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

Regional centres for gatekeeping

Country of implementation
The Netherlands
General short description of the innovation
This innovation consists of private service centres for networks of employers, founded and mainly financed by employers, to facilitate work-to-work transitions, especially of sick workers during their first two years of sickness. The centres are a response of employers to their new responsibilities stemming from the gatekeepers law and the law on payment of wages during sickness.
Target group
Total Population
Policy Field
  • employment
Type of Policy
  • private not for profit
Duration of the policy
In 2004 the first gatekeeper centre started in the province of North Holland. Following this example 36 centres were counted in 2007.The total number of centres as of 2013 is not available
Scope of innovation
  • Scope: structural
  • Spatial coverage: regional, not all regions have a gatekeepercentre
General description of (intended) objectives and strategies
The gate keeper centres facilitate work to work transitions, mostly of sick employees who otherwise may run the risk of entering disability benefits. The centres work ?demand oriented?, financed by regional networks of employers. They advise on regulations and broker between employers with supply and demand of workers. Sometimes they offer training programs. The centres are run privately and are not a part of the public infrastructure for re-integration, although co-operaton may exist. A national coordination centre of gatekeeping centres has been founded, but does not represent all centres (www.lwpc.nl)
Nature of the innovation-short-term perspective
unclear, it is a private initiative that may be stopped when results are no longer considered satisfactory
Type of innovation
  • new form of partnership or cooperation
  • new policy, practice or measure
New outputs
  • governance
  • job guidance, coaching and/or counselling
  • training schemes
Intended target group
Sick employees and their employers
Working age population
  • employment situation (mostly sick employees)
Employers-private institutional actors
employers are both users as well as owners of the gate keeper centres, most centres hold the legal structure of a private foundation
Actors involved in policy-making/implementation and/or evaluation
  • central state (There have been some subsidies to stimulate the creation of the centres after the first privately initiated centre that was considered succesful)
  • employers (organised or individual) (Regional employer networks found the centres and make use of their services)
Clarification of the role of various actors
Originally the centres were a completely private initiative of regional networks of employers. Because of its success, the national government and the former council for work and income have stimulated the creation of more centres, by giving some subsidies and advise. The centres themselves have remained private initiative though.
Intended output
  • job guidance, coaching and counselling
  • training schemes
Did the innovation have any outcome related to job quantity?
According to participating employers, the centres have helped work to work transitions, thereby preventing entry into social security and maintaining employment rates.. The centres themselves claim high success rates. Independent quantitative data on outcome are not available
Clarification of outcomes in terms of impacting resilience and labour market inclusion
This innovation is generally considered to be successful by employers and by the department of social affairs and employement. According to a qualitative evaluation in 2009 employers and employees are satisfied with the services of gatekeeper centres. Given the fact that these centres are privately financed and have functioned for a number of years now, it is plausible they effectively meet employers? demand for support of work-work transitions (assuming that private initiatives can be stopped when unsuccessful more easily than public institutions), thereby preventing entry into the public social security system. The centres themselves report high success rates in the evaluation. However, independently measured quantitative results of the centres are not available.
Share this page: