school to work transition: an overview of youth...

SCHOOL TO WORK TRANSITION: An overview of youth employment and a case study in Lampung and

Karawang

12/05/2015 TOENING ET.AL., FKP 1

Presented at FKP, R KG LDFEBUI,12 May 2015

By Sri Moertiningsih Adioetomo, Diah Widarti, Tara B. Suprobo, Alvin Pratama

Acknowledgement1. This presentation is a part of an explorative study on

Youth Employment: School-to-work transition supported by TNP2K/PRSF/DFAT.

2. This study was conducted during December 2014-March 2015.

3. Thanks to Theo van der Loop, Budy Maryono, DiahWidarti and Ari A Perdana from TNP2K for their supports.


Definitions

1. School-to-work transition is the length of time between the exit from education (either upon graduation or early exit without completion) to the first entry into regular and satisfactory employment◦ Regular employment (contract, permanent, decent

work)◦ Satisfactory employment (subjective measure)

2. Youth are those age 15-29 years


Why are we doing this (1)? 1. Poverty reduction program cannot be optimized without

reducing youth unemployment rate which is much higher than overall unemployment.

2. Lengthy time in the transition from school-to-work will leave scars throughout the life of the youth, to the individuals and to the society as well.

3. On the other hand, successful transition to work for many young people can accelerate poverty reduction through better allocation of their labor and boost economic growth.


Why are we doing this (2)?

1. There are evidence that age of leaving school have risen which delay the transition to work and therefore better preparation to enter working life, which in turn led to greater success once employed.

2. However, transition to working life is not always smooth for many young people.

3. Many have started the transition too early. Many have difficulties in entering labor market due to the unpreparedness , unequipped and inadequate skill demanded by the labour market.


Why are we doing this (3)? 1. Besides the high unemployment rate among young

people, there is also evidence that a large portion of the youth is inactive, neither in school nor in employment.

2. A bigger shared is contributed by young women, of whom are not accounted as working although actually they are working in the domestic areas.

3. The high rates of youth unemployment, youth inactivity, and youth who are neither in education nor in employment is the reflection of difficulties of the youth in their transition from school-to-work.


Why are we doing this (4)? 1. Understanding about causes and barriers faced by the

youth and how the related agencies respond to this situation will provide evidence-based policy making.

2. This way, it is expected to help improve smooth transition from school-to-work that will reduce youth unemployment and therefore help poverty reduction program.


Outline of this presentation1. An overview of youth employment from Sakernas 2013

2. An overview of school-to-work transition, an aggregate analysis using Sakernas 2013 applying Geoff Bowlby Concept

3. Case studies in Lampung and Karawang, applying the ILO Concept of School to Work Transition


Overview of youth employment

AGGREGATE ANALYSIS FROM SAKERNAS 2013


Youth unemployment rate is 5.2 times higher than adult unemployment. Youth 15-19 years should be still in school

UNEMPLOYMENT RATERATIO YOUTH TO ADULT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE


23.5

38.4

28.6

17.6

26.5

17.2

7.6

12.3

7.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

15-19 20-24 25-29

9.8

6.6 6.7 6.7 7.1 6.8 7.0

5.44.9 4.6 5.0 5.1 5.2

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Length of job search (but not always regular and satisfactory employment)AVERAGE OF LENGTH OF FIRST JOB SEARCH

LENGTH OF JOB SEARCH BY AGE (PERCENTAGE)

youth

15-19

youth

20-24

youth

25-29

Less than or equal to

3 months 85 74 75

4 to 6 months 9 14 15

More than 6 months 6 11 10

Total 100 100 100


2.25

3.14

2.82 2.84

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Age 15-19 Age 20-24 Age 25-29 Age 15-29

Age 15-19 Age20-24 Age25-29 Urban Rural Total

1

Agriculture, forestry, hunting

and fishing 36.8 24.8 25.7 5.0 49.4 26.8

2 Mining and quarrying 1.3 1.8 1.5 1.0 2.3 1.6

3 Manufacturing industry 14.7 20.2 16.8 24.3 11.3 17.9

4 Electricity, gas and water 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3

5 Construction 4.4 5.4 5.7 5.8 5.1 5.4

6

Wholesale trade, retail trade,

restaurant, and hotel 24.3 23.6 21.2 30.9 14.0 22.6

7

Transportation, storage and

communication 3.3 4.6 4.7 5.4 3.4 4.5

8

Financing, real estate, and

business services 1.2 3.8 4.6 6.4 1.2 3.8

9

Community, social and personal

services 13.8 15.6 19.4 20.9 13.3 17.1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100


Youth Employment: mostly working in agriculture, manufacture, trade and service sector (%)

Youth employment share. Youth are more likely leaving agriculture and move to service sector. Who will farm the land?YOUTH EMPLOYMENT SHARE (%), 2008 & 2013

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT SHARE WITHIN SERVICE SECTOR (%), 2008 & 2013


23.7

34.0

42.4

25.2

26.8

48.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Manufacturing, mining, electricity,gas, water, and construction

Agriculture, forestry, hunting andfishing

Services

2013 2008

1.8

6.7

12.6

21.3

3.8

4.5

17.1

22.6

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Financing, real estate, andbusiness services

Transportation, storage andcommunication

Community, social and personalservices

Wholesale trade, retail trade,restaurant, and hotel

2013 2008

Overview of School-To-Work Transition

AGGREGATE ANALYSIS FROM SAKERNAS 2013

Bowlby’s (2000) concept of School to Work Transition Classifications

Youth Classification Not Working Working

In School1. Youth attending school

and not working(Has not begun transition)

2. Youth attending school and working(Started transition)

Not in School4. Youth not working and

not in school(NEET-Not Yet Transited)

3. Youth not in school but working(Transited)


Increasing tendency to delay entry to the labour market. Especially for young women.

Youth Attending School and Not Working (%).


10.50

11.00

11.50

12.00

12.50

13.00

21.50

22.00

22.50

23.00

23.50

24.00

24.50

25.00

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

All (LHS) Men (RHS) Women (RHS)

Preparedness to enter the working life. But % of young women always lower than young men. Youth Attending School and Working showing


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Youth already transited, working only. But % of young women working is always lower than young men. Preference or discrimination? % of youth not attending school but working.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Not attending school and working men Not attending school and working women

NEET: % of Youth Not in Education, Not in Employment nor in Training. Mostly are young women, although they may work in domestic areas. Misinterpretation or wrong definition about work? They are not discourage workers.


0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


What to do to help the youth to reduce the length of time toward regular employment?

1. Need to know about barriers and challenges faced by young people in entering labor market

2. From stakeholders perspectives (Users or Employers)

3. About the skills, competence and aspirations of the youth

4. Approaches: In-depth interviews with stakeholders and FGDs with the youth


Approaches of the field study

1. In-depth interviews with HRD Managers, Officials of the MOE and NGO.

2. FGDs with the youth using the ILO Concept of School-to-work transition: those who are transited, in transition and not yet transited, and the NEET.

3. Focus in on the youth with High School graduates and also those who dropped out early from school.


Findings From Case Study in Metro Lampung and Karawang:

Stakeholders’ Perspective (1)HRD Managers of Manufacture industry

• Senior secondary education (e.g., SMA or SMK) is the

minimum educational requirement.

• Strong preference towards SMK graduates due to their

readiness to work and practical knowledge.

• Recruitment method: job fair, alumni network, and social network. Best practice: free training in school talent scouting for employees.

• Use of strict job criteria and qualifications ensuring best

recruits.


Stakeholder Perspective (2)

• Local labor regulation (to recruit local youth) in Karawang limit access to a larger pool of high quality labor.

• Sex preference: young men for production workers while young women for administrative tasks (stereotyping).

• Age preference: young over old and more experienced workers due to the fact that the former is easier to teach than the latter.


Stakeholder Perspective (3)

• Life skills particularly behavioral skills are considered important, technical skills can easily be trained later through “learning by doing”.

• Various ways to assess skills: interviews, probation period, and attendance as well as tests.

• Continuous skill development: more internal than external trainings, few internships due to product quality concern. Senior workers are assigned to work with young workers.


School Principal’s perception (state owned Lampung): Preparing student to enter the working life.

◦ Vision: Farmers and agriculture are not always related to poverty. Youth should be proud of being students of SMK Agriculture

◦ Innovative: Enlarge networking with Thailand, send teachers to tertiary education, and visit Europe

◦ Strong collaboration with local industries

◦ Invite employers to visit the school for talent scouting.

◦ Teaching of soft skill is embedded in every subject. Teachers stresses many times in class or in practice.


School Principal’s perception (non-state owned Karawang): Preparing student to enter the working life

◦ Students are local people,

◦ Large proportion of dropped out students’ capacity is low, difficult to follow rules and regulations, society is in transition from rural to urban industrial culture.

◦ A large proportion of local youth are not absorbed in industry

◦ The School is lacking in tools for practice, if there is , outdated.


Lesson Learned From IBL (Equip Youth) : Story by the School Principal

1. Students are taught about preparing themselves to write an application form, how to behave when being interviewed and other life skill subject

2. Among 50 students who were trained, 45 of them were recruited for work. In all Karawang there were 200 students were trained.

3. The principal wanted that this project should be continued, even if the school have to pay.

4. So this Equip youth is very effective in increasing local youth’s employability.


Findings from field study: Youth’ perspectivesMETRO LAMPUNG – AGRICULTURE BASED

AND KARAWANG WEST JAVA- INDUSTRIAL BASED

ILO concept-Transition from school-to-work (15-29 years)

The length of time between the exit from education (either upon graduation or early exit without completion) to the first entry into regular employment

o Regular employment (contract, permanent, decent work)o Satisfactory employment (subjective measure)

1. Youth who are Transited2. Youth In transition 3. Youth Not yet transited4. Youth Not in education, not working, not looking for

work


Youth Who are Transited: Currently Employed (ILO Concept)

1. Transited◦ A regular and satisfactory job◦ A regular but non-satisfactory job◦ A satisfactory but temporary job◦ In satisfactory self-employment

2. Direct or indirect transition3. Phases of transition

◦ A Short transition - direct◦ A Middling transition- less than one year◦ A lengthy transition – over one year


Youth In Transition and Transition Not Yet Started

In transition◦ Currently unemployed◦ Currently Employed with no contract◦ Currently Employed in a non-satisfactory job◦ Currently self-employed and unsatisfied job

Transition not yet started◦ Still in school◦ Currently inactive, not in school, no intention to

look for work (NEET)


FINDINGS:Youth Who Have Transited: Currently Working (1)

Metro direct recruitment upon exit from school◦ Strong linkage between the school and the

industry

◦ School principal’s role is significant, innovative and motivating

◦ SMK is state-owned.

Karawang waiting time between 2 -5 months, but the young workers came from other areas than Karawang. Difficult to recruit local youth.

.


Youth Who Have Transited: Currently Working (2)

1. Both young workers are optimistic about their future

2. But young workers in Metro do not have vision for future (whether they are still young or already in comfort zone?)

3. Young workers in Karawang have wider perception, if they want to success they have to work hard, discipline etc. Education is important

4. Maybe that they are migrants from other areas


Youth transited:Linkage between education and work

◦ SMK graduates feels that lessons from school is highly matched with the need at work (industry)

◦ Because at SMK more practice than theories or adaptive subject is taught

◦ But tools for practice are not enough, in numbers and in quality, some are outdated (especially those from private-owned SMK).


Youth transited:LMI

◦ Mostly networking. But in Karawang – dominated by agent?

◦ SMK graduates from Metro – Employers came to look for candidate employers

◦ “bursa kerja’ at school


Youth Transited: Perception about additional training and internship

1. Internship is needed, but most informants prefer to work directly.

2. Interns work only as assistant to the seniors (quality of work?)

3. Young people do not like to undertake training, they prefer to directly working

4. ?????


Youth Transited:Expectation for the future

1. Mostly want to establish own business

2. Want to be entrepreneurs

3. But challenges with capital and for those in Lampung : to be a farmer is challenged with land acquisition

How can we help them?


Young people in transition (1): unemployed, underemployed1. It is difficult to look for youth who are unemployed in

Metro also in Karawang.

2. Most young people with low education, early exit from school, are underemployed. They cannot afford to be unemployed.

3. What we found are young people who work as casual workers, non-satisfactory self-employed.

4. FGD was conducted in Bandar Lampung with “10 scavengers” and 7 casual workers in Karawang.


Young people in transition (2). FGD with youth dropped out from SD or Finished SD, working as pemulung, tambal ban, buruh cuci etc.

◦ It is difficult to have discussion with these youth◦ They have difficulties in understanding the

researcher's even a simple question◦ They came from poor families◦ For their parents: education is enough if their

children can read and write, no need to have ‘ijazah’

◦ These youth work in low productivity job, no skill or competency needed


Young people in transition (3): perception of pemulung (Lampung)

◦ These pemulung felt that education is important, but is hampered by financial problem

◦ They wanted their children to live better than theirs◦ They want to operate a beauty salon, doing small business,

or jual gorengan◦ Ijazah is important so that they can work as employee in a

shop (toko). ◦ Currently they work as pemulung, with income IDR250,000-

400,000 per week. But they have to spend IDR25,000 for child care, IDR20,000 for transport and IDR30,000 for meals. So income is not enough, even for survival.


Young people in transition (3): perception about work and success (Karawang)

Informants works as casual workers: tambal ban, buruh cucidst.

1. The informants of youth in transition in Karawang want to work in garment factory but have no imaginations about the work

2. The other wants to be supervisor I an automotive industry, but do not have skill to do this and know nothing on how to achieve this.

3. Knowledge about working in formal sector is minimal.


Transition not yet started (1)Youth still in school, FGD with participants SMK students in Metro and in Karawang.

FGD was conducted with Informants in both FGDs feel optimistic about their future, they are young and many opportunities available for them, they said◦ But they realize that they have to study hard to realize

their dream

◦ They knew that for those who want to work upon finishing school ‘more practical lesson’ is needed. While for those who want to continue further study, more theories are needed.


Transition not yet started (2)Youth still in school

1. Students at SMK Metro feel that the school help them in the transition to work, in Karawang this is not the case

2. Both students in Metro and in Karawang feel that soft skill (character building?) such as lessons on ‘Budi Pekerti’ is needed.

3. In Karawang, the school principal focuses on teaching soft-skill/ lifeskills: discipline, diligent, never absent from school, trained oneself in an orderly manner (tertib) which are requested at the modern work.

4. Local youth in Karawang still carry rural attitude, difficult to change to modern industrial culture who need different attitude about work.


Lessons learned from the field 1. Link and match between school and work depends

on the relation between school principals and the industry

2. Big difference between SMK state and non state operated.

3. Youth who are transited, although not satisfactory, are optimistic since the see many opportunities. But they realize they have to work hard.

4. Soft-skill or life-skills are more important in this current situation.


What has been done?

1. 17 sectors and NGO and partners are doing youth employment related activities. But lacking in coordination to increase youth employability and skill development

2. From the supply side, GOI is aware of the School-to-work transition, and developed policy measures in RPJMN 2015-2019. Preparing the students: through vocational training, SMK strengthening

3. But youth employment is embedded in overall employment creation, less focus on the youth.


Indonesia Youth Employment Network (IYEN)

• March 2002: IYEN launched, responding to the MDG Goals 2015 on youth employment.

• May 2003: the Indonesian Youth Employment Network (IYEN) Coordinating Team was legally established through the Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs’ Decree.

• 2004–2007 Indonesia Youth Employment Action Plan(IYEAP) developed by the IYEN but doesn’t work.

• 2010: BAPPENAS revitalized the IYEN secretariat to better coordinate programs and activities named JEJAKMU, the networking media for stakeholders, was launched.


IYEN Challenges1. Require strong partnerships between the government

ministries, and the social partners, including the employers’ organizations and trade unions at national, regional and international levels.

2. Youth employment initiatives in various government ministries seem to be fragmented without good coordination; there appears no such shared vision on the long-term goals of reducing youth unemployment and at the same time promoting youth technical and life skills.

3. Need for comprehensive approach and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation systems.


The Five Pillars Approaches to Reduce skill-gap and mismatch

1. Policy for youth employment

2. Skills for employability

3. Demand-based apprenticeship

4. Entrepreneurship skills development

5. Knowledge sharing.

But who are responsible in doing these? Resource pooling, coordination, strong leadership with ONE vision youth employment mainstreaming.


Need further study and more inputs.

THANK YOU


school to work transition: an overview of youth...

Documents