Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary statistics of policy-style indicators

From: Training vouchers, local employment agencies, and policy stylesBildungsgutscheine, regionale Arbeitsagenturen und Politikstile

  Mean \(CAI> 0\) \(CAI < 0\) Diff. Sdv. Scaling
Assessment of reform activities regarding…   
Further training in general 3.348 3.410 3.284 0.126 0.070 very negative (1) - very positive (5)
Demand forecast 3.245 3.274 3.215 0.059 0.076 very negative (1) - very positive (5)
Training vouchers 3.752 3.826 3.676 0.150 0.070 very negative (1) - very positive (5)
Transparency 3.104 3.132 3.077 0.055 0.078 very negative (1) - very positive (5)
Assessment indicator 3.362 3.411 3.313 0.098 0.053  
Cooperation between training providers and employment agencies regarding…   
Progress of courses 3.205 3.229 3.181 0.047 0.079 never (1) - always (5)
Problems during the course 3.649 3.678 3.619 0.058 0.074 never (1) - always (5)
No-appearance of participants 4.091 4.132 4.048 0.084 0.067 never (1) - always (5)
Cooperation indicator 3.648 3.680 3.616 0.063 0.062  
Organization within employment agencies   
Training regarding new quality systems 0.156 0.131 0.182 − 0.051 0.027 no (0) - yes (1)
Quality controls of courses 0.942 0.924 0.960 − 0.036 0.019 no (0) - yes (1)
Contact persons for problems or questions 0.818 0.817 0.820 − 0.003 0.031 no (0) - yes (1)
Organization indicator 0.639 0.624 0.654 − 0.030 0.017  
Communication with other institutions involved   
Federal Employment Agency 0.422 0.433 0.411 0.021 0.057 no (0) - yes (1)
Private certification bodies (regarding quality results) 0.857 0.917 0.794 0.124 0.039 no (0) - yes (1)
Training providers (managers only) 0.798 0.859 0.733 0,126 0,047 no (0) - yes (1)
Employers (managers only) 0.626 0.673 0.577 0,096 0,058 no (0) - yes (1)
Employers’ associations (managers only) 0.459 0.499 0.417 0,082 0,062 no (0) - yes (1)
Communication indicator 0.643 0.680 0.604 0.075 0.037  
Communication indicator (managers only) 0.650 0.697 0.599 0.098 0.040  
Single-case certification and training without vouchers   
In favour of single-case certification (scc) 0.277 0.251 0.303 − 0.052 0.038 no (0) - yes (1)
In favour of training without vouchers 0.228 0.219 0.237 − 0.018 0.036 no (0) - yes (1)
In favour an increase in scc (managers only) 0.107 0.075 0.140 − 0.065 0.045 no (0) - yes (1)
Share of ssc (managers only) 0.297 0.272 0.325 − 0.053 0.073 dummy for share above the mean
Avoidance indicator 0.251 0.232 0.270 − 0.038 0.029  
Avoidance indicator (managers only) 0.214 0.186 0.244 − 0.058 0.046  
Caseworkers’ assessments regarding the suitability of training for different groups of persons   
Job returner 0.971 0.977 0.965 0.012 0.025 dummy for positive assessment
Young people (aged up to 25) 0.632 0.591 0.674 − 0.084 0.073 dummy for positive assessment
Older people (aged over 55) 0.569 0.568 0.570 − 0.002 0.076 dummy for positive assessment
Without educational degree 0.316 0.330 0.302 0.027 0.071 dummy for positive assessment
Without vocational degree 0.948 0.977 0.919 0.059 0.033 dummy for positive assessment
Migration background 0.529 0.500 0.558 − 0.058 0,076 dummy for positive assessment
Health problems 0.529 0.568 0.488 0.080 0.076 dummy for positive assessment
Disability 0.764 0.739 0.791 − 0.052 0.065 dummy for positive assessment
Short-term unemployed 0.448 0.432 0.465 − 0.033 0.076 dummy for positive assessment
Long-term unemployed 0.575 0.568 0.581 − 0.013 0.075 dummy for positive assessment
Without practical experience 0.460 0.557 0.360 0.196 0.075 dummy for positive assessment
Important criteria for caseworkers when they award vouchers   
Reintegration probability 0.954 0.955 0.953 0.001 0.032 dummy for important criteria
Profiling 0.989 0.977 1.000 − 0.023 0.016 dummy for important criteria
Biography 0.770 0.750 0.791 − 0.041 0.064 dummy for important criteria
Educational degree 0.954 0.966 0.942 0.024 0.032 dummy for important criteria
Vocational degree 0.983 0.977 0.988 − 0.011 0.020 dummy for important criteria
Search activity 0.764 0.750 0.779 − 0.029 0.065 dummy for important criteria
  1. Note: We aggregate the answers of all participating managers and caseworkers at employment agency levels. In columns 3 and 4 we show means for employment agencies with conditional award intensities (CAI) that are above and below average respectively.
\