Key Benefits:
Decision of 29 December 2008 laying down rules for the implementation of the participatory budget Act (participatory budget decision)
We Beatrix, at the grace of God, Queen of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, etc. etc. etc.
On the nomination of the Secretary of State for Social Affairs and Employment of 12 September 2008, No W&B/SFI/08/22818, done, on behalf of our Minister for Wons, Wisdom and Integration and the Secretary of State for Education, Culture and Science;
Having regard to Article 89 of the Constitution , the Articles 2, 4th and Fifth paragraph , 4, fourth member , and 15, 2nd member, of the Law participatory budget and the Articles 2.5.5, second and third paragraphs , and 2.5.10 of the Education and Vocational Education Act ;
Heard the Council of State (opinion of 25 September 2008);
Having regard to the further report of the Secretary of State for Social Affairs and Employment of 23 December 2008, No W&B/SFI/08/2771 co-released on behalf of Our Minister for Wons, Wijken and Integration and the State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science, J.M. van Bijsterveldt-Vliegenthart;
Have found good and understand:
For the purpose of this Decision:
Dual incivil service: 'Incivil service' which provides, for the purpose of active participation in Dutch society, for activities consistent with at least one part simultaneously with the acquisition of oral and written skills in the Dutch language and knowledge of Dutch society are carried out;
participatory budget: benefit of the college, as referred to in Article 2, first paragraph, of the Act ;
Law: Participatory Budget Act .
1 The part of the participatory budget a college receives from the total amount made available by Our Minister of Social Affairs and Employment for a participatory budget for all colleges is calculated according to the formula:
(a × (O W /OT W ) + (1-a) × (K W /TK W ()) × TB W
where:
a. a share of the total amount made available by Our Minister of Social Affairs and Employment for a participatory budget for all colleges that are objectively distributed, as included in Annex 1 of this Decision;
b. O W the distribution model, which is included in: Annex 1 of this Decision, certain weight of the municipality;
IP W is the total of the distribution model, which is included in the Annex 1 of this Decision, certain weights of all municipalities;
d. K W the benefit, for the purpose of Article 69, first paragraph, part a, of the Act of Work and Assistance As at 31 December 2008, for the calendar year 2003;
e. TK W is the total of the benefits referred to in Article 69, first paragraph, part a, of the Act of Work and Assistance As at 31 December 2008, for the calendar year 2003 for all municipalities;
f. TB W the amount is made available by our Minister of Social Affairs and Employment for a participatory budget for all colleges for the relevant calendar year.
2 If the distribution model, which is included in the Annex 1 of this Decision, certain weight of the municipality is negative for the purpose of applying the first paragraph, points (b) and (c) shall be zero.
3 Annually in the case of ministerial arrangements in respect of the distribution standards Annex 1 the number of years and the weights was determined by this Decision.
4 In the case of ministerial arrangements, detailed rules may be laid down for the application of this Article and of the distribution model, which is included in: Annex 1 to this Decision, in order to avoid unforeseen and undue distribution effects.
In the case of a change in the municipal classification or a border correction as specified in the General Rules Reclassification Act the data used to carry out the calculations under this Chapter shall be determined on the basis of a reasonable estimate of the state of that data as it would have been if the change was made to the date on which such data were They have already started to deal with.
1 If in a calendar year the participation budget has not been fully allocated to participation facilities, the college may reserve the unspent amount to up to 25% of the participatory budget allocated for that year to spend on participation provisions in the following calendar year.
2 If, in a calendar year, more than the participation budget has been allocated to participation facilities, the college may charge the more spent amount up to a maximum of 25% of the participation budget allocated for that year from the participatory budget for the subsequent calendar year.
3 For the year 2009, the percentages referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be as referred to in the first and second paragraphs. Article 13 of the Act 31.25.
Each month, on or about the 15th day of that month, a twelfth proportion of the participation budget fixed for that calendar year shall be paid.
This Decision shall enter into force with effect from 1 January 2009.
This decision is cited as: Decision participatory budget.
Charges and orders that this Decision will be placed in the Official Journal by means of the note of explanatory note accompanying it.
' s-Gravenhage, 29 December 2008
Beatrix
The Secretary of State for Social Affairs and Employment,
J. Klindma
EC ministers for Living, Wisdom and Integration,
E. E. van der Laan
The Secretary of State for Education, Culture and Science,
J. M. van Bijsterveldt-Vliegenthart
Issued the 30th December 2008The Minister of Justice,
E. M. H. Hirsch Ballin
The distribution of the amount for a participatory budget for all colleges raised by Our Minister of Social Affairs and Employment (SZW) consists of a number of steps. The most important step is the model used by the municipalities of Ow (see below). Article 2 ) shall be determined on the basis of which an increasing proportion of the available contribution from our Minister of SZW to the participation budget is allocated to rato over the municipalities.
The weights are determined on the basis of four distribution criteria each of which has its own parameter. Distribution standards and parameters are such that they are to a large extent compatible with the need for re-integration resources.
The diagram shows the distribution criteria and the source to which they are derived.
Distribution measure
Source
| 1. |
Number of recipients of assistance |
CBS |
| 2. |
Number of WW recipients |
CBS |
| 3. |
Labour force size |
CBS |
| 4. |
Low Skilled Labor Mismatch |
CBS |
Definition distribution criteria:
Number of recipients of assistance: number of households that at some point in the poll year are on the basis of the Act and assistance law (WWB) receives and is under 65 years of age or receives a benefit or income provision under the Law investing in young people (WE), the Income Provision of the elderly and partially unemployed unemployed workers (IOAW), the Law on income provision older and partly incapacitated self-employed workers (IOAZ) or the Decision to grant self-employment 2004 (Bbz 2004). One household only counts once. Households that have a mid-year break of the WWB benefit in the course of the measurement year are thus one household.
Number of WW recipients: the number of persons who, at some point in the case of the peillyear, receive a benefit on the basis of the Unemployment law (WW) receives. Again, the same applies: a person counts at most once. Persons who have received both a WW benefit and a WWB benefit during the measurement year are counted among the group of assistance recipients, and are thus excluded from the WW benefits category. Persons moving in the course of the measuring year from A to commune B and in both municipalities have received a WW benefit count towards rato the number of months the person is resident with an address in the municipality in the Basic registration persons had been registered. Persons who are not registered as resident in the basic registration persons do not count.
Number of working population: all persons aged 15 to 65 who work or want to work for more than 12 hours a week. This variable shall be counted as a three-year average.
Low-skilled labour quality mismatch: the size of the low-skilled labour force less the size of the low-skilled workforce. This variable shall be counted as a three-year average.
The standards are all of the files, which are being managed by the Central Statistics Office (CBS). The distribution characteristics number of WW and grant recipients are calculated by the CBS. The distribution characteristics of the labour force and the qualitative discrepancy are low-skilled work from the Labour Force Survey (EBB), and published by CBS for municipalities with more than 10,000 inhabitants on Statline. For municipalities with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants, the CBS provides the relevant data to SZW.
In the case of small municipalities, large outliers can be found in municipalities with less than 30,000 inhabitants, based on the weights of municipalities in the COROP area (the breakdown in COROP areas is at the beginning of the year). the 1970s drawn up by the then Coordinating Committee for Regional Research for the provision of statistical data for the purposes of regional economic policy.
For the determination of the number of municipalities with fewer than 30 000 inhabitants, the situation will determine on 1 January of the year preceding the year for which the college receives the share of the participatory budget.
The following two steps are distinguished in determining the weight of Ow that is given a municipality with less than 30,000 inhabitants:
1. municipalities with fewer than 30,000 inhabitants;
2. please calculate the weights according to the model for these municipalities:
a. For COROP areas with more than one municipality with less than 30,000 inhabitants, the weight of all municipalities with less than 30,000 inhabitants is determined, and this weight is then divided among the municipalities concerned in proportion to the total population of the population. number of recipients.
b. For COROP areas with only one municipality with less than 30,000 inhabitants, the weight of all municipalities in the COROP area is determined jointly, and the weight of that municipality with less than 30,000 inhabitants shall be determined according to the proportion of the population. number of recipients of assistance from this municipality in relation to the COROP area. The weight of municipalities with more than 30,000 inhabitants is adjusted to rato their weight for the difference between the model calculated weight of the municipality with less than 30,000 inhabitants and the weight that is this way. calculated.
The distribution of the amount made available by our Minister of SZW will be subject to a transitional arrangement for the years 2009 and 2010. The share of a municipality in the available part of the macro budget coming from our Minister of SZW is determined by a combination of the historical budget share in 2003 in the total grant made in that year on the basis of Article 18 of the Law enablement of jobseekers (WIW) and Article 13, first to third paragraphs, of the Decision on the flow and flow of electricity (ID) was available (K W /TK W ) and the distribution model. The part of the participatory budget a college receives from the total amount made available by Our Minister of SZW for a participatory budget for all colleges is calculated according to the formula (see Article 2 for explanatory notes):
(a × (O W /OT W ) + (1-a) × (K W /TK W ()) × TB W
The total municipal work budget 2003 consisted of five different budgets:
1. WIW-standard budgeting;
2. WIW-Declaration part of the service relationship;
3. WIW-declaration part of work experience places;
4. WIW Scholings & Activation Budget;
5. ID-budget.
The share for a municipality in 2003 is determined by the sum of these budgets for the municipality divided by the macro-budget available in 2003. For budgets 1, 4 and 5, this amounts to adding up the budgets allocated (budgets 1 and 4 are included in the budgets allocated after the fixing of the 2003 wage and price adjustment).
For budgets 2 and 3, a system is used to map out the macro-available declaration budget to municipalities. This is done as follows.
The budget share per municipality is calculated as follows. First, the quotient of the municipality's average number of realised WIW-employment in the year 2002 is determined as compared to the average number of nationally realised WIW-employment in the year 2002 (average of the year's Year on the basis of the statistical annex to the quarterly declarations). The allocation of the budget for the declaration part of the service is then equal to this quotient multiplied by the macro-budget declared part of WIW-service for the year 2003.
The budget share per municipality is calculated as follows. First, the quotient of the municipality's average number of realized WIW-work experience places in the year 2002 is determined as compared to the average number of nationally realised WIW-work experience places in the year 2002 (average position). in that year, on the basis of the statistical annex to the quarterly declarations). The budget allocation for the declaration part of work experience places is then equal to this quotient multiplied by the macro-budget declared part of the WIW-work experience places available for the year 2003.
Both of the budget shares calculated in the above manner have been added to the remaining share budgets to calculate the total budget of a municipality in 2003.
The weight of historical costs is gradually reduced in accordance with the table below. From 2011, the distribution of the amount made available by Our Minister of SZW for 100% will be determined by the distribution model.
Year
Historical cost weight (= 1-a in Article 2 )
Weight distribution model (= a in Article 2 )
| 2005 |
100% |
0% |
| 2006 |
83% |
17% |
| 2007 |
67% |
33% |
| 2008 |
50% |
50% |
| 2009 |
33% |
67% |
| 2010 |
17% |
83% |
| 2011 |
0% |
100% |
