Tweedekans re-integratie in cijfers: kwantitatieve analyse van aantallen tweedekanstrajecten en uitstroompercentages

This paper analyses the use of active labour market programmes amongst Dutch benefit recipients. We distinguish between three types of benefit schemes: unemployment insurance (UI), disability benefits (DB) and social assistance (SA). This paper is specifically aimed at analysing the use of second programmes amongst those benefit recipients whose first programme was ended unsuccessfully. All analyses are based on individual level administrative data for the years 2002-2005, which were provided by Netherlands Statistics.
Six months after the unsuccessful end of their first programme 20 percent of UI recipients that are still on benefits have started a second programme. Amongst SA-recipients this number is 14 percent and amongst DB-recipients only 8 percent. For all benefit schemes results show that few recipients start a second programme immediately after the unsuccessful end of the first programme. The majority of benefit recipients for whom the first programme did not lead to the desired permanent (i.e. 6 months or longer) job does not receive a second programme at all. Especially groups with weak labour market opportunities (elderly workers, long-term unemployed, women, singles) receive few second programmes. Those that do start a second programme usually have to wait some time after finishing the first programme.
On average, second programmes do not lead to better results in terms of job finding probabilities than first programmes. For all groups of benefit recipients approximately 20 percent of the second programmes lead to permanent employment within six months after the programme ended. For DB-recipients these results hardly differ between first and second programmes. For UI recipients results for second programmes are worse than results for first programmes. This might be due to the more difficult characteristics of those on the programmes (more long-term unemployed, more elderly). For SA-recipients second programmes appear to be more successful than first programmes. These results, however, should be interpreted with care, since data on SA-recipients are deemed somewhat less reliable than the data on the two other groups.