Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

32. To ask the Minister for Social Protection why companies which had been banned from the JobBridge scheme, have been readmitted to the scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8205/16]

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

33. To ask the Minister for Social Protection if she has produced new rules for the conduct of host companies under the JobBridge scheme, following the decision to readmit companies that had been previously banned from it; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8206/16]

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

34. To ask the Minister for Social Protection the number of complaints she has received from interns on the JobBridge scheme; and the number of these that she investigated and upheld. [8207/16]

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

35. To ask the Minister for Social Protection the number of visits by JobBridge monitors to host companies in each of the years 2012 to 2015, in tabular form; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8208/16]

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

36. To ask the Minister for Social Protection the number of placement advertisements she has rejected, including the reason she rejected them, under the JobBridge scheme, by year, since the scheme began. [8209/16]

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

37. To ask the Minister for Social Protection the number of participants who finished a placement early under the JobBridge scheme, citing dissatisfaction with the scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8210/16]

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 32 to 37, inclusive, together.

JobBridge was introduced in July 2011 as a rapid response to the sharp increase in unemployment resulting from the unprecedented collapse in the economy. Since then over 18,500 Host Organisations have provided internship opportunities to over 46,500 unemployed jobseekers.

The aim of the scheme was to help unemployed people break the cycle whereby they could not get a job without experience but could not get experience without a job. It caters for a wide variety of jobseekers – those with no previous work experience and unemployed workers who might want to change career direction. Departmental records show that over 15,000 interns (36%) progressed directlyinto paid employment immediately following an internship and independent research indicates that this rises to circa 60% within a short period (5 months) of completing an internship. This compares very favourably with similar schemes across the EU where the average rate is 34%. The independent research also indicated that just 10% of participants rated the scheme negatively and that over two thirds of participants would recommend the scheme to a friend or family member.

Potential Host Organisations are required to meet specified terms and conditions in order to participate in the scheme. All applications are screened on receipt and those that fail to meet the requirements are rejected. Reasons include ineligibility (e.g. displacement, “cooling-off” period in place, requiring candidates to have experience, failure to meet the minimum number of paid employees required to be present or exceeding the quota permitted for the size of the organisation) or failure to supply all of the information (including in relation to the specific learning outcomes intended).

A total of 21,796 applications were rejected since 2012, as detailed in Table 1. The Department does not have details of rejections prior to 2012 as these were issued via FAS.

JobBridge is entirely voluntary for both Host Organisations and participants and, as such, must appeal to both. In order to attract potential interns, host organisations must therefore provide opportunities that appeal to jobseekers. Jobseekers are not under any obligation to participate in JobBridge and those that commence an internship can finish their internship for any reason at any time with no penalty of any type.

JobBridge internships last for 6 or 9 months. Just under half (20,796) of all JobBridge internships finished early, almost half of these (45%) to take up paid employment. A further 7% went on to further education, training or another internship. Circa 30% of participants left for a variety of personal, domestic or health reasons. Approximately 11%left early because they did not find the internship suitable. Given the nature of the scheme as a first chance opportunity for many people to experience employment the figure is not surprising. The Department continues to work with such jobseekers to support them with a range of alternative pathways to work.

The requirement for monitoring was introduced in January 2012. A total of 12,711 monitoring visits were undertaken from 2012 to end 2015, as per Table 2. 98% of internships are found to be fully compliant with the terms and conditions of the scheme.

The Department takes all complaints about JobBridge very seriously and fully investigates any allegation of abuse or misuse of the scheme. A total of 672 complaints have been received since the scheme commenced, representing circa 1.4% of all internships. The Department does not distinguish between complaints made by interns and by others.

As the scheme is voluntary (there is no obligation on a jobseeker to take up or remain in an Internship and there is no penalty for leaving an internship) and as the host organisations received no remuneration for their participation in the scheme decisions to bar/suspend host organisations on the foot of complaints or inspection visits were taken on an administrative basis by individual inspectors and the Host Organisations concerned had no recourse to challenge the decision or to seek a review by a central authority. In such circumstances as the decisions to bar host organisations related to failure to comply with administrative rather than legal requirements and given that publication of a finding of non-compliance could have wider adverse consequences for a host organisation it was not intended that the names of the host organisations concerned would be published.

A ruling from the Information Commissioner issued on 2nd of October 2015 (Ref. 150104) upheld the Department’s decision not to disclose the names of the organisations concerned. The Commissioner, inter alia, accepted the Department’s position that as the decisions were taken on an administrative basis without recourse to notice or review or notice, and that as publication could result in adverse consequences for the organisations concerned (who did not have an opportunity to challenge the decision) it would be it would be improper to release the names.

The Department has however, since implemented revised procedures to place decisions to disbar host organisation on a more formal footing. Key changes are that decisions are now made by a Compliance Officer in the central JobBridge Unit, rather than by individual inspectors in the field and communicated to all of the parties concerned. This will ensure greater consistency and transparency in the decision-making process and will facilitate publication of host organisations names in cases where host organisations are barred from use of the scheme.

Table 1: Number of Reject Notifications Sent to Host Organisations 2012-2015

Table 2: Number of JobBridge Monitoring Visits by Year 2012-2015