ROADMAP. A. Context and problem definition

Transcription

1 TITLE OF THE INITIATIVE ROADMAP Integration of the long-term unemployed LEAD DG RESPONSIBLE UNIT EMPL UNIT C.3 DATE OF ROADMAP 09/2015 This indicative roadmap is provided for information purposes only and is subject to change. It does not prejudge the final decision of the Commission on whether this initiative will be pursued or on its final content and structure. A. Context and problem definition (1) What is the political context of the initiative? (2) How does it relate to past and possible future initiatives, and to other EU policies? (3) What ex-post analysis of existing policy has been carried out? What results are relevant for this initiative? (1) After six years of subdued growth and low job demand, high long-term unemployment is emerging alongside youth unemployment as the main legacy of the crisis on the labour market. Half of the unemployed are currently long-term unemployed (unemployed for more than 12 months). Long-term unemployment affects 12.1 million people (5% of the active EU population), 62% of whom have been jobless for at least two consecutive years 1. President Juncker's Political Guidelines identify the toll of unemployment due to the crisis as a key political challenge for the Commission. A key objective of closer coordination of economic policies in the EU is achieving full employment. The mission letter for Commissioner Thyssen refers to unacceptably high unemployment and the risk of poverty and social exclusion as key challenges for the Employment, Social Affairs, Skills and Labour Mobility mandate. Long-term unemployment has been identified by the Council 2, by the European Parliament 3 and the European Central Bank 4 as a major impediment to growth. Addressing long-term unemployment is a key challenge identified in the 2015 Annual Growth Survey 5. The newly proposed Employment Guidelines make an explicit reference to reducing long term unemployment "by means of comprehensive and mutually reinforcing strategies, including the provision of specific active support to long-term unemployed to return to the labour market" 6. The Guidelines identify labour activation enabling services and income support targeted at individual needs as main instruments of better targeted and simplified social policies. The Communication "Strengthening The Social Dimension Of The Economic And Monetary Union" adopted by the Commission in 2013 underlined that lasting disparities (including of long-term unemployment) might threaten the stability of the monetary Union as a whole. More convergence of labour market policies that support the integration of the long-term unemployed would contribute to reducing adverse spill-over effects and thus to the deepening of the social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union. (2) This initiative aims to support implementation at national level of the strategic Annual Growth Survey priorities and longer term Europe 2020 goals, notably the goals of increasing employment rate and reducing poverty. The Commission monitors the development of Member States' policies in this area, including a specific focus on the long-term unemployed. The Commission's assessment of progress under the European Semester points to a need to strengthen the capacity of their Public Employment Services to fight long-term unemployment and calling for effective lifelong learning strategies 7. The proposed initiative will reinforce support to the Member States through more specific policy guidance. The initiative would build on strands of policy guidance already developed at EU level. In 2008, the Commission Recommendation on active inclusion set out common principles and practical guidelines for a comprehensive 1 Labour Force Survey data, Q Council Conclusions "The 2015 Annual Growth Survey and Joint Employment Report: political guidance on employment and social policies" 6147/15 3 Report on European Semester for economic policy coordination: Employment and Social Aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2015(A8-0043/2015) COM(2014) 902 final 6 COM(2015) 98 final 7 COM(2015) 85 final

2 strategy based on three integrated pillars: adequate income support, inclusive labour markets and access to quality services 8. The Social Investment Package (2013) emphasises supporting those furthest from the labour market with a combination of income support, tailor-made activation, and access to enabling services and promotes the use of one stop shops and individual contracts. The Single Market Act I (2011) and II (2012) encourage reinforced delivery of services through a robust ecosystem of "social enterprises" leading to access to employment for the groups most in need, while fostering social innovation. 9 The Council recommendation on validation of non-formal and informal learning of 2012 encourages Member States to offer a skills audit to the unemployed within a reasonable period of time. There are important policy complementarities to both recent EU initiatives and short term priorities. Activation initiatives are proven to work better when introduced in parallel with job creation and up-skilling initiatives 10, which are both high on the EU agenda through the Investment Plan, aiming to boost job creation. Prevention aspects of long-term unemployment are addressed within the European Semester process: shifting the tax burden away from labour, reforming employment protection legislation and reducing labour market segmentation, adjusting unemployment benefits or stepping up the fight against undeclared work are key employment policy reforms which can prevent long term unemployment and facilitate reintegration in the labour market; reducing early school leaving, increasing educational achievement, modernising vocational education and training and apprenticeship systems and increasing the labour market relevance of education and training are also structural reforms which can contribute to long run employability. (3) Active labour market policies that provide training and job search assistance to those out of work as well as incentives to firms to hire them, contribute positively to a well-functioning labour market, most notably by speeding their return to employment. Systematic reviews show that most measures under active labour market policies, impact positively the long-term unemployed, if designed adequately and with sufficient private employers' participation 11. Examples of existing good practices can be found in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, or Portugal. The Commission's follow-up of the implementation of the active inclusion recommendation showed that more needs to be done to reorganise frontline services, to provide one-stop-shops for vulnerable people, to modernise social protection systems towards greater effectiveness and efficiency and to link employment policies with social support. Very significant gaps were observed in the implementation of an integrated and comprehensive active inclusion strategy 12. The main bottlenecks identified in implementation of the active inclusion paradigm proposed by the Commission were identified in lack of comprehensive, integrated strategies, lack of coordination between delivery agents, scattered policy responsibilities and variability in funding streams. The evaluation concluded that further guidance and monitoring is required to avoid piecemeal implementation in the Member States. 13 What are the main problems which this initiative will address? High levels of long-term unemployment Long-term unemployment (unemployed for 12 months or more) has increased in most Member States in recent years, doubling between 2008 and 2014 at EU level. The share of very long-term unemployed (for 24 months or more) has remained persistently high, against the trend of an overall decrease in unemployment. Some groups are particularly hit, such as persons with low qualifications or skills, with a migrant background and third country nationals, the Roma or people with disabilities. There is a risk that the current improvement in employment trends leaves out the high stock of current long term unemployed, many of whom are still close to the labour market. The sheer dimension of the group (12 million people), calls for reinforced support to this group to facilitate labour market re-integration. At the same time the employment potential of sectors with high growth potential, such as health care or green economy, remains underexploited. Finding a job has become more difficult since the start of the crisis, especially for the long term unemployed. Once an individual has already been unemployed for more than one year, it becomes increasingly difficult to return to employment. Of those long-term unemployed in 2012, by % were still unemployed while another 8 C(2008) COM(2011) Eichhorst and Konle-Seidl (2008) - Contingent Convergence: A Comparative Analysis of Activation Policies, IZA DP Kluve, J., The effectiveness of European active labor market programs, Labour Economics 01/2010, Vol. 17, No 6, pp Flieges et al (2015) - Active Labor Market Programme Participation for Unemployment Insurance Recipients: A Systematic Review, SFI Campbell Review 12 EU Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion (Frazer, H. and Marlier, E. (2012), Assessment of the implementation of the European Commission recommendation on active inclusion. 13 SWD(2013) 39 final 2

3 19% were inactive (i.e. no longer searching for a job). Labour market connection deteriorates as unemployment duration increases. For unemployed persons, evidence shows that long-term unemployment leads to increased social stigma, skills depreciation, loss of motivation, and higher incidence of health problems. Those going through a long-term unemployment period can face discrimination from potential employers and permanently lower earnings and career advancement prospects. Such negative effects affect disproportionately long-term unemployed who are older, have a migrant background, have disabilities or are part of vulnerable groups. At national level, persistently high long-term unemployment jeopardises overall employment policy goals: every year, 19% of the long-term unemployed become discouraged and drop into inactivity. High long-term unemployment decreases overall matching efficiency on the labour market and undermines occupational and geographical mobility 14. The rapidly increasing share of the low qualified among long-term unemployed also aggravates the trend of labour market polarisation. Tackling long-term unemployment requires additional efforts to support those who are currently long term unemployed, while continuing efforts to address the underlying causes (in particular lack of investment, labour market, insufficient employability due to low skills and qualification levels and mismatches on the labour market). Three specific problems can be identified: 1) Insufficient coverage of support to the long-term unemployed The extent and acuity of the problem requires increased political awareness and higher prioritisation of interventions to address more effectively and more widely the group of long term unemployed, many of whom are still employable and maintain relevant skills to the labour market. There are significant differences across Member States both in the share of long-term unemployed participating in active measures and in the coverage of benefits. In 17 Member States unemployment benefits stop within one year of unemployment. Even when maximal benefit periods are longer, not all long term unemployed are eligible 15. As a result, over 70% of those unemployed for 18 months or more declare that they receive no unemployment benefit and no assistance 16. Involvement in active measures is often linked to the receipt of unemployment benefit and less often to the receipt of other forms of social assistance. A low share of long-term unemployed takes part in activation measures, ranging from 4% in Croatia to 41% in Austria 17.With few exceptions, spending per (long term) unemployed declined significantly during the crisis. Significant differences exist among Member States in the degree to which clear activation obligations are included in income or services delivered to persons affected by long-term unemployment. 2) Sub-optimal activation design There are many commonly recognised challenges to bring long-term unemployed to employment. On the side of workers, they include low motivation and resignation; skills obsolescence and low employability due to lack of work habits; limited knowledge of job search techniques; individual barriers affecting capacity to find work, such as poor access to public transport, lack of child care facilities, health issues. On the employer side, commonly identified problems are lower productivity of workers who have experienced long-term unemployment inadequate incentives for hiring the long-term unemployed and red tape attached to receiving subsidies, a lack of work habits and skills obsolescence of these workers or inadequate support for their integration in the workplace and skills development. Systematic evidence on the effectiveness of active labour market policies for particular sub-groups of long-term unemployed is scarce, but tentative conclusions highlight that effective programmes are offering individualised support and reflect the complexity of problems facing the individual. Assisting long-term unemployed requires a mix of measures which recognise and seek to address all challenges faced in achieving labour market integration. Successful interventions also build on a higher level of intensity of contacts with the unemployed, underpinned by 14 OECD Employment Outlook EC (2014) - Economic and Social Developments in Europe Labour Force Survey LMP Database, 2012 data 18 EC (2014) - Stimulating job demand: the design of effective hiring subsidies in Europe 19 EC (2014) - Economic and Social Developments in Europe

4 better counselling service provision. The design and extent of support to employers who hire the long-term unemployed or who participate in the activation effort also varies considerably. Both the scale and scope of hiring subsidies programmes, the types of employer support (e.g. subsidies of wage or non-wage costs, subsidising social security contributions, and refund mechanisms), their level, duration and attached conditionalities have strong impact on attractiveness of the schemes to employers of different sizes 18. Differing levels of support, combined with different cyclical labour demand, lead to very different incidence of longterm unemployment across countries. In Denmark, Estonia or Austria more than 40% of the long-term unemployed are in employment within a year's time, while in Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Malta or Italy less than 20% are employed after one year. Countries which activate a higher share of the unemployed, which have higher participation in lifelong learning and stronger activation conditionality, are more resilient to long term unemployment. 19 While substantial financial support from the European Social Fund has been programmed for the period, Member States can benefit from further guidelines on the design of interventions within the existing operational programmes. Current good practice exchange at EU level does not yet focus directly on programme design and could be reinforced to increase the effectiveness of the national interventions and the impact of the European Social Fund on the end beneficiaries. 3) Insufficient coordination between delivery agents In many countries, public employment services primarily serve the unemployed eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. When eligibility ends, the long-term unemployed may be eligible for non-contributory minimum income or other social assistance benefits, the responsibility for which varies between Member States (most often the social assistance agencies or the public employment services). A range of social services delivered through municipalities, social services and NGOs may intervene. Municipalities, youth services, family services and other social services are the most common partners for public employment services, when working to support the long-term unemployed. However, obligations and approaches to collaborate are often not clearly defined. The extent and nature of this collaboration can vary significantly, depending on the functions and attributions of institutions, on budgetary flows or on individual programme design. Exchange of best practices at EU level can support policy learning within the Member States on ways to improve mechanisms for delivery. A peer review on public employment services approaches for sustainable integration of long-term unemployed conducted in 2014 identified several challenges in the management of effective partnerships, including the fragmentation of public service providers at the local level, and unclear division of roles between local agents or lack of policy coordination at the national level. Who will be affected by it? The initiative will target long-term unemployed, particularly those who do not receive adequate activation support. As it aims to reform or complement existing active inclusion instruments, the initiative will focus on registered long-term unemployed, who are already actively seeking a job. Design and implementation of the support schemes will require coordinated efforts by the various actors involved in activating and supporting the long-term unemployed (e.g. public employment services, welfare and social services social partners and linked organisations, municipalities, NGOs, etc.). The initiative will also support employers' closer involvement in activation programmes. Is EU action justified on grounds of subsidiarity? Why can Member States not achieve the objectives of the proposed action sufficiently by themselves? Can the EU achieve the objectives better? While the competence to deal with long-term unemployment rests firmly at national level, the consequences of inaction transcend national borders. High levels of long-term unemployment dampen the impact of investment and job creation measures on reducing unemployment. Persistently high long-term unemployment reduces the overall level of trust in public policy at both national and European level. Unemployment has been constantly identified as one of the top two issues of public concern at both national and European level during the last two years, alongside the economic situation. 20 A joint commitment to address the problem is appropriate, since insufficiently addressing long-term unemployment in one Member State has consequences relevant for all Member States. The prolonged slump in 20 Standard Eurobarometer issues

5 labour demand and the timid recovery increase the risk that long-term unemployment becomes structural. A limited policy response of Member States most affected by long-term unemployment would increase social spending and lower aggregate demand, worsening the fiscal position of these countries. This would in turn decrease cohesion and would hinder a stronger pick-up in growth and employment.. Member States have invited the Commission "to develop proposals to help support the long-term unemployed, taking lessons from the introduction of the Youth Guarantees across the EU, while fully integrating them into the European Employment Strategy" 21. EU level action will raise awareness and maintain political momentum, improving the effectiveness and efficiency of efforts to better support the long term unemployed. The initiative will thus facilitate monitoring progress at EU level and a joint assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the various schemes adopted. B. Objectives of the initiative What are the main policy objectives? The general objective is to increase the rate of transitions from long-term unemployment to employment by supporting Member States through a consistent framework for addressing long-term unemployment. The specific objectives of this initiative are to: (1) Increase the share of the long-term unemployed who receive active support leading to employment. (2) Support Member States in increasing the relevance of interventions to both employers and long-term unemployed; (3) Enhance cooperation within Member States between relevant public or outsourced services delivering activation support, benefits and social services to long-term unemployed, thus contributing to better aligning benefits and activation measures. Do the objectives imply developing EU policy in new areas? No. The objectives are in line with the European Employment Strategy and with EU policies in the field of social inclusion and contribute to achieving their objectives. C. Options (1) What are the policy options (including exemptions/adapted regimes e.g. for SMEs) being considered? (2) What legislative or 'soft law' instruments could be considered? (3) How do the options respect the proportionality principle? Option 1 No policy changes: baseline scenario The Commission continues to support a wide range of Member State policies addressing long-term unemployment through mutual learning and the European Semester process. Peer reviews on long-term unemployment and active labour market measures are organised regularly within the Employment Committee. The Mutual Learning Programme continues to support exchange on best practice in the area. The public employment services mutual learning offers opportunities for peer learning and best practice exchange on themes such as improved services for long-term unemployed and profiling. The European Social Fund continues to support measures, according to current programming priorities. In the funding period, the long-term unemployed comprised around one third of all funded participations involving unemployed people. The funding period will build upon this. Member States who received recommendations on the topic have already allocated significant funding to the investment priorities related to long-term unemployment. The baseline scenario requires no further legal action. It uses the existing cooperation framework and possibilities to support additional attention to long-term unemployment and efforts being taken in Member States to reduce it. 21 Council Conclusions on the 2015 Annual Growth Survey and Joint Employment Report: Political guidance on employment and social policies 6147/15 5

6 Option 2 A Council Recommendation on general measures to address long-term unemployment The focus of the Recommendation would be on creating a more encompassing intervention model integrating the different activation measures currently available in the Member States. Coordination between service and benefits providers as well as strengthening the demand-side of interventions through links to employers to ensure interventions as close as possible to the primary labour market would be at the centre of the Recommendation. The Council Recommendation would propose guidelines to be used by Member States according to national, regional and local circumstances for the design of comprehensive and mutually reinforcing strategies. Implementation of the reform of delivery models on the lines outlined above would be supported mainly by existing budgetary allocations in the Member States and by the European Social Fund. Option 3 A targeted Council Recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed The Recommendation would be centred on the introduction or development of an "individual activation offer". This could take the form of a job integration "agreement" for the registered long-term unemployed who are not covered by existing activation measures. This individual activation offer would be provided through a single point of contact bringing into a partnership employment services and enabling support services, benefits and social assistance. The offer will be built on strong employer involvement. In line with the principles identified under option 2, the offer would be tailored to individual needs, based on mutual commitments and relevant for the primary labour market (through partnership with employers or through targeted start-up support). The proposal would provide Member States with sufficient flexibility to tailor the contents, design and delivery of the offer to the national and local conditions. Options 2 and 3 are independent, but not mutually exclusive. Member States can design comprehensive and mutually reinforcing strategies for addressing long term unemployment, integrating the proposed individual activation offers proposed under option 3. Conversely, a Recommendation on individual activation offers (option 3) does not necessarily need to build on a wider strategy of addressing long-term unemployment (option 2). Option 2 targets coordination in the existing Member States' activation schemes whereas option 3 envisages a new additional activation instrument through which Member States would upscale their intervention. Any overlap with the target group of the Youth Guarantee (young people not in education, employment or training and young workers unemployed for less than 4 months) will be avoided. The recommendation would set the required parameters for such "individual activation offer" to be effective. The principles of intervention outlined in the Option 2 could be included and operationalised in the more targeted Recommendation, while allowing flexibility of delivery in the Member States. Guidance provided under both options 2 and 3 would allow a more effective use of European Social Fund expenditure. Under the 'Access to Employment' priority of the European Social Fund, Member States can specifically tackle long-term unemployment while the more disadvantaged cohorts can be supported under the 'Active Inclusion' priority. Implementation of the Recommendation will be supported through proactive programme management under the existing mechanisms foreseen by the Common Provisions and the European Social Fund Regulations. (2) Under the second and third options, a Council Recommendation on addressing long-term unemployment would be proposed under Art 292 TFEU. (3) The options presented are appropriate to the aim of supporting Member States in their efforts to address longterm unemployment. Under all options, primary responsibility rests with Member States as this initiative would need to be embedded in the specific national, regional and local context and the national institutional framework of the employment and social protection systems and their link to activation. Although implementation can be facilitated by adapting national legislation, the implementation of the initiative does not require legislative change under options 2 and 3. The Council Recommendation instrument allows strict respect of the proportionality principle: Member States that already have coordinated delivery structures providing adequate support in coverage and effectiveness to the long term unemployed will not need to act. Member States shall also be free to assess whether it is opportune to go beyond the provisions of the Recommendation proposed under options 2 and 3, notably to encompass participation targets or to propose an intervention guarantee for all the long-term unemployed. The initiative takes into account different situations as regards public budgets and financial constraints in terms of allocation of resources. Existing European funding will provide support to this initiative, and the European Social Fund in particular will have an important role to play in this. 6

7 D. Initial assessment of impacts What are the benefits and costs of each of the policy options? Option 1: No policy changes baseline scenario. Non-action means that the EU support in the area of tackling long-term unemployment will continue to be of a general nature and no model of intervention will be endorsed at EU level. To cope with the surge of long-term unemployment, several Member States are currently reforming their activation systems, with a view to improving provision from the jobseekers left behind following the economic crisis (e.g. Spain, France, and Germany). However the lack of a specific framework for monitoring at EU level various reform efforts undertaken at national level may hinder learning and implementing the best practices available. Option 2: A Council Recommendation on general measures to address long-term unemployment A Recommendation on comprehensive and mutually reinforcing strategies to address long-term unemployment would: (1) support Member States currently redesigning their provision models; (2) encourage reforms in the other Member States who have weaker activation frameworks; (3) encourage closer links to employers and labour market needs; (4) increase coordination of service provision. Under this option, reporting and monitoring would be largely qualitative and would not necessarily envisage higher activation rates. The main costs for Member States would be generated by the additional effort to coordinate services, namely better linking existing data systems and adjustments in existing schemes and their supporting regulations. However, such administrative costs would be largely offset by the long-term gains in service effectiveness and particularly through savings on future benefits and assistance payments when reintegration in employment is successful. Particularly whether additional efforts are required on the part of some Member States such investment needs to be considered in the context of the substantial social costs of long-term unemployment, compounding not only benefits expenditure, but also foregone tax and social contributions earnings. Option 3: A targeted Council Recommendation on Integration of the long-term unemployed The main support provided to Member States under this option is to encourage stronger focus on the activation of the long-term unemployed through a specific action. For Member States, the impact on existing service models would be indirect: provision of job integration agreements would create in many Member States new ways of cooperation between services and benefit providers, which could set an example leading to sustainable change across the other existing intervention mechanisms. The benefits for the long term unemployed beneficiaries include increased opportunities for earning and relevant work, provision of services and activation measures, leading to higher transition rates to employment. Similar gains could also be achieved through reforms of existing schemes through comprehensive and mutually reinforcing strategies, under option 2. Proposing an additional support model, it would lead to quicker support for those in need. Coordination processes involving reforms of existing schemes as proposed under option 2 tend to take longer time for coming to fruition. Rather than focusing on a qualitative monitoring of reforms in the current activation schemes of the Member States, monitoring would have stronger quantitative aspects, focused on provision of the activation offers and on their impact. As such, it would provide a stronger basis for assessing Member States' progress and for evaluating the impact of such interventions. The costs for implementation will vary among Member States depending on their models for addressing long-term unemployment Some will already be providing significant elements of the proposed service model and can supplement existing provision to meet the suggested service level. Others will need to initiate investments in their service infrastructure, proportional to their budgetary positions. The proposal will allow sufficient scope to Member States to adapt content and delivery of offers to the national specificities. Under both option 2 and 3, employers would also benefit from an integrated scheme, which would lower the bureaucratic barriers to accessing support for integrating long term unemployed. A joined-up scheme would also increase the access to supporting services, increasing and diversifying non-wage support compared to other schemes, increasing employer participation. The additional costs for the Member States can be partly covered by the investments already programmed under the European Structural and Investment Funds, particularly the European Social Fund. It is expected that the effectiveness of the European Social funds would be increased. 7

8 Could any or all of the options have significant impacts on (i) simplification, (ii) administrative burden and (iii) on relations with other countries, (iv) implementation arrangements? And (v) could any be difficult to transpose for certain Member States? None of the options will entail costs or administrative burden for the private sector. On the contrary, better support for employers who hire the long-term unemployed or engage in their activation will entail lowering the administrative burden associated with accessing forms of public support. For the long term unemployed, administrative barriers to accessing support would decrease under both options. Option 2 will lead to smoother transitions between the unemployment benefits and the social assistance schemes, increasing access to the benefits to which they are entitled. Option 3 would contribute to simplifying the service offer for beneficiaries, lowering barriers for participation in activation measures. All Member States already have in place structures and services meeting the objectives of the initiative and the main implementation challenge is to better coordinate and use existing mechanisms. Under options 2 and 3, the Member States' actions in implementing the Recommendation can imply an administrative burden for the public authorities, which varies amongst Member States, depending upon their current long-term unemployment support structure. Under option 3, the initial administrative costs for setting up a coordinated system could be offset by the decrease in administrative costs for case handling through delivery at a single point of contact. A lower offsetting effect on administrative costs can be anticipated under option 2, as well. (1) Will an IA be carried out for this initiative and/or possible follow-up initiatives? (2) When will the IA work start? (3) When will you set up the IA Steering Group and how often will it meet? (4) What DGs will be invited? An impact assessment will not be carried out for the initiative. The recommendation offers general guidance on the labour market integration process allowing Member States to implement various optional and flexible elements according to their national practices. The impact of the recommendation will depend on the way in which Member States are likely to implement them. The assessment will then need to factor in possible policies that might be taken at national level. A detailed quantitative assessment would be disproportionate as that information cannot be easily gathered and rapidly collected. The analytical approach is therefore based on existing analysis and studies in the domain which to a large extent converge in their findings and policy advice. The Steering Group for this initiative is chaired by the Commission Secretariat General and includes: DG EMPL, SJ, EAC, ECFIN, ESTAT, GROW, HOME, BUDG, CNECT, COMM, EPSC, FISMA, JUST, REGIO, RTD, SANTE. (1) Is any option likely to have impacts on the EU budget above 5m? (2) If so, will this IA serve also as an ex-ante evaluation, as required by the Financial Regulation? If not, provide information about the timing of the ex-ante evaluation. None of the options is likely to have impacts on EU budget above 5m. E. Evidence base, planning of further work and consultation (1) What information and data are already available? Will existing IA and evaluation work be used? (2) What further information needs to be gathered, how will this be done (e.g. internally or by an external contractor), and by when? (3) What is the timing for the procurement process & the contract for any external contracts that you are planning (e.g. for analytical studies, information gathering, etc.)? (4) Is any particular communication or information activity foreseen? If so, what, and by when? (1) Policies addressing long-term unemployment were already in the focus of a number of mutual learning events and associated reports. A Thematic Review Seminar on Tackling long-term unemployment - effective strategies and tools to address long-term unemployment was held under the Mutual Learning Programme at the end of A peer review of the public employment services' Network was held in the spring 2014, gathering evidence on good practice from 14 participating public employment services. Information on current Member State initiatives will be gathered from representatives of the Social Protection Committee. The report Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2012 includes a chapter on the dynamics of longterm unemployment. The EU Employment and Social Situation Quarterly Review regularly reports on the status of the long-term unemployed. First lessons from implementation of similar existing initiatives (e.g. Youth Guarantee) could be used to better understand the challenges and possible impact. Furthermore, evaluation of similar initiatives at Member State level could also complement the existing evidence (e.g. integration "offers" that are in 8

9 use in Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, Poland, and the United Kingdom). A Commission study in 2012 on the costs and benefits of active compared to passive measures analyses the use of active and passive labour market policies, pays special attention to cyclical effects, the costs and benefits of such measures and the policy response to the current crisis. The ex-post evaluation of the European Social Fund interventions on social inclusion, available in the second quarter of 2015 will provide insights of effective support to long-term unemployed. (2) Analytical work will be carried out using available surveys (Labour Force Survey, the EU statistics on income and living conditions, and the Labour Market Policy Database). A mapping of activation measures and a review of existing cost-benefit studies is foreseen as part of the preparation. (3) No specific procurement process is foreseen. Which stakeholders & experts have been or will be consulted, how, and at what stage? An open public consultation has been published and is open until 15/05/2015, presenting the main objectives and policy options. Consultations of the Social Protection Committee and of the Employment Committee are foreseen in March/ April A consultation of the European Social Fund Committee is equally foreseen for March A consultation of the social partners is planned for the spring of A Working Group of the public employment services' network was convened by the Board of the Network in December 2014 and is due to present a report in March A questionnaire to all public employment services updating the available information on the share of registered long-term unemployed, their participation in active measures and the extent of public employment services support has been sent in February Results should be available in April