Dear TF Members, Kind regards, Piotr

Transcription

1 Sent: Monday, July 01, :33 AM To: Cc: VANDERSEYPEN Guido (EMPL); BJORNSSON Anette (EMPL); BADEA Petrica (EMPL); RECKTENWALD Joachim (ESTAT); LEYTHIENNE Denis (ESTAT) Subject: Labour Market Policy database methodology - Revision confirmation of approval of the text by TF There is no objection from the TF members to the text of the revised LMP methodology with the last changes. It means that the text of the revised methodology sent to you in my of 14 July is approved with the additional changes proposed in my of 27 July. I take this opportunity to thank you for your cooperation. I would like to thank also Alphametrics for assisting us in our work on the revised methodology. Eurostat will now launch a written consultation with LAMAS (Working Group on Labour Market Statistics). We hope to get approval of LAMAS in July in order to start in September the next data collection based on the new revised LMP methodology. You and the non TF members of the LMP network will be put in copy of the sent to the LAMAS members. If the non-tf members have any comments they will be asked to liaise with the LAMAS members. Sent: Thursday, June 27, :44 PM To: 'Arnaud.COLLARD@emploi.belgique.be'; 'bpetrova@mlsp.government.bg'; 'Mzi@dst.dk'; 'CAN@dst.dk'; 'Dirk.Richter4@arbeitsagentur.de'; 'brigitte.roguet@travail.gouv.fr'; 'antonietta.mundo@inps.it'; 'Egle.Leskauskaite@socmin.lt'; 'BLOK@minszw.nl'; 'ronald.vanbekkum@uwv.nl'; 'eva.auer@bmask.gv.at'; 'nicole.nemecek@bmask.gv.at'; 'Malgorzata.Sarzalska@mpips.gov.pl'; 'Anita.Jacovic@gov.si'; 'romana.mrzlikar@ess.gov.si'; 'petri.syvanen@tem.fi'; 'scott.cain@dwp.gsi.gov.uk'; 'JGL@dst.dk'; 'Therese.Sundell@nav.no'; 'Ashild.Male.Kalsto@nav.no'; 'david.grubb@oecd.org' Cc: 'af@alphametrics.co.uk'; 'NR@applica.be'; VANDERSEYPEN Guido (EMPL); BJORNSSON Anette (EMPL); BADEA Petrica (EMPL); RECKTENWALD Joachim (ESTAT); LEYTHIENNE Denis (ESTAT) Subject: Labour Market Policy database methodology - Revision third round of consultation

2 The proposed consolidated text of the LMP methodology has undergone the second round of consultation with you. There was no objection to the proposal to delete personalised action plans from the list of examples mentioned in brackets in sub-category However, we received the comment that we should mention in the LMP methodology on the ongoing work of the TF concerning Individual Action Plans (new name used by TF for "personalised action plans"). Eurostat supports this proposal. In the text of the revised methodology, it is proposed to add the footnote after the brackets with examples in subcategory which would read: "The individualised services reported in sub-category are often provided to registered clients of the PES within the context of an Individualised Action Plan (IAP), which is an agreement between the PES and the jobseeker that defines the steps and actions to be taken by both parties through the job-search process. The establishment of an IAP does not, however, guarantee the provision of services, particularly in the case of persons wellequipped to seek work under their own initiative. Category therefore records only the actual services provided. A pilot project has been set up to collect information on the number of persons with an active IAP as additional reference data within the LMP data collection. A decision as to whether or not this will be formally adopted in the LMP methodology will be taken after review of the results." There was no objection to the clarification in 94 that a sheltered work environment able-bodied person should be employed only in a limited proportion. There was no objection that the second reference in 94 to category 3 is corrected to new sub-category 4.3. The proposal of the TF member from Belgium to revise the Box 1 was not supported by the other TF members. It means that the version of Box 1 agreed at the last TF meeting (and already included in the text of the revised methodology sent to you in my previous ) would stay in the revision adopted by TF. However, as it was commented that some terms in the box are not defined until later in the revised methodology and outside the box, it is now proposed to move Box1 so that it appears after category 6. In that way, all 3 categories have been fully defined before we then provide further clarification as to the distinction between them. Eurostat support this proposal. In the text of the revised methodology, it is proposed to move box1 after 109, adapting 74 to note that the box appears after 109, and similarly 92 and 109. You are kindly asked to approve the new changes proposed above in underlined text. If you have any comments on the new changes, please send them to me. Please note that we would consider only comments relating to the changes proposed in my . We would appreciate if you could please provide your reply by 28 June No reply will be considered as your approval of the text of the revised methodology sent to you in my previous with the additional changes proposed now.

3 Sent: Friday, June 14, :49 PM To: Cc: VANDERSEYPEN Guido (EMPL); BJORNSSON Anette (EMPL); RECKTENWALD Joachim (ESTAT); LEYTHIENNE Denis (ESTAT) Subject: Labour Market Policy database methodology - Revision second round of consultation The proposed consolidated text of the LMP methodology has undergone a round of consultation with you. Eurostat received comments from BE, DE and FR. The comments were reviewed by Eurostat and Alphametrics. Following this review, some minor further improvements are supported by Eurostat. These are in pink in the second draft of the consolidated text: p. 13 ( 43): Delete personalised action plans from the list of services to be included in sub-category Details on the number of people with IAPs are currently recorded as reference data in R.2. Although this is still a pilot exercise (the TF thinks more work is needed), a clear objective was to avoid IAPs being included in where differences in reporting between countries was leading to distortions in participant data. p. 19 ( 94): Clarification that a sheltered work environment able-bodied persons should be employed only in a limited proportion. p. 42 ( 249): Second reference to category 3 corrected to new sub-category 4.3 Eurostat has not included in the consolidated text the changes in Box 1 proposed by BE. These are as follows: Duration of category 4 category 5 category

4 support unlimited by design Never Always Possible 5.2. never At the meeting, the TF members found Box 1 useful and agreed to include in the methodological guidelines the version proposed by Eurostat. However, as the box is a new element of the guidelines, we consult TF members on the proposal made by BE. You are kindly asked to approve the attached consolidated text. If you have any comments on the new changes, please send them to me. We would appreciate if you could please provide your feedback by 18 June No reply by that date will be considered as your approval of the attached text. From: RONKOWSKI (ESTAT) Sent: Friday, May 17, :03 PM To: 'Arnaud.COLLARD@emploi.belgique.be'; 'bpetrova@mlsp.government.bg'; 'Mzi@dst.dk'; 'CAN@dst.dk'; 'Dirk.Richter4@arbeitsagentur.de'; 'brigitte.roguet@travail.gouv.fr'; 'antonietta.mundo@inps.it'; 'Egle.Leskauskaite@socmin.lt'; 'BLOK@minszw.nl'; 'ronald.vanbekkum@uwv.nl'; 'eva.auer@bmask.gv.at'; 'nicole.nemecek@bmask.gv.at'; 'Malgorzata.Sarzalska@mpips.gov.pl'; 'Anita.Jacovic@gov.si'; 'romana.mrzlikar@ess.gov.si'; 'petri.syvanen@tem.fi'; 'scott.cain@dwp.gsi.gov.uk'; 'JGL@dst.dk'; 'Therese.Sundell@nav.no'; Cc: 'af@alphametrics.co.uk'; VANDERSEYPEN Guido (EMPL); BJORNSSON Anette (EMPL); RECKTENWALD Joachim (ESTAT); LEYTHIENNE Denis (ESTAT) Subject: Labour Market Policy database methodology - Revision 2013 The LMP Task Force discussed and took a decision in November 2012 to revise the LMP methodology. Please find enclosed the PDF draft document Labour Market Policy database methodology - Revision 2013 which represents - as decided by the TF - a consolidation of the 2006 LMP methodology incorporating the 2009 addendum and changes approved by the TF in November You will find more information in the attached explanatory note on the revisions to the LMP methodology.

5 The Task Force members are kindly asked to approve the draft revision. We would appreciate if you could please provide your approval/comments by 31 May No reply by that date will be considered as approval. A Word version of the draft revision will be sent on request.