Roma Inclusion and Impact Evaluation of Two Mainstream EU-funded Active Labour Market Programmes

Méret: px

Mutatás kezdődik a ... oldaltól:

Download "Roma Inclusion and Impact Evaluation of Two Mainstream EU-funded Active Labour Market Programmes"

Gizella Pap
8 évvel ezelőtt
Látták:

1 Roma Inclusion and Impact Evaluation of Two Mainstream EU-funded Active Labour Market Programmes Anna Adamecz - Bence Czat - Katalin Börd s - Edit Nagy - Petra Lévay - Ágota Scharle Budapest Institute Szirák, November 16, Anna Adamecz (Budapest Institute) Szirák, Nov / 13

Edit Nagy - Petra Lévay - Ágota Scharle Budapest Institute Szirák,

2 Summary The ALMP programmes: Improvement of employability of the disadvantaged (SROP 1.1.2) several target groups oers subsidies and services (e.g. counselling, vocational training) One step ahead! (HRDOP and SROP 2.1.1) one target group: the uneducated oers training and cash transfer Two questions: Targeting of Roma jobseekers Impact on exit to employment Anna Adamecz (Budapest Institute) Szirák, Nov / 13

3 Details of the two ALMPs Improvement of employability of the disadvantaged (SROP 1.1.2) One step ahead! (HRDOP and SROP 2.1.1) Programme entry period Number of participants in the NLO data* Number of Roma participants in the PPR n/a Number of Roma participants BI estimate** Total budget, million HUF Costs per participant, HUF Found a job + 81% 63% Costs per participants who found a job, HUF Comparable cost of public works on 2013 prices, months Notes: *Programme entries before Dec 31, **We calculated the share of Roma population by settlement, summed these ratios, and multiplied them with a supposed bias of the Census data with respect to the Roma surveys. + The share of those who found a job during the programme or within 6 months afterwards, as a % of the total number of participants. ++ Number of months spent on public works that would cost the same amount per person. 1 HUF roughly equals 300 EUR. Sources: Official documents, own calculations based on NLO data and Csite et al (2013) on budgets. Anna Adamecz (Budapest Institute) Szirák, Nov / 13

Number of Roma participants BI estimate** 4 636 2 899 Total budget, million HUF 53 041 18 376 Costs per participant, HUF 916 174 795 911 Found a job + 81% 63% Costs per participants who found a job,

4 Data Unemployment registry (NLO) entry/exit dates, reason for exit/pause, subsidies, personal info (birth date, residence, gender, disability) no info about job oers, reservation wage SHLD (Standardised Hungarian Labour Dataset) type of employment, employer code no info about wage and contributions Ethnicity data aggregate data about participants in programme reports 2011 Census data on the settlement level proxy about the prob. that someone is Roma Anna Adamecz (Budapest Institute) Szirák, Nov / 13

employer code no info about wage and contributions Ethnicity data aggregate data about participants in programme reports 2011

5 Evaluation of Targeting Idea: if programmes eectively targeted the Roma individuals we should see positive correlation between the take-up rate of the programmes and the share of Roma population in the settlement Linear regression models on the 'Share of participants' on the individual and settlement level Results: 1.1.2: not very successful 2.1.1: more successful women tend to be left out more than men Concerns: no individual level ethnicity data no info about the working age Roma population in the case of self-selection or discrimination? Anna Adamecz (Budapest Institute) Szirák, Nov / 13

6 Results Linear regression models on settlement level data for settlements with more than 600 inhabitants. Share of participants is on the left hand side. Women Women Men Men SROP Proportion of Roma in the population *** ( ) (0.0166) (0.0124) (0.0194) Square of the proportion of Roma in the population * *** *** (0.0248) (0.0177) (0.0304) (0.0207) SROP Proportion of Roma *** 0.159** *** 0.114** (0.0190) (0.0641) (0.0171) (0.0473) Square of the proportion of Roma (0.0553) (0.0366) (0.0543) (0.0614) Region dummies - Yes - Yes Settlement size dummies - Yes - Yes Prop. of Roma interaction terms with regions - Yes - Yes Anna Adamecz (Budapest Institute) Szirák, Nov / 13

0248) (0.0177) (0.0304) (0.0207) SROP 2.1.1 Proportion of Roma 0.0782*** 0.159** 0.0760*** 0.114** (0.0190) (0.0641) (0.0171) (0.0473) Square of the proportion of Roma -0.0854-0.0442-0.0675-0.

7 Q-Q plot about the share of Roma population on settlements with and without participants The share of Roma in the population The share of Roma in the population in settlements Women by participation SROP in settlements Men by participation Women Men Settlements with male participants Settlements without female participants Settlements without male participants The share of Roma in the population The share of Roma in the population in settlements Women by participation SROP SROP Men in settlements Men by participation Women Men Settlements with male participants Settlements without female participants Settlements without male participants Anna Adamecz (Budapest Institute) Szirák, Nov / 13

6.8 Settlements with male participants.2.4.

8 Programme Evaluation Identication assumption: unconfoundedness/conditional independence/selection-on-observables rich enough dataset / no correlated unobservables Selection process vs. random experiment Heckman et al (1999): four criteria is fullled (eligibility, same local labour market wrt space/time, long employment history, same data source) Propensity score/nn matching common support/balance T/C group: people participating in other programs are excluded uneducated only Outcome variables: exit to employment / Non-reentering unemployment Results: large, positive, signicant eects (probably overestimated: black work, unobservables) Gross eects: not corrected for substitution eect and deadweight loss Anna Adamecz (Budapest Institute) Szirák, Nov / 13

common support/balance T/C group: people participating in other programs are excluded uneducated only Outcome variables: exit to employment / Non-reentering unemployment Results: large,

9 Results MEN Entered employment during the programme or within 6 months after the end of the programme. Entered employment after the end of the programme within 6 months Entered employment at some point of the whole observed period after entering the programme. Exited unemployment and did not enter again within 6 months after the end of the programme. Exited unemployment and did not enter again during the whole observed period. SROP SROP Control Treated Effect Control Treated Effect capita % capita % %.ps capita % capita % %ps % % 44% % % 40% % % 29% % % 30% % % 49% % % 52% % % 6% % % 31% % % 22% % % 30% Number of observations Anna Adamecz (Budapest Institute) Szirák, Nov / 13

Exited unemployment and did not enter again within 6 months after the end of the programme. Exited unemployment and did not enter again during the whole observed period. SROP 1.

10 Conclusions and remarks individual level ethnicity data for research purposes both ALMPs should be continued target only the uneducated sensitive scheduling of trainings (not in high seasons for casual work) resources allocated based on the number of uneducated jobseekers Anna Adamecz (Budapest Institute) Szirák, Nov / 13

trainings (not in high seasons for casual work) resources allocated based on the

11 Thank you for your attention! Anna Adamecz (Budapest Institute) Szirák, Nov / 13

12 References ÁSZ (2008): A magyarországi cigányság helyzetének javítására és felemelkedésére a rendszerváltás óta fordított támogatások mértéke és hatékonysága. Állami Számvev szék, April, Csite et al (2013): Foglalkoztathatóság javítását szolgáló intézkedések értékelése. Havas, G. (2008): Esélyegyenl ség, deszegregáció. In: Zöld könyv a magyar közoktatás megújításáért, ed.: K. Fazekas, J. Köll and J. Varga. Ecostat, Budapest. Janky, B. (2004): A cigány családok jövedelmi helyzete. In: Társadalmi riport 2004, ed.: T. Kolosi, I. Gy. Tóth, Gy. Vukovich. Budapest: TÁRKI, pp Kemény, I. and B. Janky (2003): A évi cigány felmérésr l Népesedési, nyelvhasználati és nemzetiségi adatok. Beszél, October 2003, pp Kemény, I., B. Janky and G. Lengyel (2004): A magyarországi cigányság Budapest: Gondolat. Anna Adamecz (Budapest Institute) Szirák, Nov / 13

(2008): Esélyegyenl ség, deszegregáció. In: Zöld könyv a magyar közoktatás megújításáért, ed.: K. Fazekas, J. Köll and J. Varga. Ecostat, Budapest. Janky, B.

13 References Kertesi G. (2005): A társadalom peremén Romák a munkaer piacon és az iskolában. Budapest, 2005, Osiris Kiadó. pp. 533 Kertesi, G. (2005): Roma foglalkoztatás az ezredfordulón. Szociológiai Szemle, 2005/2, pp Ladányi, J. and I. Szelényi (2002): Cigányok és szegények Magyarországon, Romániában és Bulgáriában. Szociológiai Szemle, 2002/4. pp Messing, V. (2011): Megjegyzések egy roma projekt margójára. Online Journal of HAS Sociology Institute. Scharle, Á. (2011): Áttekintés a roma népesség helyzetér l és annak okairól. Budapest Intézet, February 2011 Váradi, L. (2012): El tanulmány a roma családnevek diszkriminációteszteléshez való kiválasztásához, In: A diszkrimináció mérése, ed.: E. Sik and A. Simonovits. E-tankönyv, ELTE TTK, Budapest Vokó Z., Zs. Kósa, Gy. Széles, L. Kardos, K. Kósa, R. Németh, S. Országh, G. Fésüs and és R. Ádány (2006): A roma telepeken él k egészségének felmérése. Presented on the 15th meeting of NETT, Siófok Anna Adamecz (Budapest Institute) Szirák, Nov / 13

(2011): Megjegyzések egy roma projekt margójára. Online Journal of HAS Sociology Institute. Scharle, Á. (2011): Áttekintés a roma népesség helyzetér l és annak okairól.

Hasonló dokumentumok

FAMILY STRUCTURES THROUGH THE LIFE CYCLE

FAMILY STRUCTURES THROUGH THE LIFE CYCLE István Harcsa Judit Monostori A magyar társadalom 2012-ben: trendek és perspektívák EU összehasonlításban Budapest, 2012 november 22-23 Introduction Factors which