Activation work: a profession?

In answering this question, we find two approaches in the literature. The first approach is reflected in studies that use social work as the referential professional model for activation work. In these studies, the debate focuses on the issue whether activation policies are compatible with the professional standards of social work. In an interesting and, in this context, rather provocative article, Hasenfeld (Reference Hasenfeld1999) explored the prospects for the social work profession and raised the question whether a service orientation can be introduced into public welfare agencies that introduce employment or activation services in the context of US welfare-to-work policies. He described this service orientation as follows: ‘a) a belief system that ascribes high moral worth to the clients; b) a service technology that is individualised . . . and c) staff–client relations that are based on mutual trust’ (Hasenfeld, Reference Hasenfeld1999: 185). According to Hasenfeld (Reference Hasenfeld1999) the mandatory nature of welfare-to-work policies and the fact that these policies make welfare entitlements dependent on participation in activation programmes ‘compromises and corrupts’ the social service orientation. Firstly, the professional model that is required for providing social services such as activation is overshadowed by the bureaucratic work of monitoring and sanctioning clients in cases of non-compliance. Hasenfeld (Reference Hasenfeld1999) seems to attribute this to the fact that, in the US case, the functions of income maintenance and providing welfare-to-work services are integrated. But one can argue that the problem will persist when both functions are separated, as tensions between client-oriented service provision and sanctioning and monitoring processes are inherent to mandatory activation policies, and not merely the consequence of how the income maintenance and activation functions are organised (also see Hill, Reference Hill2006). Secondly, Hasenfeld (Reference Hasenfeld1999) argues that the mandatory nature of activation makes relations of mutual trust between frontline workers and clients hard to establish: ‘a social service orientation cannot flourish when embedded in a mandatory program’ (Hasenfeld, Reference Hasenfeld1999: 193). This argument resonates in several publications on activation work (e.g. Handler, Reference Handler, Henman and Fenger2006; Wright, Reference Wright2003; Thorén, Reference Thorén2008). Monitoring and sanctioning unemployed people are considered incompatible with a professional work (or, at least, social work) repertoire, which makes the prospects of the social work profession rather gloomy given the increasing emphasis in social policies on obligations, sanctions, reciprocity and individual responsibilities.

The educational and occupational backgrounds of frontline workers in welfare and benefit agencies vary across countries, so that the introduction of activation policies has had various consequences on ‘traditional’, pre-activation frontline work. In some countries, frontline workers used to be benefit administrators, in others they used to be social workers (who were sometimes also responsible for benefit administration tasks). Several studies elaborate upon the transformation of social work into activation work. Marston et al. (Reference Marston, Larsen and McDonald2005) compared frontline practices in Australia and Denmark and showed that activation affected social work in different ways in both countries. Danish activation workers have considerably more discretion than their Australian colleagues and draw on ‘a much thicker description of the “social” in their understanding of unemployment’ (Marston et al., Reference Marston, Larsen and McDonald2005: 154). The authors also pay attention to the use of sanctions (coercive authority) and find that contrary to Denmark, in Australia ‘the policy guidelines do not allow case managers to “use” coercive authority differentially for developmental reasons’ (Marston et al., Reference Marston, Larsen and McDonald2005: 150). This seems to indicate that the authors do not consider the use of sanctions as incompatible with a professional work ethos per se.

Recent developments in Danish activation policies have increased pressures on social workers (Jørgensen et al., Reference Jørgensen, Nørup and Baadsgaard2010) and reveal that the nature of ‘professional’ activation work and how it relates to ‘traditional’ social work are part of a political struggle. The discretion of activation workers has been reduced, activation work has become more standardised and the more holistic approach to the problems of unemployed people that Marston et al. (Reference Marston, Larsen and McDonald2005) saw as making Danish activation work distinct from Australian activation work is challenged. Against that background, Jørgensen et al. (Reference Jørgensen, Nørup and Baadsgaard2010) conclude that a de-professionalisation of activation work is taking place. At the same time, they point at re-professionalisation trends, for example as a consequence of the fact that activation workers increasingly collaborate with other actors in the context of service markets and networks. Processes of de-professionalisation and re-professionalisation of frontline work in the context of activation are also found in the Norwegian case (Kjørstad, Reference Kjørstad2005). On the one hand, similar concerns are expressed as were discussed by Hasenfeld (Reference Hasenfeld1999) concerning the possible corruption of the ethical norms of the social work profession as a consequence of activation. On the other hand, Kjørstad's (Reference Kjørstad2005) outlook on the prospects of the social work profession is not as gloomy as Hasenfeld's: ‘(o)ne of the great challenges for the practice of social work under the policy of workfare is being able to tackle several interconnected practices and rationalities simultaneously’ (Kjørstad, Reference Kjørstad2005: 395). In other words, de-professionalisation is not considered to be unavoidable, although, like Hasenfeld (Reference Hasenfeld1999), Kjørstad (Reference Kjørstad2005) considers the broader policy context of crucial importance in enabling activation workers to deal with ethical dilemmas.

The second approach in the literature looks at activation work as a ‘new’ profession. These studies argue that the development of this profession (substantially as well as institutionally) is still in its infancy. Taking a Freidsonite approach to professions (Freidson, Reference Freidson2001) as a starting point, several authors are critical about the professional status of activation work. Sainsbury (Reference Sainsbury2008), for example, argues that although British activation workers (‘personal advisers’) are expected to act in a professional way and have considerable room for discretionary decision making, their profession lacks several characteristics usually assigned to full professions. He argues that the professional status of activation workers should be strengthened by ‘(e)stablishing them as a profession, with accredited training and qualifications, a code of conduct and registration with a regulatory body responsible for maintaining professional standards’ (Sainsbury, Reference Sainsbury2008: 336). Along quite similar lines, Jørgensen et al. (Reference Jørgensen, Nørup and Baadsgaard2010) characterise Danish activation workers as pre-professionals. These workers often do not have appropriate training and education in activation work, no systematic knowledge is produced and no professional community exists. Van Berkel et al. (Reference Van Berkel, van der Aa and van Gestel2010), who typify Dutch activation workers as professionals without a profession, characterise the status of the activation profession in exactly the same way: there is no officially recognised body of knowledge to guide professional decision making, there are no vocational associations, there are no accredited training and education programmes. These authors argue that, in as far as activation workers are expected to act as professionals, some crucial conditions that should enable them to do so are lacking. It is argued that this jeopardises the transparency of activation workers’ use of professional autonomy and discretion (Van Berkel, Reference Van Berkel, Betzelt and Bothfeld2011; also see Fletcher, Reference Fletcher2011). For if it is not professional guidelines and standards that guide the use of discretion, then what does?

The mix of administrative and professional elements and the use of discretion

Most studies of activation work emphasise that administrative elements are inherent to this type of work, but scholars disagree when it comes to the issue of whether these administrative elements are incompatible with professional work or whether they are a characteristic of this specific type of professional work. Sainsbury (Reference Sainsbury2008) points at the tension that activation workers experience between the professional treatment and the bureaucratic rationality models that they are confronted with. In a similar way, Wright (Reference Wright, Henman and Fenger2006) characterised British activation workers as hybrid bureau-professionals. Again, some authors point specifically to the compulsory nature of activation and the use of sanctions as the source of bureaucratic, rule-bound elements in activation work. For example, Howard (Reference Howard, Henman and Fenger2006) discusses the tensions between Australian frontline workers’ roles of welfare policeman and caring, compassionate officer, and Sainsbury (Reference Sainsbury2008) argues that activation workers are required to reconcile the roles of bad cop and good cop in their work. As we saw in the above already, compulsion and sanctions are core issues in the debate concerning the nature of activation work. Whereas some authors consider compulsion and sanctions irreconcilable with professional work (cf. Hasenfeld, Reference Hasenfeld1999), others adopt a more qualified position on this issue (Marston et al., Reference Marston, Larsen and McDonald2005; Nybom, Reference Nybom2011). In a study of Dutch activation workers, it was found that some activation workers apply sanctions in a bureaucratic, rule-bound way, whereas others apply them – in as far as discretionary room allows them to – for, in the words of Marston et al. (Reference Marston, Larsen and McDonald2005), developmental reasons (Van der Aa, forthcoming).

The debate about the professional and administrative elements characterising activation work is also echoed in analyses of the room for discretionary decision making of activation workers, and of the decision-making rationalities underlying activation workers’ use of discretion. We can illustrate this by focusing on one of the tasks of activation workers: the assessment of clients and the resulting match of clients and activation services. Sainsbury (Reference Sainsbury2008) characterises the work of British activation workers as professional: these workers have a conversation with their clients in order to make a diagnosis (a concept he uses to underline similarities with the doctor–patient relationship) of their clients’ situations and work barriers, which results in an action plan. In his comparative study of activation workers in the US, Germany and Sweden, Jewell (Reference Jewell2007) distinguished two important dimensions structuring the nature of assessment and matching processes: the range of programme offerings available and the nature of worker–client contacts (short-term or longer-term). Jewell argues that when the range of programme offerings is extensive and workers are able to develop longer-term contacts with their clients, workers can be more responsive to clients’ needs than when offerings are limited and workers only have short-term contacts. Activation workers have more room for professional decision making when they can select from a wider range of services and when their contacts with clients are long-standing. Seen from this perspective, German and Swedish activation workers have more room for professional work than their US colleagues. Jewell's findings help to explain why US studies seem to emphasise the bureaucratic and administrative nature of activation work more strongly than European studies do.

Whether or not activation workers have something to choose when offering the unemployed activation services also depends on the criteria that define whether or not groups of clients have access to available services and programmes. When criteria are strict and unambiguous, activation work may become a lot more administrative (determining whether or not a client meets access criteria for programme participation) than when criteria are flexible, ambiguous or both. The UK case is illustrative in this context: various New Deal programmes for specific target groups were replaced by a flexible New Deal in order to enable the provision of more tailor-made services at the frontline (Wright, Reference Wright, van Berkel, de Graaf and Sirovatka2011). Potentially, this increases the room for frontline decision making and for a more personalised and professional approach in matching clients and services. Similar processes of deregulating or flexibilising activation took place in other countries as well, as was mentioned in the above.

Furthermore, the assessment process itself may involve more or less professional decision making. Several countries experimented with or introduced statistical profiling instruments (for example, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark; also see the next section) for assessing clients’ needs and guiding the process of matching clients and services. These instruments may serve varying purposes (Behncke et al., Reference Behncke, Frölich and Lechner2007b): they may provide information that supports activation workers in making a professional decision, but they may also be used as an instrument to reduce activation workers’ room for discretion and to make their work more rule-bound and administrative. In other words, the introduction of profiling instruments and other forms of work process standardisation in itself tells us little about the professional or administrative nature of activation work. Standardisation may take place in bureaucratic, administrative work settings as well as in professional work practices.

The organisational context and new public management

Public organisations involved in activating unemployed people are often proto-typical street-level bureaucracies, which are confronted with high caseloads and limited resources. Many authors (e.g., Jewell and Glaser, Reference Jewell and Glaser2006; Thorén, Reference Thorén2008; Morgen, Reference Morgen2001; Sainsbury, Reference Sainsbury2008; Brodkin, Reference Brodkin2011) consider high caseloads as an important if not crucial determinant of frontline workers’ practices. It may, for example, encourage them to adopt speed-over-need strategies (Brodkin, Reference Brodkin2011), prioritise quick employment placements rather than training or career shift services (Sainsbury, Reference Sainsbury2008), be more selective in deciding what clients will be served (Wright, Reference Wright, Henman and Fenger2006) or treat some clients in a professional, individualised way while others are served in a more administrative way and receive standardised services (Van Berkel et al., Reference Van Berkel, van der Aa and van Gestel2010). All these and similar strategies to cope with high caseloads are well known from the literature on street-level bureaucracies. In combination with a lack of time for clients and a lack of resources for adequate services, high caseloads make it hard for activation workers to work according to professional standards and provide personalised services, at least when they want to serve all their clients professionally.

Most activation work studies also agree that new public management styles of managing activation workers have a considerable impact. Brodkin (Reference Brodkin2011) shows how in a context of increased discretion, which theoretically could provide more room for professional activation work, the use of discretion may be seriously affected by performance management, which is often considered as one of the most outstanding new public management instruments. She argues that performance targets may help to realise certain policy objectives but may at the same time jeopardise objectives that are not counted – which brings her to the conclusion that the selection of targets is not a technical, but a political decision. Her article mentions several examples of how frontline workers focus on what is counted: numbers of programme referrals become more important than adequate referrals, and realising targets becomes more important than responding to unemployed people's needs. For the Australian case, McDonald and Marston (Reference McDonald and Marston2006) conclude that new public management curtailed professional autonomy, among others, by an increase in accountability procedures and by more narrow definitions of what are considered as ‘good outcomes’. In Denmark, new public management implied a shift from professional responsibility towards accountability, which increased the administrative workload of activation workers (Jørgensen et al., Reference Jørgensen, Nørup and Baadsgaard2010). Several authors point out that performance management may result in strategies where activation workers try to realise quick wins, by focusing their time and resources on people that are considered as easy to reintegrate into the labour market (Sainsbury, Reference Sainsbury2008; Van Berkel et al., Reference Van Berkel, van der Aa and van Gestel2010). This does not imply that new public management is always successfully implemented. Brodkin (Reference Brodkin2011) found activation workers who bent the rules for favourite clients; but she adds that these practices may not be without risk for workers. Some authors found instances where the impact of performance targets on activation work was relatively minor (Sandfort, Reference Sandfort2000; Lurie and Riccuci, Reference Lurie and Riccucci2003). Nevertheless, several authors conclude that new public management jeopardises professional activation work and influences the use of discretion by introducing an organisational logic (which some authors see as incompatible with the professional logic) in street-level decision making.

These studies show that organisational conditions may put professional activation work under pressure and may elicit administrative coping strategies among activation workers. In addition, they reveal that the dichotomy between administrative and professional work is made more complex as a consequence of the introduction of managerialism in public agencies. It is clear that specific forms of new public management challenge the professional use of discretion. But the literature is less univocal on the issue of whether this is true for new public management strategies generally.