twitter   facebook   facebook
← Overview Database of Innovative Social Policies in Europe

Temporary subsidized jobs (ID-jobs)

Country of implementation
The Netherlands
General short description of the innovation
This scheme provides wage subsidies for employers who hire long-term unemployed (longer than one year) who receive social assistance, in combination with premiums for subsidized workers who find regular work as well as some facilities for education. Only additional, non-competitive work could be subsidized. In comparison with earlier subsidized work this scheme intended explicitly to stimulate outflow to regular, unsubsidized work.
Target group
Total Population
Policy Field
  • employment
  • social
Type of Policy
  • public
Duration of the policy
2000-2003, it was an adaptation of subsidized work schemes since the mid nineties
Scope of innovation
  • Scope: temporary
  • Budgets: a maximum of 20,000 euro subsidy per annum could be given per worker, dependent of use of other subsidies such as exemption from social security premiums
  • Number of intended beneficiaries: budget for a maximum of 60.000 jobs has been available
  • Spatial coverage: national
General description of (intended) objectives and strategies
This is the last national scheme for subsidized jobs for long-term unemployed that have been developed since the mid-nineties. It provided wage subsidies for employers to hire long-term unemployed who otherwise have little chances to find paid work. Contrary to earlier schemes, this scheme aimed for outflow towards non-subsidized, regular work. Only work that was not considered regular work could be subsidized: it was called ?additional work?. A control-mechanism was in place to check the additionality. It was mainly service, surveillance and maintenance work in (semi-)public organisations that had disappeared as regular work because of budget cuts in the past.
Nature of the innovation-short-term perspective
it was meant as programmatic change, but was ended with the introduction of the new social assistance law WWB in 2004
Type of innovation
  • new/changed output and/or outcome
New outputs
  • subsidies/tax-credits (wagesubsidies, some support for training and premiums for finding regular work)
Intended target group
The primary target group consisted of employers in het public or semi-public sector who had additional jobs with socially added-value for which they did not have regular budget. Secondly, the innovation aimed at long-term unemployed on social assistance
Working age population
  • main source of income: social protection (social assistance)
Actors involved in policy-making/implementation and/or evaluation
  • central state (regulation)
  • municipal government (implementation)
  • supra/extra national organisations (ESF subsidies)
Clarification of the role of various actors
The scheme was implemented at the municipal level, using nationally provided funds as well as ESF-funding. Normally, employers would take the initiative and request permission to hire an employee under this scheme. Than the municipality would check the request and look for a suitable candidate. Employees needed to prove they were long-term unemployed. In practice, the scheme was also used to ?transfer? employees who had been working with the employer on earlier, terminated schemes or as volunteer to continue working in a subsidized job.
Intended output
  • subsidies/tax-credits
Did the innovation have any outcome related to job quantity?
at the end of 2002 around 53000 workers were active in this scheme, or 0.7% of the ec act population. After 2003 this number dropped
Intended and unintended outcomes
at the end of 2002 around 53000 workers were active in this scheme, or 0.7% of the ec act population. After 2003 this number dropped
Clarification of outcomes in terms of impacting resilience and labour market inclusion
The scheme was successful in giving vulnerable groups (long-term unemployed of whom a high proportion had a migrant background) a working place within public organizations. Their additional work was generally valued highly. However, the objective of realizing outflow to regular work has hardly been realized, according to the evaluation because workers themselves did not have this ambition and employers thought they did not have sufficient skills to compete in the regular labour market. Municipalities did hardly control whether employers invested in development of their workers. The evaluation suggests employers did not want to lose the good functioning workers, indicating lock-in effects. The national scheme was terminated in 2004 as part of the decentralization of re-integration to the municipal level. In a sense, the scheme was decentralized and it was left up to municipalities to continue it or not, but with limited funds they had to choose between subsidized jobs and other re-integration instruments. Municipalities could decide themselves whether and how they wanted to continue working with wage subsidies. The number of participants decreased drastically. Some workers found regular jobs, but a part of them also became unemployed. As of 2013, there still were some workers working under this scheme.
Share this page: