LM training period as a predicted single event

Assuming that labor market training represents a single event, without reference to any other periods in the overall chain of LM training periods, this part of the analysis considers only the continuity of a period from the point of view of a sinlge “time”-dimension. In this case, firstly, those periods, which have been completed, are taken into account as an example of an ended event. Overall, the results of the discrete-time analysis, as it concerns the statuses 00 “Completed LM training” and 10 “Completed LMT with final exam”, clearly indicate that the cumulative failure achieves almost 100% for the first as for the second statuses (Tables 17 and 27 in Appendix 8.4). The only difference is that for the status 00

“Completed LM training”, the estimated hazard reaches a maximum for the first time in the interval “6-7 months” and then declines, reaching a maximum for the second time in the interval “10-11 months”. On the other hand, the hazard for the status 10 “Completed LMT and final exam” slightly changes during first 12-13 months of the observation period. Consequently, the time for completion of a LM training program with a final exam is longer and fluctuates during the first year.

Analysis of the transitions to statuses concerning completion of LM training (statuses 00 “Completed LM training” and 10 “Completed LMT with final exam”) from the positions of influence of the “gender”-factor proves that

completion of LM training (status 00) occurs with the same probability for men as for women. On the other hand, concerning the completion of LM training with a final exam (status 10), the analysis confirms that the cumulative failure for women is slightly lower than it is for men. Typically, statuses 00 and 10 differ from each other on the factor of education as well. As it concerns the completion of LM training without the final exam (status 00), the cumulative failure achieves almost 100% for all educational groups. On the contrary, completion of LM training with a final exam differs mostly for the three educational levels “lower secondary education”, “upper secondary education”, and “bachelor, or equivalent”.

On the other hand, as it concerns completion of LM training without the final exam (status 00), the cumulative failure achieves almost 100% for all birth cohorts. On the other hand, completion of LM training with a final exam (status 10) is more peculiar to the three birth cohorts “1947-1956”, “1957-1966”, and

“1967-1976”, whereas two marginal cohorts either have small cumulative failures or failure is even absent (for the cohort “1935-1946”, for example). Finally, a factor of belonging to an entrance cohort is admittedly essential in transition to this or that status in the labor market. As analysis shows, all the entrance cohorts have the maximum, almost 100%, cumulative failure of completion of LM training program (status 00). On the contrary, if the LM training program is competed by a final exam, three entrance cohorts are the most frequent ones. They are “1962-1971”, “1972-1981”, and “1982-1991”.

On the other hand, if the LM training is interrupted due to a reason of job-placement, the estimated hazard to realize transition to another status is very small (Tables 18 and 19 in Appendix 8.4). Thus, the estimated hazard for the status 01

“Interrupted LMT: job-placement matching new qualification” slightly changes during the first 16 months of the observation period; after that, it instantly decreases to zero. On the other hand, the estimated hazard for the status 02

“Interrupted LMT: job-placement matching another qualification” slightly changes during first 9-10 months of the observation period; after that, it instantly decreases to zero.

If LM training is interrupted due to job-placement, differences in gender structures of groups of immigrants are more essential that in other cases. On the one hand, if immigrants find a job matching a new qualification (status 01), the cumulative failure for men is 6.8%, whereas for women it is only 2.9%. The same tendency is obvious, however, when immigrants find a job matching another qualification (status 02). The cumulative failure for men then achieves 7.3%,

whereas for women – 2.4%. Consequently, the probability to find a job for men is obviously higher that it is for women. Essentially, as it concerns the interruption of LM training due to a reason of job-placement matching a new qualification (status 01), the factor of education seems to have a meaning only for the two educational levels “lower secondary education” and “upper secondary education”. Comparatively, as it concerns job-placement matching another qualification, the dispersion of educational levels is wider. In this case, lower and higher educational levels are both frequent.

Taking into account factors of birth- and entrance cohorts, transitions from LM training by reason of job-placement matching a new qualification occurs with a higher probability for the two birth cohorts “1947-1956” (the cumulative failure is 8.3%) and “1967-1976” (5.6%). If transitions and job-placement match another qualification, the probability is higher for such birth cohorts as “1967-1976” and

“1977-1986”. In case a LM training program is interrupted by reason of job-placement matching a new qualification (status 01), the analysis shows the tendency of the prevalence of two entrance cohorts (“1972-1981” and “1982-1991”). A similar tendency can be observed for transitions to job-placement matching another qualification. Three entrance cohorts prevail in this case (“1972-1981”, “1982-1991” and “1992-2001”).

Parallel to interruption of LM training by reason of job-placement, the next issue concerns the interruption of LM training due to other reasons¹³. In this case, the estimated hazard to leave LM training and to start another training program (status 03) is higher and occurs already during the first 6-7 months of the observation period (the cumulative failure comes to 10.2%) (Table 20 in Appendix 8.4). As it concerns other statuses, the estimated hazard slightly changes during first 8-11 months of the observation period, and after that, it instantly decreases to zero. Toward the end of the observation period (37-38 months), the cumulative failure comes to 2.2 – 5% (Tables 21, 22, 23, 24 in Appendix 8.4).

Analysis of influence of gender on transitions from LM training occurs according to one of obvious tendencies. In one case, the hazard to interrupt LM training by reason of beginning another LM training (status 03), refusal (status 06), or other reasons (status 07) is obviously higher for women than it is for men.

For example, the cumulative failure for men to interrupt LM training and start

13 Statuses 03 “Interrupted LMT: another LM training started”, 04 “Interrupted LMT: health problems”, 05 “Interrupted LMT: other personal reasons”, 06 “Interrupted LMT: refusal” and 07

“Interrupted LMT: other reasons”.

another LM training comes to 6.8% for men and 11.8% for women. As it concerns statuses 06 and 07 (refusal or other reasons), the cumulative failure for women is even lower. On the other hand, as it concerns the statuses 04 and 05, the cumulative failure for women is higher than it is for men. If LM training is interrupted by reason of starting another training program (status 03), the factor of education is rather obvious. Thus, groups of immigrants with “short-cycle tertiary education” or “doctoral or equivalent” -degree have higher cumulative failure. In the case of transitions to other statuses, the factor of education is not so obvious, even though the educational level “lower secondary education” is the most frequent one.

On the other hand, in the case that LM training is interrupted by reason of starting another training program (status 03), the probability to realize a transition is hypothetically higher for the three later birth cohorts. They are “1957-1966”,

“1967-1976”, and “1977-1986”. As it concerns the other four statuses, it is difficult to distinguish a certain tendency in belonging to cohorts and transitions.

However, the most recent birth cohort (“1977-1986”) is found in all four cases with different significance. If a LM training program is interrupted because of starting another LM training (status 03), it is obvious that the three latest entrance cohorts remain in a situation of “risk” with a higher probability (“1982-1991”,

“1992-2001” and “2002-2014”). The two earlier entrance cohorts are absent in this case (“1952-1961” and “1962-1971”). Significantly, interruption of LM training by other reasons is also typical for the two latest entrance cohorts (“1992-2001” and “2002-2014”).

Finally, the estimated hazard for the statuses concerning interruption of LM training because of exclusion essentially differs depending on reason. For example, the estimated hazard for the status 08 “Interrupted LMT: excluded, non-attendance” slightly changes during first 14-15 months of the observation period.

The cumulative failure comes to 5.4% at the end of the observation period (Table 25 in Appendix 8.4). On the contrary, the estimated hazard for the status 09

“Interrupted LMT: excluded, other reason” slightly changes during first 2-3 months of the observation period; after that, it instantly decreases to zero. The cumulative failure comes to 0.1% at the end of the observation period (Table 26 in Appendix 8.4).

The analysis of influence of gender on transitions from LM training by reason of exclusion (non-attendance or other reasons) shows that for both men and women, the cumulative failure remains almost the same. On the other hand, the cumulative failure for the status 09 is almost zero for both men and women. As it

concerns transitions from LM training by reason of exclusion (non-attendance, status 08), two educational levels are the most frequent (“short-cycle tertiary education” and “lower secondary education”). If exclusion from LM training program occurs for other reasons, the cumulative failure for the majority of educational groups is almost zero. Such groups as “primary education”, “lower secondary education”, “doctoral or equivalent”, and “not elsewhere classified”

are absent.

On the other hand, as it concerns interruption of LM training program by reason of exclusion (non-attendance, status 08), three birth cohorts are the most frequent ones in this case. They are “1957-1966”, “1967-1976”, and “1977-1986”. On the contrary, exclusion from a LM training program for other reasons occurs rarely; the cumulative failures are available for the birth cohorts “1947-1956”, “1957-1966”, and “1967-1976”. The two other cohorts (“1935-1946” and

“1977-1986”) are absent. Finally, if transition to another status occurs due to exclusion from LM training by reason of non-attendance (status 08), two entrance cohorts are the most frequent ones in this case (“1982-1991” and “1992-2001”).

As it concerns exclusion from LM training programs for other reasons, only two entrance cohorts “1972-1981” and “1982-1991” are the most frequent.

Conclusions

Labor market training is one of the most important mechanisms of adaptation and integration for immigrants into the labor market. The results of the analysis show that 85% of LM training periods are completed ones. At that, the socio-demographic characteristics of immigrants do not potentially contribute to more or, in contrast, less intensive participation in labor market training, as well as do not have influence upon the number of the labor market training periods.

On the other hand, a more detailed analysis of periods of labor market training and “transitions” to other statuses, as well as completion of labor market training or interruption because of job-placement or beginning new training, confirms that gender and educational level of immigrants, birth cohort, or time of first unemployment in Finland essentially differ from each other. It is obvious that secondary education potentially implies even faster adaptation of immigrants into the labor market. This is because immigrants with a lower level of education, hypothetically, more effectively complete labor market training in the form of longer programs, implying final attestation; they potentially more often interrupt labor market training because of job-placement matching a new qualification. On the other hand, immigrants with a higher level of education, hypothetically, more

quickly interrupt labor market training with the aim of starting new training programs.

Labor market training represents an important institution of integration into the labor market based on equal participation in it by immigrants, independent of their initial educational background, gender, belonging to a birth cohort, or previous experience in unemployment. However, a situation of completion or interruption of labor market training still remains a consequence of the influence of socio-demographic features of immigrants. Likewise, their situation is potentially conditioned by the period of economic and political development of Finland in which immigrants retrain and obtain new qualification.