This blog is based on an article in Social Policy and Society by Carla Petautschnig and Virpi Timonen. Click here to access the article.
The question of the implications of welfare benefits for the long-term unemployed has been an enduring policy issue. Activation policies have dominated this discussion, proposing to keep the unemployed actively engaged in making their way off welfare and back to work. For example, people are enrolled in intense job-seeking programmes and training and employability courses. Often, activation strategies are paired with conditions delimiting the reception of welfare benefits. The literature has been critical of the excruciating pressure these measures place upon people and the consequences on their wellbeing. The adverse impact of long-term unemployment on health and wellbeing has also been documented. Accordingly, unemployment and welfare recipiency are challenging and testing experiences.
In our article, we present findings from a qualitative study that explored the lived experience of participants in community placement schemes in Ireland. These schemes seek to activate the long-term unemployed in receipt of welfare benefits by requesting them to engage in work-related activities in voluntary community organisations. We interviewed sixteen men and fourteen women doing placement in positions such as groundskeeping worker, cleaner, secretary, charity shop sales assistant, and care assistant.
The notion of reciprocity is a core idea justifying the request to give ‘something’ in return for welfare benefits, translated into working for the community and demonstrating the will to work. At the same time, work-like schemes such as the ones we studied have been reported to benefit well-being and employability but have poor results in progressing people into employment. Interestingly, the literature has referred to these strategies as workfare volunteering, a term that captures its complex character.
More specifically, the Irish community placement schemes we studied present features that differentiate them from how they are usually implemented in other liberal welfare regimes. For example, the Irish schemes are less punitive when exercising conditionality and enjoy a strong relationship with the voluntary and community organisations sponsoring placements. The community ethos of these schemes has equipped them with a positive reputation among the public and political support.
The article explains how the experience of taking part in community placement fostered a process of regaining subjective wellbeing and prompted meaningful changes at a point in participants’ unemployment trajectories when their wellbeing was deteriorating rapidly. The findings revealed three central dimensions underpinning the process of regaining wellbeing.
The first dimension – ‘co-producing the placement position’ – revealed that placement supervisors established a relationship with participants less charged with obligation and threat of sanctions (which had characterised participants’ relationship with welfare officers) and more focused on persuading and gaining participants’ adherence. As a result, supervisors appeared more flexible and open to negotiating placement options connected to participants’ trajectories and interests. Recognising that placement options were often limited, participants felt they had participated in the decision rather than being compelled to accept it. These findings point to the less disciplinary approach adopted by these schemes.
Relatedly, the second dimension – ‘regaining a meaningful doing’– explained what the position meant for participants. The position was not trivial in that it involved not only the functions of a work-like environment (activities, routine, social interactions) but also tasks that made sense to their interests and singularity. For example, we found that women were motivated to take positions that involved a new field where they would challenge themselves to learn new skills. At the same time, older men preferred positions that resumed their previous employment trajectories and gave them a sense of continuity. In that regard, this dimension was significant in rebuilding confidence and self-esteem.
The third dimension – ‘helping others’ – explained how participants benefited from placement in a voluntary organisation. Being part of organisations that provide necessary services for the community meant being seen as a volunteer-like person, which helped participants distance themselves from the negative stereotype of the welfare recipient. This dimension emerged as significant in rebuilding a sense of self-worth and gaining personal reward. Our article discusses how these three intertwined dimensions created an empowering experience that helped participants regain self-esteem, confidence, and a sense of value.
To conclude, the article discusses some of the implications proposed by the findings. We argue that community placement activation schemes can be transformational spaces that benefit subjective wellbeing. The experience of placement, as the findings revealed, contributed to counterbalancing the detrimental effects of unemployment and conditional welfare recipiency and exhibited the potential to be a less directive and standardised experience of activation. The article argues that subjective wellbeing can be encouraged and supported when schemes like community placement offer a personalised approach that allows participants to express agency and singularity. However, we also state that community placement schemes present limitations that must be critically contemplated, including progression into employment and the risk of marginalising participants.
As we noted at the beginning, the question of the implications of welfare benefits for the long-term unemployed has been an enduring policy issue. This article argues that the predominance of activation and conditionality needs to be challenged and reconsidered in the context of recent discussions about the connections between paid/unpaid work, wellbeing, and social policies.
About the authors
Carla Petautschnig is Lecturer at Trinity College Dublin.
Virpi Timonen is Professor at the University of Helsinki.
The Social Policy Blog 