Welfare-to-Work Programmes make Denizens of the Youth

Extract from Alan France’s Essay Austerity and the ‘Workfare State’: The Remaking and Reconfiguration of Citizenship for the Young Unemployed in the Great Recession, which you can find in Chapter 13 of Neo-Liberalism and Austerity: The Moral Economies of Young Peoples Health Edited by Peter Kelly and Jo Pike

Snapshot

1. Welfare-to-work programmes such as Work for the Dole has become to go-to way to tackle the ‘problem’ of welfare dependency among young unemployed in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and USA.

2. Little evidence suggests that this is an effective way to get young people into the labour market.

3. Evidence does exist that these efforts are targeted at controlling, disciplining and regulating the poor. It is more effective at kicking people off benefits than making them work ready.

4. The real consequences of these programmes is unknown as statistics on these outcomes are either not kept or not made public (statistics released in the UK show that more than 80 deaths a month (see below) were occurring after people were declared “fit for work”). How people manage after being sanctioned and what they health outcomes might be seem little concern to those promoting these policies.

5. For those unable to be financially dependent, welfare-to-work policies create a form of citizenship that is different from those who are. They have less rights in practice. They are denizens.

6. While welfare-to-work programmes are framed as being reciprocal, young people on welfare-to-work have few benefits and rewards, but many responsibilities and obligations. If they fail these, they are punished and sanctioned.

Welfare-to-Work and Mortality Statistics in the UK

“A recent debate in the UK also highlights the lack of state knowledge about the personal consequences of sanctioning on the on participants’ well-being. The Conservative government initially refused to release figures on suicide rates of those participants had been sanctioned on the Work Programme. After sustained pressure from the press and the public, it did release mortality statistics that showed that between December 2011 and February 2014, more than 80 people a month were dying after being declared ‘fit for work’. The report also showed that 7200 claimants died after being put onto the programme.” (Alan France)

So before we proceed, try to keep in mind that young people are more prone to suicide and the effect of these polices in young peoples lives are very real. Try and have a little empathy when you consider these issues.

Youth Health and Citizenship Under Welfare-to-Work Programmes

“Over the past 30 year’s welfare-to-work programmes in countries such as the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the USA have become a ‘normal’ part of how social welfare for the young unemployed is constructed. The ‘workfare state’ is at the heart of the neo-liberal project and makes significant contributions to our understanding of citizenship for the young. As a response to the austerity agenda that has developed in the Great Recession, welfare-to-work has continued to expand it’s influence and has been used as a way of not only getting people back to work but to reduce the social benefits budget. Having to earn your benefits by being active is now accepted across most liberal nation states as the best way to tackle the ‘problem’ of dependency and worklessness among the young unemployed. Yet, little evidence exists to suggest that such programmes are effective in getting young people into the labour market. In fact, evidence suggests that most of these strategies are targeted at disciplining, regulating and controlling the poor and operate to show that the state is doing something about the ‘feckless’, the ‘work shy’, and the undeserving. The real consequences of these types of programmes remain unknown. Questions over how people manage financially when sanctioned or what impact of living under such stresses that such programmes promote remain of little concern to those who advocate such programmes.

For those who have been most affected by the GFC welfare-to-work policies create a form of citizenship that is significantly different from those who are working or are managing to cope.

Young people who are required to be on welfare-to-work programmes find themselves having few benefits and rewards, but significant responsibilities and obligations. If they are seen to fail these, they are sanctioned, punished and further stigmatized and problematized.

What we are therefore seeing, especially in the liberal economies of countries such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand, is the embedding, through the use of welfare-towork policies and practices, of a moral economy of unemployment that re-enforces individual responsibility and self-blame while also punishing those who are unable to access work (regardless of its quality and value). Yet, little is known about the impacts and consequences of this experience for the young unemployed. There remains a serious need for a more critical engagement with these policies and for more research on the impacts for those who are being ‘churned’ consistently through the system.” (Alan France)