Indicator 9. Mechanisms to identify training needs in the labour market
a) Information on mechanisms set up to identify changing demands at different levels;
b) Evidence of their effectiveness.
Mechanisms to identify training needs in the labour market:
a) Type of mechanisms used to update the VET offer to the future labour market needs;
b) Information on mechanisms used to provide stakeholders with the most recent information on the future needs of the labour market.
The following Questions & Answers may be useful in interpreting this indicator and in supporting its implementation.
What is the policy rationale for Indicator no 9 and what is it useful for?
The policy purpose is to improve responsiveness of VET to changing demands in the labour market and to support employability.
Usefulness of Indicator 9
Indicator 9 is a context/input indicator which
- May assist in improving responsiveness of VET to changing demands in the labour market, in supporting employability and improving quality of training provision;
- May be used for mutual learning and planning;
- May be used for EQF related issues, as this indicator assists in quality assuring certification;
- May be used in the planning, evaluation and review phases of the quality cycle.
Which other EQAVET indicators may be used to improve understanding or provide additional information?
Indicator 3: Participation rate in VET programmes
Indicator 4: Completion rate in VET programmes
Indicator 5: Placement rate in VET programmes
Indicator 6: Utilisation of acquired skills at the workplace
Indicator 7: Unemployment rate (as a “proxy”)
Indicator 8: Prevalence of vulnerable group (with a time lag in order to measure the effects)
Technical and contextual caveats
Which specific issues should be considered in order to avoid misapplication and/or misinterpretation of this indicator?
- This is a qualitative indicator;
- There are many unpredictable factors that may affect the economy of a country and the labour needs it produces. Moreover, various stakeholders are implicated because the acceptability and portability of a qualification depends on employers and other parties and thus cooperation between stakeholders needs to be ensured;
- In order to measure the effectiveness, this indicator/descriptor refers not only to the schemes themselves (how they are planned and implemented) but also to the capacity of the VET system to increase access by evaluating them and by deciding further action;
- Focus on IVET and CVET, excluding informal but integrating non-formal VET;
- Data sources from different databases would need a common identifier to link data.
Which other issues may influence the use of this indicator?
- Consider the types of mechanisms in place at national level, e.g. a forecasting system focusing on labour market/occupations, tracking system monitoring VET programme completers, workforce projections, labour market analysis, econometric investigations and procedures for updating professional profiles;
- It may be helpful to distinguish between immediate and longer term labour market needs. Distinction between filling immediate skills needs and planning longer term for strategic changes;
- Need to take into account VET providers’ capacities, e.g. in the area of human resources, as well as deficiencies or surpluses in these capacities, i.e. a shortage of competent teachers/trainers in certain skills areas;
- Need to address matters of VET providers’ responsiveness and flexibility, i.e. the capacity to respond to changing demands.
Given the qualitative nature of this indicator, data elements are descriptive.
Which data elements are needed to generate this indicator?
- Information on approaches a) to identify skill needs and b) to link training provision to the needs of the economy;
- Evidence is likely to include reports from the organisation(s) responsible for this activity;
- Evidence of the effectiveness of mechanisms is related to other indicators, e.g. Indicator 5.
Reported Subgroups: Which subgroups are commonly reported for this indicator?
- Consider relevance exclusively to IVET and/or CVET, e.g. at national, regional and local level, economic sectors, unemployment rates, labour demand/ supply;
- Informal VET is not included but non-formal VET to be considered.
Data Requirement: What type of data may be useful to gather on this indicator?
Schemes used to promote better access to VET:
Type of scheme (e.g. plans, policies, programmes): planning, implementing, evaluating and informed decision- making put in place in order to promote better access to VET, especially for disadvantaged groups.
- Scope: policies, processes, procedures; medium or long term interventions; national and European levels, IVET and CVET, excluding informal but integrate non formal VET;
- Coverage: disadvantaged groups ( as defined at European level);
- Suitability of training for the demands for actual and future needs of specific disadvantaged groups and individuals;
- Flexibility: how fast education can respond to group and individual specific needs.
Evidence of their effectiveness: in order to measure the effectiveness, this indicator/descriptor refers not only to the schemes themselves (how they are planned and implemented) but also to the capacity of the VET system to increase the access by evaluating them and by deciding further action.
- Share of the population from disadvantaged group entering VET related with the majority share;
- Need to correlate with Indicator 4 (Completion rate in VET programmes) and Indicator 8 (Prevalence of vulnerable groups);
- Employability: effects on unemployment by disadvantaged groups and employability after the introduction of a specific scheme;
- Individual and group satisfaction related with the access to VET system.
NOTE: for further information on mechanisms to identify training needs in the labour market in Estonia, Hungary, Ireland and United Kingdom, please click here