Employability: the structuring concept for individualised almps for youth? Abstract

Source: Sirovátka 2007, Lindsay et al 2007, Theodore and Peck 2000

The case study: the Brussels region. Context and methodology

This section presents some preliminary results of an on-going research on employability policies in the Brussels region. The focus of the research has been limited to the Brussels region since Belgium presents a diversified and highly territorialised social assistance system. The research also involved the analysis of policy and evaluation documents and 8 interviews. The interviews were carried out with employees of the 6 CPAS⁴ in charge of the socio-professional integration service and/or social assistance service and in 2 cases also with the president ⁵of the CPAS, for a total of 8 interviews. An interview with a representative of the all CPAS in a Brussels-based representative association was also conducted.

The interviews were mostly focused on the role of CPAS implementing employability policies on youth transitions in Brussels, the use of policy tools to deal with local specificities and the formal and informal interactions of the institutions with other local organisations and federal/regional public authorities.

The analysis focuses on the broad (individualised) actions geared towards the activation of the young (18-25 years old) social benefit recipients put into place by the CPAS; some results are also taken from 2 interviews conducted with the Missions Locales with which CPAS are often collaborating.
Social assistance in Belgium⁶
The CPAS (Centre Public d’Aide Sociale – Public Centre for Public Aid) are founded and regulated by a federal law but are organised and managed at the local level (Communes - municipalities), which ensures it its implementation. In 2002, the law was replaced by the law on “droit à l’intégration sociale” (law for the social inclusion) (loi du 26 mai 2002). Dumont (2010) and other commentators (Kluwer 2007; Michel 2009) highlight that this new law clearly belongs to the will of moving towards an active welfare state. In 2004 the idea of activation was reinforced when the name of Public Centre for Social Aid (Centre Public d’aide sociale) was changed into Public Centre for Social Action (Centre Public d’Action Sociale).

The 2002 law was meant to prevent people from getting stuck into inactivity after receiving financial aid and to achieve social inclusion thanks to opportunities for socio-professional inclusion. The financial benefit (revenu d’intégration sociale-RIS) has been made conditional on the person’s availability in the labour market. The path towards social and professional inclusion counts different stages that can be adapted according to the person’s needs⁷ (ranging from the identification of obstacles to labour market to trainings, lack of basic skills or the integration in regular labour market through sheltered employment or federal programmes). The new 2002 law has drawn special attention not only on activation of benefits but also on young people aged between 18 and 25 years old⁸ mainly in two ways: allowing them to be entitled to social assistance while studying, promoting their social inclusion via the labour market (a job opportunity within the three months, loi 6 mai 2002) and by making the action plan compulsory for young people.

The action plan (PIIS: projet individualisé d’intégration sociale) is a contract between the recipient and the institution and it regulates the integration stages presented above and describes the concrete steps the individual has to take in order to favour his/her social and professional inclusion. The non-compliance with the action plan can be sanctioned with a reduction or suspension of the grant for maximum 1 month. While it is a public service thus compelled to equal treatment and no discrimination, the CPAS analyses every request individually and should adapt its action according to the personal situation. Based on the household means test, young people can receive financial support if they are Belgian or living in Belgium, being at least 18 and being available for work. The availability needs to be proved with the inscription of the beneficiary as job-seeker at the Public Employment Service, but s/he has also to show his/her commitment in the definition and implementation of the PIIS. Being the last safety net of social system, the aid given by the CPAS is meant to be multi-dimensional: the whole social situation is taken into account ranging from health, psychological and housing problems to education, training and employment. To summarise some main changes and features of this law recall the adoption of an active welfare state perspective, including: the introduction of a new individual right (right to social integration); the identification of a target group (young people) to be activated and closely accompanied toward employment; a stronger conditionality for benefit recipients sealed by the signature of a (mutually?) contractualised action plan⁹; the identification of the financial benefit not as right per se but as a means towards labour market integration; an increased responsabilisation of recipients in exchange of social inclusion (“insertion sociale” and “solidarité responsable”, Dumont 2010).

It is important to say that the CPAS act in the framework of the federal law but as no stringent guidelines are provided, the marge of manoeuvre is dependent on the local policy, and the extent of the socio-economic integration is defined according to the priority of the local policy and of the local committee¹⁰. The leeway granted to the CPAS in carrying out its mission - especially in assessing the availability in the labour market (Dumont 2010: 137) -gives to the organisation an important freedom in adapting the informational basis of judgement in justice (how individuals are evaluated) The evolution of the social assistance law together with the discretion of local bodies can result in multiple local practices: their judgements and their practices are rooted on the situated local level rather than on imposed administrative procedures (Farvaque 2002).

For this reason, we expect the CPAS interviewed to show different uses of their tools in implementing individualised practices for activating the social aid. These practices are believed to be informed by the similar (as they have the same legal framework) but not identical concepts of employability¹¹. We will ask: how do they make use of the information received to grant their help? How do they set up the relationship with the individual and with some other relevant actors? As Sen explains it (1999: 284) when discussing about the role and form of social arrangements, these aspects are indeed relevant: providing individuals with substantial freedoms needs the action of the state and the commitment of relevant public and private institutions (institutions involved/relationship with the labour market) because giving to the people capability of doing something and being means also making them responsible for their well-being (locus of responsibility).
Individualised practices of CPAS in the Brussels Capital Region
The rationale of the all 6 CPAS interviewed for helping young beneficiaries strongly stressed the reinforced orientation towards social integration achieved via the integration in the labour market, as strengthened by the 2002 law.
(when referring to young people not willing to take up training)…they want to work, but where?! The final aim remains a long-term job, and this is not what young people want…(CPAS1)

Ideally we would find them a job instead of just having to evaluate if they are genuinely involved in job-search and available for jobs.(CPAS 6)
While the rationale of getting a job is a privileged tool for social inclusion for youth, there are some important nuances can be spelt out especially concerning the role of socio-professional inclusion, it ranges from an enabling and autonomizing role of the labour-market oriented goal:

I don’t find the notion “socio-professional inclusion” appropriate, I would rather say social inclusion as there is also this embedded notion of acquisition of competences. Socio-professional inclusion is associated with an idea of straightforward integration in the labour market, while we actually try to follow the logic that “until when the person is able to defend her place in the labour market” (CPAS4)

To a more structuring intervention, mainly dealing with individual attitudes rather than competences and skills:

The fact of having worked under the art 60 (sheltered employment) for somebody at his/her first working experience it’s always an asset even if s/he is on unemployment benefits later on, because they had the chance to be structured, to have some rules, to get up in the morning…it is important for people who are completely not structured (CPAS1)
Being the last safety net, the CPAS has a broader vision of people’s situation and, in spite of aiming at employment, it first takes care of the social, personal, health family obstacles that might limit the construction of personal project of social inclusion. Regarding psychological problems (often reported for young people, namely lack of self-confidence, bad self-consideration), most of the CPAS refers that psychological support is provided either via financial support for medical consultation or thanks to ad-hoc internal services or external collaborations (with the third sector). The social assessment is the first contact the individual has with the CPAS, a social investigation can be conducted in order to see whether the person is entitled to the RIS. The discretion of social worker is found also at this very preliminary stage in getting access to the RIS. An interviewee explains:

…There are cases where young people ask to become autonomous¹², but after a social investigation at their parents’ house, we consider that this is not our job to contribute to the destruction of the family […]

The conception of individual
The concept of youth employability¹³, is strictly connected to the general idea CPAS have of their young public. Four main conceptions can be identified as more relevant in the 6 CPAS: the young person who has no working or school ethics, no motivation, who is does not willing to learn more in spite of a clear lack of qualification.

… there are quite a lot of youths that I think they find it more convenient to live at the margins of the society…(CPAS1)[…] When they come here what they want it is always the money..

…every social system implies some moral hazard in recipients, and we need to make a distinction (CPAS2)

This puts a strong accent put into a preliminary social “restructuring” and to a “pedagogical role of the work experience”

…we have to put them back into a daily routine, improve their self-image, get up in the morning…and it is not always easy because what they want it is the financial aid we provide, but finding a job it is not easy when you have some kind of resources, and when you do not have anything…so before finding a job there is quite some work for putting them back on track…[… ]And push them to trainings because they are low qualified and there are very few young people who want to take up trainings…
Another perspective looks at beneficiaries as instrumental to organisational goals: young people who are able to go back to work or obtaining qualifications are strongly seen as a good feedback for the CPAS actions. Individual performance becomes instrumental for the organisational performance. This recalls the “goal displacement conflict” raised by Lipsky (1980/2010) where the institution is asked to show a certain performance while, at the same time, guaranteeing that the individual receives adequate support.
[…individualised action plans with difficult youth] it is an extremely a long and arduous work but also extremely rewarding for social workers…these is the kind of success we can achieve in a small CPAS… (CPAS2)
Another perspective considers young people as weak due to an important lack of self-confidence. The transition to the labour market seems then mainly associated, and confused, with the transition into adulthood where the person is increasingly asked to be responsible for her/his decisions and choices.
[could you mention a particular feature of your young public?].

Lack of confidence. I have the impression that is the case for 9 out of 10 people.[…] they are scared of the world of labour..(CPAS3)
And they can adapt their service in order to tackle this problem in order to make people able to become autonomous.
We are going to train a social assistance on self-confidence and self-esteem; she will be able to teach it to people, because that’s really a problem (CPAS3)
A fourth trend sees young people mainly trapped into a system that fails to provide them with the necessary skills to enter the labour market and defend their place in the society.

[…we have found that] young people at the CPAS should be finishing their secondary education degree, but for various reasons they are late and they are still at school at 20/21 years old, and our objective is to allow these people to complete their studies otherwise they will be considered as low qualified and in the labour market they will be considered again as an under-class workforce. […] We are getting farther from the « work-first » logic and we ask ourselves which could be a « suitable employment ¹⁴» « suitable competences » and which people’s expectations are. (CPAS4)
The relationship with the individuals
Sen’s notion of capability embeds the conception of a relational society, where individual’s capabilities are the combination and interaction of individual-level capacities and the individual’s relative position vis-à-vis social structures (Smith and Seward 2009). Thanks to its local roots and a close relationship with individuals, the CPAS acknowledges and intervenes on the one hand on individual’s relative position, and particularly when social structure have an impact on young people’s opportunity for social and professional integration; and on the other hand directly on its perception of the individual’s intrinsic capabilities.
As the individual’s relative position, the CPAS provide some examples.

In one case the obstacle is represented by a ‘culture of dependency’ on benefits (Pohl and Walther 2007) and informal economic relationships that parents transmit to their children, thus failing to teach working ethics

[…]there are a lot of young people whose parents are unemployed, on disability allowances , on social benefits, and they manage it…their friends help them and they engage in undeclared work and these young people come to us. (CPAS1)

In another, definitely smaller and well-off municipality¹⁵, social assistants underlined that:

[…] there is a lot of pressure on youth from their families to enrol in university…parents highly value that and push them…(CPAS2)

These examples show that in both cases the CPAS takes into account social expectations and social opportunities of the local context and try to work on that when they esteem that they have a negative impact on their public. The first CPAS adopts a paternalistic (Mcdonald and Marston 2005) approach with a frequent use of sanctions almost in the attempt of replacing family role; while the second tries to reduce pressure on young people suggesting alternative paths for training. Another example is provided by CPAS 4 which underlines that the whole economic system has been devaluating vocational institutions, thus also denying opportunities for young people who do not choose university or general education. In order to respond to this failing social conversion factor (the recognition of a profession, the availability of certified training courses); the CPAS promotes and finances training courses organised by certified institutions.

Another example from CPAS 5

…People at the CPAS are victims of a failing state and the big chunk of our work , that is that we have to play with the rules …

The social context is indeed not insignificant when setting up employability policy; Caillaud and Zimmemann (2011) have in fact stressed the dependence and relativeness of the employability of the unemployed.

The use of tools
As for the CPAS perception of individual’s intrinsic capabilities to achieve a successful social and professional inclusion, the CPAS tries to identify those relevant pieces of information needed to shape the use of its (policy) tools.

In all the CPAS these selected information lead to the definition of the PIIS and steps to follow. All of them underline motivation, willingness together with pragmatic and feasible ideas for a workable professional/social project.

However these aspects are extremely difficult to properly assess and some CPAS have adopted a tool to better evaluate them: a commonly used tool is the ‘bilan socio-professionnel’ (socio-professional assessment) developed by some CPAS representatives, which is however adapted according to the social workers way of working and attitudes towards recipients:
...[the socio-professional assessment tool is]… 60 pages, so sometimes it is adapted and the some of them (job-counsellors) will start asking what they love or not love and what they have already done or sometimes is using a time line and ask them in 5 years…(CPAS6)
Nonetheless the attempt to better and equally respond to individual needs may also conduct to overemphasise the role of correct and “neutral” information. CPAS 4 describes its attempt to give a clear dimension to people’s situation. It seems to result in a contradictory result which gives less room to people’s declarations in favour of a more quantifiable information with the aim of fulfil personal aspirations.

…Here we were used to work with logic according to which people declared what they were, what wanted to do and then we looked at what happened. Now we need to leave this « declarative part » where it is the person who tells, and we need to enter a more objectificable field. We need to grasp thing that are measurable! (CPAS4)

The individual action plan together with sanctions are another important tool which social workers flexibly use in order to adapt their action on individuals:

It’s very complicated for the administrative aspect and takes long to fill it up and I just put very basic stuff: no actions or steps, because everything can change. And it is something that work, because I respect the law and put some very limited info but also it protects the individual and it can be used to sanction and this has positive effect on the person and the follow up is better afterwards. I don’t have many of them but when it happens the sanctions might work well. (CPAS6)


Limits of the individualisation: between resources constraints, political pressures and practices

The CPAS is mainly funded by the local power (municipality) and the Ministry for Social Inclusion. Other funding comes for instance from the Public Employment Service (thus the regional power) for job-coaching people who are receiving benefits from both institutions¹⁶, or from the European Social Fund. The strength of the CPAS is the flexibility of the legal framework that regulates its role: it gives enough room to shape services, start new partnerships, get involved in regional projects with other public institutions, or establish closer public-private relationships. This allows the CPAS to externalise some services while remaining involved in their delivery (this recalls the Pohl and Walther’s network life-planning, 2007).

This is particularly the case for the art. 60 regime (sheltered employment), where the most of the CPAS state that they try ensure that the employers who welcome the CPAS recipient (especially young people) provides guidance and follow up or training. If any complain is reported by the ‘leasing’ employer or the CPAS recipient, there is control done by the CPAS in order to verify working conditions.

However the CPAS have often reported some limitations to the flexibility of this highly exploited tool¹⁷. The choice of (sheltered) job position is negotiated yearly by the CPAS with well-established partners (mainly the municipality, public institutions, hospitals) and new ad hoc collaborations are rarely put into place. Besides, job positions require almost exclusively low qualifications (especially manual worker, waiters, and cleaning staff). Despite this limited choice, access sheltered employment is differently managed by the CPAS; this seems rather dependent on the conceptions of the CPAS mission towards its recipients as well as on the limited resources the institutions.

CPAS 1, adopting a rather paternalistic approach, stated regarding an art.60 job position with training option:

…it’s something that answers to a market shortages and it is indeed a very handy solution …it is almost luxury! And we tell them that! there is a selection of 8 people out of 15, and it is really a luxury package…

CPAS 2, strongly concentrated on the institutional performance, referred:

…and we thought that we needed to arrive to good results with people employed under the art.60 regime as they are our best ‘ambassadors’, and thus we have been highly selective and we got high success rates…

Scarce (economic and human) resources also push to a rationalisation of practices (Lipsky 1980/2010; Brodkin 2011)

…we are financed and we have to develop specific projects and we have partnerships for training, but unfortunately, they involve only few people…these trainings are often combined with sheltered employment and are really expensive…we cannot offer it to… (CPAS1) […] we have to make them (recipients) understand than it takes time, and they cannot waste our time…

On the contrary, Other CPAS reported that jobs under the art. 60 regime are normally reserved to less-qualified and less employable people who will find it very hard to get a regular job or are not able to conduct an autonomous job search. Opportunities are indeed distributed differently among publics.
Another example is access to regular studies that in some of the CPAS is reported as limited both in term of choice and age, thus often reshaping young people socio-professional projects.

… a training for becoming a beautician will never be accepted by the committee because it is a beautician…because it is risky, there are few employment opportunities…and it is self-employed. […] a bachelor’s degree will not be accepted either…(CPAS 6)

…once they have a qualification they have to go working, because we may think that someone who has a degree in social work and can easily get a job wants to continue with a bachelor’s degree and then a master’s degree…this is not acceptable. Once they can get a job with their qualification they have to go working and quit the CPAS. (CPAS1)

The choice is also limited in terms of type of vocational training they are able to get: trainings are generally found on professions that are have been considered as lacking and are more frequently organised by the third sector.

Another source of constraint comes from the local political power, which is very much present as it is part of the committee of the social action which is in charge of deciding where to grant the aid or not. Only a CPAS clearly reported these direct pressures, while others made reference to the good results to be justified to the municipality in preparation for this year local election.
…we feel the pressure that we need to put people back to work…this is the political will […], and we have to negotiate and justify why we think that a training is good for the person…(CPAS6)

To conclude it seems that looking at the implementation of employability programmes for young people on social assistance brings some insights on the actual individualisations of practices.

According to the grid above, data analysis shows that the main differences are in the conception of the individual and his/her objectives to aim at, which shapes the relationship between the individuals and the CPAS (from less to more paternalistic approach). The different use of evaluating tools is also highlighted: on the one hand people’s willingness and motivation are at the core of the evaluation and project determination (Crespo et al. 2009), on the other hand it’s the level of qualification and side effects of failing social institutions that is rather taken into account. The responsibility for a successful exit (be it the completion of a training course, a long-term employment or the (re)entitlement to unemployment benefits) is also differently shared between the institution and the individual: while lack of training and skills stress the importance of the public action in providing training opportunities, the focus on willingness and motivation strongly relies on individual intrinsic resources and responsibilities.

This implies a different perspective on the assessing criteria (informational basis of judgment in justice) as well as in the setting of rule for providing employment and training opportunities which can be seen as material and immaterial resources.

The choice of promoting full-time or short vocational education seems to differ among CPAS especially concerning the age limit and the type of school and the possibility of set up ad hoc partnership for new training courses. This not only hides a more or less intrinsic or functionalist idea of education (Saito 2003), but also limits the scope and the quality of individualised paths to socio-professional integration.

Furthermore the diverse use of sheltered working contracts shapes the provision of an institutional conversion factor which would allow young beneficiaries to convert immaterial resources (e.g. skilled possessed) into valuable working experience.

Moreover, the individualisation of the socio-professional inclusion of young people seems to be done not always starting from the person’s needs perspective but rather from people’s lack of competitiveness (Pohl and Walther 2007). Young people are, in different ways, helped towards the “absorption” of society rules and working ethics, their competences are built around market needs (‘these are trainings for professions where there is a shortage, that’s clear! CPAS 6). The individualisation of training and employment opportunities seems than rather based on macro-economic considerations rather than on an individual assessment (we would call it functional employability). On the other hand one could say that these trainings are more likely to give job opportunities later, thus more likely to make young people at least economically independent and then more likely to autonomously make their life-choice later on. However it seems still be fair to ask whether the individual’s aspirations and expectations are really taken into account when the individualised professional project is draft.

Far from being a fully developed analytical tool for analysing the idea of employability in social assistance policies, this article tried introduce a perspective on the actual implementation of policies via the analysis of the use of information and tools by street-level actors. This exercise has allowed spelling out some different uses of resources according to the perception of individuals that the CPAS privileged for young people activation. Further research on constrains and limitations to individualisation is indeed needed.