Does individualized employment support deliver what is promised? Findings from three European cities

Abstract

Since the inception of the European Employment Strategy in 1997, individualized employment support has been a key priority of the European Union and its Member States. Nevertheless, empirical research on the delivery of individualized services for the unemployed is still underdeveloped. In this article, we explore how local employment agencies in three European cities tailor counselling and services to jobseekers' individual needs. We find that limited service budgets and underdeveloped organizational interfaces with social service providers tend to constrain the substantive individualization of services in practice, which works in the disfavour of vulnerable jobseekers. Individualized counselling is more widespread, at least for 91 selected target groups. However, organizational capacities for offering individualized problem assessment and advice vary considerably across "worlds of individualization" in Europe.

Contracting personalization by results: Comparing marketization reforms in the UK and Australia

“…In 2014, an Auditor General's report found that providers were spending ‘54 per cent less on each participant in harder‐to‐help groups than when they bid’ (NAO 2014, p. 8). Further evidence of ‘parking’ was documented in several independent studies (Considine et al 2018; Greer et al 2018; Rice et al 2018).…”

“…Bureaucratic flexibility provides no guarantee that frontline staff will personalize services to clients' needs. Among other things, resource constraints and performance pressures mean that workers regularly face conflicts between ‘organizational and user‐centred goals’ (Fletcher 2011, p. 447), especially when high caseloads prohibit caseworkers ‘from probing deeper into client issues’ (Rice et al 2018, p. 94). We therefore looked for evidence of increased personalization when working with clients.…”

“…Market instruments are increasingly being used by governments to drive innovation and efficiency in public employment services (PES) (Tomkinson 2016; Jantz et al 2018). At the same time, there is a greater awareness of the need for employment services to be individually personalized to jobseekers' needs (Fuertes and Lindsay 2016; Rice et al 2018) due to increased social differentiation (Borghi and van Berkel 2007). It also reflects the extension of welfare conditionality—in terms of participation requirements in active labour market programmes and the imposition of sanctions for non‐compliance with mandatory job search and other behavioural requirements—to wider groups such as lone parents, people with disabilities, and others more remote from employment.…”

Making welfare conditional: A street‐level perspective

“…With the increasing importance of performance management in continental European countries, we see growing evidence that performance management shapes personalized service provision in these countries as well. Rice, Fuerta, and Monticelli (), for example, found that performance management focuses street‐level personalization efforts on clients considered able to contribute to performance targets—which, given the emphasis in performance management on labour‐market entry, disadvantages vulnerable jobseekers. A Dutch study reached a quite similar conclusion (Van Berkel & Knies, ).…”

“…It could be argued that recent welfare conditionality reforms run the risk of (again) strengthening the organizational focus on eligibility rather than activation issues, as they potentially direct provider organizations' attention towards monitoring conditions for eligibility. The issues of lack of resources and high caseloads are also major ones when it comes to street‐level workers' opportunities to personalize services and the functioning of individual action plans (e.g., Kupka & Osiander, ; Rice et al, ; Van Berkel & Knies, ). Finally, there are indications that street‐level workers may experience individual action plans as an obligatory administrative duty imposed by their organization rather than as of added value to the service provision process.…”