Print

Summary

Flora is a Belgian network of organisations that work with low skilled women (and men). Founded in 1993 Flora has grown with the support of the European Social Fund into a centre of expertise on the intersection of equal opportunities, social inclusion and sustainability. In the context of mainstream ‘activation’ politics the organisations operate within a linear socio-economic framework that considers ‘performance’ in terms of acquiring labour market-oriented qualifications as prerequisite for social inclusion. Paradoxically this puts the organisations under pressure to leave out the most vulnerable persons, thus reproducing social exclusion. As a network Flora offers them a platform for exchange, capacity building and political action within a multilevel approach. It does so by working on the basis of a particular methodology and theoretical framework that were developed via action research with the target group. We will explain from a systems theory view how this kind of networking can contribute to more sustainable solutions for social exclusion.

1. Introductory remarks

In this contribution we will try to outline what – from an NGO or civil society perspective – can be done to break the cycle of disadvantage with low schooled adults. The perspective we represent here, is that of the Belgian NGO Flora. Flora in fact is a network of organisations situated in the three regions of Belgium, active in the social and professional integration of low schooled women (and men). The member organisations are very diverse in terms of setting, operational model, method or target group, therefore we prefer to speak of the ‘landscape’ of social and professional integration, rather than of the ‘sector’. The network Flora was established in 1993 by a small group of organisations as a platform for reflection and exchange. Today we are an open network at the service of as many organisations as possible.

With the support of the European Social Fund and Belgian public funds, we have been able to conduct several long-term innovation projects that allowed us to develop a specific expertise on the intersection of equal opportunities, social sustainability and the fight against exclusion. In collaboration with the member organisations and their target groups we develop knowledge and tools, and set up common actions. Flora has become both a network and a centre of expertise, or rather, an NGO that builds expertise through networking and cooperation between organisations in the field.

The mission of Flora is to fight poverty through a multi-level approach, strengthening the capacities of the women (and men) in poverty (micro level), as well as those of the organisations (in social and private profit) that work with them (meso level) and influencing political and socio-economic structures (macro level) with a view to increasing social inclusion.

The strategic objectives of Flora are

1. to offer low schooled women (and men) a forum, give visibility to their experieces and needs and make their voices heard in the public sphere;
2. to develop expertise concerning social sustainability, equal opportunities and the eradication of exclusion;
3. to maintain a dynamic network as a pool of expertise for doing action research; since our method of building expertise is based upon co-construction and participation, we need a diverse group of organisations ‘in the field’ as crucial partners;
4. to be at the service of all organisations (public as well as private) that work with low schooled people (through training, consulting or other actions); 5. to ‘mainstream’ or ‘institutionalise’ the knowledge and practice we develop in the wider political, social, economic and academic world.

On the basis of 15 years of action research and co-construction, Flora has developed with the partners and their target groups an analytical framework which allows us to deconstruct several social issues in terms of sustainability, equal opportunities and fighting poverty. We call this the ‘five types of work integration (or ‘institutionalisation’ in the long run) model’ (5-TWIN).

This model meanwhile has been applied to (and tested upon) different themes, such as
  pensions for poorly schooled women; ageing and poverty;
  sustainability of jobs in the home cleaning sector;
  citizenship and cultural participation of low schooled women;
  policies in support of single mothers;
  the information divide
  elderly care for low schooled immigrants in Brussels…

2. The cycle of disadvantage: systemic analysis of the causes of exclusion.

2.1. Context

All the Flora member organisations have the inclusion of low schooled adults (mainly women) as their aim. Some of them are recognised as ‘social economy enterprises’ and receive government funds to help ‘less productive’ adults become better prepared for the labour market. These funds are often presented as a ‘compensation for the loss of productivity’; as the productivity of the workers is deemed to increase as a result of the training and coaching they receive (individual capacity building), these subsidies diminish over time. Other organisations receive subsidies to provide training and coaching, also called ‘trajectories towards work’ for low schooled unemployed persons. The government employment service ‘subcontracts’ tenders of those trajectories to organisations that are judged to be the most competitive, i.e. best able to make the unemployed ‘move up’ to the regular labour market at the lowest cost. This system mainly approaches the problem of fighting exclusion in terms of monetary cost and profit, and so is organised mainly with a view to efficiency, and it approaches the people in poverty via individual trajectories (left side of the 5-TWIN figure).

The focus on efficiency is a consequence of the competition for the tenders (which the organisations need in order to survive financially). Working efficiently implies working in a linear way towards labour market qualifications without ‘losing time’ on activities that are only indirectly related to this aim, or that focus on broader social inclusion and empowerment themes. Therefore, the organisations (have to) organise themselves in terms of streamlining and hierarchy:

  in terms of activities: only those staff interventions that are directly related to labour market qualifications are subsidized. For other activities aiming at the empowerment or participation of their target group, the organisations have to find funds in other ministries, but since this is not their core business, few have the means (time, money, staff competencies) to do so. So, all actions that cannot be ‘streamlined’ into the linear, ‘single focus’ process, are seen as a hindrance or obstacle, and receive less attention and effort or are actively avoided.

  In terms of people: only the capacities that have direct links with labour market qualifications are recognised and valorised. People can be ‘ranked’ in terms of their ‘distance from the labour market’, and of course, ‘the closer the better’ (implying a hierarchy or competition even among the low schooled people themselves). Every individual gets maximum opportunities to follow a trajectory that helps him/her to get as close to the model (productive) worker as possible, reinforcing individualism and competition among them.

2.2. Problem

Given this ‘mainstream’ frame of reference (or ‘paradigm’) for fighting exclusion, (from a micro-economic logic) the organisations are hard pressed to become ‘efficient’ themselves. Paradoxically, this puts them under pressure to exclude the most vulnerable people from their range of action. With those ‘far removed from the labour market’ it is very difficult to make them ‘move up’ with little investment of time and cost. Organisations that work with these groups are e.g. in a much weaker position to ‘compete’ for tenders than those that work with more skilled groups. Even though all social economy organisations (in order to be officially recognised) have to have as their mission the fight against exclusion (social work), paradoxically they find they risk reproducing that very same exclusion. In other words, they feel that there is a contrast between the micro-economic logic that is imposed upon them and the ‘social’ logic that defines their mission.

In order to create a space where the ‘social’ surplus value can remain present and can be developed, Flora offers them a ‘forum’, a ‘public space’ that transcends the micro-economic level and helps them to find the balance between the demands of the government and the labour market on the one hand and the needs of the most vulnerable people (and of democracy) on the other. Too often this ‘tension’ is only felt by the social workers, trainers and coaches within the organisations; they carry the double burden of meeting the requirements ‘from above’ and being sensitive to the needs ‘from below’. This often leads to burnout and turnover among those workers. The fact that Flora gives them a space where they can share their experiences, learn from each other and get recognition for the real complexity of their work often is a revelation and a real support to them. (in terms of 5-TWIN : social work and self work in balance with productive work).

The dominant monetary economic logic puts organisations at the risk of reproducing exclusion, mainly of people who are confronted with multiple grounds for exclusion (on the basis of sex, schooling, ethnicity, single parenthood [care work]…). A consequence of this is that European and government funds are more easily spent on the people who are closer to the labour market (the ‘stronger’ ones) at the expense of the more vulnerable persons; the most excluded, in other words, also lose the competition for government support.

This phenomenon, in which those who already have, receive more, while those who have less, receive even less, has been described as the ‘Matthew effect’ (after the evangelist). This Matthew effect, the deepening of the divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ in this world, in spite of many years of fighting poverty and exclusion, keeps manifesting itself in many domains. Poor families appear to have less access to child care, are more vulnerable in the economic crisis, etc. In order to break the cycle of disadvantage, one has to understand the mechanisms behind this Matthew-effect. Otherwise the efforts of the government and the organisations will not result in sustainable social change, but may remain powerless against social exclusion. Using systems analysis we can shed a light on the mechanisms behind this phenomenon.

2.3. Systemic analysis

The landscape of socio-economic integration can be considered as a system. Systems theory has studied the ‘sustainability’ of different systems (nervous system, electricity grids, ecological systems, …) and has found that it is dependent on two parameters.

Sustainability depends on a balance between efficiency (streamlining, linear and hierarchical processes) on the one hand, and resilience on the other. Our analysis, and that of many other authors, is that our economic system is not sustainable because the focus is almost exclusively on the efficiency parameter. This in turn has to do with our money system, that has become the single most important way of valorising resources (material, time, work, capacities…). It leads to ‘streamlining’ (only those activities or assets that increase or save money, are valued) and to hierarchy (having more is better, maximising profit becomes an aim in itself).

Source: Ulanowicz, Goerner, Lietaer & Gomez. (2009) Quantifying sustainability: Resilience, efficiency and the return of information theory. Ecological Complexity 6 nr. 1, 27-36.

The negative effect of this single focus on monetary ‘efficiency’ on ecological sustainability has become obvious is now a matter of public and political interest. Biodiversity is threatened, and our economies are vulnerable because they depend too much on a single source of energy (oil, which unlike sun or wind or waves can be ‘sold’ and thus becomes dominant – monopoly). This makes us vulnerable, because we have no resilience in case of a crisis. The same has become clear in terms of economic sustainability, where the pressure for ‘efficiency’ has lead to streamlining and hierarchical struggle (or monopoly) of currencies and financial institutions; if one bank in the USA crashes, the effects are felt in the rest of the world; there is little resilience to overcome this ‘shock’.

3. Strengthening resilience for social sustainability

3.1. How to define ‘resilience’ ?

So, in order to increase sustainability (be it economic, ecological or social), we should strengthen the resilience of systems and bring that in balance with efficiency. Resilience is a property of systems that depends on two parameters. Firstly, it depends on diversity. Diversity differs from fragmentation in that there is a relative difference but also a relative connectedness between the elements. Think of a monoculture forestry exploitation that grows only oaks. If a disease kills the oaks, the enterprise crashes. The exploitation can only be sustained if there are other trees and plants (e.g. beech or chestnut to sell as ‘back-up’). At the same time, micro-organisms connected to these plants can help to restore the biological balance and make the system ‘bounce up’ again. On the other hand, in order to be sustainable, the exploitation should not become a virgin forest, where finding oaks can only be done at large costs. A balance between efficiency and resilience is essential for a sustainable business.

The question of course is: how to conceive this ‘resilience’ in terms of social exclusion? The view Flora puts to the fore and has tested in different fields, is that resilience can be reinforced by bringing productive work back in balance with other kinds of work, or other ‘roles and functions’ a society needs to function well for all its citizens. As I have explained, the dominant focus on productive labour and the fact that this labour is almost exclusively valorised in terms of bank money which leads to individualisation (competition), has caused the balance to shift towards the ‘efficiency’ pole of the curve of sustainability. Restoring the balance means that we want to stay away from the opposition between ‘the economic’ and ‘the social’ as if these are two irreconcilable ways of structuring the functioning of society.

Rather, we set up projects in which the women (and men) of our target group are encouraged to find and hold on to a paid job, and we do so (paradoxically) by taking the other types of work as a starting point. In the context of our liberal economies, mainly the ‘social work’ has been seriously neglected, if not damaged (social exclusion being a symptom of this). In the predominant socio-economic logic, the emphasis is on productive work and competition. This, as is well known, has led to an individualisation, in which individuals are approached as economic units that must be made capable of competing in the labour market.

This, as I have shown, is the source of exclusion of the weakest. Solutions like the ‘activation’ of unemployed, though they certainly have their merits, remain in the logic of efficiency, streamlining and hierarchy (with people who are ‘in’ and those who are ‘out’); even though strengthening the individual’s productive capacities is an important part in fighting exclusion, it should not be the single focus, for in that case it would just be ‘more of the same’, it would try to fix the problem by the very means of that caused it in the first place, and thus does not really contribute to diversity, connection and resilience.

Poverty is a symptom of a society in crisis, and we need the resiliency to bounce up again and become socially sustainable. Even the National Plan Office of Belgium has now shown that statistically there is no link between the economic success or employment rate on the one hand and poverty rates on the other. So, productivity (the single focus on the aim of productive work) and activation (single focus on self work with a view to productivity) does not restore the social balance and does not suffice for a ‘caring’ society.

3.2. How to bring this into practice: an example

In order to show how we set about restoring the balance between the different types of work, and especially putting the social dimension of work back into the picture, I will give a short outline of one of our current projects, which is called ‘From I to We’. This project has developed a methodology in order to increase the citizenship of women in poverty (many of them immigrants).

We approach them in a member organisation where they work. I will give the example of an ironing shop that employs about 10 people who had been unemployed for a long time. The women work individually, without much interaction with their colleagues. Earlier efforts to organise team meetings had been abandoned because tensions and conflicts used to disrupt the meetings (lack of efficiency). Sometimes specific training sessions are organised, provided there is not too much work to be done. So the focus of the organisation is mainly on self work (strengthening individual work skills) and productive work (efficiency). At the start of the Flora-project, some of the women did not feel the need for integrating the other types of work.

The ‘from I to We’ project offered them the following trajectory:
 Getting to know yourself and the other (via individual and collective creations and exchange)
 Defining what they have in common as a group (photo-language and discussion)
 Formulating ideas about themes and actions for the group
 choosing a trajectory (e.g. setting up an action or finding information)
 Group work aiming at a sustainable result
 realisation, evaluation and sharing in a wider (Flora) network

These women chose to do a group action, allowing them to discover a place in Belgium and do something they would not normally do in their private lives (due to lack of time, money or motivation within the family). They chose to visit a tropical bird park. Even though the costs of transport and entry were carried by Flora and thus represented a ‘one of’ excursion, they had to make sure that the excursion and the process that led to this action, was something that could keep its value for the team in the long run.

Therefore, the group decided
1° - to create a ‘road book’ for the realisation of any project (even without the support of Flora);
2° - to relax and entertain themselves by means of energizers or relaxing exercises during the breaks;
3° - to ‘immortalise’ the action by means of an exhibition of photo’s in the ironing shop.

Later (on October 8), these women will also be offered the opportunity to meet other similar groups and to exchange about their project and the trajectory they followed at the occasion of a ‘forum’ that Flora will offer them (in line with the WMW) in the African Museum of Tervuren.

The project these women designed has also had other, already tangible effects:

  the team meetings were reintroduced (social work)
  a greater concern for well-being during the breaks remained (music, physical exercises…)
  a stronger recognition of the importance of taking care of oneself (self work) and the group (social work) as essential dimensions on the work floor;
  increased respect for colleagues and consideration for their limits
  caring for the sustainability of the work (and on the workplace) via an annual workers’ party, reactivating a charter on ‘life on the work floor’, stronger identification of (and with) the “enterprise culture” (i.e. involvement of the women in the mission of the enterprise), and the establishment of a system of a spokeswomen;
  increased motivation of the team (and thus better ‘productive’ work)

So, through a very concrete collective project, the whole team of the ironing shop (both workers and management) became aware of the importance of the dimensions of self work (education for participation), care work (energizers and relaxing exercises) and social work (team spirit and involvement) for a greater well-being on the job. This recognition has increased their motivation to come to work (the useful is linked with the pleasurable) and goes together with a stronger recognition of every person as a whole and in their mutual relations on an foot of equality.

The worker (or the candidate for a job) is seen as an ‘entire’ person (whereas people in poverty may tend to see themselves only in a logic of exploitation and submission, while the managers mainly operate within a logic of productivity). They are also seen as persons to whom one can give real responsibilities. So this kind of collective and participatory projects work at the same time strengthen the respect for the other and the self-esteem of the workers and of the group.

Conclusion

It is through recognising and valuing the different types of work, which are taken on both in the private and in the public sphere, and through finding a balance and connection between them that a more inclusive and sustainable society can be created. This work has to be done on all levels : individually (micro), at the level of the organisation or company (meso) and on the level of society (macro).

Just as biodiversity is a condition for a sustainable environment, so the recognition of the different types of work is the basis for a more inclusive and sustainable society. The most important task for NGO’s, companies and political decision-makers alike is to make this diversity (of roles, talents, types of work) visible and create spaces where they can develop harmoniously (rather than be subordinated one to the other). In order to do this, cooperation and exchange are more important functions than competition and domination. Therefore, economic politics alone can never break the cycle of disadvantage, but only if they are ‘thought together’ with social politics. This requires networking more than autonomy, and this is what Flora sets itself as a goal: to offer a network between the women, between organisations and companies, and between the social reality and the political and academic world.

To conclude, I will briefly answer the questions that were proposed for this workshop.

1. How can we support low skilled workers better? How can effective policies towards low-skilled and long-term unemployed adults be designed in the current context? >>> make room for collective and cooperative strategies (care and social work) and not only for individual and productive/competitive ones.

2. What role for companies/employers? >>> organise the work with respect for the different types of work; look for ‘positive paradoxes’: investing in non-productive time (self, social and care work) can increase productivity, team work and workers’ motivation!

3. What are the obstacles and enablers for the inclusion and success of low-skilled and disadvantaged learners, including learners from a migrant origin? >>> the one-sided focus on productivity and (private) profit makes it difficult for them to ‘compete’ on the labour market, which also affects their social status, self esteem and family life, thus creating a negative cycle of exclusion. Inclusion should not itself focus solely on strengthening the competitiveness and ‘productivity’ of the individual (more of the same), but at the same time work on ‘inclusion’ (social work) and valorising existing talents (self work) in a ‘caring’, respectful relationship.

4. What are the supportive conditions (in terms of INTEGRATING employment, welfare, health, housing, migration and other policies) to maximise the impact of education and training measures? >>> change the dominant (linear, hierarchical) paradigm into a multi-level and holistic approach of social (sustainable) development. Therefore, the other roles (or types of work) should be seen as an integral part of employment, and networking between different actors should be a basic condition for fighting poverty.

5. What are the main issues to take into account in the design of effective education and training policies for low-skilled and long-term unemployed adults? >>> bring the individual approach back into balance with the collective approach, and do this on the basis of a participatory process of co-construction of tools and methodologies.

6. What specific role for (1) education and training, (2) companies/employers and (3) civil society? >>> Each of these partners can play their specific role only to the full if they work together in a web of institutionalising gender (or social sustainability).

7. What would constitute better ways to motivate and guide the low-skilled and disadvantaged learner? >>> take as a starting point their collective needs, experiences and strengths instead of this individual competitive qualifications.

8. What strategies should be developed to improve self-esteem and identity and to avoid symbolic exclusion? >>> invest in the resilience of people by integrating the different kinds of work and by creating and strengthening connections between them… ‘Paradigm’ and ‘methodology’ are probably a better term to describe this aim than ‘strategy’ (which suggests a more linear approach).

Presentatie