Nuala Whelan, The role of labour market activation in building a healthy workforce
1 like163 views
The document discusses the impact of labor market activation policies on the well-being and employability of long-term unemployed individuals in Ireland, particularly through the Pathways to Work Programme (PTWP). It highlights the detrimental psychological effects of unemployment and presents findings from the EEPIC study, which indicates that positive psychological interventions can improve both mental health and job readiness. The study emphasizes the need for person-centered approaches in employment programs to enhance overall outcomes and suggests significant policy implications for addressing unemployment and promoting well-being.
More Related Content
Similar to Nuala Whelan, The role of labour market activation in building a healthy workforce (20)
Nuala Whelan, The role of labour market activation in building a healthy workforce
- 1. The role of Labour Market Activation in building a healthy workforce: enhancing well-being for the LTU through positive psychological interventions NERI Labour Market Conference 22nd May 2018 Nuala Whelan Sinead McGilloway & Mary Murphy
- 2. Outline Labour Market Policy Psychological impact of unemployment EEPIC study setting / design/ methodology Findings: Baseline / RCT Study limitations Learning for policy/ practice
- 3. Unemployment 326,000 Jobs lost in the period 2008 – 2011 Unemployment rose from 4.4% (2008) to 15.1% (2012)
- 4. Labour market policy regimes Historically slow development of a full labour market policy in Ireland Ireland: Pathways to Work - considered a work first policy Work first approach vs Human capital UK, US, Australia, Western Scandinavia Europe Brodkin (2013) enabling, regulatory, and compensation policies • Enabling: Human capital • Compensation: In-work income supports • Regulatory: Enforce participation (sanctions and withdrawal of welfare) • Enabling aspects have been de-emphasised, regulatory and disciplinary aspects reinforced Increasingly governments use activation approaches in LMP design benefit rules & employment/training services designed with a view to moving unemployed income benefit recipients into work Increased connection between Welfare and Job seeking Work First Human capital
- 5. PES: IRELAND Department of Social Protection: provides a range of welfare supports: pension, disability, unemployment, lone parents, etc. INTREO is the PES of the Department of Social Protection Job Path: Contracted Private providers; two providers Local Employment Services Network: Community based ; 24 providers
- 6. National Context 2018 2,375,200 Labour force 2,231,000 Employed 223,602 on Live Register (April 2018) 140,300 (5.9%) unemployment rate (April 2018) 58,100 signing for 12+ months (2.5%) or 40.3% of total unemployment (QNHS Q4 2017) 59,333 on activation programmes (Tús, Back to Work allowance, Jobbridge etc.) (March 2018) Rate of unemployment 15-24yr olds (Youth Unemployment) 12% ◦ 6.2% in 2000 – 31.3% Feb 2012 CSO, INOU, April 2018 http://www.dublindashboard.ie/Economy/stats/container#tab3-tab Unemployment 2000 - 2016
- 7. Psychosocial impact of unemployment Extensive research on detrimental effects of unemployment on overall health and well-being, including psychological health (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005; Paul & Moser, 2009) Unemployment & Psychological health Since 1930s psychologists have explored relationship b’t psychological well-being & unemployment Psychosocial development (Erikson, 1959) Deprivation in relation to the benefits of work (Jahoda, 1979, 1981) Helplessness due to perceive lack of control & agency (Fryer, 1986; Seligman, 1975) Employability & Psychological well-being = Psychological capital Interventions to improve well-being and employability
- 8. Individual and situational moderators: individual response Age, gender, length of unemployment, ethnic & racial origins, family unemployment, local levels of unemployment, social class, attribution cause of job loss, prevailing views of unemployment, nature of the welfare system, personality variables, values and beliefs (Creed & Bartrum, 2006) “In some respects every unemployed is like every other unemployed (i.e. without a job): in some respects every unemployed is like some other unemployed (i.e. without similar previous jobs); and in some respects every unemployed is like no other unemployed (i.e. a unique individual)” (Jahoda, 1982). Explaining the deterioration of well being in the unemployed -
- 9. Employability Long-term Unemployment Moderating variable – consistent preoccupation of Governments since the 1970s (Clasen & Clegg, 2011) Probability of fining a job decreases – decline in skills, reduced motivation, shrinking social networks, employer bias, lack of references, stigma Joblessness impairs psychological well-being and LTU has significant effects on mental health (Koen et al., 2013), scarring effects Psychological capital significantly influences well-being and labour market status (Cole, 2006) Psychological capital - a persons perception of self, attitudes towards work, ethical orientation, general outlook on life (Goldsmith et al., 1997), and redefined as “an individual’s positive psychological state of development” hope, optimism, efficacy, resilience (Luthans, Youssef-Morgan, & Avolio, 2015) Active labour market measures should be informed by this research
- 10. Gaps in our knowledge Nothing is known about the impact of PTWP on wider aspects of employability important knowledge gap in view of the extensive literature linking unemployment to poor mental health and well-being (McKee Ryan et al. 2005; Murphy & Athanasou, 1999; Paul & Moser, 2009) which impact on future employability Nothing is known about PTWP impact on employability and sustainable re-employment, and in particular with regard to LTU and progression into quality jobs. PTWP does not engage with issues of job quality – considers any jobs as better than unemployment (Murphy et al. forthcoming)
- 11. Aim: assess the implementation and effectiveness of Ireland’s labour activation policy - the Pathways to Work Programme (PTWP) - with regard to promoting outcomes such as psychological and overall well-being, career efficacy and employment opportunities to develop, implement and evaluate a new high support intervention designed to assist the long term unemployed improve their employability through increasing levels of psychological well- being, hopefulness, self-esteem and career-efficacy. EEPIC: Enhancing Employability through Positive Interventions for improving Career potential
- 12. Study 1 Qualitative/ Grounded Theory Study 2 Randomised Controlled Trial Study 3 Process Evaluation Thematic analysis Well-Being: GHQ12 (Goldberg & Williams, 1988) Satisfaction with Life (Diener, Emmons, Larsen & Griffin, 1985) Rosenberg Self- Esteem Questionnaire (Rosenberg, 1965) Career Self Efficacy Questionnaire (Kossek, Roberts & Demarr, 1998) Brief Resilience Scale (Smith, Dalen, Wiggins, Tooley, Christopher& Bernard, 2008) State Hope Scale (Snyder, Sympson, Ybasco, Borders, Babyak, & Higgins, 1996) Perceived progress towards the labour market: Cantril’s Self Anchoring Ladder Re-employment quality • Job satisfaction • Job Sustainability • Satisfaction with level of earnings Access to education / vocational training Jobless household
- 13. EEPIC RCT Assessed for eligibility (N=196) Excluded (n=47) Not meeting inclusion criteria (n=25 ) Declined to participate (n=19) Other reasons (n=3 ) Lost to follow-up (n=17) - Passed away (n=1) - Job placed (n=5) - Unknown (n=8) - Moved out of the area (n=3) Lost to follow-up (n=22) - Ill health (n=1) - Criminal conviction (n=2) - Approved for new allowance (n=2) - Did not attend (DNA) (n=5) - Placed on education/training/employment (n=10) - Unknown (n=2) Allocated to intervention (n=71) Lost to follow-up (n=26) - Approval for new allowance (n=2) - Did not attend (DNA) (n=10) - Mental health issues (n=3) - Unknown (n=11) Allocated to control (n=78) Lost to follow-up (n=17) - Ill health (n=2) - Job placed (n=6) - Unknown (n= 7) - Moved out of the area (n = 9) Allocation Six- month post intervention follow-up Post intervention follow-up Randomised (N= 149) Enrolment Analysed (n=49) Analysed (n=52) Analysed (n=32) Analysed (n=35) August 2015 to Feb 2017 N=196 unemployed service users (18- 65 years) Setting: Ballymun LES/DEASP area, randomly assigned to one of two groups (intervention or control). 25 deemed ineligible / 19 declined the intervention 32% attrition post intervention, 55% attrition overall 2/3rds reported JC as highest qualification average age 40 40% 5yrs + unemployed. Analysis: Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) within groups and between groups Whelan et al. (2018) http://rdcu.be/HSBm
- 14. The Intervention
- 15. Intervention is based on the BJCs approach: adopts an activation approach tailored to meet the needs of the individual
- 16. Baseline Findings Primary Outcome: Well-being (GHQ-12) 73% scored at or above the clinical cut-off : reported mod-high levels of psychological distress Females small significant difference scoring higher than males (consistent with findings WHO 2002). below average life satisfaction (SWLS) Secondary Outcome: Employability low average self esteem Education levels 61% low educational attainment – more females than males - leading to low skill work, & ‘psychologically bad’ employment (Warr 1987– work first approach enables this)
- 17. Person as they present to the service -high psychological distress -below average life satisfaction -low average self esteem -average Hope -average Resilience -average Career Efficacy -61% below LC (JC/N) -35% 1-2yrs unemployed -26% 3-5yrs unemployed -39% over 5 years -69% no Post 2nd L -70% no/basic IT skills -45% no driving license -85% had worked for more than a year Barriers -Lack of Qual (23%) -LTU (15%) -Care (15%) -Lack of experience (9%) -Personal disposition (9%) Self-rated competencies -84% understanding employers needs -61% high levels of self - belief 67% high levels of employment motivation Employment Person: Sustainable, Career development opportunities, good pay Employers: good performance / workplace –fit / job satisfaction / positive approach Work-First Approach
- 18. RCT Findings Primary Outcome: Well-being (GHQ-12) Both intervention and SAU led to improvements in psych distress -both groups reporting mean levels below clinical cut-off at 6 month follow up Some evidence to suggest the intervention was more effective for males Potential risk of psychological distress to the total LTU population (important implications provision of initial services –conditionality, sanctions, customer service) Lower well-being impacts job seeking and employment access (Malmberg-Heimonen & Vuori, 2005) LTU vicious cycle of poor mental health and unemployment LMP and activation opportunity to promote increased employability and address issues of well-being
- 19. GHQ-12
- 20. RCT Findings Secondary Outcome: Employability Hope, self-esteem, career efficacy, perceived employability – improvement across all variables Resilience Exploratory sub group analysis: indicates that the intervention was more effective for males with regard to hope-agency and career-efficacy
- 21. Mean ‘Hope-Total’ scores for Males & Females in the intervention and control groups across the three time points.
- 22. Employability outcomes Intervention participants twice as likely to be in training (20%) compared to 9% of SAU Twice as many intervention participants (24%) had started a supported employment ALMP compare to SAU (10%) 22% of SAU were job seeking compared to 4% of intervention group Numbers progressed into employment too small to examine between group differences (job satisfaction, sustainability, earnings) Intervention used more of a human capital approach than a work first approach of the SAU
- 23. Person as they present to the service -high psychological distress -below average life satisfaction -low average self esteem -average Hope -average Resilience -average Career Efficacy -61% below LC (JC/N) -35% 1-2yrs unemployed -26% 3-5yrs unemployed -39% over 5 years -69% no Post 2nd L -70% no/basic IT skills -45% no driving license -85% had worked for more than a year Barriers -Lack of Qual (23%) -LTU (15%) -Care (15%) -Lack of experience (9%) -Personal disposition (9%) Self-rated competencies -84% understanding employers needs -61% high levels of self - belief 67% high levels of employment motivation Employment Person: Sustainable, Career development opportunities, good pay Employers: good performance / workplace –fit / job satisfaction / positive approach The missing how to Work-First Approach Strengths based guidance model -identification of work interests/ work aptitudes/preferred work environment/personality characteristics /barriers/ realistic career planning / ongoing support Psychological Capital Career Identify Self-belief Self-efficacy Hope – agency / pathways (career planning) Optimism Resilience Employability Training (Human Capital) Networking (Social Capital - through Trng/Ed/ practitioner) Drivers of employability well-being / increased psychological capital (both decreased due to unemployment spell) Approach (person centred / enabling / strengths based / positive) Practitioner skills (counselling skills / knowledge/mentor) Environment – open / non- threatening/friendly
- 24. Study Limitations – small scale process evaluation Same organisation – NGO (ethos, social justice, LESN – atmosphere, mood, friendly, highly committed staff). Positive effects on both groups Staff equally as experienced and qualified – may have engendered a more guidance focused SAU Participation in the study itself: Practitioners – demand characteristics, aware of being evaluated – wanted to do as good a job as possible Repeated contact with all participants Less likely if control from another site Mix of services Intreo / LESN / JobPath carry over effects
- 25. Policy/ practice lessons ALMP / well-being / employability Healthy Ireland framework (2013-2025) – role for non health sector disciplines Person-centred approaches and employability: fine tune PTWP – reframing policy to include meaningful outcomes – shift in culture towards more caring welfare state Gender implications for policy and ‘male breadwinner’ activation model Psych / Soc contribution to the study of unemployment and design of ALMP Building an evidence base / Knowledge transfer
- 26. Any Questions? Thank you! [email protected] / [email protected] www.bmunjob.ie https://cmhcr.eu/