Number of employees by job profiles
Total
%
Legislators, senior offi cials and managers
262
3,56
Professionals
165
2,24
Technicians and associated professionals
1034
14,03
Clerks
983
13,34
Service workers, shop and market sales workers
1283
17,41
Skilled agricultural and fishery workers
52
0,71
Craft and related trade workers
867
11,77
Plant and machine operators
929
12,61
Elementary occupations
1382
18,76
Armed forces
0
0,00
Other
411
5,58
7368
100,00
Total
9. Number of employees by job profiles
Legislators, senior offi sals and managers
0%
6%
4%
Professionals
2%
Tehnicians and associated proffesionals
14%
18%
Clerks
Service workers, and shop and market sales
workers
Skilled agricultural and fishery workers
Craft and related trade workers
13%
13%
Plant and mashine operators and
assemblers
Elementary occupations
Armend forces
12%
17%
1%
Other
Phare 2005 projec t
120
10
Number of female employees by type of contract
F
M
F
M
Full-time contracts (i.e. 40 hours per week)
2792
4204
98,69
99,69
Part-time contracts (i.e. less than 40 hours per week)
37
13
1,31
0,31
Total
2829
4217
100,00
100,00
VHPWPSJOBPESFŜFOP
722
771
26,42
17,37
VHPWPSJOBOFPESFŜFOPTUBMOP
2011
3668
73,58
82,63
2733
4439
100,00
100,00
Total
10. Number of female emloyees by type of contract
(full- time/part-time)
1%
full-time conctracts (i.e. 40
hours per week)
part-time i.e. less than 40
hours per week)
99%
10. Number of male emloyees by type of conctract
(full- time/part-time)
0%
99%
full-time conctracts (i.e. 40
hours per week)
part-time i.e. less than 40
hours per week)
100%
121
10. Number of male employees by type of contract
(fixed-term/non fixed-term)
17%
fixed-term contracts
non fixed-term
(permanent) contracts
83%
10. Number of female employees by type of contract
(fixed-term/non fixed-term)
26%
fixed-term contracts
non fixed-term (permanent)
contracts
74%
Phare 2005 projec t
122
11
If currently no part-time employees: is part-time work possible at all?
Total
%
Nothing selected
48
12,87
Yes
187
50,13
No
138
37,00
373
100,00
Total
11. If currently no part-time employees: is part-time work
possible at all?
13%
37%
nothing selected
Yes
No
83%
12
Total
Economic field of activity of your company?
Total
%
Nothing selected _
11
2,95
Agricultural, hunting and forestry
18
4,83
Fishing
1
0,27
Mining and quarrying
1
0,27
Manufacturing
40
10,72
Electricity, gas and water supply
5
1,34
Construction
55
14,75
Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and
personal and household goods
90
24,13
Hotels and restaurants
10
2,68
Transport, storage and communication
15
4,02
Financial intermediation
8
2,14
Real estate, renting and business activities
7
1,88
Public administration and defence; compulsory social security
10
2,68
Education
6
1,61
Health and social work
12
3,22
Other community, social and personal service activities
84
22,52
Activities of households
0
0,00
Extra-territorial organizations and bodies
0
0,00
373
100,00
2%
2%
3%
2%
3%
4%
3%
23%
24%
0% 3%
5%
0%
0%
11%
15%
1%
Extra-territorial organizations and bodies
Activities of hauseholds
Other community, social and personal service activities
Helth and social work
Real estate, renting and business activities
Public administration and defence; compulsory social
security
Education
Financial intermeditation
Transport, storage andcommunication
Construction
Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles,
motorcycles and personal household goods
Hotels and restaurants
Electricity, gas ans water supply
Manufacturing
Mining and quarrying
Fishing
Agricultural, hunting and forestry
Nothing selected
12. Economic field of activity of your company?
123
Phare 2005 projec t
124
13
What is the general prognosis of expected employment development in your company in
the period of next 12 months?
Total
%
Nothing selected
5
1,34
Maintaining the same number of employees
140
37,53
Increasing the number of employees
223
59,79
Decreasing the number of employees
5
1,34
373
100,00
Total
13. What is the general prognosis of expected employment
development in your company in the period of next 12 months?
1% 1%
Nothing selected
38%
maintaining the same
number of employees
increasing the number
of employees
decreasing the number
of employees
60%
14
What kind of instruments does your company mainly use in order to recruit
staff?
Total
%
Nothing selected
2
0,54
Media (news-papers, internet, broadcast, ect.)
51
13,67
Direct contact (recommendation/information from friends, other companies,
te existing staff, direct approach of job-seekers etc)
193
51,74
Croatian Employment Service
122
32,71
Other agents
5
1,34
373
100,00
Total
14. What kind of instruments does your company mainly use in order to recruit staff?
1% 1%
Nothing selected
14%
33%
Media (news-papers, internet, broadcast etc.)
Direct contact (recommendation/information from
friends, other companies, the existing staff, direct
approach of job-seekers etc.)
Croatian Eployment
Service
51%
Other agents
125
16
Does your company develop human resources strategy?
Total
%
Nothing selected
10
2,68
Yes
124
33,24
No
145
38,87
No, but we are planning to develop a strategy
94
25,20
373
100,00
Total
16. Does your company develop human resources strategy?
3%
25%
Nothing selected
33%
yes
no
no, but we are planing to develop a
strategy
39%
17
How is your company developing the employees’ training?
Total
%
Nothing selected
6
1,61
By regular needs assessment
143
38,34
Ad-hoc/on demand
224
60,05
373
100,00
Total
17. How is your company developing the employees training?
2%
38%
Nothing selected
By regular needs assessment
ad-hoc/on demand
60%
Phare 2005 projec t
126
18
How does your company organise the training of the staff?
Total
%
Nothing selected
6
1,61
By internal training programmes
119
31,90
Contracting training companies
100
26,81
Allowance are given to employees that can decide to use them
0
0,00
We are not organizing training
85
22,79
Other, please specify here...
63
16,89
373
100,00
Total
18. How does your company organise the training of the staff?
Nothing selected
2%
17%
31%
by internal trainig programmes
conctracting training companies
allowance are given to
employees that can decide to
use them
we are not organizing training
23%
other, please specify here...
0%
27%
127
20
Number of contract(s) with CES concluded by your company on job
vacancies /job retainments in 2006
2006
2007
2006
2007
Measure 1. - Co-financing employment of young people without
working experience
162
107
32,34
33,75
Measure 2. - Co-financing employment for long-term unemployed
77
56
15,37
17,67
Measure 3. - Co-financing employment of women above 45 and men
above 50 years of age
68
47
13,57
14,83
Measure 4. - Co-financing employment of special groups of
unemployed persons
16
17
3,19
5,36
Measure 5.1a - Co-financing education for known employer - newly
employed persons
4
2
0,80
0,63
Measure 5.1b - Co-financing education for known employer - retaining
the work place
88
24
17,56
7,57
Measure 6. - Public works
52
31
10,38
9,78
Measure Z - Co-financing of Roma employment in duration of 24
months
9
7
1,80
2,21
Measure J - Public works - Roma population
25
26
4,99
8,20
501
317
100,00
100,00
Total
20. Number of contract(s) with CES concluded by your company on job
vacancies/job retainments in 2006
Measure 1 - Co-financing eployment of young
people without working experience
2%
Measure 2 - Co-financing eployment for long-term
unemployed
5%
10%
32%
Measure 3 - Co-financing eployment of
women above 45 and men above 50 years of
age
Measure 4 - Co-financing eployment of special
groups of unemployed persons
Measure 5. 1 a - Co-financing education for
known employer - newly employed persons
18%
Measure 5. 1 b - Co-financing education for
known employer - retaning the work place
Measure 6. - Public works
1%
3%
15%
14%
Measure Z - Co-financing of Roma eployment
in duration of 24 months
Phare 2005 projec t
128
23
How do you appraise in general the procedures of application for the co-financed employment?
Total
%
Nothing selected
4
1,07
Easy to go procedures
197
52,82
Not so easy but manageable for us
137
36,73
Very complicated and bureaucratic
35
9,38
373
100,00
Total
23. How do you appraise in general the procedures of
application for the co-financed employment
1%
9%
Nothing selected
Easy to go procedures
37%
Not so easy but manageable
for us
Very complicated and
bureaucratic
53%
24
If not easy to go procedures: What were/are the diffi culties and problems
your company encountered in the process of application and benefiting of
employment subsidies?
Total
%
Nothing selected
178
47,72
Diffi cult access to sources of information on ALMPs measures
32
8,58
Problems of communication /cooperating with CES
12
3,22
Diffi culties in recruiting target groups
42
11,26
Eligibility criteria are too complicated
49
13,14
Diffi culties in fulfilling the conditionality
29
7,77
Other. Please specify.........
31
8,31
373
100,00
Total
24. If not easy to go procedures: What we were/are the
difficulties and problems your company encountered in the
process of application and benefiting of eployment subsidies?
nothing selected
8%
8%
48%
13%
11%
3%
5%
Diffi cult access to sources of
information on ALMps measures
Problems of communication/
cooperating with CEs
Diffi culties in recruting target
groups
Eligibility criteria are too
complicaded
Diffi culties in fullfiling the
conditionality
Other. Please specify
25
Who did mostly the selection of the unemployed for recruitment?
Total
%
Nothing selected
3
0,80
CES
4
1,07
Our company
250
67,02
Our company together with the CES
97
26,01
Changing from case to case
19
5,09
373
100,00
Total
25. Who did MOST of the selection of the unemployed for
recruitment?
5% 1%1%
Nothing selected
26%
CES
our company
67%
our company together
with the CES
Changing from case
to case
26
Has your company ever been in the position to reimburse the employment
incentives because it did not fulfil the conditionality according with the
ALMPs procedures ?
Total
%
Nothing selected
6
1,61
Yes
24
6,43
No
343
91,96
373
100,00
Total
26. Has your company ever been in the position to reimburse the
employment incentives because it did not fulfil the conditionality
according with the ALMPs procedures?
2%
6%
Nothing selected
yes
no
92%
129
Phare 2005 projec t
130
27
Are the rules for employment subsidies sufficiently transparent?
Total
%
Nothing selected
4
1,07
Yes
334
89,54
No
35
9,38
373
100,00
Total
27. Are the rules for employment subsidies sufficiently transparent?
9%
1%
Nothing selected
yes
no
90%
28
Did you encounter any problems with the payment of employment
subsidies?
Total
%
Nothing selected
3
0,80
Yes
28
7,51
No
342
91,69
373
100,00
Total
28. Did you encounter any problems with the payment of
employment subsidies?
1%
8%
Nothing selected
yes
no
91%
131
30
What are the main criteria for selection a particular measure among the
different possible ALMPs measures and related incentives?
Total
%
Nothing selected
7
1,88
The company’s needs in terms of staff and their related qualifications
265
71,05
The value of employment incentivise
47
12,60
The availability of CES funding/the accessibility of information
27
7,24
The availability of our own funds to meet the eligibility and conditionality
criteria
16
4,29
Other. Please specify...
11
2,95
373
100,00
Total
30. What are the main criteria for selecting a particular measure among
the different possible ALMPs measures and related incentives?
4%
3%
nothing selected
2%
7%
The company's needs in terms of
staff and their related qualifications
13%
The value of eployment
The availability of CES funding/the
accessibility of information
71%
The availability of our own
funds to meet the eligibility and
conditionality criteria
Phare 2005 projec t
132
32
Without the employment subsidies of ALMPs measures would your company
have chosen another person to be employed, instead of the unemployed
persons?
Total
%
Nothing selected
7
1,88
Yes - in most or at most all of the cases
217
58,18
Yes - but only in some of the cases
133
35,66
No
16
4,29
373
100,00
Total
32. Without the employment subsidies of ALAMPs measures would your
company have chosen another person to be employed,
instead unemployed persons?
4% 2%
nothing selected
Yes - in most or atmost all of the
cases
36%
58%
Yes - but only in some of the cases
No
33
Would you recommend the ALMPs measures to other employers too?
Total
%
Nothing selected
3
0,80
Yes - unreservedly
239
64,08
Yes - generally but with some hints on caution
123
32,98
No, please specify here why
8
2,14
373
100,00
Total
%
Total
34
Will you continue to use the ALMPs in the future?
33. Would you recommended the ALMPs measures to other
employers too?
nothing selected
2% 1%
33%
Yes - unreservedly
Yes - generally but with some
hints on caution
No, please specify here why
64%
133
Nothing selected
6
1,61
Yes
298
79,89
Yes - generally but with some more caution
58
15,55
No
11
2,95
373
100,00
Total
34. Will you continue to use the ALMPs in the future?
3% 2%
16%
nothing selected
Yes
Yes - generally but with
some more caution
No
79%
35
Did your company benefit from the ALMPs measures in the period 20022005?
Total
%
Nothing selected
8
2,14
Yes
145
38,87
No
220
58,98
373
100,00
Total
35. Did your company benefit from the ALMPs measures
in the period 2002-2005?
2%
nothing selected
59%
39%
Yes
No
Phare 2005 projec t
134
36
Compared to the procedures in 2002 - 2005: To what extent did the ALMPs
procedures for eligibility of / access to funding improve in the current period?
Total
%
Nothing selected
229
61,39
A lot
15
4,02
Fairly
46
12,33
Medium
28
7,51
To some extent
37
9,92
none
18
4,83
373
100,00
Total
36. Compared to the procedures in 2002-2005: TO what extent did
the ALMPs procedures for eligibility of/access to funding
improve in the current period?
10%
5%
nothing selected
a lot
8%
fairly
medium
12%
to some extent
61%
4%
38
none
Compared to the period 2002-2005: Are current financial incentives/levels of subsidy better
motivating companies to use the ALMPs measures, if so to what extent?
Total
%
Nothing selected
231
61,93
A lot
12
3,22
Fairly
38
10,19
Medium
34
9,12
To some extent
35
9,38
None
23
6,17
373
100,00
Total
38. Compared to the period 2002-2005: Are current financial
incentives/levels of subsidy better motivating companies to use the
ALMP measures, if so to what extent?
6%
9%
nothing selected
a lot
9%
fairly
10%
3%
63%
medium
to some extent
none
135
39
Compared to the period 2002-2005: Are current payment procedures/
payment flow better motivating companies to use the ALMPs measures, if so
to what extent?
Total
%
Nothing selected
232
62,20
A lot
24
6,43
Fairly
45
12,06
Medium
28
7,51
To some extent
28
7,51
None
16
4,29
373
100,00
Total
39. Compared to the period 2002-2005: Are current payment
procedures/payment flow better motivating companies to
use the ALMP measures, if so to what extent?
8%
4%
nothing selected
8%
a lot
fairly
medium
12%
6%
62%
to some extent
none
40
Did your company encounter any problems in recruitment of unemployed?
Total
%
Nothing selected
10
2,68
No
249
66,76
Yes
114
30,56
373
100,00
Total
40. Did your company encounter any problems in
recruitment of unemployed?
3%
31%
nothing selected
Yes
No
66%
Phare 2005 projec t
136
42
To what extent is your company satisfied with the unemployed capacities
(aptness) to performing their jobs?
Total
%
Nothing selected
5
1,34
A lot
78
20,91
Fairly
174
46,65
Medium
74
19,84
To some extent
34
9,12
None, please specify here why
8
2,14
373
100,00
Total
42. To what extent is your company satisfied with the unemployed
capacities (aptness) to perform their jobs?
9%
2% 1%
21%
nothing selected
a lot
20%
fairly
medium
to some extent
47%
none, please specify here why...
137
43
Do you intend to continue hiring unemployed for future vacancies in your company?
Total
%
Nothing selected
9
2,41
Yes
342
91,69
No
22
5,90
373
100,00
Total
43. Do you intend to continue hiring unemployed for future
vacancies in your company?
6%
2%
nothing selected
Yes
No
92%
44
To what extent are qualifications and skills of the unemployed in line with jobs requirements
in your company?
Total
%
Nothing selected
6
1,61
A lot
73
19,57
Fairly
157
42,09
Medium
88
23,59
To some extent
40
10,72
None
9
2,41
373
100,00
Total
44. To what extentet are qualifications and skills of the
unemployed in line with jobs requirements in your company?
11%
2% 2%
20%
nothing selected
a lot
fairly
medium
24%
to some extent
none
41%
Phare 2005 projec t
138
45
To what extent did the unemployed succeed to integrate at work places?
Total
%
Nothing selected
5
1,34
A lot
124
33,24
Fairly
184
49,33
Medium
39
10,46
To some extent
17
4,56
None, please specify
4
1,07
373
100,00
Total
45. To what extent did the unemployed succeed in integrating
to the work places?
5% 1%1%
nothing selected
10%
33%
a lot
fairly
medium
to some extent
50%
none, please specify
hre why...
139
46
How would you define or describe in general (i.e. not only related to ALMPs
measures) the contact between your company and CES?
Total
%
Nothing selected
4
1,07
It is already established a regular contact from both parties
98
26,27
From time to time we are contacted by CES for some information
72
19,30
We have never been contacted by the CES
16
4,29
We contact CES only when we need some new staff
144
38,61
We rarely address the CES from our side
39
10,46
373
100,00
Total
46. How would you define or describe in general (i.e. not only related to ALMPs
measures) the contact between your company and CES?
10%
1%
26%
40%
19%
4%
nothing selected
It is already established a regular
conctract from both parties
From time we are concacted by rhe
CES
We have never been concacted by the
CES
We contact CES only when we need
some new staff
We very rarely address to the CES from
our side
Phare 2005 projec t
140
47
To what extent is the information received from CES in line with your company
Total
?
%
Nothing selected
6
1,61
A lot
54
14,48
Fairly
153
41,02
Medium
100
26,81
To some extent
46
12,33
None, please specify why....
14
3,75
373
100,00
Total
47. To that extent is the information received from CES in line
with your company needs?
4% 2%
12%
14%
nothing selected
a lot
fairly
medium
to some extent
27%
41%
hre why.
141
48
To what extent have the CES services been useful in solving your company
demands?
Total
%
Nothing selected
4
1,07
A lot
67
17,96
Fairly
156
41,82
Medium
76
20,38
To some extent
60
16,09
None, please specify here whay...
10
2,68
373
100,00
Total
48. To what extent have the CES services been useful in solving
your company demands?
3% 1%
16%
nothing selected
18%
a lot
fairly
medium
20%
to some extent
None, please
specify here why
Phare 2005 projec t
142
49
How do you realize your contact with the CES?
Total
%
Nothing selected
10
2,68
Via one permanent contact person in the CES
207
55,50
Contact person in the CES changes depending on the subject
131
35,12
Contact person in the CES changes regardless of the subject
25
6,70
373
100,00
Total
49. How do you realize your contact with the CES?
7%
3%
Nothing selected
35%
Via one permanent contact
person in the CES
Contatc person in the CES
changes depending on thr
subject
Contatc person in the CES
changes regardless of the
subject
55%
50
Is your contact person at the CES well informed on your company’s business and needs?
Total
%
Nothing selected
9
2,41
Excellent
68
18,23
Very good
87
23,32
Good
101
27,08
Enough
79
21,18
Not suffi cient, please specify here why...
29
7,77
373
100,00
Total
50. Is your contact person at the CES well informed about your
company's business and needs?
8%
2%
18%
21%
nothing selected
excellent
very good
good
23%
enough
hre why...
28%
143
51
Have you/your company ever been involved, directly or by some representatives (employers’
associations) in planning the ALMPs in Croatia?
Total
%
Nothing selected
5
1,34
Yes
21
5,63
No
254
68,10
I do not know of such involvement option
93
24,93
373
100,00
Total
51. Have you/your company ever been involved, directly or
by some representatives (employers associations) in
planning of the ALMPs in Croatia?
25%
1% 6%
Nothing selected
Yes
No
68%
I was not aware that such
option exists
ANNEX D
Statistical results of individuals’ questionnaires
(trainees, employees)
(Summary of main relevant questions and feed-back)
Phare 2005 projec t
146
23
Who took the decision for you to participate in the CES financed
measure?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
32
4,25
I did on my own
115
15,95
115
15,27
I did on my own by addressing to my current employer
173
23,99
173
22,97
CES (e.g. via integration plan)
119
16,50
119
15,80
The employer addressed to me directly
302
41,89
302
40,11
Other situations, please specify
12
1,66
12
1,59
721
100,00
753
100,00
Total
23. Who took the decision for you to participate in the CES
financed measure?
2% 4%
15%
40%
Nothing selected
I did on my own
I did on my own by addressing
my current employer
CES (e.g. via integration plan)
23%
24
Do or did you feel comfortable with the way the decision was
taken?
The employer addressed me
directly
Other situations, please specify
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
21
2,79
Yes
522
71,31
522
69,32
No
53
7,24
53
7,04
I cannot say
157
21,45
157
20,85
732
100,00
753
100,00
Total
24. Do or did you feel comfortable with the way the
decision was taken?
21%
3%
Nothing selected
Yes
No
I cannot say
7%
69%
ANEKS D Statistical results of individuals’ questio n n a i re s
147
25
Do you feel you got a good counselling by CES?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Not applicable as no prior unemployment
Total
%
18
2,39
203
26,96
Yes
291
54,70
291
38,65
No
96
18,05
96
12,75
I cannot say
145
27,26
145
19,26
532
100,00
753
100,00
Total
25. Do you feel you received a good counselling by CES?
19%
2%
Nothing selected
27%
13%
Not applicable as no prior
unemployment
Yes
No
I cannot say
39%
26
Did you get offered alternatives to the CES financed measure
(possibility to participate in other measures, other services,
guidance, etc.)?
Total
%
Total
%
Nothing selected
16
2,12
203
26,96
Yes
305
57,12
305
40,50
No
92
17,23
92
12,22
I cannot say
137
25,66
137
18,19
534
100,00
753
100,00
Total
26. Who took the decision for you to participate in the CES
financed measure?
18%
Nothing selected
2%
27%
12%
Not applicable as no
prior unemployment
Yes
No
I cannot say
41%
Phare 2005 projec t
148
10
Work experience before entering the CES measure
Total
%
Total
%
Nothing selected
11
1,46
39
5,18
Not applicable as no prior work experience
139
18,46
Up to 1 year
55
9,75
55
7,30
1 to 2 years
39
6,91
39
5,18
2 to 3 years
20
3,55
20
2,66
3 to 5 years
51
9,04
51
6,77
5 to 10 years
70
12,41
70
9,30
10 years and more
329
58,33
329
43,69
564
100,00
753
100,00
Total
10. Work experience before entering the CES measure?
Nothing selected
2% 5%
18%
44%
Not applicable as no prior
unemployment
Not applicable as no prior work
experience
up to 1 year
1 to 2 years
7%
5%
9%
7%
3%
2 to 3 years
3 to 5 years
5 to 10 years
10 years and more
149
15
Duration of unemployment before entering the current CES
measure
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
28
5,50
Up to 3 months
92
19,13
92
18,07
3 to 6 months
35
7,28
35
6,88
6 to 9 months
29
6,03
29
5,70
9 to 12 months
39
8,11
39
7,66
1 to 2 years
90
18,71
90
17,68
2 to 3 years
49
10,19
49
9,63
3 to 5 years
44
9,15
44
8,64
5 to 8 years
53
11,02
53
10,41
More than 8 years
50
10,40
50
9,82
481
100,00
509
100,00
Total
15. Duration of unemployment before entering the current CES measure
10%
5%
Nothing selected
up to 3 months
10%
18%
3 to 6 months
6 to 9 months
9 to 12 months
9%
7%
1 to 2 years
2 to 3 years
6%
9%
3 to 5 years
5 to 8 years
8%
18%
More than 8 years
Phare 2005 projec t
150
49
Please state where you had the training programme?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
9
2,74
Non Governmental Organisation
1
0,31
1
0,30
Public Vocational and Training School
40
12,54
40
12,20
Private profit training company
125
39,18
125
38,11
Vendor of specific machinery
1
0,31
1
0,30
Internal training organised by the employer (only if “Training for
known employer” measure)
152
47,65
152
46,34
319
100,00
328
100,00
Total
49. Please state where you had the training programme?
0.3%
0%
Nothing selected
12%
47%
0.3%
0%
50
Non Govermmental
Organisation
Public Vocational and
Training School
Private profit training
company
Vendor of specific
machinery
Internal training organised by
the employer (only if training
for known employer measure)
Type of training programme attended
Total
%
Total
%
Educational update
133
39,94
133
39,94
Vocational upgrade
25
7,51
25
7,51
Re-qualification
71
21,32
71
21,32
General skills training (IT, languages, communication, ect)
104
31,23
104
31,23
333
100,00
333
100,00
Total
50. Type of training programme attended
Vocational update
Vocational upgrade
31%
40%
Re-qualification
21%
8%
General skills training (IT,
languages, communicat
ion etc.)
151
51
Only if general skills training: What was the main training course
theme?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
126
37,84
Management
4
1,93
4
1,20
Human resources management
2
0,97
2
0,60
Marketing
1
0,48
1
0,30
IT & C
9
4,35
9
2,70
General Computer literacy for offi ce use
8
3,86
8
2,40
Foreign languages
25
12,08
25
7,51
Protection of the environment; safety and health at work
156
75,36
156
46,85
Legislation
2
0,97
2
0,60
Another theme. Please specify..........
0
0,00
0
0,00
207
100,00
333
100,00
Total
51. Only in case of general skills training: What was the main
training course theme?
1% 0%
47%
38%
7%
1%
0%
2% 3%
1%
Nothing selected
Menagament
Human resources management
Marketing
IT & C
General computer literacy for offi ce use
Foreign languages
Protection of the environment: safety and health at work
Legistation
Another theme. Please specify...
Phare 2005 projec t
152
52
If vocational update/upgrade or re-training: Was it for a
specific economic or employment sector?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
180
54,05
No
25
16,34
25
7,51
Yes- shipbuilding industry
4
2,61
4
1,20
Yes - construction industry
12
7,84
12
3,60
Yes -seasonal work
20
13,07
20
6,01
Another theme. Please specify
92
60,13
92
27,63
153
100,00
333
100,00
Total
52. In case of vocational update/-upgrade or re-training: Was
it for a specific economic or employment sector?
Nothing selected
No
28%
Yes - shipbiling industry
54%
6%
4%
1%
53
Yes - construction industry
Yes - seasonal work
Another theme. Please specify...
7%
Duration of the training programme that you attended
Total
%
Total
%
Up to 1 month
214
64,26
214
64,26
1 to 3 months
108
32,43
108
32,43
3 to 6 months
11
3,30
11
3,30
333
100,00
333
100,00
Total
53. Duration of the training programme you attended?
3%
33%
Up to 1 month
1 to 3 months
3 to 6 months
64%
153
54
The content of the yours met your requirements?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
8
2,40
A lot
70
21,54
70
21,02
Fairly
119
36,62
119
35,74
Medium
61
18,77
61
18,32
To some extent
44
13,54
44
13,21
Non
18
5,54
18
5,41
I cannot estimate
Total
13
4,00
13
3,90
325
100,00
333
100,00
54. Did the content of the course meet your requirements?
6%
13%
4% 2%
21%
Nothing selected
A lot
Fairly
Medium
To some extent
None
I do not know, I can not tell
18%
36%
Phare 2005 projec t
154
55
What kind of training certificates did you obtain at the
end of the training programme?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
52
15,62
Participation certificate (statement and certificate of
attendance)
82
29,18
82
24,62
Qualified worker certificate (describing lessons learned)
12
4,27
12
3,60
Acknowledged certificate (for entering in employee’s
Work book)
68
24,20
68
20,42
Nothing at all was certified
Total
119
42,35
119
35,74
281
100,00
333
100,00
55. What kind of training certificates did you obtain at the end of the
training programme?
Nothing selected
16%
Participation certificate
(statement and certificate of
attendance)
Qualified worker certificate
(describing lessons learned)
36%
Acknowledged certificate (for
entering employee's Work
book)
Nothing at all was certified
25%
3%
20%
56
How was the training programme organised?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
19
5,71
Classroom
76
24,20
76
22,82
Training at the work place
129
41,08
129
38,74
Classroom training combined with training at work place
Total
109
34,71
109
32,73
314
100,00
333
100,00
56. How was the training programme organised?
5%
Nothing selected
33%
23%
Classroom
Training at work palce
39%
Classroom training combined
with training at workplace
5
155
What is your current employment situation
Total
%
Total
%
Nothing selected
5
0,98
Still employed under the subsidised CES measure
265
52,06
I found new and regular job (fixed or unlimited term) at a (different)
company
120
50,21
120
23,58
I am self-employed
4
1,67
4
0,79
I am currently unemployed and registered at CES
93
38,91
93
18,27
I am jobless and looking for a job but not registered as unemployed
5
2,09
5
0,98
I am jobless but currently not looking for a new job
5
2,09
5
0,98
Other status, please specify
12
5,02
12
2,36
239
100,00
509
100,00
Total
5. What is your current employment situation?
1%
1%
Nothing selected
1% 2%
Still employed under the job
subsidised CES measure
I found a new and regular job
(fixed or unlimited term)
I'm selfemployed
18%
1%
24%
52%
I'm currently unemployed and
registered at CES
I’m jobless and looking for a job but
not registered as unempoyed
I’m jobless but currently am
not looking for a new job
Other status, please specify...
Phare 2005 projec t
156
8
If you are employed or self employed: do you work
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
147
19,52
Fulltime (40 hours per week)
600
99,01
600
79,68
Non full-time (less than 40 hours per week)
6
0,99
6
0,80
606
100,00
753
100,00
Total
8. If you are employed or self-employed: Do you work:
1%
19%
Nothing selected
Fulltime (40 hours per week)
Not fulltime (less than 40 hours
per week)
80%
9
Is your contract
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
115
15,27
Fixed term contract
172
26,96
172
22,84
Non-fixed term contract
445
69,75
445
59,10
Apprenticeship
21
3,29
21
2,79
638
100,00
753
100,00
Total
9. Is your contract:
3%
15%
nothing selected
fixed term contract
23%
59%
non-fixed term
contract
157
17
How long lasts/lasted your contract?
Total
%
Not answered
Total
%
10
3,04
Undetermined
170
53,29
170
51,67
Fix termed
149
46,71
149
45,29
319
100,00
329
100,00
Total
17. How long lasts/lasted your contract?
3%
Not answered
full-term
fixed-term
45%
52%
19
To what extent was the received support a real help for
you in order to integrate into the workplace?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
6
1,82
A lot
113
34,98
113
34,35
Fairly
80
24,77
80
24,32
Medium
53
16,41
53
16,11
To some extent
34
10,53
34
10,33
Non
43
13,31
43
13,07
323
100,00
329
100,00
Total
19. To what extent was the received support a real help for you in
order to integrate into the workplace?
13%
2%
Nothing selected
10%
a lot
35%
fairly
medium
to some extent
16%
none
24%
Phare 2005 projec t
158
20
To what extent is the current job in line with your
qualification?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
15
2,62
A lot
149
26,70
149
26,00
Fairly
173
31,00
173
30,19
Medium
116
20,79
116
20,24
To some extent
69
12,37
69
12,04
Non
51
9,14
51
8,90
558
100,00
573
100,00
Total
20. To what extent is the current job in line with your qualification?
9%
3%
12%
Nothing selected
a lot
fairly
medium
to some extent
none
26%
20%
30%
21
To what extent is the current job in line with your
expectations?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
12
3,65
A lot
63
19,87
63
19,15
Fairly
119
37,54
119
36,17
Medium
52
16,40
52
15,81
To some extent
55
17,35
55
16,72
None, please specify here why.....
28
8,83
28
8,51
317
100,00
329
100,00
Total
21. To what extent is the current job in line with your expectations?
8%
17%
4%
19%
Nothing selected
a lot
fairly
medium
to some extent
16%
none, please specify here why...
36%
159
28
Money matters - has your general financial situation improved
as consequence of your participation at the CES measure?
Total
%
Total
26
6,19
Improved
227
57,61
227
54,05
More or less same as before
155
39,34
155
36,90
Worsened, please specify why
12
3,05
12
2,86
394
100,00
420
100,00
Nothing selected
Total
%
28. Money matters - has your general financial situation improved as
consequence of your participation at the CES measure?
3%
6%
Nothing selected
37%
improved
more or less same as before
worsened, please specify why
54%
29
Total
%
Yes
76
21,35
No - but I can rely on other sources too
60
No - but I am hoping on a future increase
No - and I have to find an alternative soon
Is your current salary sufficient for living?
Total
%
64
15,24
76
18,10
16,85
60
14,29
145
40,73
145
34,52
75
21,07
75
17,86
356
100,00
420
100,00
Nothing selected
Total
29. Is your current salary sufficient for living?
18%
Nothing selected
15%
Yes
18%
35%
14%
No - but I can rely on other
sources too
No - but I'm hoping on a future
increase
No - and I have find an
alternative soon
Phare 2005 projec t
160
30
What is your income prospect?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
25
7,60
No idea
210
69,08
210
63,83
Agreed with employer to become increased after introduction
phase
69
22,70
69
20,97
Agreed with employer to be increased when contract will
be prolongated /switched to unlimited (subsidy expires/
conditionality expires)
25
8,22
25
7,60
304
100,00
329
100,00
Total
30. What is your income prospect?
Nothing selected
8%
7%
No idea
21%
Agreed with employer to
become increased after
introduction phase
64%
Agreed with employer to be
increased when contract will be
prolongated/swiched to unlimited
(subsidy expires/conditionality
expires)
161
31
For those still within the CES measure: The current subsidy is not a lifetime guarantee. Regarding to your future work prospect, what are your
plans or expectations after the subsidy expires?
Total
%
Total
%
Nothing selected
7
2,13
Not in the measure
96
29,18
I hope I can stay in the job after the subsidy expires
81
35,84
81
24,62
I hope I can stay with the enterprise and make some job career
44
19,47
44
13,37
I’m not so optimistic but taking into consideration a new unemployment
phase
31
13,72
31
9,42
I don’t know yet
28
12,39
28
8,51
I am taking into consideration a move to another enterprise
39
17,26
39
11,85
I am taking into consideration a move to another region
1
0,44
1
0,30
I am taking into consideration a move to another country
2
0,88
2
0,61
226
100,00
329
100,00
Total
31. For those still within the CES measure: The current subsidy is not a life-time
guarantee. Regarding your future work prospect, what are your plans or
expectations after the subsidy expires?
Nothing selected
12%
0%
1% 2%
Not in the measure
15%
9%
I hope I can stay in the job after the
subsidy expires
I hope I can stay with the enterprise
and make some job career
I'm not so optimistic but taking into
consideration a new unemployment
phase
I don't know yet
9%
I’m taking into consideration a move to
another enterprise
another region
13%
25%
another country
Phare 2005 projec t
162
32
Did your participation in the CES financed measure
help you to be more confident in relation with your job
chances in the future?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
22
5,24
I feel more optimistic about future
154
38,69
154
36,67
I can see my own potential to further development and
career
86
21,61
86
20,48
I don’t know
111
27,89
111
26,43
No, it didn’t help me with that. Please specify why...
47
11,81
47
11,19
398
100,00
420
100,00
Total
32. Did your participation in the CES financed measure help
you to be more confident in relation with your job
chances in the future?
5%
11%
Nothing selected
I feel more optimistic about
future
I can see my own potential
future
I don't know
26%
37%
No, it didn't help me with that.
Please specify why...
21%
33
Did your social life, including family life situation, improve after
getting the job in the frame of ALMPs measures?
Total
%
Total
32
7,62
A lot
58
14,95
58
13,81
Fairly
110
28,35
110
26,19
Medium
76
19,59
76
18,10
To some extent
112
28,87
112
26,67
Non, please specify here why....
32
8,25
32
7,62
388
100
420
100
Nothing selected
Total
33. Did your social life, including family life situation, improve
after getting the job in the frame of ALMPs measures?
8%
Nothing selected
7%
14%
a lot
fairly
27%
medium
to some extent
26%
18%
none , please spcify why...
%
163
34
Do you think you are able to follow all the latest updates
in your profession?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
5
1,52
Yes, absolutely
114
35,19
114
34,65
Not yet completely but it improves constantly
121
37,35
121
36,78
No
43
13,27
43
13,07
I can’t say
46
14,20
46
13,98
324
100,00
329
100,00
Total
34. Do you think you are able to follow all the latest updates
in your profession?
14%
1%
Nothing selected
13%
yes, absolutely
35%
not yet completely but it
improves constantly
no
I can't say
37%
35
Did you find the job an incentive to learn?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
24
5,71
Yes, I am feeling well motivated and I am learning new things
187
47,22
187
44,52
Yes, but I would need more support and guidance in doing
so
88
22,22
88
20,95
No, I’ve learned already what I need
62
15,66
62
14,76
No, as I don’t think it will help me after the contract expires
59
14,90
59
14,05
35. Did you find this job an incentive to learn?
14%
6%
Nothing selected
yes, I'm feeling well motivated
and I’m learning new things
15%
yes, but I would need more
support and guidance in doing so
44%
21%
no, I've learned already what I
need
no, as I don't think it will help
me after the contract expires
Phare 2005 projec t
164
Total
36
396
In your opinion Would you have found a job anyway, even
without the subsidy programme?
100
Total
420
%
100
Total
%
Nothing selected
86
16,90
34
6,68
Yes, absolutely for sure
126
32,39
126
24,75
Yes, but not so fast
118
30,33
118
23,18
No, as the subsidy was a key element for me to get the chance to
show my competence
78
20,05
78
15,32
I can’t say
67
17,22
67
13,16
389
100,00
509
100,00
Total
36. In your opinion: Would you have found a job anyway, even without the
subsidy programme?
Nothing selected
13%
17%
Still employed under the
subsidies CES measure
7%
15%
Yes, absolutely for use
Yes, but not stast
23%
25%
No, as the subsidy was a key element
for me to get the chance to show my
competence
I can't say
165
37
Would you recommend similar subsidy programmes
to a friend?
Total
%
Total
%
14
1,86
Yes, unreserved
439
58,30
439
58,30
Yes, but with some reservation to take care for her/his
own interest
193
25,63
193
25,63
No
33
4,38
33
4,38
I cannot say
74
9,83
74
9,83
739
98,14
753
100,00
Nothing selected
Total
37. Would you recommend similar subsidy programmes to a friend?
10% 2%
Nothing selected
4%
Yes, unreserved
Yes, but with some reservation to
take care for her/his own interests
26%
58%
No
Phare 2005 projec t
166
41
What do you think are the reasons that you couldn’t yet find a job?
Total
%
Total
%
Nothing selected
64
35,56
Sill employed under the subsidised CES measure
32
17,78
Inadequate job offers (wage, working hours, etc)
23
27,38
23
12,78
The qualification I obtained from various courses is not in demand on
the labour market
11
13,10
11
6,11
I did not have the resources to set up a business
5
5,95
5
2,78
Adequate jobs are demanding a move
5
5,95
5
2,78
Other. Please specify...
40
47,62
40
22,22
84
100,00
180
100,00
Total
41. What do you think are the reasons that you couldn't yet find a job?
Nothing selected
22%
35%
3%
Still employed the subsidied
CES measure
Inadequate job offers (wage,
working hours, etc.)
3%
The qualification I obtained from various courses
is not in demand on the labour market
6%
13%
18%
I did not have the resources to
set up a business
167
42
How soon did you find a new job (temporary/permanent)
after your participation in the CES financed measure ended?
Total
%
Total
%
Nothing selected
95
52,78
32
17,78
Up to 1 month
17
32,08
17
9,44
1 - 3 months
16
30,19
16
8,89
3 - 6 months
7
13,21
7
3,89
6 - 9 months
5
9,43
5
2,78
After 9 months of later
8
15,09
8
4,44
53
100,00
180
100,00
Total
42. How soon did you find a new job (temporary/permanent) after
your participation in the CES financed measure ended?
4%
Nothing selected
3% 4%
up to 1 month
9%
1 - 3 months
9%
3 - 6 months
53%
18%
6 - 9 months
After 9 months or later
Phare 2005 projec t
168
43
In your opinion: to what extent has it been useful for you in
finding a job to participate in the CES financed measure?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
331
78,07
32
7,55
A lot
16
26,23
16
3,77
Fairly
10
16,39
10
2,36
Medium
8
13,11
8
1,89
To some extent
13
21,31
13
3,07
None
14
22,95
14
3,30
61
100,00
424
100,00
Total
43. In your opinion: to what extent has it been useful for you in finding
a job to participate in the CES financed measure?
3%
2% 2% 3%
4%
Nothing selected
Still employed under the subsidised
CES measure
a lot
8%
fairly
medium
to some extent
78%
none
169
45
In your opinion, to what extent has the CES financed
measure been useful for you in becoming better
prepared for the job search?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
15
16,48
A lot
9
11,84
9
9,89
Fairly
10
13,16
10
10,99
Medium
12
15,79
12
13,19
To some extent
33
43,42
33
36,26
Not at all, please specify here why
12
15,79
12
13,19
76
100,00
91
100,00
Total
45. In your opinion, to what extent has the CES financed measure been useful
for you in becoming better prepared for the job search?
13%
17%
Nothing selected
a lot
10%
fairly
medium
11%
36%
to some extent
not at all, please specify here why
13%
Phare 2005 projec t
170
46
In your opinion: to what extent has the CES financed
measure been useful for you in becoming more
confident in your capacity to find a job?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
18
19,78
A lot
12
16,44
12
13,19
Fairly
13
17,81
13
14,29
Medium
14
19,18
14
15,38
To some extent
26
35,62
26
28,57
Not at all, please specify here why
8
10,96
8
8,79
73
100,00
91
100,00
Total
46. In your opinion: to what extent has the CES financed measure been
useful for you in becoming more confident in your capacity to find a job?
Nothing selected
9%
20%
a lot
29%
fairly
13%
medium
to some extent
15%
14%
not at all, please specify here why
171
47
Do you believe another kind of support (instead of the CES
financed measure) could have proved more effective in helping
you to find a job? (if yes, what other kind?)
Total
%
Total
%
Nothing selected
73
40,56
32
17,78
Financial aid to set up a private business
11
14,67
11
6,11
Career counselling
3
4,00
3
1,67
Financial aid to find a job in another location (aid to move)
3
4,00
3
1,67
No, I don’t think so, as the general situation on the labour market
is to diffi cult for me
24
32,00
24
13,33
I cannot tell
28
37,33
28
15,56
6
8,00
6
3,33
75
100,00
180
100,00
Total
47. Do you belive another kind of support (instead of the CES financed measure)
could have proved more effective in helping you to find a job?
(If yes, what other kind?)
3%
Nothing selected
15%
41%
Still employed under the subsidised CES
measure
Financial aid to set up a private business
Career counseling
13%
Financial aid to find a job in
another location (aid to move)
No I don't thing so, as the general situation on
the labor market is to difficult for me
I cannot tell
2%
2%
6%
18%
Phare 2005 projec t
172
58
In your opinion, to what extent has the training
programme been useful for you in getting more
competent/up to-to date at work?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
7
2,87
A lot
74
31,22
74
30,33
Fairly
74
31,22
74
30,33
Medium
57
24,05
57
23,36
To some extent
23
9,70
23
9,43
None
9
3,80
9
3,69
237
100,00
244
100,00
Total
58. In your opinion, to what extent has the training
programme been useful for you in getting more
competent/up-to-date at work?
10% 4% 3%
30%
23%
30%
Nothing selected
a lot
fairly
medium
to some extent
none
173
59
What kind of changes has been set off by your
attendance of training programme?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
5
2,05
I finally found a job
3
1,26
3
1,23
My existing contract has been changed from fixed-term
to permanent
9
3,77
9
3,69
I have done progress as I received additional tasks
110
46,03
110
45,08
I have done progress as I changed my task
110
46,03
110
45,08
I moved to a new better job in a another company
0
0,00
0
0,00
I moved to a new better job in a another company
0
0,00
0
0,00
Other, please sepecify...
7
2,93
7
2,87
239
100,00
244
100,00
Total
59. What kind of changes have been set off by your attendance
of training programme?
0%
0%
2%
3% 1%
Nothing selected
4%
I finaly find a job
My exsisting contract has been changed
from fixed-term to permanent
I have done progress as I
received additional tasks
I have done progress as I
changed my task
I moved to a new and better
job in a another company
45%
45%
I moved to a new and better
job in a another company
Other, please specify...
Phare 2005 projec t
174
60
Did your income improve as consequence of the training?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
11
4,51
Yes
156
66,95
156
63,93
No
77
33,05
77
31,56
233
100,00
244
100,00
Total
%
264
79,28
Total
60. Did your income improve as a consequence
of the training?
4%
32%
nothing selected
yes
no
64%
61
If you found a job after having graduated the training course, how
would you describe your activity in the work place?
Total
%
Nothing selected
As I just started with the job I cannot compare to a prior situation
9
13,04
9
2,70
The quality of my work improved
24
34,78
24
7,21
I feel more responsible for the work I undertook
6
8,70
6
1,80
I have become more efficient in performing my work
8
11,59
8
2,40
I only see insignificant progress
9
13,04
9
2,70
I cannot tell
13
18,84
13
3,90
69
100,00
333
100,00
Total
61. If you found a job after having graduated the training course,
how would you describe your activity in the workplace?
2%
3%
2%
4%
Nothing selected
7%
3%
79%
As I just started with the job I can
not compare to a prior situation
The quality of my work
improved
I feel more responsible for the
work I undertook
I have become more effi cient
in performing my work
I only see insignificant progress
I cannot tell
62
After finishing the training programme do you feel more confident / do
you have any plans to:
175
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
7
2,87
Switch to a different job within the company
92
38,82
92
37,70
Move to an different company
16
6,75
16
6,56
Move to a different economic sector /branche
26
10,97
26
10,66
Try new professions
16
6,75
16
6,56
None of those options mentioned above
87
36,71
87
35,66
237
100,00
244
100,00
Total
62. After finishing the training programme do you feel more
confident/ do you have any plans to:
3%
Nothing selected
Switch to a different job within
the company
Move to an different company
36%
38%
6%
63
11%
6%
Move to an different economic
sector/branche
Try new professions
None of those options
mentioned above
In your opinion, what kind of skills did you achieve mainly by the
training programme that you attended?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
5
2,05
Specific professional skills needed by the enterprise of the current job
124
51,88
124
50,82
General professional skills that can be transferred/useful for another job
too
72
30,13
72
29,51
None of those mentioned above
43
17,99
43
17,62
239
100,00
244
100,00
Total
63. In your opinion, what kind of skills did you achieve mainly
by the training programme that you attended?
18%
2%
Nothing selected
Specific profesional skills
needed by the enterprise of
the current job
General professional skills that
can be transfered/useful for
another job too
29%
51%
None of those mentioned
above
Phare 2005 projec t
176
64
In your opinion: was the training programme useful as it was.....
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
6
1,80
Up-to-date regarding the training subject/theme
38
11,62
38
11,41
Up-to-date regarding to the training methods
76
23,24
76
22,82
Guiding to improve your self learning process/capacity
178
54,43
178
53,45
I don’t think it was useful for me
23
7,03
23
6,91
Other please specify
12
3,67
12
3,60
327
100,00
333
100,00
Total
64. In your opinion: was the training programme useful as it was...
7%
4% 2%
Nothing selected
11%
Up-to-date regarding to the
training subject/theme
Up-to-date regarding to the
training methods
Guiding to improve your selflearning process/capacity
I don't think it was useful for me
23%
Other please specify
53%
65
Did you find a job after finishing the CES measure?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
16
8,89
32
17,78
Yes
52
39,39
52
28,89
No
80
60,61
80
44,44
132
100,00
180
100,00
Total
65. Did you find a job after finishing the CES measure?
9%
18%
Nothing selected
Yes
44%
No
29%
177
67
In your opinion, to what extent has the training programme been
useful for you in feeling better prepared for the job search?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
48
53,93
A lot
7
17,07
7
7,87
Fairly
12
29,27
12
13,48
Medium
11
26,83
11
12,36
To some extent
7
17,07
7
7,87
None
4
9,76
4
4,49
41
100,00
89
100,00
Total
67. In your opinion, to what extent has the training programme
been useful for you in feeling better prepared for the job search?
8%
5%
Nothing selected
12%
a lot
fairly
medium
to some extent
13%
none
54%
8%
68
In your opinion to what extent has the training programme been
useful for you in becoming more confident in your capacity to find a
job?
Total
%
Nothing selected
Total
%
49
55,06
A lot
9
22,50
9
10,11
Fairly
10
25,00
10
11,24
Medium
10
25,00
10
11,24
To some extent
6
15,00
6
6,74
None
5
12,50
5
5,62
40
100,00
89
100,00
Total
68. In your opinion to what extent has the training programme
been useful for you in becoming more confident in your
capacity to find a job?
15%
15%
Nothing selected
a lot
15%
fairly
15%
15%
medium
to some extent
none
15%
Annex 5
Economic and Labour Market Statistics
Phare 2005 projec t
180
Table 1. Structure of business entities, by activity and according to nkd 2002 sections, 30 June 2007
Number of legal entities
Active legal entities
Structure
of active
legal
entities
Crafts and
trades
and free
lances
Registered
Structure of
registered
legal
entities
246 108
100
112 734
100,0
95 555
17 179
98 889
4 371
1,8
2 212
2,0
2 208
4
1 784
B Fishing
603
0,2
248
0,2
248
-
1 622
C Mining and quarrying
378
0,2
253
0,2
253
-
160
23 000
9,3
12 619
11,2
12 609
10
12 247
263
0,1
218
0,2
217
1
3
F Construction
16 747
6,8
9 931
8,8
9 930
1
12 446
G Wholesale and retail trade;
repair of motor vehicles,
motorcycles and personal and
household goods
90 397
36,7
33 695
29,9
33 520
175
18 945
H Hotels and restaurants
9 348
3,8
4 954
4,4
4 905
49
12 654
I Transport, storage and
communication
10 879
4,4
5 241
4,6
5 210
31
8 569
J Financial intermediation
1 744
0,7
955
0,8
954
1
820
K Real estate, renting and
business activities
32 739
13,3
21 819
19,4
21 734
85
10 941
L Public administration and
defence; compulsory social
security
3 632
1,5
1 289
1,1
11
1 278
377
M Education
3 294
1,3
2 673
2,4
551
2 122
109
N Health and social work
3 427
1,4
2 066
1,8
331
1 735
6 225
O Other community, social and
personal service activities
45 232
18,4
14 561
12,9
2 874
11 687
10 007
-
-
-
-
-
-
283
54
0,0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 697
Total
A Agriculture, hunting and
forestry
D Manufacturing
E Electricity, gas and water
supply
P Activities of households
Q Extra-territorial organizations
and bodies
Unknown
Active
Source: CBS, First release –Number and structure of business entities, June 2007
Profit
Nonprofit
Aneks 5 Economic and Labour M ar k et S t a t i s t i c s
181
Table 2. Structure of active legal entities, by ownership types and nkd 2002 Sections, 30 June 2007
Total
A Agriculture, hunting
and forestry
State ownership
Total
The number
Share
of legal
in total
entities
112 734
1 039
0,9
Private ownership
The number
Share
of legal
in total
entities
91 346
81,0
Ownership types
Co-operative ownership
The number
Share
of legal
in total
entities
1 497
1,3
Mixed ownership
The number
Share in
of legal
total
entities
1 673
1,5
No ownership
The number
Share
of legal
in total
entities
17 179
15,2
2 212
26
1,2
1 484
67,1
628
28,4
70
3,2
4
0,2
248
2
0,8
213
85,9
27
10,9
6
2,4
-
-
253
8
3,2
220
87,0
8
3,2
17
6,7
-
-
12 619
173
1,4
11 799
93,5
165
1,3
472
3,7
10
0,1
218
125
57,3
83
38,1
-
-
9
4,1
1
0,5
9 931
91
0,9
9 595
96,6
121
1,2
123
1,2
1
0,0
33 695
102
0,3
32 829
97,4
183
0,5
406
1,2
175
0,5
4 954
62
1,3
4 644
93,7
49
1,0
150
3,0
49
1,0
5 241
81
1,5
4 995
95,3
32
0,6
102
1,9
31
0,6
955
21
2,2
757
79,3
153
16,0
23
2,4
1
0,1
21 819
173
0,8
21 277
97,5
76
0,3
208
1,0
85
0,4
1 289
7
0,5
4
0,3
-
-
-
-
1 278
99,1
2 673
5
0,2
538
20,1
3
0,1
5
0,2
2 122
79,4
N Health and social
work
2 066
15
0,7
275
13,3
13
0,6
28
1,4
1 735
84,0
O Other community,
social and personal
service activities
14 561
148
1,0
2 633
18,1
39
0,3
54
0,4
11 687
80,3
P Activities of
households
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Q Extra-territorial
organizations and
bodies
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
B Fishing
C Mining and
quarrying
D Manufacturing
E Electricity, gas and
water supply
F Construction
G Wholesale and retail
trade; repair of motor
vehicles, motorcycles
and personal and
household goods
H Hotels and
restaurants
I Transport, storage
and communication
J Financial
intermediation
K Real estate, renting
and business activities
L Public administration
and defence;
compulsory social
security
M Education
Source: CBS, First release –Number and structure of business entities, June 2007
Phare 2005 projec t
182
Table 3. Business entities, by counties, 30 June 2007
Legal entities – total
Trade companies
Enterprises and
co-operatives
Registered
Registered
Registered
Active
Active
Institutions, bodies,
associations, funds
and organisations
Active
Registered
Crafts and
trades and
free lances
Active
Republic of Croatia
246 108
112 734
113 471
87 990
82 299
7 565
50 338
17 179
98 889
County of Zagreb
14 989
6 603
6 308
5 019
6 028
789
2 653
795
6 708
4 434
1 882
1 551
1 217
1 431
170
1 452
495
3 008
6 159
2 340
1 634
1 325
2 130
284
2 395
731
2 574
County of Karlovac
5 500
2 313
2 222
1 676
1 522
87
1 756
550
2 613
County of Varaždin
7 006
3 237
3 206
2 519
1 860
121
1 940
597
3 382
4 328
1 921
1 775
1 265
1 254
227
1 299
429
1 830
4 897
2 017
2 093
1 459
1 153
100
1 651
458
1 874
20 844
10 119
10 670
8 244
6 436
528
3 738
1 347
9 614
2 059
885
752
569
475
53
832
263
1 261
2 731
1 169
1 017
746
594
74
1 120
349
1 326
2 702
979
794
631
949
78
959
270
1 227
5 097
1 858
1 885
1 377
1 600
119
1 612
362
3 170
7 476
3 267
3 023
2 423
2 692
263
1 761
581
4 909
9 152
5 043
4 683
3 671
753
181
3 716
1 191
5 021
5 468
2 297
2 174
1 690
1 961
157
1 333
450
2 744
4 169
2 068
1 838
1 351
414
110
1 917
607
3 135
30 459
12 138
12 928
9 947
12 963
433
4 568
1 758
10 872
18 827
9 577
10 107
8 148
5 875
339
2 845
1 090
8 613
5 927
3 607
3 383
2 911
676
130
1 868
566
2 739
5 428
2 813
2 534
2 075
1 665
345
1 229
393
1 910
78 456
36 601
38 894
29 727
29 868
2 977
9 694
3 897
20 359
County of KrapinaZagorje
County of SisakMoslavina
County of
Koprivnica-Križevci
County of BjelovarBilogora
County of PrimorjeGorski kotar
County of Lika-Senj
County of ViroviticaPodravina
County of PožegaSlavonia
County of Slavonski
Brod-Posavina
County of Zadar
County of OsijekBaranja
County of ŠibenikKnin
County of VukovarSirmium
County of SplitDalmatia
County of Istria
County of
Dubrovnik-Neretva
County of
Međimurje
City of Zagreb
Source: First release –Number and structure of business entities, June 2007
183
Table 4. Economic indicators on the county level
County
GDP per capita
in current
prices, 2004
(RoC=100)
Administrative
unemployment
rate (%)
(end of 2005)
16,7
14,7
County of Zagreb
74,8
County of Krapina-Zagorje
68,5
County of Sisak-Moslavina
74,5
29,9
County of Karlovac
73,9
27,6
County of Varaždin
85,7
14,2
County of Koprivnica-Križevci
90,6
16,8
County of Bjelovar-Bilogora
74,0
25,6
County of Primorje-Gorski Kotar
113,7
13,4
County of Lika-Senj
126,9
22,4
County of Virovitica-Podravina
72,8
29,6
County of Požega-Slavonia
71,1
20,9
County of Brod-Posavina
58,2
29,5
County of Zadar
78,7
20,9
County of Osijek-Baranja
76,9
26,1
County of Šibenik-Knin
71,8
26,5
County of Vukovar-Srijem
56,8
32,1
County of Split-Dalmatia
79,3
22,3
County of Istria
136,9
8,0
County of Dubrovnik-Neretva
94,5
18,3
County of Međimurje
77,7
15,5
City of Zagreb
180,5
TOTAL
100,0
Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, first release no.12.1.2
14,7
7,8
100,0
Phare 2005 projec t
184
Table 5. International migration of population of republic of Croatia1
1997
Immigrants
Emigrants
Net migration
52 343
18 531
33 812
1998
51 784
7 592
44 192
1999
32 910
14 285
18 625
2000
29 385
5 953
23 432
2001
24 415
7 488
16 927
2002
20 365
11 767
8 598
2003
18 455
6 534
11 921
2004
18 383
6 812
11 571
2005
14 230
6 012
8 218
2006
14 978
7 692
7 286
Source CBS
Table 6. Population, by age and sex - 2005 mid-year estimate, average age of population, life expectancy, 2005 and first results
of 2006 mid-year estimate
Total
Men
Women
Total
Total
0-4
4 442,0
206,2
2 138,7
106,0
2 303,3
100,2
4 440,7
204,9
2 139,2
105,3
Men
Women
2 301,5
99,6
5-9
247,5
126,7
120,8
240,1
123,0
117,1
10 - 14
254,0
130,0
124,0
252,6
129,3
123,3
15 - 19
275,5
140,3
135,2
272,3
138,9
133,4
20 - 24
309,0
157,7
151,3
304,2
155,2
149,0
25 - 29
309,8
157,1
152,7
312,8
158,8
154,0
30 - 34
35 - 39
40 - 44
295,7
305,8
320,9
149,0
152,8
159,8
146,7
153,0
161,1
300,4
297,9
320,1
151,5
149,2
159,6
148,9
148,7
160,5
45 - 49
336,4
167,3
169,1
333,0
165,3
167,7
50 - 54
327,7
163,5
164,2
332,9
165,6
167,3
55 - 59
274,6
132,8
141,8
294,5
143,1
151,4
60 - 64
231,0
106,3
124,7
218,9
100,9
118,0
65 - 69
245,2
108,0
137,2
241,6
106,5
135,1
70 - 74
220,7
89,9
130,8
219,6
90,0
129,6
294,9
97,0
197,9
75 and over
282,0
91,5
190,5
Average age of population
years
40,3
38,5
42,0
Life expectancy
75,4
71,8
78,8
(years)
Source – CBS
242
1258
339
55
1839
131
650
211
30
992
Women
Total
112
608
127
25
847
234
1158
326
49
1718
122
610
201
28
933
112
548
124
21
785
223
1181
345
43
1749
Men
Women
Total
2003./II.
Men
Women
Total
2004./II.
Total
Men
Women
Total
Men
Women
88
535
188
33
811
Source: CBS (LFS)
68,7
10,5
53,1
88,6
41,7
56,0
5,4
28,6
78,3
38,3
62,2
6,6
40,9
82,4
41,9
69,3
9,8
54,1
88,1
43,3
55,5
4,6
29,3
76,9
40,5
62,9
5,8
43,0
83,3
39,9
69,6
8,0
55,4
88,1
42,6
56,5
4,4
32,5
78,6
37,1
62,4
6,9
44,2
83,2
38,4
69,1
9,8
55,1
88,6
42,4
56,1
5,0
34,5
78,0
34,2
63,2
6,5
46,6
83,3
38,5
69,1
7,9
57,6
87,8
41,1
57,4
5,6
36,6
78,9
35,6
63,1
6,3
48,2
83,2
38,2
69,9
8,3
61,0
87,3
42,3
56,4
5,0
36,6
79,1
33,8
63,5
7,2
48,5
83,7
38
68,9
8,7
58,2
87,2
41,1
58,2
6,2
39,9
80,2
34,5
62,2
Women
114
582
244
31
940
15-64
Men
2006./II.
202
1118
432
64
1752
844
7,4
Total
89
527
171
27
787
971
65+
Women
120
581
257
29
959
2005./II.
209
1109
428
56
1746
1815
40,2
Men
89
540
162
28
791
814
50-64
Total
2004./II.
117
593
233
26
943
988
2006./II.
Women
83,3
Women
206
1134
395
54
1734
1802
2006./II.
Men
25-49
Men
93
551
152
24
797
820
Total
2005./II. 2006./II.
Women
40,1
Total
122
601
218
31
942
2003./II.
216
1152
370
55
1739
Men
15-24
Women
101
562
142
20
805
Total
2004./II. 2005./II. 2005./II.
Women
2006./II.
2000./II. 2000./II. 2000./II. 2001./II. 2001./II. 2001./II. 2002./II. 2002./II. 2002./II. 2003./II. 2003./II. 2003./II. 2004./II. 2004./II. 2004./II. 2005./II. 2005./II. 2005./II. 2006./II. 2006./II. 2006./II.
51,1
59,0
44,2
50,3
58,7
43,0
50,9
58,5
44,1
50,2
58,1
43,3
49,9
57,2
43,4
49,2
57,2
42,1
49,8
56,5
43,8
Men
2002./II.
122
619
204
24
944
969
2004./II.
Men
2005./II.
Total
Total
Women
Total
Men
2001./II.
2000./II.
Table 8. Activity rates by gender and age groups, 2000-2006
Source: CBS (LFS)
15-24
25-49
50-64
65+
15-64
Total
Men
2002./II.
2000./II. 2000./II. 2000./II. 2001./II. 2001./II. 2001./II. 2002./II. 2002./II. 2002./II. 2003./II. 2003./II. 2003./II. 2004./II.
1894
1022
872
1767
961
806
1792
968
824
1793
972
821
1789
Total
Women
Total
Men
2001./II.
2000./II.
Active population in thousands (‘000)
.Table 7. Active population by gender and age groups, 2000-2006
185
138
1074
306
55
1517
Total
15-24
25-49
50-64
65+
15-64
2001./II.
688
25
115
511
62
2000./
II.
713
Men
1429
49
299
994
136
795
28
184
539
71
2001./II. 2001./II.
1478
823
Women Total
2002./II.
Total
634
21
115
454
66
1491
43
316
1028
146
Men
54
142
84
58
143
82
62
14,9
11,5
10,2
5,7
2,6
31,2
28,2
16,9
13,1
7,5
4,6
35,0
15,1
18,4
6,3
12,3
7,1
3,1
30,8
26,0
16,1
4,7
11,1
5,6
2,2
29,1
32,8
15,4
4,0
13,8
8,9
4,2
32,9
17,8
17,0
5,5
12,1
7,0
3,1
24,2
30,8
17,5
5,4
10,2
6,2
2,1
21,6
39,3
15,7
5,1
14,4
8,0
4,3
27,4
20,4
19,7
5,8
11,9
6,6
2,8
23,9
32,8
17,7
4,4
10,7
5,7
1,7
21,3
40,8
15,9
3,9
13,4
7,7
4,2
27,1
22,8
19,9
5
12,7
6,7
3,1
23,3
33,6
15,8
4,8
11,1
5,9
2,1
20,8
42,6
13,7
3,8
14,7
7,7
4,4
26,5
22,3
18,4
6
12,5
7,2
3,2
26,3
32
15,2
3,6
10,9
6,0
2,3
23,3
40,6
14,1
2,8
14,4
8,6
4,3
29,8
21,8
16,5
4,6
12,7
6,5
3,5
32,9
22,4
17,6
5,0
13,7
9,2
4,7
36,5
12,6
16,0
6,1
6,1
710
33
171
478
7,5
850
31
229
539
3,4
1560
64
400
1017
4,0
673
27
158
457
33,2
851
29
236
531
743
34,7
1524
56
393
988
881
28,0
660
28
147
459
1624
21,0
828
25
216
530
700
Women
2006./II. 2006./II. 2006./II.
Men
12,7
1489
54
363
990
880
2005./
2005./II. 2005./II. II.
1580
2006./II.
Women Total
14,2
668
24
139
471
689
2004./
II.
Men
5,6
812
31
198
533
80
2005./II.
Women Total
4,1
1480
54
337
1005
139
Men
5,0
675
19
130
478
67
2004./II.
Total
2003./II. 2004./II. 2004./II.
692
1542
854
58
136
82
Women
2001./II.
2002./II.
2003./II.
2004./II.
2005./II.
2006./II.
Total
Men
Women Total
Men
Women Total
Men
Women Total
Men
Women Total
Men
Women Total
Men
Women
2001./II. 2001./II. 2001./II. 2002./II. 2002./II. 2002./II. 2003./II. 2003./II. 2003./II. 2004./II. 2004./II. 2004./II. 2005./II. 2005./II. 2005./II. 2006./II. 2006./II. 2006./II.
100
100
100
100,0 100
100,0
100,0 100
100,0 100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
815
24
186
550
79
2003./II.
Total
2002./II. 2003./II. 2003./II.
695
1535
843
Women
2000./II.
Total
Men
Women
2000./II. 2000./II. 2000./II.
100
100
100
Source: CBS (LFS)
Total
Uncompleted
basic school
Basic school
(8years)
1 to 3-year
secondary VET
4-year
secondary VET
Grammar
school
Non-university
degree
University and
postgraduate
degree
Men
2001./II. 2002./II. 2002./II.
656
1534
839
Women
Table10. Employed population by educational attainment, %
Source: CBS (LFS)
929
30
191
563
76
2000./II. 2000./II.
1572
859
Men
186
Total
2000./II.
Table 9. Employed population by gender and age groups (thousands), 2000-2006
Phare 2005 projec t
187
Table 11. Persons in employment (population 15 and over), by sector of activity, 2002-2006, thousand
Years/sectors
2002
2003.
2004.
2005.
2006.
Total
Agriculture
Industry
Services
I. – VI.
1 521
236
454 %
831
VII. - XII.
1 534 100,0
229 14,9%
453 29,5%
850 55,4%
I. – VI.
1 538
259
465
813
VII. - XII.
1 535
258
448
827
I. – VI.
1 583
268
469
845
VII. - XII.
1 542
245
463
834
I. – VI.
1 566
271
446
848
VII. - XII.
1 580
273
455
852
I. – VI.
1 548
228
468
852
VII. - XII.
1 624 100,0
224 13,8%
462 28,4%
938 57,8%
%
Source: CBS
Table 12. Persons in employment, by sector of ownership
2005-VII-XII
2006-VII-XII
Persons in employment
1580
1624
Persons in paid employment
1194
1253
Self employed persons
352
337
Unpaid family workers
34
34
Persons in employment – private sector
1072
1117
Private employment-% of total persons in employment
67,8
68,8
Persons in paid employment- sector of state ownership and sector in transition
508
508
State employment - %of total persons in employment
32,2
31,2
Source: CBS
%
2000./II.
42,4
22,8
71,1
36,3
7,3
51,3
2000./II.
49,6
24,1
76,7
48,0
10,4
57,4
2000./II.
36,1
21,3
65,8
25,9
5,4
45,5
2001./II.
42,1
24,4
70,7
37,5
6,6
51,8
Total
2001./II.
50,3
25,2
77,9
49,5
9,8
59,0
2001./II.
35,0
23,7
63,7
27,0
4,6
44,9
2001./II.
Men Women
2002./II.
43,5
26,2
72,6
39,3
5,8
53,6
Total
Women
Total
Men
2003./II.
Women
Total
Men
2004./II.
Women
Total
2005./II.
43,2
26,0
74,2
44,3
6,3
55,0
Men
2005./II.
2005./II.
51,0
29,6
79,7
56,0
8,2
62,0
Women
2005./II.
36,2
22,2
68,6
33,7
5,0
48,2
Total
2006./II.
44,5
27
76,1
45
7,2
56,6
Men
2006./II.
2006./II.
51,2
29,5
80,7
54,7
8,7
62,3
Women
2006./II.
38,6
24,2
71,6
36,3
6,2
51,0
2006./II.
Men Women
321
Source: CBS
15-64
65+
162
20
87
55
159
12
97
50
289
27
164
98
138
17
70
51
151
10
94
47
258
29
152
77
129
18
68
43
130
12
84
34
258
33
148
77
130
20
68
42
129
13
80
35
246
32
144
69
115
17
63
35
131
15
81
35
222
35
120
67
108
21
50
36
114
13
70
31
191
32
101
59
90
15
43
32
101
17
58
27
33
Men
2002./II.
2004./II.
36,4
21,7
67,0
33,2
5,5
47,9
Total
50-64
Total
2004./II.
50,4
28,9
78,5
53,4
7,7
60,7
2005./II.
Men Women
184
Women
2004./II.
43,0
25,5
72,7
42,8
6,4
54,3
Total
25-49
Men
2001./II.
2003./II.
36,5
21,3
66,7
31,4
5,0
47,0
2004./II.
Men Women
105
Total
2003./II.
50,3
27,8
78,6
50,1
9,8
59,6
Unemployed in thousands (‘000)
2003./II.
43,0
24,7
72,6
40,2
6,9
53,2
Total
15-24
Women
2002./II.
37,1
24,6
66,9
29,8
4,3
47,4
Employment rate
2003./II.
Total
Men Women
2000./II. 2000./II. 2000./II. 2001./II. 2001./II. 2001./II. 2002./II. 2002./II. 2002./II. 2003./II. 2003./II. 2003./II. 2004./II. 2004./II. 2004./II. 2005./II. 2005./II. 2005./II. 2006./II. 2006./II. 2006./II.
322
163
159
289
138
151
259
129
130
259
130
129
246
115
131
222
108
114
191
90
101
Men
2000./II.
2002./II.
50,7
27,6
78,4
50,6
7,9
60,1
2002./II.
Men Women
Total
Total
Table 14. Unemployed by gender and age-groups, 2000-2006
ISource: CBS
Total
15-24
25-49
50-64
65+
15-64
Total
2000./II.
Men Women
Table 13. Employment rates by gender and age groups, 2000-2006, %
Phare 2005 projec t
188
Men
43,1
14,6
9,7
.
17,5
15-24
25-49
50-64
65+
15-64
16,4
.
9,7
13,4
42,1
15,9
18,8
.
9,7
16,0
44,3
18,2
2000./
II.
Men
16,8
.
8,1
14,2
41,7
16,3
14,8
.
8,3
11,5
41,9
14,4
2001./II. 2001./II.
Women Total
2001./II.
Men
19,2
.
7,8
17,2
41,6
18,7
14,8
.
8,5
12,9
34,4
14,4
13,6
.
8,6
11,0
35,1
13,3
2001./II. 2002./II. 2002./II.
Women Total
2002./II.
Source: CES
Unemployed
Total
378.544
395.141
366.162
318.684
317.577
307.851
293.153
Years
XII. 2000.
XII. 2001.
XII. 2002.
XII. 2003.
XII. 2004.
XII. 2005.
XII. 2006.
Table 16. Registered unemployment, 2000-2006, persons and rates (%)
Source: CBS
17,0
Total
2000./II. 2000./II.
Total
2000./II.
Unemployment rate
Table 15. Unemployment rate by gender and age groups, 2000-2006, %
Men
16,1
.
8,3
14,9
33,6
15,8
14,9
.
9,0
12,8
35,8
14,4
16,2
.
8,8
14,5
37,7
15,7
2003./
II.
16,7
17,8
18,5
18,7
21,3
22,8
22,3
Men
14,2
.
8,1
12,7
33,8
13,8
12,2
.
7,3
10,6
29,7
11,9
2004./II. 2004./II.
Women Total
2004./II.
13,8
.
9,2
11,3
34,3
13,3
2002./II. 2003./II. 2003./II.
Women Total
2003./II.
Total
Men
16,5
.
9,3
15,0
39,2
16,0
12,7
.
8,1
10,9
32,0
12,3
11,3
.
8,3
8,7
30,2
11,0
2004./II. 2005./II. 2005./II.
Women
2005./II.
Men
14,5
.
7,8
13,3
34,4
14,0
10,9
.
7,3
9
29
10,5
9,6
.
6,1
7,5
28,2
9,3
2005./
2006./II. 2006./II.
II.
Women Total
2006./II.
12,4
.
8,9
10,7
30
11,9
2006./II.
Women
189
Phare 2005 projec t
190
Table 17. Structure of registered unemployed by gender, 2000-2006, persons and %
Total
Registered unemployed
Women
Pers.
% of women in total
Men
Pers.
% of men in total
2000
378.544
200.652
53
177.892
47
2001
395.141
214.716
54
180.425
46
2002
366.162
206.105
56
160.057
44
2003
318.684
186.281
58
132.403
42
2004
317.577
185.073
58
132.504
42
2005
307.851
182.421
59
125.430
41
2006
293.153
177.649
61
115.504
39
Years
Source: CES
Table 18. Structure of registered unemployed by duration of unemployment, 2000-2006, persons
Years/duration of
unemployment
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
up to 1 year
179843
185927
149544
133375
141141
129437
127501
1-3 years
118697
119290
119679
91271
79629
79325
67552
3 and more years
80004
89924
96939
94038
96807
99089
98100
Source: CES
Table 19. Structure of registered unemployed by duration of unemployment, 2000-2006, %
Years/duration of
unemployment
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
0 - 3 months
17,5
18,5
13,6
18,9
19,0
18,4
19,6
3 - 6 months
14,5
13,7
11,6
11,7
13,0
11,5
13,2
6 - 9 months
7,6
7,4
7,2
6,0
6,1
5,9
5,3
9 - 12 months
7,9
7,4
8,5
5,2
6,4
6,2
5,4
1 - 2 years
20,2
19,1
20,7
16,1
15,4
16,1
13,8
2 - 3 years
11,1
11,1
12,0
12,5
9,7
9,7
9,2
3 - 5 years
11,2
12,0
13,4
14,3
14,5
13,9
12,6
5 - 8 years
5,7
6,3
8,0
9,5
9,9
11,1
12,4
8 years and more
4,3
4,5
5,1
5,7
6,1
7,3
8,6
Source: CES
191
Table 20 .Structure of registered unemployed, women, by duration of unemployment, 2000-2006, %
Years/duration of unemployment
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
0 - 3 months
16,7
17,6
13,2
17,9
17,5
17,3
18,4
3 - 6 months
14,1
12,6
11,1
11,4
12,5
11,2
12,8
6 - 9 months
7,0
6,9
7,0
6,0
5,9
5,7
5,2
9 - 12 months
7,5
7,3
7,6
5,1
6,2
5,9
5,4
1 - 2 years
20,0
19,6
20,7
16,3
16,2
16,4
14,2
2 - 3 years
11,8
11,5
12,5
12,7
10,0
10,3
9,7
3 - 5 years
11,8
12,8
13,9
14,6
15,0
14,2
13,1
5 - 8 years
6,1
6,6
8,4
9,8
10,3
11,5
12,6
8 years and more
5,0
5,2
5,6
6,1
6,4
7,5
8,8
Source: CES
Table 21. Structure of registered unemployed, men, by duration of unemployment, 2000-2006, %
Years/duration of unemployment
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
0 - 3 months
18,5
19,6
14,1
20,3
21,1
20,1
21,5
3 - 6 months
15,0
14,9
12,3
12,2
13,8
12,1
13,9
6 - 9 months
8,2
8,1
7,4
6,0
6,3
6,2
5,3
9 - 12 months
8,3
7,6
9,5
5,3
6,6
6,6
5,4
1 - 2 years
20,4
18,6
20,7
15,9
14,2
15,6
13,3
2 - 3 years
10,4
10,6
11,4
12,2
9,2
8,7
8,6
3 - 5 years
10,4
11,0
12,7
13,8
13,7
13,4
11,7
5 - 8 years
5,2
5,9
7,6
9,1
9,4
10,5
12,0
8 years and more
3,5
3,7
4,4
5,2
5,6
6,9
8,2
Source: CES
Table 22. Structure of registered unemployed by age groups, 2000-2006, %
Years/age-groups
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
15-19
9,4
8,6
7,0
6,2
6,2
6,
6
20-24
19,4
18,8
16,9
15,3
15,2
14,5
14,1
25-30
14,6
14,2
13,6
12,8
12,9
12,7
12,8
30-34
12,2
11,9
11,7
11,1
10,7
10,5
10,1
35-39
11,7
11,6
11,9
11,6
11,2
10,5
9,9
40-44
11,0
10,9
11,3
11,5
11,0
10,9
10,6
45-49
10,3
11,0
12,0
12,7
12,5
12,3
11,7
50-54
7,4
8,2
9,6
11,4
12,1
13,3
14,1
55-60
3,0
3,6
4,6
5,8
6,6
7,8
8,7
>60
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,6
1,7
2,1
Source: CES
Phare 2005 projec t
192
Table 23. Structure of registered unemployed by educational attainment, 2000-2006, %
Years/age-groups
2000
No schooling and
uncompleted basic school
Basic school
1 to 3-year vocational secondary school
4 (or more)-year vocational secondary
school and grammar school
2001
2002
2003
2004
19,1
18,2
18,1
18,5
6,4
14,8
15,9
17,4
17,9
22,3
34,8
34,4
33,2
33,2
40,5
24,3
24,5
24,4
23,8
24,2
3,1
3,1
3,2
3,1
2,7
3,9
3,9
3,7
3,5
3,9
Non-university degree
University level and postgraduate
degrees
2005
2006
6,3
6,7
23,4
24,0
38,2
35,9
25,2
26,2
3,0
3,1
3,9
4,1
Source: CES
Table 24. Structure of registered unemployed by work experience
Years/work experience
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
27,7
27,0
25,2
24,1
23,5
12,4
12,1
11,8
11,1
10,8
8,2
8,2
8,0
7,7
2-3 years
5,1
5,1
5,0
3-5 years
7,1
7,2
10,3
10,4
29,2
29,9
No work experience
< 1 year
1-2 years
5-10 years
> 10 years
Source: CES
2005
2006
22,7
22,4
10,7
11,6
8,0
8,1
8,2
4,9
5,2
5,2
5,2
7,1
6,9
7,0
7,1
7,2
10,7
10,7
10,8
10,8
10,7
32,2
34,6
34,7
35,4
34,7
Annex 6
ALMPs participants/benefi ciaries1
2006 and 2007(by 30.06) and Registered unemployed
(2005, 2006) statistics
1
Clarification for the entire annex- According with explanation received from CES(IT department) the category “ total ALMPs
beneficiaries(persons)” includes the following categories : “active”=still employed, in training programmes , successfully finished the
employment subsidised period according with the procedures/conditionality, or graduating the training courses; “on hold”= army service,
no replacement during service; “inactive”=contract terminated before the end of conditionality; dropouts=person stopped working/
training before the end of conditionality/training, replacement is/was being seeking for the employed (if already found, a replacement
is active); the category “active ALMPs beneficiaries(persons)” includes the following categories: “active”=still employed, in training
programmes , successfully finished the employment subsidised period according with the procedures/conditionality, or graduating the
training courses plus “on hold”= army service, no replacement during service
Phare 2005 projec t
194
Table 1. Registered unemployed and ALMPs beneficiaries/participants (except participants in measure 5.1.b- status of
employed before entering the measures), persons and %
Registered
unemployed 2005
ALMPs participants
2006
2/1
Registered
unemployed 2006
ALMPs participants
2007(by 30.06)
5/4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
307. 851
4.905
1,6
293.153
2534
0,9
Source: CES and own calculation on the basis of database received from CES
Table 2. Registered unemployed and “active” ALMPs beneficiaries/participants (except participants in measure 5.1.bstatus of employed before entering the measures), persons and %
Registered
unemployed 2005
“Active” ALMPs
participants 2006
2/1
Registered
unemployed
2006
“Active” ALMPs
participants 2007(by
30.06)
5/4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
307. 851
4.361
1,4
293.153
2505
0,9
Source: CES and own calculation on the basis of database received from CESa
16,7
14,7
29,9
27,6
14,2
16,8
25,6
13,4
22,4
29,6
20,9
29,5
20,9
26,1
26,5
32,1
22,3
8,0
18,3
15,5
7,8
County Zagreb
Krapina-Zagorje
Sisak-Moslavina
Karlovac
Varaždin
Bjelovar-Bilogora
Primorje-Gorski
Lika-Senj
Virovitica-Podravina
Požega-Slavonia
Slavonski Brod-Posavina
Zadar
Osijek-Baranja
Šibenik-Knin
Vukovar-Sirmium
Split-Dalmatia
Istria
Dubrovnik-Neretva
Međimurje
City of Zagreb
835
356
75
52
490
324
177
584
69
218
76
197
28
177
323
200
319
116
337
214
100
5267
Total participants
2006
pers.
15,9
6,8
1,4
1,0
9,3
6,2
3,4
11,1
1,3
4,1
1,4
3,7
0,5
3,3
6,1
3,8
6,1
2,2
6,4
4,1
1,9
100,0
%
in total
partici
pants
745
335
71
46
441
285
150
520
62
205
61
181
28
155
310
180
267
100
294
201
84
4721
Total “active”
participants
2006
pers.
Source: CES and own calculation on the basis of database received from CE
17,8
Croatia
County
U. rate
2005
%
15,8
7,1
1,5
1,0
9,3
6,0
3,2
11,0
1,3
4,3
1,3
3,8
0,6
3,2
6,6
3,8
5,7
2,1
6,2
4,3
1,8
100,0
%
in total
“active’participants
U. rate
2006
%
7,2
14,8
16,0
7,0
20,9
30,6
23,6
25,0
19,3
28,7
20,4
29,1
21,5
12,0
24,6
16,1
12,9
26,9
29,1
13,9
15,9
16,7
Table 3. Registered unemployment rate and ALMPs beneficiaries/participants by counties, % and persons
302
172
86
21
313
187
85
347
24
111
27
176
8
164
220
109
123
40
189
51
56
2811
Total participants
2007
pers.
10,7
6,1
3,1
0,7
11,1
6,7
3,0
12,3
0,9
3,9
1,0
6,3
0,3
5,8
7,8
3,9
4,4
1,4
6,7
1,8
2,0
100,0
%
in total
part.
participants
300
172
86
21
313
187
79
344
24
111
26
174
8
159
218
109
119
40
184
51
56
2783
Total “active” participants
2007
pers.
10,8
6,2
3,1
0,8
11,2
6,7
2.8
12,4
0,9
3,9
0,9
6,3
0,3
5,7
7,8
3,9
4,4
1,4
6,7
1,8
2,0
100,0
%
in total
“activ” partici-pants
Aneks 6 ALMPs par ticipants/bene f i c i a r i e s
195
Phare 2005 projec t
196
Table 4. Structure of ALMPs participants/beneficiaries by type of measures and size of employers, year 2006, %
Measures
Total Croatia
Small size
companies
Medium size
companies
Big size
companies
%in participants
in each measure
in total number of
participants
100
85,2
12,7
2,1
20,5
100
89,5
9,9
0,6
24,9
100
93,9
5,7
0,4
11,3
100
93,1
6,5
0,4
5,3
100
23,1
0,0
76,9
0,2
100
7,7
74,6
17,7
6,7
100
98,9
1,1
0,0
16,6
100
89,8
6,5
3,7
10,2
100
80,5
19,5
0,0
3,7
0,0
0,0
0,3
Measure 1
Co-financing employment of young people without working experience
Measure 2
Co-financing employment of long-term unemployed persons
Measure 3
Co-financing employment of women above 45 and men above 50 years of age
Measure 4
Co-financing employment of special groups of unemployed persons
Measure 5.1.a
Co-financing education for known employernewly-employed
Measure 5.1.b
Co-financing education for known employer -retaining work place
Measure 5.2
Co-financing education for unknown employer
Measure 6
Public works
Measure J
Public works-Roma
“Measure O/N
Co-financing education for unknown employer-Roma
Measure Z
Co-financing employment of Roma population in duration of 24 months
100
Total Croatia
100,0
100
78,6
14,3
7,1
0,3
100
84,7
12,8
2,5
100
Table 5 Structure of ALMPs participants/beneficiaries by type of measures and size of employers, 2007, by 30.06, %
Measures
Measure 1
Co-financing employment of young people without
working experience
Measure 2
Co-financing employment of long-term
unemployed persons
Measure 3
Co-financing employment of women above 45 and
men above 50 years of age
Measure 4
Co-financing employment of special groups of
unemployed persons
Measure 5.1.a
Co-financing education for known employernewly-employed
Total Croatia
Small size
companies
Medium size
companies
Big size companies
% of participants in each
measure in total number
of participants
100
90,4
7,6
2,0
8,9
100
91,8
8,0
0,2
20,1
100
94,6
5,0
0,4
8,5
100
92,5
6,0
1,5
4,8
100
0,0
29,5
70,5
1,6
Measures
Total Croatia
Small size
companies
Medium size
companies
Big size companies
% of participants in each
measure in total number
of participants
100
15,6
37,5
46,9
9,9
100
90,5
8,4
1,1
29,7
100
93,0
2,2
4,8
13,2
100
97,7
2,3
0,0
3,1
100
100,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
100
60,0
40,0
0,0
0,2
100
82,9
10,1
7,0
100,0
Measure 5.1.b
Co-financing education for known employer
-retaining work place
Measure 5.2
Co-financing education for unknown employer
Measure 6
Public works
Measure J
Public works-Roma
“Measure O/N
Co-financing education for unknown employerRoma
Measure Z
Co-financing employment of Roma population in
duration of 24 months
Total Croatia
Table 6. Structure of ALMPs participants by type of measures, 2006 and 2007( by 30.06),persons
Measures
Total participants
Total “active” participants
Measure 1-Co-financing employment of young people without working experience
1333
1147
Measure 2-Co-financing employment of long-term unemployed persons
1875
1615
Measure 3-Co-financing employment of women above 45 and men above 50 years of age
832
773
Measure 4-Co-financing employment of special groups of unemployed persons
411
366
Measure 5.1.a-Co-financing education for known employernewly-employed
57
53
Measure 5.1.b-Co-financing education for known employer -retaining work place
639
637
Measure 5.2-Co-financing education for unknown employer
1708
1707
Measure 6-Public works
907
900
Measure J-Public works-Roma
282
275
“Measure O/N-Co-financing education for unknown employer-Roma
15
15
Measure Z-Co-financing employment of Roma population in duration of 24 months
19
15
8078
7503
Total Croatia
197
Phare 2005 projec t
198
Table 7. Structure of ALMPs participants/beneficiaries by type of measures, 2006 and 2007, %
% in total participants
% in total “active”
participants
16,5
15,2
23,2
21,5
Measure 3-Co-financing employment of women above 45 and men above 50 years of age
10,3
10,3
5,1
4,9
Measure 5.1.a-Co-financing education for known employernewly-employed
0,7
0,7
Measure 5.1.b-Co-financing education for known employer -retaining work place
7,9
8,5
21,1
22,8
11,2
12,0
3,5
3,7
“Measure O/N-Co-financing education for unknown employer-Roma
0,2
0,2
0,2
0,2
100,0
100,0
Measures
Total Croatia
Table 8. Structure of ALMPs participants in training measures, 2006 and 2007, by type of the training courses, %
Type of training
% in total participants
( measures 5.1a, b, 5.2 and O/N)
Total
100
Vocational update
12,8
Vocational upgrade
28,1
Re-qualification
34,4
General skills training
20,7
Unknown
4,1
Table 9. Structure of registered unemployed and ALMPs beneficiaries/participants (except participants in measure
5.1.b- status of employed before entering the measures), by age groups, %
Registered
unemployed 2005
Total ALMPs
participants 2006
„Active“ ALMPs
participants
2006
2006
Total ALMPs
participants 2007
„Active„
ALMPs participants
2007
Total
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
15-19
5,8
11,2
10,8
6,0
6,8
6,8
20-24
14,5
24,0
23,2
14,1
26,6
26,5
25 - 29
12,7
17,8
17,5
12,8
17,5
17,5
30 - 34
10,5
9,1
9,1
10,1
13,5
13,5
35 - 39
10,5
8,5
8,9
9,9
7,5
7,5
40 - 44
10,9
8,1
8,3
10,6
7,7
7,8
45 - 49
12,3
9,0
9,2
11,7
8,5
8,5
50 - 54
13,3
7,8
8,1
14,1
8,1
8,1
55 - 59
7,8
3,9
4,2
8,7
3,1
3,1
> 60
0,6
0,6
0,6
2,0
0,7
0,7
Age groups
Source CES and own calculation on the basis of database received from CES
Table 10. Structure of registered unemployed 2005, 2006 and ALMPs beneficiaries/participants (except participants
in measure 5.1.b- status of employed before entering the measures) 2006, 2007(by 30.06.), by educational
attainment, %
Educational attainment
Registered
unemployed 2005
Total ALMPs
participants 2006
„Active“ ALMPs
participants
2006
Registered unemployed Total ALMPs
2006
participants 2007
„Active“ ALMPs
participants
2007
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
No schooling /
uncompleted basic school
6,3
4,5
4,8
6,7
4,4
4,3
Basic school
23,4
14,3
14,8
24,0
20,4
20,4
38,2
36,7
36,2
35,9
35,9
35,8
25,2
28,0
28,0
26,2
27,4
27,6
Non-university degree
3,0
5,6
5,7
3,1
3,9
3,8
University level/postgraduate
degrees
3,9
10,9
10,5
4,1
6,9
6,9
1,1
1,2
1 to 3-year vocational secondary
school
4 (or more)-year vocational
secondary
school / grammar school
Unknown
Source CES and own calculation on the basis of database received from CES
199
Phare 2005 projec t
200
Table 11. Structure of registered unemployed and ALMPs beneficiaries/participants (except participants in measure
5.1.b- status of employed before entering the measures) by gender, %
Gender
2005
Total ALMPs participants
2006
„Active“ ALMPs
participants
2006
2006
Total ALMPs
participants 2007
„Active“ ALMPs
participants
2007
Total
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
100,0
Female
59
45,2
44,1
61
50,9
51,1
Male
41
54,8
55,9
39
49,1
48,9
Table 12. Structure of registered unemployed and ALMPs participants (except participants in measure 5.1.b- status of
employed before entering the measures) by duration of unemployment, %
Registered unemployed,
2005
„Active“ALMPs participants
2006
Registered unemployed, 2006
„Active“ ALMPs participants
2007
Total
100
100
100
100
0 - 3 months
18,4
15,4
19,6
11,5
3 - 6 months
11,5
6,7
13,2
10,5
6 - 9 months
5,9
11,6
5,3
17,1
9 - 12 months
6,2
7,1
5,4
8,5
1 - 2 years
16,1
26,8
13,8
19,6
2 - 3 years
9,7
10,9
9,2
7,8
3 - 5 years
13,9
10,9
12,6
7,1
5 - 8 years
11,1
6,5
12,4
6,0
8 years and more
7,2
3,3
8,5
3,3
Duration of unemployment
Unknown
0,8
8,6
Table 13. Structure of registered unemployed and ALMPs participants (except participants in measure 5.1.b- status of
employed before entering the measures) by work experience, %
Work experience
Registered unemployed,
2005
„Active“ALMPs participants , 2006
Registered unemployed, 2006
„Active“ ALMPs participants,
2007
Total
100
100
100
100
no work experience
23
29,8
22
25,9
up to 1 year
11
17,1
12
18,9
1 - 2 years
8
6,9
8
9,5
2 - 3 years
5
4,6
5
5,8
3 - 5 years
7
6,2
7
8,1
5 - 10 years
11
9,1
11
10,1
10 + years
35
26,3
35
21,7
201
Table 14. Expenditures by type of ALMPs measures, 2006, 2007(by 30.06), HRK and %
Expenditures 2007,
contracts concluded by
30/06
Expenditures
2006
Measures
Total 2006 and
2007
% of total
26.375.391
6.601.223
32.976.614
23,7
27.629.817
12.747.398
40.377.215
29,0
Measure 3-Co-financing employment of women above 45 and men above 50 years
of age
19.884.493
8.042.870
27.927.363
20,1
8.570.783
4.387.055
12.957.838
9,3
Measure 5.1. Co-financing education for known employernewly-employed and
Co-financing education for known employer -retaining work place
1.930.846
2.134.456
4.065.302
2,9
6.954.991
3.401.308
10.356.299
3.100.823
3.475.852
6.576.676
4,7
2.376.557
1.043.387
3.419.944
2,5
Measure O/N-Co-financing education for unknown employer-Roma
107.150
6.395
113.545
0,1
214.256
46.807
261.063
0,2
Total Croatia
97.145.107
41.886.752
139.031.859
100,0
7,5
Table 15. Structure of ALMPs expenditures and participants, by type of measures, 2006 and 2007 (by 30.06), %
Expenditures
%
ALMPs Participants
%
Measure 1
23,7
16,1
Measure 2
29
22,5
Measure 3-
20,1
10,2
Measure 4
9,3
5,0
Measure 5.1. a and b
2,9
9,6
Measure 5.2
7,5
21,4
Measure 6-
4,7
11,4
Measure J
2,5
3,4
Measure O/N
0,1
0,2
Measure Z
0,2
0,2
Total
100
100
Phare 2005 projec t
202
Table 16. - Registered unemployed and ALMPs participants by counties, persons, %
2005
pers.
% in total registered
unemployed
2005
Registered
unemployment
rate
2005,
%
Total
ALMPs
participants,
2006
pers.
% in
total ALMPs
participants,
2006
County Zagreb
13.432
4,4
16,7
100
1,9
Krapina-Zagorje
6.058
2,0
14,7
214
4,1
Sisak-Moslavina
18.290
5,9
29,9
337
6,4
Karlovac
13.546
4,4
27,6
116
2,2
Varaždin
10.099
3,3
14,2
319
6,1
7.870
2,6
16,8
200
3,8
Bjelovar-Bilogora
12.302
4,0
25,6
323
6,1
Primorje-Gorski
17.832
5,8
13,4
177
3,3
Lika-Senj
3.730
1,2
22,4
28
0,5
9.771
3,2
29,6
197
3,7
Požega-Slavonia
5.470
1,8
20,9
76
1,4
Slavonski BrodPosavina
15.788
5,1
29,5
218
4,1
Zadar
11.361
3,7
20,9
69
1,3
Osijek-Baranja
31.288
10,2
26,1
584
11,1
Šibenik-Knin
9.850
3,2
26,5
177
3,4
Vukovar-Sirmium
19.260
6,3
32,1
324
6,2
Split-Dalmatia
39.653
12,9
22,3
490
9,3
Istria
7.076
2,3
8,0
52
1
Dubrovnik-Neretva
8.314
2,7
18,3
75
1,4
Međimurje
7.020
2,3
15,5
356
6,8
City of Zagreb
39.841
12,9
7,8
835
15,9
TOTAL
307.851
100
17,8
5267
100
Counties
Table 17. - ALMPs financial resources and number of participants (individuals) - Plan and implementation, 2006,
persons, HRK, %
ALMPs participants
plan
ALMPs participants
financial database
2/1
ALMPs funds
plan, HRK
Expenditures, HRK
financial
database
5/4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
M1
1036
1044
100,8
20.218.412
26.375.391
130,5
M2
995
1250
125,6
16.800.845
27.629.817
164,5
M3
620
583
94,0
15.580.746
19.884.493
127,6
M4
880
268
30,5
22.265.875
8.570.783
38,5
M5.1
1126
383
34,0
12.262.264
1.930.846
15,7
M5.2
2700
873
32,3
44.564.100
6.954.991
15,6
M6
1460
535
36,6
18.255.402
3.100.823
17,0
M O/N, O/P
100
14
14,0
10.000.000
107.150
1,1
MJ
100
194
194,0
3.120.000
2.376.557
76,2
Mz
30
12
40,0
1.004.292
214.256
21,3
Total
9047
5156
57,0
164.071.936
97.145.107
59,2
Measure
Table 18. Number of companies1, beneficiaries of ALMPs measures in 2006, by counties
Counties
1
Small size companies
Medium size companies
Big size companies
Total no. of companies
1
Zagreb
73
3
76
2
Krapina-Zagorje
72
2
3
Sisak-Moslavina
146
6
152
4
Karlovac
55
5
60
5
Varaždin
171
12
6
60
6
7
Bjelovar-Bilogora
74
4
2
80
8
Primorje-Gorski Kotar
112
4
4
120
9
Lika-Senj
21
10
92
5
11
Požega-Slavonia
38
3
41
12
89
4
93
13
Zadar
62
14
Osijek-Baranja
247
11
15
Šibenik-Knin
78
3
81
16
Vukovar-Sirmium
121
5
126
1
3
75
186
66
21
1
98
62
Companies are counted only 1 time no matter if they benefited for more than 1 measure
1
259
203
Phare 2005 projec t
204
Counties
Big size companies
2
258
17
Split-Dalmatia
251
5
18
Istria
43
2
45
19
Dubrovnik-Neretva
42
5
47
20
Međimurje
147
11
1
159
21
City of Zagreb
443
17
7
467
Total
2437
113
22
2572
Table 19. Number of companies2 beneficiaries of ALMPs measures, year 2007, by 30.07, by counties
Counties
Big size companies
1
Zagreb
45
2
47
2
Krapina-Zagorje
42
2
44
3
Sisak-Moslavina
45
4
Karlovac
18
5
Varaždin
58
5
63
6
25
2
27
7
Bjelovar-Bilogora
41
1
2
44
8
Primorje-Gorski Kotar
47
1
2
50
9
Lika-Senj
6
10
27
11
Požega-Slavonia
15
15
12
39
39
13
Zadar
23
1
24
14
Osijek-Baranja
68
3
71
15
Šibenik-Knin
28
16
Vukovar-Sirmium
46
2
48
17
Split-Dalmatia
88
2
90
18
Istria
18
19
Dubrovnik-Neretva
14
4
20
Međimurje
83
3
1
87
21
City of Zagreb
143
5
2
150
Total
919
35
8
962
1
46
18
6
2
29
28
18
18
2
Companies are counted only 1 time no matter if they benefited for more than 1 measure
Table 20, 20 a, 20 b, 20 c, and 20 d - analysis of “total costs of ownership” of employment subsidy3 for enterprises
Table 20: Parameters for employment subsidies- Measures 1-4
Employer
Intervention rate
Minimum contracted period
Minimum maintenance period
for overall employment
Employers’ subsidy ceilings
related to last 24 months total
wage costs
50%
24
24
15,0%
Small
Medium
40%
24
24
7,5%
Big11
20%
36
36
3,0%
Source: CES and own calculation
Table 20.a – Total costs of ownership, Measure 1- Co-financing employment of young people without work
experience
Measure 1- Co-financing employment of young people without work experience (total per capita)
Without occupation /no-/ Vocational educ./ secondary
elementary school
educ. level
Total cost
small
medium
big
Employers complement small
medium
big
big +25%
Follow-up cost contract small
medium
big
big +25%
Effective cost for
small
employer
medium
big
big +25%
Subsidy /effective cost small
medium
big
big +25%
Effective subsidy rate
small
medium
big
Subsidy
3
Tertiary education
39.053,70
19.526,85
15.621,48
7.810,74
19.526,85
23.432,22
31.242,96
41.006,39
13.017,90
13.017,90
39.053,70
48.817,13
48.352,20
24.176,10
19.340,88
9.670,44
24.176,10
29.011,32
38.681,76
50.769,81
48.352,20
48.352,20
96.704,40
120.880,50
74.388,00
37.194,00
29.755,20
14.877,60
37.194,00
44.632,80
59.510,40
78.107,40
74.388,00
74.388,00
148.776,00
185.970,00
32.544,75
72.528,30
111.582,00
36.450,12
70.296,66
89.823,51
60%
43%
11%
9%
38%
30%
10%
77.363,52
135.386,16
171.650,31
33%
25%
7%
6%
25%
20%
7%
119.020,80
208.286,40
264.077,40
33%
25%
7%
6%
25%
20%
7%
Tertiary education +
internship
111.582,00
22.316,40
89.265,60
117.161,10
111.582,00
139.477,50
200.847,60
256.638,60
11%
9%
10%
Salary basis and duration of subsidy are specified in the CES „Conditions and ways for using funds for conducting the policy
of active employment measures from the annual employment promotion plan, 2006 and 2007”
205
Phare 2005 projec t
206
Measure 1- Co-financing employment of young people without work experience (total per capita)
Without occupation /no-/ Vocational educ./ secondary
elementary school
educ. level
big +25%
8%
5%
Tertiary education +
internship
Tertiary education
5%
8%
Source: CES( ALMPs procedures) and own calculation
Table 20.b- „“Total costs of ownership”, Measure 2- Co-financing employment of long term unemployed
Measure 2- Co-financing employment of long term unemployed (total per capita)
Without occupation / no-/
elementary school
Subsidy
Employers
complement
Follow-up cost
contract
Effective cost for
employer
Subsidy /effective
cost
Vocational educ. / secondary educ. Level
Tertiary education
total cost
37.453,50
46.371,00
74.388,00
small
18.726,75
23.185,50
37.194,00
medium
big
small
14.981,40
7.490,70
18.726,75
18.548,40
9.274,20
23.185,50
29.755,20
14.877,60
37.194,00
medium
22.472,10
27.822,60
44.632,80
big
29.962,80
37.096,80
59.510,40
big +25%
39.326,18
48.689,55
78.107,40
small
12.484,50
46.371,00
74.388,00
medium
12.484,50
46.371,00
74.388,00
big
37.453,50
92.742,00
148.776,00
big +25%
46.816,88
115.927,50
185.970,00
small
31.211,25
69.556,50
111.582,00
medium
34.956,60
74.193,60
119.020,80
big
67.416,30
129.838,80
208.286,40
big +25%
86.143,05
164.617,05
264.077,40
small
60%
33%
33%
medium
43%
25%
25%
big
big +25%
small
11%
9%
38%
7%
6%
25%
7%
6%
25%
30%
20%
20%
big
10%
7%
7%
big +25%
8%
5%
5%
Effective subsidy rate medium
Table 20.c - “Total costs of ownership”, Measure 3- Co-financing employment for women over 25 and men over 50
years of age
Measure 3- Co-financing employment for women over 25 and men over 50 years of age (total per capita)
Subsidy
Employers
complement
Follow-up cost
contract
Effective cost for
employer
Subsidy /effective
cost
Without occupation / no-/elementary
school
Vocational educ./ secondary educ. level
Tertiary education
Total cost
39.053,70
72.528,30
111.582,00
small
19.526,85
36.264,15
55.791,00
medium
15.621,48
29.011,32
44.632,80
big
7.810,74
14.505,66
22.316,40
small
19.526,85
36.264,15
55.791,00
medium
23.432,22
43.516,98
66.949,20
big
31.242,96
58.022,64
89.265,60
big +25%
41.006,39
76.154,72
117.161,10
small
13.017,90
24.176,10
37.194,00
medium
13.017,90
24.176,10
37.194,00
big
39.053,70
72.528,30
111.582,00
big +25%
48.817,13
90.660,38
139.477,50
small
32.544,75
60.440,25
92.985,00
medium
36.450,12
67.693,08
104.143,20
big
70.296,66
130.550,94
200.847,60
big +25%
89.823,51
166.815,09
256.638,60
small
60%
60%
60%
medium
43%
43%
43%
big
11%
11%
11%
big +25%
9%
9%
9%
small
38%
38%
38%
207
Phare 2005 projec t
208
Measure 3- Co-financing employment for women over 25 and men over 50 years of age (total per capita)
school
Tertiary education
medium
30%
30%
30%
big
10%
10%
10%
big +25%
8%
8%
8%
Table 20.d - Total costs of ownership”, Measure 4- Co-financing employment of special groups of unemployment
Measure 4- Co-financing employment of special groups of unemployment (total per capita)
Subsidy
Employers
complement
Follow-up cost
contract
Effective cost for
employer
Subsidy /effective
cost
school
Tertiary education
Total cost
39.053,70
72.528,30
111.582,00
small
19.526,85
36.264,15
55.791,00
medium
15.621,48
29.011,32
44.632,80
big
7.810,74
14.505,66
22.316,40
small
19.526,85
36.264,15
55.791,00
medium
23.432,22
43.516,98
66.949,20
big
31.242,96
58.022,64
89.265,60
big +25%
41.006,39
76.154,72
117.161,10
small
13.017,90
24.176,10
37.194,00
medium
13.017,90
24.176,10
37.194,00
big
39.053,70
72.528,30
111.582,00
big +25%
48.817,13
90.660,38
139.477,50
small
32.544,75
60.440,25
92.985,00
medium
36.450,12
67.693,08
104.143,20
big
70.296,66
130.550,94
200.847,60
big +25%
89.823,51
166.815,09
256.638,60
small
60%
60%
60%
medium
43%
43%
43%
big
11%
11%
11%
big +25%
9%
9%
9%
small
38%
38%
38%
medium
30%
30%
30%
big
10%
10%
10%
big +25%
8%
8%
8%
Source: CES (ALMPs procedures) and own calculation
209

Evaluation of Active Labour Market Policies Implemented by

Transcription

Similar documents

March 2014

2015 LIDT CONFERENCE PROGRAMS

4* Meteor Hotel - Concorde Travel

- Naztech

WCTFCU Locations - Washington County Teachers FCU

January Newsletter 2016

ISKUR - Emre Yildiz

See the latest in Consumer Technology

HousingSF_Stenquist

Ebank - Febea