Internal papers: The Federal Employment Agency wants to rebuild Hartz IV

The federal government is fighting for a redesign of Hartz IV - but at the Federal Employment Agency (BA) long ago own plans are in the drawer. They partly contradict the ideas with which the SPD initiated the current discussion.

At the head of the BA is also a social democrat: But Detlef Scheele and his authority have their very own view of the need for reform in the system through their practical experience. They do not think anything of an abolition. But Scheele has repeatedly emphasized that it makes sense, of course, to adapt a 15-year-old law to the circumstances on the job market.

Two internal working papers available to SPIEGEL make it clear what Scheele should have meant by that: A paper from January 2019 rates some central reform ideas in the current political debate, such as those raised by the SPD and the Greens. The second paper dates back to the year 2017 and was written far before the rekindled Hartz IV debate. In it, the BA summarizes where it sees itself as an urgent need for action in the system.

The proposals have it all: For example, the BA wants to defuse sanctions, simplify the system and pay people who have worked long hours, surcharges on their Hartz IV rate.

The most important positions of the BA at a glance:

No longer unemployment benefit I, but serve on Hartz IV

The BA clearly opposes a longer period of entitlement to unemployment benefit I based on the previous income. The current nature of the entitlement period, which is currently usually 12 months and up to 24 months for the elderly, is geared to the needs of the labor market, the paper said. A longer reference would contradict this principle. In fact, the BA's own research institute IAB has repeatedly referred to findings, according to which a longer entitlement to unemployment benefit I leads to an average longer unemployment: A part of those affected in the job search then obviously more time - and is in danger, only a worse or no job at all.

Thus, the Nuremberg Authority rejects a central point from the welfare state concept of the SPD, which has decided the party executive last Sunday. The Social Democrats' plans are to pay out the unemployment benefit I in future, usually for three years. Who is still unemployed and falls in Hartz IV, whose assets and apartment should not be touched for another two years. Thus, the SPD wants to prevent the hard crash especially for those who have paid decades into the unemployment insurance.

The BA also thinks it is right to take greater account of the life achievement of the unemployed - although in the Hartz IV system. In the working document, the Authority presents a proposal to pay longtime insured a premium on the standard rate. The amount of the premium would depend on the final net salary of the recipient and the duration of his employment. However, such a performance should, as the authority warns in the paper, not set any disincentives for early retirement, for example, and would in any case have to be financed by tax credits.

Defuse sanctions

The BA is strictly against a complete abolition of sanctions: "The Junktim between promoting and demanding must not be abandoned," it says in the current paper. Sanctions are not arbitrariness and punishment, they also did not fall "from the sky" and played in practice a much smaller role than in the public debate. The clientele in Hartz IV are "extremely heterogeneous": In addition to the majority of those who also participate without pressure, there is a minority that "motivated only by direct addressing" let improve their own situation.

However, the BA also calls for the much stricter sanction rules for under-25s to be abolished and never to cancel the money for the rent, otherwise homelessness threatens.

Less bureaucracy: more flat rates, fewer rule rates

The hitherto extremely small-scale regulations in the calculation of Hartz IV and the protective capacity should be significantly simplified according to the will of the BA. Thus, instead of a total of six different rule sets, there will only be two more: one higher for the first person in the household - and one lower for each additional person in the household, whether adult or child. These rule sets should be so high that the previously planned six additional requirements could be abolished, for example, for single parents or special nutrition.

Also for the housing and heating costs, the BA packages suggests: Which rent in a municipality is still appropriate, should in future simply be based on the housing benefit table. The authority proposes a fixed subsidy per square meter of living space for the heating costs.

Such simplifications would benefit both parties, argues the BA: The recipients could understand the notifications better and received significantly less. In the job centers much unnecessary and error-prone work was eliminated - which would also reduce the number of contradictions and complaints. It can also be accepted that the state has to spend more money overall, because the lump sums should be so high that nobody is worse off than before.

Promote qualification better

Here, the ideas of the BA coincide exactly with those of the SPD: unemployed, who do a vocational training or retraining, should get a financial bonus on the standard rate. So far, many are dropping out of their education to do a helper job - even if the poorly paid, they are still better off than with Hartz IV alone.

Like the SPD, the BA also demands that a qualification be promoted for three years instead of the previous two years. That would, the paper says, also be a remedy for the shortage of skilled workers in the health and social services.

Simplify internal administration

Currently, Hartz IV is a complicated entity that involves both the federal government and the states and local authorities - resulting in an over-abundant and sometimes dysfunctional internal administration that "deals with itself, rather than with those resources, to its needy clients help, "as the working paper from 2017 clearly states. Numerous proposals are made in the paper to simplify the budget rules significantly and, for example, to move funds between job centers as needed.

Sometimes the administrative rules also lead to massive disincentives. For example, in the so-called special programs, which go beyond what is actually provided for in the Social Code on measures - and for the federal and state loosen additional money. The job center staff, the BA noted, often felt "pressure" to "make these programs successful", which could lead to "suboptimal work on the core customer mission". In plain English: Sometimes it's not about finding the optimal measure for an unemployed - but the optimal unemployed for a measure.

Another example: so far successful job centers are financially downright punished. After all, where particularly many unemployed people were transferred, the budget will drop significantly the year after - because there are fewer customers. On the other hand, there is a separate bonus for job centers in regions where many Hartz IV recipients live. The BA demands that this so-called problem pressure indicator be abolished and prefer to give those job centers bonuses that set themselves particularly ambitious goals.