In the following, the sample of the interviewed trainers is described first. In the results section, the results of the trainer surveys are reported, divided into results that relate (1) to the specific training courses carried out and (2) to results that relate in general to the JOBS Program and its practical implementation. Additional figures to the results that relate to specific training courses carried out are included in the supplement to the article.

Sample characteristics (general)

Fourteen trainings were conducted between September 2021 and December 2022. All trainers participated in each online survey, resulting in 28 interviews. Six trainers conducted more than one training and were therefore interviewed multiple times. This results in 17 interviews that contain all responses and 11 interviews from the repeated surveys that only contain information on the most recently conducted trainings, but not on general questions e.g., on the training concept or on personal information (Table 1).

Table 1 Sample Characteristics

On average, respondents (n = 17) were 48.8 years old and 52.9% were men. They were generally well educated, with almost two-thirds having a higher education entrance qualification (64.7%). In line with the training concept, slightly more than half of the respondents were unemployed (52.9%).

Trainer workshop and JOBS Program training manual (general)

First, we interviewed the trainers (n = 17) about the trainer workshop. The majority of the trainers (n = 13) had after the workshop a clear idea of the theoretical content in terms of the underlying theoretical approaches as well as the teaching and learning methods and agreed (“rather” or “completely”) that they were aware of the objectives of the JOBS training. Also 14 trainers felt well prepared to put the specified training concept into practice (Fig. 1 in the supplementary material).

The free text answers show a more differentiated picture. We received eight responses on this topic. Most importantly, five times it was stated that more time should be spent on the trainer workshop, e.g.: “The workshop should run one day longer to be able to go into some topics in more depth”. One trainer suggested that at least the peer trainers should be better trained “[…] because for them the demands of running a course are already very high […]. I think a more intensive training of the peers (4–5 days) would be very helpful for this target group (strengthening self-confidence, building skills, better overview of the manual)”. Furthermore, it was suggested twice that the time constraints of the manual should not be strictly adhered to during the trainer workshop, and it was pointed out once that all exercises should be conducted and discussed during the trainer workshop at least once.

In addition, we asked the trainers about the content of the manual. All trainers (“rather” or “completely”) agreed that the content of the training manual contains everything needed to deliver the training. Besides this, 13 of the 17 interviewed trainers agreed (“rather” or “completely”) that the manual clearly explains how the training methods help the participants. However, six of the trainers rather disagreed that the manual’s content is easy to understand (Fig. 2 in the supplementary material).

In the free text responses, one trainer reported that the gender-sensitive language of the handouts had been difficult for participants to understand. Three responses referred to the timeliness of the manual: One trainer suggested that the manual should be “modernized” by including today’s online job-search options. Two further trainers argued along the same lines, writing e.g., that the “guideline for telephone applications is out of date”. One of those trainers went on to write that one should rather instruct how to use social media for job-search, how to create your own website with applicant profiles or applicant videos, e.g., with “story telling”. Other suggestions to improve the manual were to include a certificate of attendance as a handout that trainers could give to participants and that the frequently discussed aspect of “dealing with obstacles” should be worded differently so that it would be easier to find and collect solutions. Here, the problems would be often in the foreground.

We also asked the trainers about their opinion regarding the practical handling of the manual. Overall, the trainers seemed to be satisfied with the handling of the manual. Only two out of 17 trainers rather disagreed, that the manual is very helpful for carrying out the JOBS training (Fig. 3 in the supplementary material).

JOBS Program training (contents, implementation and effects) (general)Training contents

The trainers’ evaluation shows a high level of satisfaction with the training contents. For example only one trainer out of 17 rather disagreed that the training is useful for job-search and only one doubted that the training was suitable to improve the mental health of the participants (Fig. 4 in the supplementary material).

Overall, the trainers are relatively satisfied with the training content. However, some of them had different suggestions provided in the free text fields: One trainer suggested that more time should be allocated to identifying strengths and skills, as participants are “not used to […] being able to identify and name their resources as such […]”. The same trainer also suggested working out the everyday achievements of the unemployed, for example managing on a small budget, making sacrifices in order to make things possible for others, or dealing with crises. In addition, depending on the group composition, the “killer criterion” of single parenthood should be addressed, e.g., single parents’ organizational skills, their ability to work under pressure or taking on responsibility etc.

In addition, the topic of health was raised more frequently in the free text fields. For example, one trainer suggested paying more attention to the connection between health promotion, job search, stress management and social support. Another trainer advocated making participants more aware “[…] of their own health promotion, also with regard to future job prospects”. Three other responses stated that health was not visible enough as a topic, and one of those trainers went on to say that “[…] the connections between self-efficacy expectations and mental and physical health should be addressed more explicitly […]”. A sixth comment underscored this with the suggestion that the connection between unemployment and health should be better explained and that solutions should be developed based on the participants’ experiences.

Practical implementation

The training appears to have been designed to generate sustained interest among participants during the approximately five four-hour training days. For example, almost all trainers felt that both the methods (n = 17) and timing of the training (n = 16) were appropriate for maintaining participant interest. Furthermore, a large majority (n = 15) felt that the training was designed to allow the trainers to be responsive to the needs of the participants. In addition, it is again evident that the trainer composition targeted in the pilot launch of the JOBS Program was successful. Only one trainer could not clearly agree that the trainer tandems complemented each other well (Fig. 5 in the supplementary material).

Another aspect that is important for the practical implementation of the training is the time allocation for on-site implementation. Most of the trainers (n = 13) seem to be satisfied with the time allocated to conduct the training. On the other hand, four of the respondents disagreed or were undecided as to whether the time allocated was sufficient to adequately implement the training (Fig. 5 in the supplementary material).

This is consistent with free text comments: One trainer advocated for more time to conduct the training, especially if the educational differences within the groups are large and if there are language barriers. One trainer reported that participants wished “to extend the training to two weeks”. In addition to the total time allotted to complete the training, there were also comments about the timing of the single exercises. Two trainers reported that the time constraints for the exercises are sometimes calculated too tightly.

Trainer team composition

A large majority of the respondents (n = 16) preferred a team composition with two trainers, one of whom is a “professional trainer” (see above) together with a non-professional “peer trainer”. The second choice would be a team of two peer trainers (Fig. 6 in the supplementary material).

All the trainers were also asked to indicate whether they were able to work well with their tandem partners during the last training. Only one trainer (“rather”) disagreed that the cooperation was good. In all other surveys, the trainers (“rather” or “completely”) agreed that the cooperation between the trainers had gone well.

In the free text answers, it was indicated twice that the experience of having two trainers was beneficial to the trainers. One wrote that this way “[…] one of them could already see what task was coming next, while the other trainer presented the current task. This allowed the trainers to take a short mental break in between and then prepare for the next task”. One professional trainer reported a particularly good experience with a peer trainer, which underlines the importance of peer trainers in JOBS training: This peer trainer had a new job in prospect at the time of the training and thus also gained new motivation. The trainer wrote that through this experience of the peer trainer “[…] a very great transfer of motivation to the participants […]” could be observed.

On the other hand, the same professional trainer also reported that another peer trainer was demotivated by his own long-term unemployment during another training. During this training he doubted the solutions offered by the JOBS training and was therefore not always able to find his supporting role as a motivating trainer. The reporting professional trainer therefore suggested that it would be better to find peer trainers who are not affected by experiences of long-term unemployment. One peer trainer suggested that peer trainers should be involved in the planning and organization of the training as they know better the living conditions of the unemployed. It happened, for example, that training dates were set at the end of the month. According to the respondent, a peer trainer would have known that this could discourage unemployed people from attending the training because they would be more likely to spend the little money available at the end of the month on things other than tickets to the training site.

Trainers’ overall evaluation concerning content, implementation and effects

78.5% and 85.7% of the respondents were (“rather” or “very”) satisfied with the theoretical contents and its practical implementation, respectively (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Satisfaction with the theoretical teaching content and its practical implementation (n = 26)

Having a closer look on the trainers’ assessment concerning the benefits for the participants offers a more detailed picture. For example, all trainers (“rather” or “completely”) agreed that the training empowers and motivates participants to lift themselves out of unemployment. 15 out of the 17 trainers also believed that the training would help the participants to find a job and 13 were the opinion that it helps them to cope better with setbacks during job-search (Fig. 7 in the supplementary material).

People without jobs are often unaware of the connection between unemployment and health. For this reason, health topics are also addressed in the JOBS training in order to sensitize the participants to this issue. However, four out of the 17 interviewed trainers did not (“rather” or “completely”) agree that the actual training concept conveys the connections between health and job-search.

Training groups characteristics (individual training)

On average, the trainers reported that 6.3 participants appeared on the first day and 5.4 participants on the last day of the JOBS training, an average loss of 14.3%. The trainers found the group sizes to be good: In 78.6% of all responses (n = 28), they (“rather” or “completely”) agreed that the group size was “just right”. This is also confirmed by a qualitative free text response where one trainer wrote “Groups of up to nine people are ideal […]”.

In all 28 responses, the trainers (“rather” or “completely”) agreed that the participants got involved in the exercises and actively participated in the training (100.0%). In 89.3% of the responses the trainers (“rather” or “completely”) agreed that the participant groups were mixed in terms of various characteristics such as age, sex, migration background and length of unemployment and that the participants were well prepared for the JOBS training (e.g., through the information event, information from employees of the employment agency/job center, flyers, etc.) so that they could easily participate in the training (82.1%; Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

Trainer’s opinion about the characteristics and behaviors of the participants (n = 28)

Training conditions and the on-site organization (individual training)

Overall, the trainers were very satisfied with the general conditions on-site. All respondents (“rather” or “completely”) agreed that they were satisfied with the on-site coordination (100.0%). 96.4% of the respondents (“rather” or “completely”) agreed that they were satisfied with the cooperation with the organizer’s employees, with the room equipment (such as tables and chairs), with the training room size as well as with the environmental conditions in the training room (e.g., temperature, ventilation, lighting, noise). A large majority were also satisfied with the amount of training materials (e.g., flip charts, pens, tape, etc.; 89.3%) as well as with the beverages and snacks (e.g., candy, cookies, etc.) (75.0%) provided (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

Satisfaction with the training conditions and the organization during on-site implementation of the JOBS training (n = 28)

Despite the good overall results, there were also suggestions for improvement in the free texts: A trainer wrote that it would have been “[…] desirable if they had got materials such as binders, writing pads and pens available to the participants. This would be an effective sign of appreciation. So we, as trainers, bought these materials from our private fortune”. Two trainers suggested that the organizer should provide more drinks and biscuits and it was once stated that more material such as flip charts would be good.

Corona infection protection measures

In 23 of the 28 responses, it was indicated that infection control measures were mandatory during training (In 11 of the 14 trainings [78.6%]). In nine of these 23 responses, the trainers (“rather” or “completely”) agreed that the infection control measures affected the implementation of the trainings (39.1%).

In the free text answers in this regard, it was stated nine times that the masks had impeded communication. This related to speaking and facial expressions as well as understanding spoken content. Furthermore, it was reported twice each that the training room became too cold due to the ventilation and that certain exercises could not be carried out due to the infection control measures. Additionally, the exercises needed more time to maintain personal distance, but it was not always easy for the trainers to implement all the measures. One wrote: “[We] did ask the participants to pay attention to spacing, but it was not always respected”.

Comprehensibility of the training contents and its stimulation for cooperation (individual training)

In line with the results above, the trainers also (“rather” or “completely”) agreed that the active teaching/learning methods stimulated the exchange among the participants (100.0%). Overall, the trainers assessed that the training documents and contents were understandable and the latter also interesting for the participants. However, it seems the training content was better understandable than the training documents (i.e. primarily the worksheets that are part of the training manual) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

Trainer’s impression of the comprehensibility of training documents, content and active participation at each training (n = 28)

JOBS program core elements (individual training)Referent power

The trainers felt, they were able to generate a high level of referent power during the trainings. The mean sum-score for all five items was 19.11 (median = 20) out of a maximum of 20 possible points. In four out of five Items considered here to represent the referent power, in all 28 responses the trainers (“rather” or “completely”) agreed that the addressed aspect was fulfilled. Only concerning the statement “The participants listened to us attentively and persistently”, one trainer was undecided once (Fig. 5). There were no associations between socio-demographic variables and the referent power sum-score.

Fig. 5

Items representing basic elements of referent power used to create a referent power sum-score (n = 28)

Social support

The results of the single items show that, from the trainers’ point of view, it was possible to create a situation of social support. The trainers had the impression that the participants not only worked well together in the group exercises and role-plays, but also showed personal interest in each other and exchanged ideas, even beyond the training sessions during the breaks (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6

Items of dimensions of social support during the JOBS Program training (n = 28)

The social support sum-score with a mean of 24 points (median = 24) out of a maximum of 28 points achievable shows that the trainers rated the level of social support as high. There were no associations between socio-demographic variables and the social support sum-score.

Job-search specific and general self-efficacy

Most of the trainers reported that the training resulted in a high level of job-search specific self-efficacy expectations among the participants (Fig. 7). The total score for those three items was 10.4 (median = 11) out of a maximum of 12 possible points. There were no associations between socio-demographic variables and the job-search specific self-efficacy expectations sum-score.

Fig. 7

Participants’ job-search specific self-efficacy expectations with respect to actual coping abilities, appropriate coping strategies and inoculation against setbacks during job-search (n = 28; no trainer [rather or completely] disagreed)

An additional qualitative statement in the survey that directly related to participants’ job-search specific self-efficacy expectations and self-confidence (“Through the training, participants gained greater self-confidence/higher self-efficacy expectations for job search”) was largely confirmed: in 27 out of 28 responses (96.4%), the trainers (“rather” or “completely”) agreed that the participants were able to increase their job-search specific self-efficacy as well as their self-confidence through the training.

A similar positive picture can be seen when looking at Fig. 8. The majority believed that the training contributed also to an increased level of general self-efficacy. For instance, in only one out of 28 responses, a trainer rather disagreed that the training has created or strengthened the participants’ belief that they can rely on their own abilities in difficult situations.

Fig. 8

Participants’ general self-efficacy expectations with respect to actual coping abilities (n = 28; no trainer completely disagreed)

The general self-efficacy expectations sum-score with an average of 9.7 (median = 9.5) out of a maximum of 12 points achievable indicate that the trainers believe that the training had a positive influence on the level of general self-efficacy expectations as high among the participants. There were no associations with the socio-demographic variables age, sex, and highest level of education. However, despite the small sample size, we found a statistically significant association between the trainers’ assessment of the level of participants’ general self-efficacy expectations and the trainers’ employment status. The mean value estimated by the peer trainers was higher than the value estimated by the professional trainers (9.9 vs. 8.5 points; p = 0.027).

Overall evaluation of the last training session (individual training)

The average overall rating was 3.57 (median = 4). In only three (10.7%) of 28 responses, trainers were unsure whether the last training session was a success or not. All other responses (89.3%) clearly reflect a very positive résumé (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9

Overall success from the trainers‘ point of view (in %; n = 28; no trainer rated the last training as [rather] a failure)

Organizer evaluation

We also interviewed the on-site training organizers. Participation was voluntarily and anonymous. Four Job centers and one educational institution rated the practical implementation of the JOBS program as a success. Two organizers reported difficulties due to the infection control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a lack of participants because of the fear of infection, ban on participation for non-vaccinated persons, distance rules that hampered the training conduction etc. One organizer reported that short-term peer trainer cancellations hampered the participant recruitment.

Another point of criticism concerns the cooperation with the BZgA: One organizer did not feel sufficiently supported in the implementation of the training and criticized the high administrative effort of the cooperation as well as “[…] the difficult accessibility by telephone, the constantly changing contact persons and the poor flow of information”. Two other organizers also complained about the high bureaucratic effort and the poor flow of information.” One organizer indicated that better implementation of the training would require more lead time. In addition, this organizer suggested producing a video for the JOBS program Germany, which could be helpful in recruiting participants.