Qualitative evaluation of the Job Retention Scheme

The NOW scheme seems to have effectively preserved employment relatively efficiently, without significant disruption to the dynamics of businesses and the labour market, compared to similar schemes in other countries. Stakeholders are predominantly positive about the design and implementation of the scheme, as well as the collaboration among them. Detected abuse and improper use are minimal in relation to overall usage. An important lesson for future crisis situations is to better ensure the temporary and targeted nature of support measures to enhance efficiency, as well as to provide clear delineation of crisis situations, instruments, and objectives. This is revealed in the in-depth qualitative evaluation of the NOW scheme carried out by Dialogic together with SEO, commissioned by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. This research report focuses on the qualitative evaluation of the efficiency, design and implementation, collaboration and decision-making, and abuse and improper use of the Temporary Bridging Emergency Fund for Employment (NOW), as well as lessons for future crisis situations. The NOW scheme was introduced at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to limit dismissals, preserve employment, and thus prevent a systemic crisis. The performance of the NOW scheme is efficient due to the rapid, timely, and large-scale implementation of the scheme with relatively low implementation costs and minimal administrative burdens. Moreover, a survey among companies and discussions with user representatives indicate that most users find the administrative burdens to be minimal, with reductions for smaller companies over time. Additionally, the NOW scheme appears to have relatively effectively preserved employment compared to similar schemes in other countries. Although there are empirical indications of disruption in the dynamics of businesses and the labour market, according to a country comparison by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Netherlands does not perform much worse or better than other (European) countries in this regard. The NOW scheme was exceptionally swiftly designed and implemented by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV), and the Implementation of Policy (UVB). This was possible because the implementation possibilities were established from the outset and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment and UWV had a much closer collaboration and consultation structure than in regular policy processes. The NOW was a scheme with an advance determination system at the employer level. Alternative systems were considered, but it was quickly concluded that they would not be effective or less efficient. Users and social partners are largely satisfied with the user-friendliness of the NOW and the responsiveness of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment and UWV. Users received financial support in their accounts quicker than expected, and they find the application process user-friendly. Social partners also positively assess the scheme and appreciate that their concerns about the scheme were heard and addressed. Political desires from both the government and parliament had a significant influence on the design and course of the NOW scheme. During the establishment of the NOW, there was a strong political will to quickly set up a generic scheme where effectiveness had the highest priority. Throughout the course of the NOW, motions from the House of Representatives influenced changes in the NOW. Some societal and political desires were not accommodated due to implementation feasibility. Finally, societal and political pressure was the main reason why the NOW was not phased out or discontinued earlier. The rapid establishment of the NOW scheme carried an increased risk of abuse and improper use (A&IU). Therefore, A&IU policy was conducted simultaneously with the implementation of the scheme, and various control measures were implemented to minimize these risks, although more risks were accepted than under regular circumstances. The control system effectively contributed to preventing and identifying abuse and improper use (with the most stringent requirements and controls aimed at the largest users). Finally, the NOW scheme offers valuable lessons for future crisis situations. The NOW scheme demonstrates that a generic scheme with an advance determination system can provide support to employers quickly, timely, and on a large scale, but is only suitable for exceptional crisis situations. These exceptional crisis situations should be clearly defined to prevent the government from taking on normal entrepreneurial risks and removing incentives for efficient business operations and labour mobility. In addition to this qualitative evaluation, we have also conducted a quantitative evaluation of the TVL and NOW.