Separate sponsorship

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When processing unemployment benefit II from 2005 to 2011, the situation in a municipality ( district / district-free city ) was referred to as separate sponsorship (also: separate task performance, gAw) , where this was neither carried out by a working group nor the municipality performed the tasks within the framework of the option model itself. In this case, the municipality and the employment agency processed their area of ​​responsibility separately from one another within the framework of the legal regulations. As a result of a change in the law since January 1, 2012, the separate sponsorship is no longer to be found locally, since everywhere only optional municipalities or joint agencies of the agency and municipality work. Various theoretical concepts of the separate sponsorship were called the Cooperative Job Center (KJC) or Center for Work .

Basics

The case of separate sponsorship was never directly stipulated in the Social Security Code, Second Book (SGB II), which is the legal basis of unemployment benefit II. Rather, the formation of a working group in each municipality was always provided as a rule, which does not take on all tasks from the law itself within the framework of the option model. In some municipalities, however, due to differences of opinion, mostly because of the financing, a working group was not set up or an existing working group was terminated, which means that it did not (or no longer) exist locally - but the municipality did not participate in the option model. In such cases, each agency performed its own tasks separately, such as the placement / qualification and calculation of subsistence benefits, the employment agency, the financing of accommodation and other tasks. Since this dual responsibility was no longer intended by the legislature, the legal basis was changed so that the separate sponsorship automatically ended by December 31, 2011 at the latest.

development

Unplanned creation

While there were only a few municipalities with separate sponsorship in 2005, their number was increasing due to the increasing number of dismissals from working groups in 2007 and 2008. At the end of 2007, the tasks according to SGB II were performed separately in 21 rural districts and urban districts. As of January 2008, this number increased to 23 following the termination of two working groups in Thuringia. Such a situation was initially seen as an "industrial accident" as it always resulted from disputes between the authorities involved that were not settled. The disputes very often concerned the financing of the working group, in particular the specific share of the local community (communal financing share, kfA). In these cases of separate sponsorship, the entire processing of unemployment benefit II very often took place in parallel in completely different institutions, which do not necessarily have to be spatially adjacent.

At the center of the political discussion

With a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court in December 2007 on the unconstitutionality of the working groups between the Federal Agency and municipalities for processing unemployment benefit II, processing under separate sponsorship moved into the center of political discussion for two years. A number of concepts (see below) were worked out, the separate sponsorship no longer viewed as an accident, but as a future scenario. In particular, critics of the option model wanted to create an alternative to this otherwise only remaining model on this basis.

With the agreement of the federal and state governments in July 2008 to change the Basic Law and to continue to rely on the working groups as the standard model for processing unemployment benefit II, the separate sponsorship seemed to lose importance again as an alternative. In practice, it was only to be found where there is no working group and the municipality has not opted. The structure of the separate performance of tasks is regulated differently there.

Due to a dispute in the grand coalition in March 2009, the separate sponsorship was again traded as a future model, also in the form of the controversially discussed cooperative job center. The management of the Federal Employment Agency consistently advocated a greater separation of responsibilities in the job centers within the framework of the previous mixed administration. These ideas move in the border area between the working group and the separate sponsorship. After the change of government in 2009, the separate sponsorship was initially set out in the coalition agreement as a future model for all regions outside the optional municipalities. The result would have been a dissolution of the existing working groups.

End of separate sponsorship

After the federal-state compromise of 2010, an optimization of the current job center was planned, which again resulted in a joint performance of tasks and an amendment to the Basic Law. This compromise meant the end of the separate performance of tasks in the form that existed until 2011 and was accordingly incorporated into the legal text of SGB II. The respective districts were given the choice of either applying for the option model or forming a joint institution with the Federal Employment Agency. For all unsuccessful applicants, the path to a joint facility on January 1, 2012 is legally prescribed.

Conceptions

In the classic sense, a separate sponsorship means that there is no joint facility between the municipality and the employment agency when implementing Hartz IV on site. Everyone does his or her own tasks as prescribed by law. Due to legal developments, concepts were developed on this basis that were intended to mitigate or eliminate the disadvantages of this constellation. All concepts, which originate from the time of the intensive political discussion of the model, work with a regulated cooperation of the separate sponsors without merging them. Some of these models got into broad political discussion:

Cooperative job center

With this model, the proponents wanted to preserve what they believed to be the advantages of working groups without maintaining them. The most prominent advocate of the cooperative job center was the Federal Minister of Labor of the grand coalition Olaf Scholz . In the case of cooperative job centers, both authorities (municipal and agency) are physically located next to each other and have coordinating joint bodies, but without establishing a working group. In this model, the entire facility ( job center ) is under the sole management of the Employment Agency , the municipality is housed with an independent office in the house and has a say through the cooperation bodies. The model of the cooperative job center was discussed from May to July 2008. With the amendment to the Basic Law to restore the constitutionality of the working groups, the model was shelved. It remained of no practical importance, since with a change in the Basic Law, the need for this alternative proposal no longer exists. In the meantime it was once again traded as a future model, but due to the change of government in 2009, this model, favored by only parts of the SPD, is no longer to be expected.

Center for work

At the beginning of 2008, the German Association of Towns and Municipalities favored separate sponsorship in another variant. This is called the Labor Center , based on a concept developed by the legal scholar Albert von Mutius . It doubts the constitutionality of the cooperative job centers, which it sees as a continuation of the unconstitutional mixed administration due to the joint coordination bodies. In the Labor Center, the cooperation is largely replaced by the coordination of two strictly separate organizations under one roof. The only common facility here is a building with a common entrance area. Otherwise, this model is limited to the coordinated use of coordinated software and the summary of the separate decisions in a joint notification. Services could possibly be used jointly. Behind the scenes there is a separation of all responsibilities. In practice, the concept of the Center for Employment has not been realized. It is to be distinguished from the concept of the Center for Work and Basic Security (ZAG). This is a further development of the working group .

Model of the southerners

In May 2008 , the federal states of Bavaria , Baden-Württemberg and Saxony presented a further concept for separate sponsorship as a compromise proposal in the jurisdiction discussion. This provides for a change of responsibility between the municipalities and the employment agency. The municipalities would be responsible for calculating the entitlement to benefits, and the employment agency would be responsible for integration into the labor market. In the opinion of the authors, this would avoid duplication of responsibilities and make optimal use of competencies. The Südländer model became irrelevant when the grand coalition agreed on the amendment to the Basic Law (see above), even if Bavaria continued to favor the idea until the federal-state compromise in 2010.

Criticism and discussion

Criticism of separation of the carriers

One criticism of the separate processing of Unemployment Benefit II is the need for those affected to go twice to two authorities, which, in the opinion of the critics, would destroy a sense of the Hartz IV reform, the merging of the tasks of the employment agency and social welfare providers until 2004. Furthermore, the separate sponsorship - even if the offices are housed under one roof - would result in double administrative work and coordination difficulties between the authorities involved, as well as an increase in bureaucracy. In the case of separate processing in the form of loose cooperation between the municipalities and the agency, there are concerns about the constitutionality of such a solution. The separate sponsorship is criticized, among other things, in a study by the University of Duisburg. Regardless of the form of cooperation between the sponsors, one goal of the Hartz reforms, the service from a single source, is not achievable. Even planned automated data comparison or exchange models are not possible according to the current state of technology and the exchange of information between the carriers is paper-heavy and error-prone. The variant of the cooperative job center is also perceived by the critics as a centralized federal social welfare office, as it would be under the decisive influence of the employment agency.

Critics of the separate sponsorship are primarily the German District Association , the existing optional municipalities , and the federal states except Bavaria. The Federal Association of German Employers' Associations , the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry , the Central Association of German Crafts , the Federal Association of German Industry and interest groups of training and employment companies have now joined the circle of critics . The Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen party also rejects the separate sponsorship and instead calls for new ways of achieving responsibility from a single source and for the option model to be extended. The critics see either the option model or a change in the Basic Law to “legalize” the working groups as better alternatives. The rejection of the federal states was of particular importance for the model. With the help of so-called supervisory decrees, they were able to prohibit the municipalities from participating in the planned cooperative job centers, which was also used.

Arguments for separation and open cooperation

Proponents of the separate sponsorship praise the model that the placement remains with the employment agency, which in their opinion is the most competent for this. This is how one of the main advantages of the working group is realized. However, the model is - in contrast to the working group - constitutional. The responsible bodies of the municipality and the agency could be brought together spatially without forming a working group. The black and yellow federal government, in office since 2009, is one of the supporters of the separate sponsorship. The previously SPD-led Federal Ministry of Labor also saw the model as a viable alternative in the form of the cooperative job center at times.

The SPD withdrew from supporting the model again in August 2008 and is now calling for the “legalization” and further development of the working groups through an amendment to the Basic Law, something that the party had previously discussed as an alternative. This change of course was not followed by the executive board of the Federal Agency, which would like to force a stronger separation of the sponsors. There was sympathy for the separation model in the final phase of the political discussion at the German Association of Cities , the Association of German Cities and Towns (sponsors of the Center for Labor model) and the Bavarian State Government.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Sections 6, 6a, 6d, 44b SGB II in the version from January 1, 2011
  2. ↑ a b Dr. jur. Albert von Mutius: Basic security for job seekers under one roof, Kiel 2008
  3. ↑ § 44b Abs. 1 SGB II
  4. ↑ § 6a SGB II
  5. ↑ Statistics from the Federal Ministry of Labor ( Memento of the original from April 1, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.pub.arbeitsamt.de
  6. ↑ Organization overview of the Federal Employment Agency November 2008  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.pub.arbeitsamt.de  
  7. ↑ Financial Times Germany: Trouble with the working groups ( Memento from August 3, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ) Page no longer available , search in web archives: Passauer Neue Presse@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.pnp.de
  8. ^ Schleswig-Holstein district assembly
  9. ↑ a b Union tips compromise on job centers ( Memento from March 20, 2009 in the Internet Archive )
  10. ↑ a b Interview of the Stuttgarter Zeitung with BA boss Jürgen Weise ( memento from February 11, 2013 in the web archive archive.today )
  11. ^ Coalition agreement between CDU, CSU and FDP from 2009 ( Memento of the original from November 22, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF file; 576 kB)  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.cdu.de
  12. ↑ Sections 6, 6a, 6d, 44b SGB II in the version from January 1, 2011
  13. ^ Press release from the Federal Ministry of Labor
  14. ^ Schleswig-Holstein district assembly
  15. ↑ a b Press release of the Bavarian District Assembly of July 15, 2008  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF file; 24 kB)@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.bay-landkreistag.de  
  16. ^ Concept paper of the southern federal states
  17. ↑ Daily mirror
  18. ^ Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung: "Dare more bureaucracy"
  19. ↑ IAQ report 04/2009 of the University of Duisburg  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF file; 121 kB)@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.lag-arbeit-hessen.net  
  20. ↑ a b Joint letter BDA, BDI, DIHK, ZDH of April 17, 2008 to the Federal Ministry of Labor
  21. ^ Page no longer available , search in web archives: Haufe.de from June 6, 2008: Hartz IV - districts against cooperative job centers@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.haufe.de
  22. ↑ Statement from the Bavarian State Ministry for Labor and Social Affairs (PDF file; 41 kB)
  23. ↑ Westdeutsche Zeitung on the resistance of the state government of North Rhine-Westphalia
  24. ^ Financial Times Germany of April 8, 2008: Kiel Minister of Labor Döring (SPD) rejects cooperative job centers
  25. ↑ BDA: The wrong direction! Argumentation paper on the cooperative job center
  26. ^ Statement of the LAG Hessen e. V. (PDF file; 44 kB)
  27. ↑ Social ticker from June 13, 2008: Greens against the model of the cooperative job center ( Memento of the original from January 7, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.sozialticker.com
  28. ↑ District information of the Schleswig-Holstein District Assembly 0262/2008 of April 8, 2008: Future organization of SGB II
  29. ^ Press release from the Federal Ministry of Labor from December 20, 2007
  30. ↑ Tagesspiegel from April 28, 2008: Revolt of the district administrators
  31. ↑ spiegel.de of May 9, 2008