Author: Marc Levy, PhD candidate, University of Melbourne Contact email: ml_ideaworks@bigpond.com Title: For love or money: volunteering and unemployed people Australian Social Policy Conference 2005 University of NSW, Kensington 20 - 22 July 2005 Abstract: Volunteering can have significant benefits for unemployed people. It is said to combat social exclusion, build confidence and self-esteem and help put people on a path to paid employment. Income support recipients can meet their participation and mutual obligation (MO) requirements by signing up for the Voluntary Work Initiative, delivered by Volunteering Australia; Community Work, which is facilitated by Commonwealth-funded Community Work Coordinators; or Work for the Dole. In the past decade, hundreds of thousands of unemployed people have been involved in these and other volunteering and community participation programs. This paper will explore three questions:

1. Do these programs compromise voluntary principles or the value unemployed people get from volunteering?

2. If these programs do present such compromises, does the end - more unemployed people getting a volunteer-like experience - justify the means?

3. Based on the above, what kind of volunteering program might work best for unemployed people in the future?

2

FOR LOVE OR MONEY: VOLUNTEERING AND UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE 1. Background Three things inspired my interest in the topic of volunteering for unemployed people. First, my own experience of volunteering: I started running my own business ten years ago, and for the first two or three years, I was substantially under-utilised, working for ten or twenty hours per week from home. I became lonely and depressed and the longer it went on the worse my condition became. Social isolation was not the only factor, but it certainly played a part. Volunteering for the Brotherhood of St. Lawrence and the Council on the Aging gave me something to do and something to talk about. I met new people. I began to feel more useful again. I heard similar stories from others whose lives had been enhanced by volunteering. Second, I saw a Ken Loach film called ‘The Navigators’. The film was about the human consequences of the corporatisation and privatisation of British Rail in the mid-1990s. It showed what happened to the young and middle-aged men who were thrown on the labour market scrap heap. This was particularly challenging for me because as a management consultant with an MBA, I knew of some of the benefits of introducing more commercial practices into public sector enterprises, but I was deeply affected by the human consequences. Some of these men were re-employed almost immediately by labour hire companies in casual gangs, doing essentially the same jobs without the benefits or security of tenure that they had previously enjoyed, under more dangerous conditions. Others, who were not so lucky, became marginalised and bored, their self-esteem and confidence were slowly eroded and their personal lives suffered. Wouldn’t it be great, I thought, if men like these could access volunteering opportunities via some kind of matching service that linked unemployed people with opportunities to volunteer in the community, instead of sitting around the house annoying their wives or going to the pub, as these men were portrayed as doing in the film? Volunteering could give them something to do, relieve them of their boredom and help them feel more connected and valuable. Third, I was intrigued by the consequences of Howard Government’s mutual obligation (MO) policies on volunteering and community participation among unemployed people. On the one hand, unemployed people do not volunteer as much as employed people, so leaving aside all of the moral and philosophical problems associated with compromising voluntary principles, an element of compulsion might not be such a bad thing. More unemployed people would have something like a volunteer experience, and potentially enjoy some of the benefits that I had experienced. However, this simple, utilitarian view troubled me because I was unable to put aside the moral and philosophical problems associated with MO, including the effects of its compulsion, incentives and penalties. I was troubled by the possible motivations behind MO. Whose interests were being served? Were the obligations truly mutual and was the contract a fair bargain between equal parties? Why should some of our society’s most disadvantaged people be subject to a welfare system double penalty – the indignity of drawing the dole and completing a participation requirement?

3

2. Introduction Despite an overall reduction in the number of unemployed persons in Australia in recent years, unemployment, and its concomitant social problems, remains a significant problem for the nation. Australia’s employment rate as a percentage of total population ranks highly among the world’s 25 richest nations – and unemployment has fallen faster here than in any other OECD country except New Zealand (Colebatch, 2005). However, our employment rate among males aged 25-54 is among the lowest in the OECD – equal 21st and around 17% of Australia’s 541,000 unemployed workers, have been unemployed for more than 12 months (ABS, 2005). Forces at work in the Australian economy, including globalisation, industry restructuring, the aging of our population and greater flexibility for employers in relation to arrangements they can strike with their workers, appear to be conspiring to sustain the problem. Much of the public discourse on the effects of unemployment is loaded in one way or another: unemployment leads to a ‘learned helplessness’, passivity and dependence; the accepted remedy – participation – is a ‘gateway to self reliance’ (Newman, 1999a: 9) and ‘a springboard to economic security’ (Newman, 1999b: 20). These dubious catchphrases – why is welfare dependency so objectionable when dependency on ones friends for love or gravity to walk less so? (Goodin, 1998) – mask a profound social and economic problem: work is an important source of both income and self-esteem; without it, people’s skills can deteriorate, they can lose self-confidence and become disengaged from networks, which can lead to reduced opportunities and psychological health problems (Cockram, 2002; Giddens, 1998; McClure, 2000). According to Kinnear ‘…research on unemployed people has quite consistently shown that depression and “demoralization” sets in after a considerable period of unsuccessful job searching’ (2002: 256). The incidence of mental illness among Australian income support recipients is alarmingly high. More than 30% have a diagnosable mental disorder in any 12-month period, compared with 18.6% for people not receiving income support (Butterworth, 2003). Other problems associated with unemployment include housing stress and breakdown in relationships (Nevile and Nevile, 2003). Labour market programs will continue to help many people into jobs, but there will be groups of disadvantaged unemployed people who these programs will not be able to assist quickly or effectively. Volunteering and community participation programs may help to fill the void. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) defines volunteering as willingly giving ‘unpaid help, in the form of time, service or skills, through an organisation or group’ (2001). The ABS and the Federal Government’s Reference Group on Welfare Reform (McClure, 2000) have used the term ‘community participation’ to refer to volunteering and other activities such as Work for the Dole (W4D). In a sense, volunteering and community participation activities that share some of its qualities can be something of a remedy for the ill effects of unemployment. The act and experience of volunteering provides people with a sense of empowerment, purpose and accomplishment, and improved confidence and self-esteem (Cockram, 2002; McClure, 2000; Thoits and Hewitt, 2001). In their assessment of the social value of volunteering in Victoria, Soupourmas and Ironmonger found that volunteering engendered a sense of community belonging, helped create a cohesive and stable

4

society and built social capital – including networks, norms, shared values, trust – ‘contributing to the social “cement” or “glue” which enables community cohesion…’ (2002: 30). While the extent to which volunteering makes people happier or happy people get involved in volunteering is not entirely clear, nor whether some volunteering roles are more beneficial than others, there is ‘strong evidence to support the view that becoming a volunteer can have beneficial consequences on subjective wellbeing’ (Wilson and Musick, 1999: 160). Table 1 presents a more comprehensive list of benefits. Table 1: Benefits attributed to volunteering

Attributed benefits

Psychological Enhances all six aspects of wellbeing: happiness, life satisfaction, self-esteem, sense of control over life, physical health and depression (Thoits and Hewitt, 2001)

Facilitates social participation, provides self-validating experiences and fosters belief in people’s capacity to make a difference (Wilson and Musick, 1999)

Combats feelings of isolation, empowers individuals and improves their confidence, enhances feelings of self worth, provides skill building opportunities and challenges some stereotypes that can be symptomatic of, or lead to, social exclusion (The Institute for Volunteering Research, 2003)

Social/ community

Helps overcome loneliness and social isolation, and assists in making contacts (Vellekoop-Baldock, 1990)

Supports the development of pro-social behaviours and social capital (Warburton and Smith, 2003)

Builds social networks and grows out of them (ABS, 2002)

Creates a cohesive and settled society and complements government services; is an expression of active citizenship; engenders belonging and is at the centre of civil society; facilitates networks that build social capital (Soupourmas and Ironmonger, 2001)

Vocational Develops work skills and improves desire to and chances of finding a job (ACOSS, 1999)

Assists the transition from volunteer positions to paid jobs (Vellekoop-Baldock, 1990)

Improves confidence and skills that can help lead to paid employment (Saunders et al, 2003)

Volunteering and community participation is not a cure-all for society’s social problems. It is prudent to consider the warnings of Eva Cox (2000) in relation to volunteering; for example, that it can be used as a way of cutting back services, replacing elements of the welfare state, substituting for paid jobs or coopting cheap or free labour. Under certain circumstances, it may create new ‘networks of exclusion’ or foster existing inequalities. That said, to what extent do participants in the volunteering and community participation streams of the Federal Government’s MO scheme access the benefits listed above? Are the programs really enhancing the wellbeing of unemployed people? Are participants really being equipped for jobs? This paper is about whether encouraging unemployed people to participate in the Voluntary Work Initiative (VWI), a state-supported volunteer placement program

5

contracted to Volunteering Australia, and obliging them to participate in MO options that include Community Work and W4D (and rewarding and penalising them depending on their participation), is ultimately beneficial to unemployed people. These are important questions because hundreds of thousands of unemployed Australians have been involved in these volunteer and community participation programs, and research on their efficacy is limited. For the purposes of simplicity, the three programs – VWI, Community Work and W4D – are referred to as ‘MO volunteering and community participation’ programs throughout this paper, although it is acknowledged that VWI is different to Community Work and W4D, for reasons that will become obvious later. Section 3 below describes how we came to have MO volunteering and community participation. Section 4 explores whether these programs compromise voluntary principles. Section 5 includes a hypothetical argument between two sides of the debate on whether the end of MO volunteering and community participation justifies the means: a pragmatic, utilitarian characterisation suggests that the end – many more people getting a volunteering like experience than would otherwise be the case – justifies the means (and that there is nothing wrong with the means anyway); and a more absolutist and ideological characterisation, questions the ends of MO volunteering and community participation and would have it that volunteering for love – taking the initiative oneself, committing one’s time for no material benefit, in response to no obligation – provides a superior experience than volunteering and community participation compromised by incentives and penalties under MO. Section 6 covers reform ideas and section 7 presents conclusions and describes proposed research that would shed additional light on the questions raised in the paper. 3. Where are we at with MO volunteering and community participation and how did we get there In the mid-1990s, the Keating Labor Government introduced its Working Nation policy. Through Working Nation’s ‘job compact’, individualised case management, community service for the long-term unemployed and other measures, the Keating Government gave life to ideas from the welfare and social policy discourse of the 1970s and 1980s relating to participation and active welfare. This trend towards active policy responses to long-term joblessness intensified under the Howard Liberal and National Party Government, which was first elected in 1996. Paradigmatically neo conservative and supportive of paternalistic principles in relation to the unemployed (Abbott, 2000), the Howard Government pointed to perceived dangers associated with ‘passive welfare’, including ‘welfare dependency’ (Cook, Dodds and Mitchell, 2003; Yeatman, 1999), and introduced welfare policies centred on MO. The Federal Government’s Australians Working Together (AWT) policy, introduced in 2002, gathered together many of the reforms suggested in 2000 by the Government’s Reference Group on Welfare Reform in the McClure Report (Vardon, 2004). Table 7 includes the key dates in the evolution of MO volunteering and community participation. Under AWT’s MO requirements, people aged 18-54 who have been unemployed for more than six months can chose from a menu of MO options, including W4D and ‘volunteering’. Those who seek to volunteer to meet their MO requirements are referred to government-funded Community Work Coordinators (CWCs) to undertake

6

‘Community Work’. The CWCs formally monitor income support recipients’ volunteer participation. By completing a minimum number of hours of Community Work or W4D, income support recipients can access training credits or Passport to Employment services such as resume writing or interviewing skills. In 2002/03, 30,831 people accessed the W4D Training Credit and 10,078 qualified for the W4D Passport to Employment (DEWR, 2003). Program participants may be penalised for failing to complete their MO placements, by way of diminished payments. The government’s MO infrastructure is very complicated and difficult to understand. Table 8 in the Appendix includes a description of activity test and MO requirements that could be in place from 1 July 2006, following changes announced in the most recent Federal Budget, although there does not appear to be a definitive published source against which this can be checked. The rules for what kind of volunteering an unemployed or otherwise jobless person can do to satisfy their activity test or MO requirements vary depending on how long a person has been out of work, how they chose to meet their obligations (they may do this via another option from the MO menu and still volunteer), their age, payment type, what else they are doing with their time (for example, hours spent doing different activities can be aggregated to meet activity test requirements), and their motivation to pursue incentives. An important trend in the context of this paper is that with each significant change to the income support system since AWT was introduced, the government has channelled more people into MO, including older unemployed people and people on different income support payments. MO is firmly in the ascendency. There is overwhelming community support for the notion that unemployed people should be made to give something back for their unemployment benefits. MO is central to Australia’s dominant welfare reform narratives, including those of both major political parties. Sydney University researchers Braithwaite, Gatens and Mitchell (2002) predict that it will become known as the Howard Government’s major social policy legacy. Emphasis on participation, active welfare and overcoming passivity and dependence are common to governments in Australia, the US and New Zealand (Harris, 2000) and central to welfare policies under the UK Government’s ‘third way’ (Giddens, 1998). Labor supports the transition from passive to active welfare (Swan, 1999; Tanner, 1999) and Labor ‘thought leaders’’ public pronouncements on the topic – including that people have to accept their responsibilities and obligations and demonstrate self-reliance (Latham, 2001) – are strikingly similar to the Prime Minister’s. The Marshallian notion of social rights existing on the basis of community membership is unlikely to be applied in this arena under governments of either political persuasion in the near future. Only a handful of academics and third sector figures have moved to challenge the notion, and the debate (such that it was), had gone quiet by 2002, only five years after the inception of W4D and the announcement of VWI. Against that backdrop, one would expect that the number of unemployed people volunteering would have increased markedly in recent years. The data shows this to some degree, although MO programs do not fit within the ABS definition of volunteering. There is only a small body of reliable data on volunteering in Australia, including ABS surveys on volunteering from 1995 and 2000 and data from the ABS General Social Survey, so it is difficult to demonstrate the quantum and nature of the increase. Table 2 shows that there has been significant growth in the numbers of

7

unemployed volunteers since the removal of disincentives to volunteer (how volunteering is treated for activity testing purposes) and the inception of VWI in 1997. Participation in volunteering has grown faster among unemployed people than any other labour force category; in 1995, 16.8% of unemployed people were volunteering and by 2002, the proportion had risen to 28.2%. Table 2: Number of volunteers by labour market classification

Number of volunteers

1995 2000 2002

‘000 (%) Annual hours m

‘000 (%) Annual hours m

(%)

Unemployed 112.2 (16.8) 20.4 146.6 (27.0) 24.1 28.2 Employed part-time

700.7 (31.7) 98.2 1055.7 (40.9) 154.1 42.1

Employed full-time 1425.3 (24.1) 196.1 2037.9 (32.8) 260.7 35.6 Not in the labour force

951.1 (20.2) 197.1 1155.4 (25.6) 265.2 28.7 (retired)/ 29.5 (other)

Total 3189.4 (23.6) 511.7 4395.6 (31.8) 704.1 34.4

Source: 1995 and 2000 data were taken from the Voluntary Work, Australia (ABS, 2001) and the 2002 data were from the General Social Survey (ABS, 2003b). The number of unemployed people involved in volunteering and community participation since 2002 is likely to have grown even faster, with the rapid increase in supply of W4D positions in particular, as shown in Table 3. Table 3: Number of participants in selected MO volunteering and community participation activities

Programs Before 2001

01/02 02/03 03/04 Total

VWI 36,000 ~20,000 21,048 18,146 ~95,200 Community Work 3,200 ~5,000 ~8,200 W4D ~137,600 53,769 64,049 74,535 ~330,000 W4D voluntary 7,126 7,126 Total ~173,600 ~80, 900 88, 297 ~97,700 ~440,500 Sources: Beauchamp (2004), DEWR annual reports, Dutton (2005), FaCS annual reports, Volunteering Australia Annual Report 2000/01 Note: the 2003/04 VWI number is lower because it relates to the ‘number of customer assisted and referred to voluntary work’ while prior years’ data appears to reflect the number of people interviewed for VWI or people who were interviewed that went on to meet the volunteering organisation, rather than the actual placement numbers. 4. Do these government programs compromise voluntary principles? The Federal Government plays a critical enabling role in matching unemployed volunteers and volunteering opportunities. No other organisation has the ‘distribution presence’, the clout to arrange the insurance required, the access to unemployed people via Centrelink and the suppliers of volunteering opportunities (and the resources required to ‘qualify’ them), and the deep pockets required to fund the

8

infrastructure and promotion. However, do the current government’s MO programs compromise voluntary principles? In other words, is MO volunteering and community participation, particularly Community Work and W4D, true volunteering? The Government has emphasised that income support recipients choose these programs from a list of MO options and that volunteers are not remunerated (Commonwealth of Australia 2002). However, many of the Government’s MO choices are targeted at specific groups and what remains for many long-term unemployed people is obligatory involvement in volunteering and community participation. In any case, the juxtaposition of the words obligation and choice appears to be inherently problematic. To determine whether the various MO volunteering and community participation options do compromise voluntary principles, it is necessary to establish such principles. Table 4 shows that some volunteering and community participation programs meet more of a list of voluntary principles, adapted from a list developed by Volunteering Australia, than others. Table 4: Evaluation of the extent to which volunteering and community participation programs meet voluntary principles

Traditional formal

volunteering

VWI CW W4D Caring/ carers

Community service orders

1. Benefits the community 4 4 4 4 4 4

2. Benefits the volunteer 4 4 4 ? ? ?

3. Does not replace paid workers nor threaten job security of paid workers

4 4 4 4 ? 4

4. No benefits or incentives 4 4 6 6 ? 4

5. No penalties 4 4 6 6 4 6 6. Presence of choice 4 4 4 ? 6 6 7. Through no profit

organisations 4 4 4 4 6 4

8. Without obligation or compulsion 4 ? 6 6 4 6

TOTAL 8 7 or 8 5 3-5 3-6 4-5 Source: Adapted from Cordingly (2000) All of these programs do present compromises to traditional, formal volunteering. For example, based on the analysis above, W4D is not true volunteering because there are benefits, incentives and penalties for non-compliance associated with it, and people are compelled to participate. However, it is unpaid work in the community so unemployed people may identify themselves as volunteering or at least participating in the community. The Federal Government regularly refers to W4D and community Work as volunteering and working in the community, further blurring the distinction (Wilson, Spoehr and McLean, 2005).

9

5. If these programs do present such compromises, do the ends – for example, more unemployed people getting a volunteer-like experience - justify the means? It is not clear that obliging unemployed people to participate in activities from an MO menu, including programs that provide something like a volunteering experience, provides a ‘net benefit’ to unemployed people, assuming that welfare policy is primarily concerned with improving the lot of the individuals that it supports. MO programs would appear to drive greater participation in volunteering by a group that is underrepresented in the volunteering statistics, but does the presence of compulsion, incentives and penalties so compromise the act and experience of volunteering for unemployed people it outweighs the benefits associated with greater participation. To be crude about it, if double the numbers of unemployed people volunteer, but individually they only get two-thirds of the benefit, is that the favourable outcome it appears (mathematically) to be, or could policy makers do better by fostering greater involvement in some other way? To tease out the arguments, it is helpful to think about two extreme sides to this debate, as characterised in Table 5. It is important to note that these distinctions are illustrative, not definitive, and are included purely for the purpose of discussion and analysis. It is unlikely that any individual with an interest in this topic would agree with every aspect of the characterisation they most identify with. Table 5: Characterisation of two positions on MO volunteering and community participation

Characterisation A Characterisation B Summary The ends justify the means; and

there’s nothing wrong with the means anyway!

The means fundamentally compromise the ends, and characterisation A’s ends are far from incontrovertible

Attitudes towards welfare/benefits

Targeted/contractarian Obligation Conditions

Universalistic Entitlement Rights

Indicative academic influences

Mead/Murray Titmuss/Marshall

Philosophical leanings Utilitarian Relativist

Kantian Absolutist

Bases of support Popular Intellectual Style of argument Paternalistic

Pragmatic Normative

Ideological and doctrinaire Moral/moralistic

Underlying assumptions about duties

Duty of the individual to the community

Duty of the state to the individual

Underlying assumptions about unemployed people

Lack capacity and self reliance Victims of economics and public policy Disenfranchised/marginalised

Worst evils Dependence Stigma, prejudice Beliefs about government programs

Regenerative Transitional

Typical statements of support

‘People on welfare should give something back for their benefits: MO is good for them and the community’

‘Why should the most marginal groups in our society be targeted with punitive, paternalistic and unfair welfare programs’

10

The remainder of this section examines the arguments behind these characterisations, drawing on available research and literature on welfare reform, MO and volunteering. The process of weighing up the relative merits of these characterisations would be aided by conclusive research on ‘the ends’ of volunteering and community participation; but the research in this area is limited and the evidence that is available – for example, in relation to the psychological benefits and transition to paid work – is not definitive (see Table 9). 5.1 Characterisation A – ‘The end justifies the means; and there’s nothing wrong with the means anyway!’ What are ‘the ends’ of MO volunteering and community participation? What are the participants and the community left with after unemployed people participate in the programs? The first and most obvious consequence is that more unemployed people benefit from the act and experience of volunteering or something like it. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the number of people involved in volunteering and community participation has grown in recent years. It seems certain that the removal of disincentives for unemployed people to volunteer and the establishment of VWI has impacted the volunteering statistics. And community participation via W4D and Community Work has grown rapidly – W4D is Australia’s fastest growing welfare program (Davidson, 2002) and Community Work grew by more then 50% in 2003/04. Not only are more people getting involved in volunteering and community participation; those involved in the government’s programs are reporting relatively high participant satisfaction ratings (Carson et al, 2003; Cockram, 2002; Eardley et al, 2000; NFO Donovan Research, 2002). In her 2002 study of volunteering organisation officers’ and jobless persons’ attitudes towards VWI and W4D (see Tables 9 and 10), Judith Cockram identified that participants rated their experiences relatively highly. Most agreed that volunteering and W4D increased opportunities to be involved in the community and helped them make friends, especially VWI volunteers, and that the programs gave participants a sense of purpose, especially W4D. While participants in Cockram’s study reported problems (including friction between MO and traditional volunteers, transport access and costs), more than half agreed that they had expectations that volunteering would lead to a job and nearly half (48%) believed that it was reasonable that they contribute to the community in return for their benefits. A study conducted by Wallis Consulting Group (2001) found that 72% of people involved in W4D and MO volunteering said they would continue the activity even if they were not required to. Reporting the findings from the 2002 Job Seeker Survey of Centrelink customers registered for more than six months, NFO Donovan Research (2002) found that participant satisfaction rates were high at 81% and 84% felt their activity ‘suited them’ (up from 76% in 2000). Carson et al found that most W4D participants were moderately to highly satisfied with their W4D experience and that when W4D programs were well structured, participants were more confident about finding work and doing well in work. They also found that W4D positively impacted negative moods/depression among participants and enhanced psychological wellbeing, although it did not enhance self-esteem or employment commitment. Seemingly strong data on transition to work outcomes round out the ends-related argument on this side of the debate – the Minister for Workplace Participation

11

claimed earlier this year that 33% of participants had found work within three months of completing their W4D activity (Dutton, 2005). However, there’s more to this side of the debate than ends: it is also concerned with means, chiefly the obligation to give something back for one’s benefits. Pamela Kinnear (2002) neatly summarises this characterisation’s arguments, without supporting them. She points out that the discursive shift within countries like Australia, from notions of ‘entitlement’ to ‘conditional’ welfare, is based on three positions. First, the pervasive new paternalist idea that entitlement creates dependency; second, the notion that conditionality is part of a generally accepted liberal prescription; and third, the populist political argument that conditional welfare is good common sense. Patricia Harris (2000: 280) describes three ‘participation narratives’, commonly used in support of active welfare and MO in Australia and the UK: a story about self sufficiency (about looking after oneself, talking responsibility, not free riding in the system); a story about paying dues (about putting something in for that which one has taken out); and a story about team effort (pulling together in pursuit of a common purpose). The following quote from Senator Newman, who commissioned the McClure Report referred to above, is indicative of the way these widely supported participation narratives are put into effect (Newman, 1999a: 280):

‘The income support system needs to be refocused on participation, emphasising the principle of mutual obligation and recognising the contribution that all people can make to society. A modern system must embrace the belief in individual potential. It should promote personal responsibility to support oneself and/or contribute to the community in other ways. Those of us who can contribute to the community should be encouraged and expected to do so.’

Harris (2000: 281-2) argues that Senator Newman’s arguments ‘achieve their rhetorical effect through an association with the dependencies of addiction. Welfare is a habit that needs to be broken, a matter of learned helplessness that has to be undone… The theoretical base for this version of participation lies in notions of behavioural poverty and the cycle of deprivation.’ However they achieve their effect and whatever their theoretical base, these narratives, unlike arguments on the other side of the debate, have intuitive and instinctive qualities that have facilitated their broad acceptance. Indeed, ‘common sense’ ideas about participation enjoy overwhelming popular support. A Social Policy Research Centre study identified that 77% of respondents thought long-term unemployed people (of any age) should ‘undertake useful work in the community’ (Eardley, Saunders and Evans, 2000: 19). More than 80% of Victorians believe that unemployed people should have to undertake some kind of work in return for their income support payments (Saulwick Age Poll, 2004). Jocelyn Newman (cited in Bessant, 2000: 20) gave voice to a considerable public sentiment when she remarked, ‘Australians [are] sick and tired of being taken for mugs by dole bludgers.’ The Prime Minister remarked that, ‘Just as it is an ongoing responsibility of government to support those in genuine need, so also it is the case that – to the extent that it is within their capacity to do so – those in receipt of such assistance should give something back to society in return, and in the process improve their own prospects for self-reliance’ (cited in Eardley, Saunders and Evans, 2000: 5). MO has also enjoyed support from prominent public figures, notably indigenous Australian leader Noel Pearson, who has admonished passive welfare and dependence among indigenous communities (Pearson, 2001).

12

In addition to popularity, MO enjoys considerable academic support. Laurence Mead, the influential ‘new paternalist’ thinker and others, including third way thinkers (e.g. Giddens), contemporary communitarians (e.g. Etzione), economists and choice theorists, have warned of the dangers of passive welfare and dependence (Yeatman, 1999). They have argued, through their different theoretical lenses, that welfare recipients should receive benefits not as an entitlement, but in return for a contribution, as their part in a reciprocal or mutual obligation with the state. Mead evokes homo economicus when he asserts that unemployed people are prone to making decisions that are not in their long-term interest when stimuli – carrots and sticks – are not present (Harris, 2000). These beliefs have been used to justify compulsory activity testing for MO activities, including MO volunteering and community participation, and penalties for non-compliance. In qualified defenses of paternalism, Goodin (1995) and Yeatman (1999) suggest that it has some legitimacy under certain circumstances; that is, the end justifies certain means. For example, it may be acceptable where there are high stakes and credible officials who can provide meaningful help to clients, when the welfare recipient agrees to a limit on their choice and where the welfare recipient wants to act on a preference to work or volunteer, but, because of their prior experiences, they find it hard to do so. They argue that paternalism is only defensible when officials and their clients are working with the preferences of the client in mind and involve clients in the design and delivery of their programs. MO volunteering is said not to be true volunteering, because it does not meet the requirements of common definitions of volunteering, for example, that participants willingly give of their time without compensation (Warburton and McDonald, 2002). However, in some cases unemployed people are able to exercise limited choice, to opt into W4D as opposed to one of the other MO activities (see Table 8) or to express preferences in relation to various MO volunteering opportunities. For example, people who nominate Community Work to fulfil their obligations are able to find their own volunteering opportunity, without assistance or through endorsed web-based volunteer search databases (volunteersearch.gov.au and govolunteer.com.au) or through Volunteering Australia (VA) and its Volunteering Resource Centres. And if they live in remote areas, where Community Work is their only option, they may opt out of MO altogether if they do not want to pursue it. The presence of some choice within the Government’s MO framework raises the possibility that the Government has managed to find an acceptable balance between choice and compulsion. When Judith Cockram (2002) interviewed volunteer managers as part of a study of community participation by jobless people in Western Australia, she found that a significant minority supported including volunteering as an MO option. While most were concerned that it was not true volunteer work, they viewed participation as an antidote for social exclusion and a way of helping people develop skills that increased their capacity for paid work. It is not surprising that arguments aligned with this characterisation have dominated the mainstream public policy debate. They embody common sense prescriptions, have popular political backing and enjoy some support from the field. Further, activity testing has been a part of the transfers system, at least as far as the unemployed are concerned, for over 50 years (NFO Donovan Research, 2002). MO could be seen to

13

be merely a logical extension of something that has been around for as long as most people can remember. 5.2 Characterisation B – ‘The means fundamentally compromise the ends, and characterisation A’s ends are far from incontrovertible’ Characterisation B centres on the moral and philosophical arguments against MO, and MO volunteering and community participation; the effect of the compulsion, incentives and penalties associated with MO on unemployed people who participate in the programs; the relatively poor outcomes in relation to transition to paid work; and the problems encountered by third sector organisations. This characterisation is essentially critical in nature, in that those who might align themselves broadly with it have been more concerned with criticising MO and MO volunteering and community participation than suggesting alternatives. Few would dispute that long-term unemployed people benefit from some kind of participation. However, it does not follow that long-term unemployed people should be made by governments to participate in sanctioned MO activities and penalised if they do not comply. It can be argued that MO is based on flawed notions of reciprocity and sets up a bogus dichotomy between givers and receivers. Far from balancing out a lopsided equation by giving something back for their benefits, participants in MO programs can be seen to be subject to a welfare system double penalty: that is, frequently through no fault of their own, they are both deprived of the means to earn a living and the benefits arising from doing so, and forced to participate in a program because they accept support (Warburton and McDonald, 2002). Macintyre (1999) advances the thesis that there is always some kind of reciprocal relationship inherent in the provision of welfare, whatever the welfare system, whether universalist or discretionary in nature. Even Marshall observed that ‘the right to receive implies an obligation to give’ (cited in Macintyre, 1999: 115). However, as members of a community that has already made a collective contribution to the state, it could be argued that citizens have a right to receive income support when necessary (Macintyre, 1998). Further, most members of the community have already paid taxes or at some point will pay taxes, so in a sense they either have or will pay for their benefits in advance or in arrears. There is a related equity objection to MO activities, including volunteering and community participation. According to Kinnear, MO sets up a ‘false distinction between givers (working taxpayers) and receivers (non-working, non-taxpayers)’ (2002: 258). The state should be doing what it can to assist unemployed people experiencing hardship rather than unemployed people doing what they can to assist others (Erlinghagan and Wagner, 2002). Why should unemployed people be targeted to perform public obligations? Is it not problematic that a community of already disadvantaged people, low on resources and otherwise structurally deprived is required to perform community work? A further problem with MO, as a version of this reciprocal relationship in welfare, is that inherent in it is a shift in the parties to the relationship, from state and community to state and individual. As individuals, deprived of a collective voice, ‘dole bludgers’ and ‘welfare cheats’ do not stand a chance against an influential cabal of populist politicians, active welfare theoreticians and right-leaning media. Sinister effects of this are to undermine important principles such as citizens’ equal status and worth and foster divisive distinctions such as ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor. Shaver (2001)

14

and Yeatman (1999) have argued that imposing a social contract is the modern equivalent of Rousseau’s idea that individuals must be forced to be free. According to Lawrence Mead (1986: 2), ‘These measures assume the people concerned need assistance but they also need direction if they are to live constructively’ as they lack the ‘moral education’ necessary for the development of a capacity for self-reliance. In line with this ‘new paternalist’ logic, the MO contract assumes that the state is the better judge of the recipient’s needs than the recipient. This is contradictory to notions of privacy that have previously been stridently protected in liberal society (Shaver, 2002). Further, critics, including contemporary contract theorists such as John Rawls, argue that under such social contracts, the welfare recipient enters unwillingly into an unequal arrangement, within which he or she is subordinate to the state, and within which there are fundamental questions about the proportionality and distribution of rights and benefits (Kinnear, 2002; Moss, 2000). Amplifying this argument, Harris (2000) criticises the ‘participation narratives’ referred to earlier in this paper – self sufficiency, paying your dues and team effort – in that they only make sense when, for example, community membership is a choice and responsibilities attached to community membership are subject to democratic negotiation. These conditions are rarely present. Braithwaite, Gatens and Mitchell (2002) have criticised the imprecision of the normative judgments surrounding MO. They refer to two incompatible themes in the McClure Report: a creditable focus on individual and community capacity building on the one hand and a paternalistic and punitive orientation on the other. Their concern is that people will read into the Report’s ambiguous findings and recommendations the very concrete assumptions and hypotheses of new paternalism, in particular those relating to individual responsibility. According to Bessant (2000), at best, blaming the unemployed for their joblessness shows a lack of understanding about the real causes of unemployment; at worst, it is indicative of a political strategy designed to divert attention away from the real structural causes of unemployment and the effectiveness of current policy and programs. Whichever interpretation is more accurate, as far as the individuals are concerned, blaming the unemployed seemingly ‘…compounds the guilt, anxiety and sense of incompetence felt by many people unable to find work.’ (Bessant, 2000: 29). Another problem with the assumptions of the active welfare argument is that they ignore some fundamentals about social and economic disadvantage. For example, contrary to the belief that long-term unemployment leads to passivity and dependence, being poor or otherwise marginalised can lead to the development of resilience, endurance and human capacity (Harris, 2000). Further, a survey conducted by Roy Morgan Research in 1998 showed that income support recipients, including Newstart Allowance recipients, were, according to Saunders (2002: 356), ‘already participating significantly in various forms of work… [and] there is no evidence from the CPS data that those receiving income support payments are idle. On the contrary, many of them seem to be remarkably active.’ Kerr and Savelsberg (2002) and Carson et al (2003) have agued that it is misguided to treat young unemployed people as an homogenous group, in the sense that it is wrong to portray all young people as lacking self-esteem and commitment to work. Judith Bessant (2000) argues that the mandatory and punitive aspects of MO, including the penalties associated with ‘breaching’ or failing to meet one’s

15

obligations, contravene certain human rights and constitutional provisions concerning civil conscription. She warns that they also undermine unemployed people’s integrity and agency, and, given the punitive parallels with the criminal justice system, expose those who participate to comparisons with criminals consigned to community work for committing certain crimes. MO volunteering and community participation can also be problematic for the community organisations that provide volunteering opportunities. The problems of MO volunteering for community organisations include the difficulties associated with their ‘policing’ role under MO; for example, they may find it difficult to decide whether an MO volunteer is in breach of their obligations to the state should they not attend at the required times. There are also concerns regarding the extent to which community organisations can provide continuously stimulating, appropriately supervised roles for MO volunteers (Cockram, 2002; Frow, 2001). Community organisations generally support providing opportunities for unemployed people, but many are concerned about the impact of eroding the principles of volunteering (Cordingly, 2000). Saunders, Brown and Eardley (2003) have described a ‘dual market’ for volunteers: highly skilled, usually employed volunteers on the one hand and unemployed or underemployed, obliged, unskilled volunteers on the other. Combined with the growing demand for professionalism in social services and the spread of managerial disciplines in the sector, this creates a potentially problematic environment for unemployed volunteers where they are regarded less favourably than their more skilled counterparts and provided with less interesting volunteer jobs. Nearly 70% of volunteer managers surveyed by Cockram (2002) felt that MO volunteers had different needs to traditional volunteers and most respondents believed that MO volunteers were less motivated than traditional volunteers. All of these factors may ultimately cause systemic problems that impact on the experience of volunteering for unemployed people and the reputation of unemployed people as volunteers. The benefits of volunteering described in this paper may be partly predicated on an individual taking control of his or her situation. For example, if a long-term unemployed person volunteers to perform some unpaid community work, they show initiative. If, on the other hand, a person is obliged to volunteer, this would appear to jeopardize the self-affirming and moral qualities of that person taking that initiative. According to Skinner (1996), an individual’s perceived control over a situation impacts upon the extent to which they associate a number of positive outcomes, including self-esteem, coping and optimism, with it. Feelings of perceived control have been directly linked to measures of wellbeing (Bailis et al, 2001; Keyes and Waterman, 2003). Obliging people to participate in volunteering and community participation programs may diminish agency and perceived control, detracting from the benefits of the act of volunteering, including the sense of empowerment and achievement that comes from accomplishing something off one’s own bat. This diminution of agency could be easy to exaggerate: according to ABS Australian Social Trends (2003), of the entire volunteer population, 32% get involved in volunteering because someone asked them to, 29% because they knew someone involved, and 22% were already involved in the organisation. Only a small proportion – 8% – find out about voluntary work themselves.

16

The ends of characterisation A – including the psychological and transition to work benefits – are certainly contestable. With the focus on incenting and penalizing the individual, MO potentially compromises community mindedness and altruistic motivations that might otherwise be associated with volunteering. Ironically, given that it is intended to foster active behaviours, MO volunteering and community participation may ‘…undermine the long-term development of civil society and weaken active citizenship and volunteer behaviour’ (Warburton and McDonald, 2002: 14). While Cox (1997) and others (e.g. Putman, 2000; Soupourmas and Ironmonger, 2002) have argued that volunteering builds social capital as, for example, through volunteering, people can extend networks and demonstrate civic trust, MO volunteering may actually obstruct social capital formation. Warburton and Smith (2003) showed that ‘compulsory volunteering’ diminished social capital and impeded the development of pro-social behaviours in participants. Consistent with this, Kumleben’s (2000) study into the impact of the New Deal, the UK equivalent of Australian MO, found that compulsion may have a negative, alienating effect on volunteers and significantly reduce the number of obliged volunteers who return to volunteering once compulsion is removed. Programs like W4D seem to perform relatively poorly as paid job creation initiatives. While most participants in Cockram’s research (2002) were interested in programs that gave them skills to get a job and expected to get one after participating, about two-thirds were disappointed in this regard. Borland and Tseng (2004) and ACOSS (2000, 2002) also found that the transition-to-work outcomes of W4D were poor. Citing 1999 data, ACOSS (2002) said that 27% of W4D participants were in paid employment three months after completing their activity – significantly lower results than Working Nation labour market programs and Intensive Assistance from the Job Network. Albeit from a survey relating to an early stage W4D pilot in 1997/98, Borland and Tseng found that participating on W4D actually diminishes one’s chance of finding work, owing to stigmatisation and distraction from job search, and that participation in W4D was associated with longer periods of unemployment. Kerr and Savelsberg have argued that the outcomes are particularly bad for highly disadvantaged job seekers who are more likely to report unfavourable MO experiences and ‘slide further into disadvantage’ after participating in W4D (2002: 27). As noted earlier, the Minister for Workplace Participation, Peter Dutton, recently refuted the Borland and Tseng data. He cited data showing that 33% of W4D participants were in work three months after completing their activity and said that the W4D was not meant to work in isolation of other programs. However, these results are still lower than many other programs (ACOSS, 2000 and 2002) and we do not know how many people would have found jobs anyway. In summary, characterisation B argues that MO exposes unemployed volunteers to an unfair contract to which they arguably should not be a party in the first place and is based on dubious assumptions about unemployed people that create and reinforce stereotypes. MO diminishes the value unemployed people derive from volunteering; compromises their future attitudes towards volunteering and volunteering behaviours; and may not aid (and could even impede) their employment prospects.

17

6. Based on the above, what kind of volunteering program might work best for unemployed people in the future? The two characterisations presented above are also helpful for thinking about possible policy directions. The illustrative policy directions, presented in Table 6, are improbably binary and are for the purposes of discussion and analysis only. Both illustrative policy directions assume that the primary rationale is to maximise the benefit to the unemployed and that some form of activity testing will be required of income support recipients indefinitely. Table 6: Two possible policy directions for MO volunteering and community participation

Policy direction 1 Broadly consistent with characterisation A

Policy direction 2 Broadly consistent with characterisation B

Nature of involvement

Make MO (and its volunteering and community participation activities) obligatory earlier in the unemployment cycle and ensure that it continues to be recognised for activity testing purposes

Make involvement in volunteering and community participation entirely voluntary and ensure that it continues to be recognised for activity testing purposes

Participants Open up all MO volunteering and community participation activities to all unemployed people, not just those with an MO requirement

Open up all volunteering and community participation activities to all, not just the unemployed

Program focus Negotiate with Volunteering Australia conditions under which it will allow VWI to be subject to the same incentives and penalties applying to Community Work, award the VWI contract to an organisation that will allow this, or retain the status quo, but promote Community Work more aggressively through incentives to Volunteer Resource Centres and other providers of volunteering opportunities

Eliminate Community Work as an MO designation and increase support for Volunteering Australia’s VWI as the primary vehicle for the facilitation of volunteering

Role of government

Strengthen key role in facilitating MO volunteering and community participation: incentives for third sector participants, insurance arrangement, covering unemployed volunteers’ out of pocket costs, ensuring unemployed people are aware of the protocols for MO volunteering and community participation (including how avoid putting their benefits at risk)

As with policy direction 1, except stronger support for developing enabling infrastructure e.g. systems for and promotion of VWI, which is managed by Volunteering Australia and would presumably be strained by significant additional volume on the demand side

W4D Continue to grow capacity for W4D, strengthen incentives and tighten penalties; open up more opportunities – for example, in the for profit sector and for more individual as well as group placements; make it less rigid in terms of time commitment – commitments could be longer to help break nexus between unemployment and low income (Hawke, 1998)

Rename and reposition W4D, so that it is obvious that it is voluntary and without incentives and penalties – Nevile and Nevile (2003) have suggested ‘Work for your community’ to combat stereotypes associated with the word ‘dole’

Placement incentives

Configure incentives to maximise participation (i.e. ‘best bang for buck’)

Equalise incentives

Use of the word volunteering

Use the word volunteering in reference to all MO volunteering and community

Use the word volunteering only in reference to volunteering and community participation

18

participation programs programs that meet commonly agreed voluntary principles

Carrots and sticks Add ‘carrots and sticks’ for all, earlier in the unemployment cycle

Remove ‘carrots and sticks’ completely in relation to volunteering

7. Conclusions Volunteering can benefit long-term unemployed people, not only by equipping them with skills that facilitate workforce re-entry, but also for a range of social and psychological reasons, which this paper has described. As MO volunteering and community participation constitute a significant proportion of the permissible activities jobless people can perform to ‘earn the right’ to income support and other benefits, and a large part of the volunteering unemployed people do is via MO volunteering and community participation, any analysis of the value that unemployed people get from volunteering must consider MO programs and contemplate the impact of compulsion. Indeed, MO is among the most important social policy phenomena of the last thirty years; it is a central plank in the Australian, US and UK welfare regimes, among others. With overwhelming popular support, and an absence of powerful detractors, MO has attained motherhood status in Australian social policy (Kinnear, 2002). Nevertheless, choice is a central tenet of volunteering (ABS, 2001; Volunteering Australia, 2004) and the capacity to exercise it may be an important precondition for realising the benefits of volunteering. Choice is preserved in a manner under MO; however, MO choice is not real choice. MO volunteering is obligatory and contractual – where the power between the contracting parties is asymmetrical – and its rationale has been labelled theoretically confused and paternalistic. Much of the intellectual discourse on the topic is mired in theoretical arguments relating to, for example, problems associated with terms such as social exclusion, passivity and dependence; whether MO volunteering is really volunteering; whether the Marshallian idea of rights based citizenship is morally superior to new paternalist notions that suggest that governments know what’s good for the unemployed. These are important debates, but one is left with the impression that there are more practical questions that require empirical investigation: What are the ends – social, psychological and transition to work – in relation to VWI, Community Work and W4D and how do they differ from traditional formal volunteering? On balance, does the end of getting more unemployed people to experience these programs justify the means – overall and in the specific cases, given that some are closer to true formal volunteering than others? How might MO volunteering and community participation programs be enhanced to maximised the outcomes and minimise the compromises (and the consequences of those compromises)? It is widely acknowledged (see Table 11 in the Appendix) that volunteering, and volunteering for unemployed people, is under-researched in Australia. Much of the limited body of knowledge on this topic (see Table 9) has focused on public perceptions of MO and W4D, impacts of MO on not for profits and patterns of participation in these programs. Ultimately, a firm view on which characterisation is more compelling and what policy prescription will be most beneficial to unemployed people requires more research. A brief description of the objectives of the proposed

19

research, target respondent groups, intended research methodology and indicative questions are listed in Table 12 in the Appendix. A review of the research on similar programs overseas, including the UK New Deal, which includes volunteering among its five MO options, will add weight to this work.

20

8. Bibliography Abbott, T. (2000) ‘Renewing the social fabric: mutual obligation and work for the dole’, Policy, Vol 6 (3): 38-42, Spring Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) Voluntary Work, Australia (ABS cat. no. 4441.0) Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002) Australian Social Trends (ABS cat. no. 4102.0) Australian Bureau of Statistics (2003a) ‘Labour underutilisation, population counts - September 2003’, published in the July 2004 issue of Australian Labour Market Statistics (ABS cat. no. 6105.0) Australian Bureau of Statistics (2003b) General Social Survey (ABS cat. no. 4159.0) Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005) Australian Labour Market Statistics (ABS cat. no. 6105.0), May Australian Council of Social Service (1999) ‘Work for the Dole briefing paper’, ACOSS Info 116, August Australian Council of Social Service (2000) ‘Does Work for the Dole lead to work for wages?’, ACOSS Info 223, November Australian Council of Social Service (2002) – see Davidson (2002) Bailis, D., Segal, A., Mahon, M., Chipperfield, J. and Dunn, E. (2001) ‘Perceived control in relation to socioeconomic and behavioral resources for health’, Social Science and Medicine, No 11: 1661-1676 Bessant, J. (2000) ‘Civil conscription or reciprocal obligation: the ethics of “work-for-the-dole”’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol 35 (1): 15-33 Beauchamp, G. (2004) ‘Volunteering in Australia - how the Australian Government values and supports volunteers in the ever-changing volunteer sector’, 10th National Conference on Volunteering, 2-4 June 2004 Borland, J. and Tseng, Y. (2004) ‘Does “Work for the Dole” work?’, Melbourne Institute Working Paper No 14/04, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne, July Braithwaite, V., Gatens, M. and Mitchell, D. (2002) ‘If mutual obligation is the answer, what is the question?’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol 37 (3): 225-245 Butterworth, P. (2003) ‘Estimating the prevalence of mental disorders among income support recipients: Approach, validity and findings’, FaCS Policy Research Paper No 21, Canberra, Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services

21

Carson, E., Winefield, T., Waters, L. and Kerr, L (2003) ‘Work for the dole: a pathway to self-esteem and employment commitment, or the road to frustration’, Australian Journal of Youth Studies, Vol 22 (4) Cockram, J. (2002) Volunteering and community participation by jobless people, Volunteering Western Australia, July Cockram, J. (2003) ‘The impact of compulsory community participation on the not for profit sector in WA’, Australian Journal on Volunteering, Vol 8 (1) Colebatch, T. (2005) ‘Prime males missing out on fall in unemployment’, The Age, 30 June Commonwealth of Australia (2002) Volunteering as part of Australians Working Together, Canberra, cited at www.together.gov.au, accessed on 8 September 2004 Considine, M. (2001) Enterprising states: the public management of welfare to work, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press Cook, B., Dodds, C. and Mitchell, W. (2003) ‘Social entrepreneurship – false premises and dangerous forebodings’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol 38 (1): 57-72 Cordingly, S (2000) ‘The definition and principles of volunteering’ in J. Warburton and M. Oppenheimer, eds, Volunteers and Volunteering, Sydney, NSW, The Federation Press, 73-82 Cox, E. (1997) ‘Social capital and volunteering: How close is the connection?’, Australian Journal on Volunteering, Vol 2 (2): 4-7 Cox, E. (2000) ‘The “light and dark” of volunteering, in J. Warburton and M. Oppenheimer, eds, Volunteers and Volunteering, Sydney, NSW, The Federation Press, 140-149 Davidson, P. (2002) ‘The Obligation Is Mutual: New Directions for Employment Assistance in Australia’, ACOSS Paper 120, Strawberry Hills, NSW, Australian Council of Social Service Department of Employment & Workplace Relations (2004) Annual Report 2003-4, Canberra, cited at http://www.dewrsb.gov.au/publications/annualReports/default.asp, accessed on 19 July 2005 Department of Employment & Workplace Relations (2003) Annual Report 2002-3, Canberra, cited at http://www.dewrsb.gov.au/publications/annualReports/default.asp, accessed on 19 July 2005 Department of Employment & Workplace Relations (2002) Annual Report 2001-2, Canberra, cited at http://www.dewrsb.gov.au/publications/annualReports/default.asp, accessed on 19 July 2005

22

Department of Family & Community Services (2001) Annual Report 2000-1, Canberra, cited at http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/annualreports.htm, accessed on 19 July 2005 Department of Family & Community Services (2002) Annual Report 2001-2, Canberra, cited at http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/annualreports.htm, accessed on 19 July 2005 Department of Family & Community Services (2003) Annual Report 2002-3, Canberra, cited at http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/annualreports.htm, accessed on 19 July 2005 Department of Family & Community Services (2004) Annual Report 2003-4, Canberra, cited at http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/annualreports.htm, accessed on 19 July 2005 Department of Family & Community Services (2005a) ‘Voluntary Work Initiative – Continuation of Funding’ cited at www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs on 19 July 2005 Department of Family & Community Services (2005b) ‘Volunteering’, cited at http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/programs/communities-volunteering.htm, accessed on 18 July 2005 Dutton, P. (2005) ‘Don’t knock work for the dole - it works’. The Age, 13 January Eardley, T., Saunders, P. and Evans, C. (2000) Community attitudes towards unemployment, activity testing and mutual obligation, Discussion Paper No. 107, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney Erlinghagen, M. and Wagner, G. (2002) ‘Can voluntary work be a substitute for gainful employment? Should welfare recipients earn their benefits by doing voluntary work?’, Australian Social Monitor, Vol 5 (1): 1-6 Frow, L. (2001) ‘Mutual obligation and volunteering’, Council of Social Services of New South Wales, cited at www.ncoss.org, accessed on 7 September 2004 Giddens, A. (1998) ‘The social investment state’ in A. Giddens The Third Way: the renewal of social democracy, Cambridge, Polity Press: 99-128 Goodin, R. (1995) ‘In defense of the nanny state’ in A. Etzioni, ed., Rights and the common good: a communitarian perspective, NY, St. Martin’s Press Goodin, R. (1998) ‘Social welfare as a collective social responsibility’, in Schmidtz, D. and Goodin, R. Social welfare and individual responsibility: for and against, Cambridge UK, Cambridge University Press

23

Harris, P. (2000) ‘Participation and the new welfare’ Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol 35 (4): 279-300 Hawke, A. (1998) ‘“Work for the Dole” – a cheap labour market program? An economists perspective’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol 33 (4), November Institute for Volunteering Research (2003) ‘Volunteering and mental health: a review of the literature’, cited at ivr.org.uk, accessed on 8 September 2004 Kerr, L. and Savelsberg, H. (2002) ‘The impact of mutual obligation policies on unemployed young people, community organisations and the wider community’, Social Policy Research Group (University of South Australia) and Adelaide Central Mission, June Keyes, C. and Waterman, K. (2003) ‘Dimensions of well-being and mental health in adulthood’, in M. Bornstein, L. Davidson C. Keyes and K. Moore, eds, Well-being: positive development across the life course, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Kinnear, P. (2002), ‘Mutual obligation: a reasonable policy?’, in T. Eardley and B. Bradbury, eds, Competing visions: National Social Policy Conference 2001, SPRC Report 1/02, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 248-262 Kumleben, S. (2000) ‘Playing the hand that’s been dealt: voluntary organisations, volunteers and the new deal’, Voluntary Action, Vol 2 (3): 11-25 Latham, M. (2001) ‘Making welfare work’ in P. Botsman and M. Latham (eds), The enabling state: people before bureaucracy, Annandale, Pluto Press, 115-131 Macintyre, C. (1999) ‘From entitlement to obligation in the Australian Welfare State’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol 34 (2): 103-118 McClure, P. (2000) Participation support for a more equitable society: Final Report of the Reference Group on Welfare Reform, Canberra, Department of Family and Community Services Mead, L. (1986) Beyond entitlement: the social obligations of citizenship, New York, Free Press Morehead, A. and Griff, C. (1996) ‘Volunteering in Australia’, ACOSS Paper 74, East Sydney, Australian Council of Social Service Moss, J. (2000) ‘The ethics and politics of mutual obligation’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol 35 (4), November Nevile, A. and Nevile, J. (2003) ‘Work for the dole: obligation or opportunity?’, Centre for Applied Economic Research, Sydney, University of New south Wales Press

24

Newman, J. (1999a) The challenge of welfare dependency in the 21st Century, FaCS Discussion Paper, Canberra, Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services Newman, J. (1999b) ‘The future of welfare in the 21st Century’, Address to the National Press Club Canberra, 29 September NFO Donovan Research (2002) ‘Participation and obligations: findings from the 2002 Job Seeker Survey’, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Pearson, N. (2001) ‘Rebuilding indigenous communities’ in P. Botsman and M. Latham, eds, The enabling state: people before bureaucracy, Annandale, Pluto Press: 115-131 Putman, R. (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community, Simon and Schuster, New York Rose, J. (2004) ‘Voluntary Work Initiative: supporting the choice to volunteer’ Rowe, J. (2000) Forward to J. Warburton and M. Oppenheimer, eds, Volunteers and Volunteering. Sydney, NSW, The Federation Press Saulwick Age Poll (2004 ‘What Australians think’, The Age, 6 September Saunders, P. (2002) ‘Working for the dole: patterns of paid and volunteer work among income support recipients’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol 37 (4): 337-362 Saunders, P., Brown, J. and Eardley, T. (2003) ‘Patterns of economic and social participation among FACs customers’, Policy Research Paper No 19, Canberra, Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services Shaver, S. (2001) ‘Australian welfare reform: from sovereignty to supervision’, TASA 2001 Conference, The University of Sydney, 13-15 December Shaver, S. (2002) ‘Australian welfare reform: from citizenship to supervision’, Social Policy and Administration, Vol 36 (4): 331-345 Skinner, E. (1996) ‘A guide to the constructs of control’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 71: 549-570 Soupourmas, F. and Ironmonger, D. (2002) Giving time: the economic and social value of volunteering in Victoria, Melbourne, Department of Human Services Swan, The Hon. W. (1999) ‘Two-way street to end poverty traps’, Sydney Morning Herald, 6 May Tanner, The Hon. L. (1999) Open Australia, Annandale, Pluto Press

25

Thoits, P. and Hewitt, L. (2001) ‘Volunteer work and social well-being’, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol 48: 174-187 Turnbull, N. and Fattore, T. (1999) ‘Mutual obligation and social capital: towards a critique’ in S. Shaver and P. Saunders, eds, Social policy for the 21st Century: justice and responsibility, Proceedings of National Social Policy Conference, Vol. 1, Sydney, 21-23 July 1999, SPRC Reports and Proceedings, No. 141, December, 227-237 Vardon, S. (2004) ‘Centrelink customers: public policy effects on volunteering’, Australian Journal on Volunteering, Vol 9 (1): 55-58 Vellekoop-Baldock, C. (1990) Volunteers in Welfare, Sydney, Allen & Unwin Volunteering Australia (2001) Annual Report 2001/2, cited at www.volunteeringaustralia.org, accessed on 18 July 2005 Volunteering Australia (2002) ‘$1.6 million funding to help find volunteer places’ VA media release, 13 May, cited at www.volunteeringaustralia.org/releases.html, accessed on 19 July 2005 Volunteering Australia (2004) ‘Definitions and Principles of Volunteering’, cited at www.volunteeringaustralia.org, accessed on 23 August 2004 Wallis Consulting Group (2001) Activity test evaluation: customer survey, Report prepared for Department of Family and Community Services Warburton, J. and McDonald, C. (2002) ‘“Compulsory volunteering” under mutual obligation policies: implications for the future’, Just Policy, No 26: 11-17 Warburton, J. and Oppenheimer, M. (2000) ‘Introduction’ in J. Warburton and M. Oppenheimer, eds, Volunteers and Volunteering. Sydney, NSW, The Federation Press Warburton, J. and Smith, J. (2003) ‘Out of the generosity of your heart: are we creating active citizens through compulsory volunteering programs for young people in Australia’, Social Policy & Administration, Vol 37 (7), December Wilson, L., Spoehr, J. and McLean, R. (2005) ‘Volunteering in not-for-profit organisations and the accumulation of social capital in South Australia’, Australian Journal on Volunteering, Vol 10 (1): 32-41 Wilson, J. and Musick, M. (1999) ‘The effects of volunteering on the volunteer’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 62 (4), cited in Institute for Volunteering Research (2003) ‘Volunteering and mental health: a review of the literature’, London, cited at www.ivr.org.uk, accessed on 8 October 2004 Yeatman, A. (1999) ‘Mutual obligation: what kind of contract is this?’ in S. Shaver and P. Saunders, eds, Social policy for the 21st Century: justice and responsibility, Proceedings of National Social Policy Conference, Vol. 1, Sydney, 21-23 July 1999, SPRC Reports and Proceedings, No 141, December, 255-268

26

APPENDIX Table 7: MO volunteering and community participation – key dates Date Event

Keating Government releases Working Nation; 1994-96 reforms include Jobs Compact, case management and increased penalties for non-compliance (Considine, 2001).

1994

Community Activity Program (CAP) aimed at getting people into paid work via part-time community placements is established; funding withdrawn in 1995 Budget (Morehead and Griff, 1996). Howard Government elected; Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Vanstone announces intention to make labour market assistance more limited and more clearly linked to capacity to benefit; changes characterised by intensive support and obligation (Considine, 2001, 120). Work for the Dole announced.

1996

1996/97 Federal Budget introduces measures to ‘remove disincentives to voluntary work participation for people receiving income support’ (Rose, 2004). David Kemp, Minister for Vocational Education and Training, introduces Social Security Legislation Amendment (Work for the Dole) Bill 1997. John Howard describes rationale for welfare changes to Parliament: ‘it is not unfair in modern Australia to ask people, if they are able to do so, to undertake some work in return for the dole they receive’ (Macintyre, 1999:106). VA is successful tenderer for provision of VWI referral services; Voluntary Work Initiative (VWI) is announced in September. Work for the Dole commences.

1997

Volunteer organisations support MO volunteering based on government assurance that Centrelink clients would be volunteering ‘of their own fee will’. Government announces MO changes, with volunteering being an acceptable activity under MO enhancements, which come into effect in July.

1998

Job Network in place: 300 contractors at centre of ‘labour exchange’ function (Considine, 2001:123). VA receives guarantee from Government that people will not be forced to volunteer. Wayne Swan, Shadow Minister for Family and Community Services supports principle of MO; says only difference between the two parties was that Labor would introduce ‘better quality work for the dole’ and Family Payment would be subject to MO too (Turnbull and Fattore, 1999).

1999

Lindsay Tanner also supports notions of participation and MO in his book Open Australia (Tanner, 1999). John Howard releases ‘Social Coalition’; according to Warburton and McDonald: ‘…governments can no longer be relied on to solve social problems… concepts such as “social contract” and “mutual obligation” attempt to activate notions of social responsibility and active citizenship assumed to be dissipated by an over-supportive welfare state’ (2002; 11). ‘Participation Support for a more equitable society’ (McClure Report) released – ‘…preferred option of mutual obligation is paid work, but for those unable to enter the market directly…community service through the non-profit sector is seen as an alternative’ (Warburton and McDonald, 2002: 12).

2000

Tony Abbot talks to Centre for Independent Studies about tackling unemployment and reforming welfare via work for the dole and MO, invoking US welfare reformer Lawrence Mead. VA recontracted, after tender, with the inclusion of MO (Rose, 2004). 2001 Australians Working Together package (AWT) announced in 2001-02 Commonwealth Budget – ‘comprehensive package of measures developed to achieve a move away from welfare dependency to self motivation, self reliance and work…’ (FaCS, 2005a).

2002 VA welcomes additional Government investment of $1.6m for ‘very successful’ VWI program (Volunteering Australia, 2002); funding for VWI is $2.1m in 2002-3 and 21,048 clients referred to voluntary work; funding for 2003-04 is $3.26m; under the Volunteer Management Program – funded to the tune of $1.5m in 2002-03 and $1.63m in 2003-04 – 19,399 volunteers were referred to 26 member organisations. Howard Government announces VWI will be funded for a further four years, from 1 July 2004, to the tune of $7.2 million. ‘A recent review of the VWI found the program was highly effective in providing quality volunteering opportunities for income support customers’ (FaCS, 2005a). From July to Sept 2004, ‘…(FaCS) in conjunction with VA, is conducting a consultation with the volunteering sector and interested stakeholders on emerging issues in volunteering and also asking more specific questions about two national volunteering support programs [VWI and VMP] (FaCS, 2005b).’

2004

Machinery of Government changes resulting from Federal Election – establishment of Department of Human Services, overseeing FaCS, employment and workplace relations, human services, etc., and responsible for welfare policy; responsibility for Australians Working Together moved from DFaCS to DEWR.

27

Table 8: Benefit recipients and volunteering and community work arrangements from 1 July 2006 (not definitive; synthesis of available information)

Payment type

Age range

Duration of unemployment Activity/MO requirements

‘Volunteering’ implications

18-64 Can volunteer </= 15 hours/week (if not to meet participation requirement) without approval - down from 20 hrs in 05

Any payment type > 50 >12 months Activity Not selected for intensive employment assistance, can do unlimited

approved volunteering < 6 months Activity May do 200 hrs vol. work over 6 months to satisfy1 18-20 > 6 months MO Can meet via Community Work or W4D < 6 months Activity 240 hrs vol. work over 6 months

Youth allowance

20-24 > 6 months MO Can meet via Community Work or W4D

< 60 + 2 years and assessed as having avoided work/job search

FT W4D 25 hrs/week unpaid W4D for 10 months (1,100 hours up from 390 in 05)

< 6 months Activity Can meet via vol. work >/= 15 hrs/week2 > 6 months3 MO Can meet via Community Work or W4D

25-54

> 6 months4 MO W4D is the default

New Start and mature age allowances

55-64 Activity Can meet via vol. work (VWI) >/= 15 hrs/week or Community Work 0-5 Existing claimants PT activity when child 7 May do 150 hours vol. work over 6 months to satisfy (not confirmed) 6-15 Existing claimants PT activity from 1 July 07 May do 150 hours vol. work over 6 months to satisfy (not confirmed) 0-5 New claimants Nil Can volunteer </= 15 hours/week

Parenting payment5

6-15 New claimants PT activity – go to NewStart

May do 150 hours vol. work over 6 months to satisfy (not confirmed)

Disability support

New claimants from 11 May 05 with ability to work 0-15 hours/week

Nil Can volunteer </= 15 hours/week

1 Volunteering may be one of a number of activities contributing to a full activity load 2 Volunteering may be one of a number of activities contributing to a full activity load 3 MO job seekers 40-49 previously able to opt into VWI, instead of Community Work if didn’t want to access training credit or Passport to Employment; those without MO reqts (mostly NSA or MA customers >50) previously able to pursue 32 hours voluntary work per fortnight or CW to meet activity reqts 4 Six weeks past six month MO gateway (40-49 y.o. job seekers in this category previously had the option to select Community Work or W4D) 5 Youngest child’s age 6 Changes became effective on 11 May 2005

28

pension6 New claimants from 11 May 05 with ability to work 15-29 hours/week

PT Activity (including MO – go to NewStart)

Can meet via Community Work or W4D

29

Table 9: Summary of the selected Australian research

Publication date Description Relevant outcome/s Eardley, Saunders and Evans (2000)

Social Policy Research Centre incorporated questions relating to public attitudes towards MO in its 1999 survey on coping with economic and social change

• Refers to earlier studies and polls that showed that there was strong support for MO in Australia by international standards and that W4D was widely supported in the community and by W4D participants, who also reported ‘fairly high’ satisfaction levels

• Broad support for MO requirements on young unemployed and, to a lesser degree, long-term unemployed

• Less support for MO for older income support recipients and people in receipt of parenting payments and disability support allowances

• The researchers described a qualified sympathy for unemployed people, blaming them to some degree for their situation, but refuting the idea that ‘welfare cheating’ was widespread

• Respondents generally said that the government had a role in helping people find work and provide a basic level of income when they are out of work

• Evidence not clear on extent to which people support penalties for non-compliance Cockram (2002) Study of volunteering organisation

officers’ and jobless persons’ attitudes towards VWI and W4D (including current and former program participants’)

• Most were interested in programs that gave them skills to get a job and expected to get one after participating, but of those with experiences of VWI and W4D about two-thirds were disappointed in this regard

• Most agreed that volunteering and W4D increased opportunities to be involved in the community and helped them make friends, especially volunteers, and that these programs gave a sense of purpose, especially W4D (although most W4D participants did not agree that it enhanced their self-esteem)

• About two-thirds of respondents who hadn’t experienced VWI and two-thirds who hadn’t been involved in W4D didn’t expect to benefit from them, whereas most of those who had participated agreed with positive statements about the programs

• Most participants in VWI and W4D thought volunteering and W4D had a bad image, especially volunteering, and a large majority of both groups thought volunteering and W4D had less value than paid work

• About half of those who had participated were concerned about the type of work they had experienced on the programs

• About half agreed it was reasonable to be asked to contribute to the community; ratings were higher among program participants than unemployed people who had not participated in the program

• A minority of VWI participants agreed that they had the experience and skills to volunteer Kerr and Savelsberg (2002)

In-depth interviews of a small number of young disadvantaged job

• MO is flawed in design and execution relative to its ambiguous aims • Positive outcomes for some participants generally incidental and attributable to service providers not

30

seekers examining the impact of MO policies on unemployed youth, community organisations and the general community

programs • Highly disadvantaged job seekers more negatively impacted than other groups and my slide further into

disadvantage after a WFD experience

NFO Donovan Research (2002)

Findings from 2002 Job Seeker Survey – CATI interviews with Centrelink customers registered for more than six months regarding MO

• Support for MO was high (80%), although understanding of MO and its relationship to W4D was limited

• Satisfaction rates were high at 81%; 84% felt their activity ‘suited them’ (up from 76% in 2000) • Two-thirds of respondents found the program increased their chances of getting a job • Most participants were referred to the program by Centrelink (58%), although 39% volunteered to

participate Saunders (2002) CATI survey of income support

recipients conducted by Roy Morgan Research in 1998 examining patterns of paid and volunteer work

• Some concern abut the representativeness of the sample • Nearly 80% nominated paid work as their preferred future activity when compared to volunteering • Reasons for volunteering were (in descending order) ‘help community/people’, ‘personal interest’,

‘keep active and meet people’ and ‘employment experience’ • Evidence that benefits recipients are active – contrary to passivity thesis • Little known about the extent to which it helps people exit the welfare system

Carson, Winefield, Waters and Kerr (2003)

Interviews with large sample of W4D participants regarding the extend to which W4D delivers against objectives such as increasing self-esteem and work commitment

• W4Ds failure to cater for individual circumstances diminishes its efficacy especially in relation to disadvantaged job seekers

• W4D doesn’t positively impact self-esteem or work employment commitment or work skills • Does seem to impact positively on mood and diminish depression and psychological distress • ‘If Work for the Dole improves the morale and mental health of unemployed people, as has been

suggested by this research, this is a tangible benefit, even if it fails to improve self-esteem or to help people find jobs. However, the results… suggest that only participants who enter the program on a voluntary basis benefit from Work for the Dole.’

• Moderate to very high satisfaction rates among Work for the Dole participant respondents Warburton and Smith (2003)

Focus groups of participants in W4D and school-based community involvement programs in Brisbane examining the effect of compulsion on the development of active citizenship

• Young people are very aware of constraints on choice presented by compulsory participation in compulsory volunteering programs

• Constraints on choice diminish sense of agency • Compulsion fails to foster positive community attitudes, and may weaken or compromise the

development of active citizenship

Borland and Tseng (2004)

Study examining the transition out of unemployment among 18-24 year old participants in a W4D pilot

• Study of effects on transition to paid work and time on unemployment benefits among pilot participants showed that participants transition to work outcomes were significantly worse and time spent on unemployment benefits longer than a control group

31

in 1997/98 • Adverse effects of program could be explained by the program diverting participants attention from job search and stigmatising effects

Wilson, Spoehr and McLean (2005)

2004 study of South Australian not for profit organisations in relation to volunteering and the accumulation of social capital

• Reported an increase in volunteering in SA • Evidence of a supply side driver of this growth: governments outsourcing community services to the not

for profit sector leading to those organisations having more resources and providing more volunteering opportunities for volunteering

• Increases in ‘self declared’ volunteering may also be attributable to MO • More than 50% volunteered because they believed doing so gave them direct benefits, including

enhancing their skills and, in turn, their employment prospects

32

Table 10: Views about volunteering by Centrelink clients with and without experience of VWI and W4D (Cockram, 2002)7

Agree/strongly agree (%) Disagree/strongly disagree (%)

Neutral (%) Statements

VWI No VWI

W4D No W4D

VWI No VWI

W4D No W4D

VWI No VWI

W4D No W4D

Transition to work I would only be interested in volunteering/W4D if it gave me the skills to help me get a job

52 64 39 20 9 26

I have expectations that volunteering/W4D will lead to a job 52 56 25 34 23 10 Being involved in volunteering discourages looking for paid work8 34 41 25 Being involved in volunteering/W4D encourages people to look for paid work

45 26 20 17 48 66 38 26 14

Volunteering/W4D gives me skills to help me get a job 33 29 65 65 8 6 Committing myself to voluntary work/W4D increases my chances of paid employment

19 56 44 40 64 16 30 21 17 28 22 39

Personal benefits Voluntary work/W4D increases opportunities to be part of the community

86 68 52 49 10 15 44 25 4 17 4 26

I believe that being involved in volunteering/W4D gives me a sense of purpose

28 51 39 53 36 27 18 13 34

Through volunteering/W4D I can meet people and make friends 61 69 51 54 15 17 29 6 24 14 20 40 W4D increases my self-esteem 30 59 11 I believe that I would benefit from being involved in W4D 24 66 34 10

7 Cockram presented data from these groups of respondents in separate tables and some of the wording was not consistent between questions asked of the different groups; accordingly, the questions have been synthesised in places without changing the meaning. The data has also been grouped by benefit category, e.g. those relating to employment, social/community benefit, which it was not in the original. This is not a complete representation of the Cockram data: questions not relevant were left out. 8 It is not clear whether this question is intentionally different from the equivalent question asked of W4D participants (below)

33

Agree/strongly agree (%) Disagree/strongly disagree (%)

Neutral (%) Statements

VWI No VWI

W4D No W4D

VWI No VWI

W4D No W4D

VWI No VWI

W4D No W4D

Attitudes towards volunteering/W4D I would prefer to acquire new skills rather than volunteer/be involved in W4D9

18 51 64 47 32 9 35 17 27

I think volunteering/W4D has a poor image 80 60 20 13 0 27 I believe that volunteering/W4D does not have as much value as paid work

89 73 6 9 5 18

I believe that W4D has as much value as paid work 36 49 15 I am concerned about the type of work offered by volunteering/W4D opportunities

56 48 62 26 25 12 18 27 26

W4D is a dead end trap 33 33 34 Accessibility of/involvement in programs I think it is fair that people be asked to contribute to the community in return for income support allowances

55 48 52 51 40 39 39 22 5 13 9 27

I could afford the time to volunteer 59 18 23 I do not know how to find out about other volunteering/W4D opportunities

15 21 77 64 8 15

I know how to find out about volunteering opportunities 51 22 27 I believe I have the experience and/or skills to undertake volunteering/W4D

18 63 62 48 48 10 31 15 21 27 7 37

I think I have a lot to offer a community organisation 32 66 44 11 24 23 Involvement in volunteering may put my Centrelink payment at risk 20 30 45 47 35 23 If I am required to work for my benefit then I should be paid more than my Centrelink allowance

65 54 8 12 27 34

9 VWI participants were, on average, significantly older than W4D participants

34

Table 11: Support for the notion that volunteering and volunteering for unemployed people is under-researched in Australia

Author Author Relevant quotes Anne Hawke (1998)

Flinders University

‘The important question for any evaluation is what is the net effect of those schemes. The DEETYA estimates merely represent the gross effect. Influences which have been discounted include: how many of these people who have achieved employment would have done so without the program…to what extent do former participants in a scheme suffer from disillusionment from the process, thereby lessening their ability to seek employment?’

Jeni Warburton and Melanie Oppenheimer (2000)

Universities of Queensland and Western Sydney

‘The general literature on all aspects of volunteering is, to date, largely inadequate for the Australian perspective. The field is wide open for more research.’

Jill Rowe (2000)

Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia

‘It is timely indeed that social scientists should seek to review the theory and practice of volunteering and explore the dynamics of a still under researched field.’

Judith Cockram (2002)

Edith Cowan University

‘…whilst there has been some research particularly in Britain, on the jobless and volunteering, this area has been slow to emerge in Australia. ‘It is the intention of this research to go some way toward redressing what is seen as an inadequately researched and an important and fast-growing area.’

Jeni Warburton and Catherine McDonald (2002)

University of Queensland

‘There is an urgent need for empirical research to examine the impact of social policy change on individual [volunteer] responses and behaviour.’

Judith Cockram (2003)

Edith Cowan University

‘In the few years since the introduction of VWI, some concerns have arisen…These include the rapid emergence of public policies impacting on voluntary and community participation, and the lack of research which is set in current conditions and focused on the government’s policy agenda.’ ‘…given the negative views about young people by many of the agencies who participated in this research, it is possible that a reduction in the level of participation could occur in Australia. It is important that there be further research with the young unemployed to examine how young people themselves view the purpose and value of volunteering and how government and community agencies can best support them.’

Lou Wilson, John Spoehr and Robyn McLean (2005)

University of Adelaide

‘...volunteers were less interested in engaging in Work for the Dole programs associated with relations of hierarchy and dependence. Our study suggests more research into this area might be warranted.’

35

Table 12: Description of the research Objectives of the research • Establish a comprehensive fact base in order to help induce which of the two

points of view described in this paper is most compelling • Better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the current policy settings and

programs in order to hypothesise about a way forward in relation to volunteering and community participation among unemployed people in an objective manner

• Complement existing knowledge in the community of discourse Intended respondent groups • People who whilst unemployed in the past five years participated in:

o Traditional formal volunteering o VWI o Community Work o W4D o More than one of the above.

Research method • In-depth interviews to pilot the survey questionnaire (as opposed to focus groups,

to minimise the likelihood of harm to respondents), a refined version of which will then be distributed to respondents by cooperative intermediaries directly or by mail or email

• Where appropriate, complement the following with established psychological instruments, such as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory, and in so doing relate to findings from previous relevant research (e.g. Carson et al, 2003)

Areas of enquiry

Areas of inquiry

Indicative questions

Qualification of respondents

1. Are you or have you ever been unemployed? 2. Have you been involved in volunteering or community participation while unemployed? 3. Was it an organised volunteering or community participation program or something you got

involved in off your own bat? 4. If it was via a program of some kind, what was the program called? 5. How and why did you get involved in the volunteering or community participation activity?

Prior volunteering behaviours

6. Before getting involved, would you describe your self as someone inclined or disinclined to get involved in volunteering or community participation?

7. Had you been involved in a volunteering or community participation activity before the one you referred to?

Choice/ volunteering

8. In your opinion, what defines ‘true volunteering’? 9. Was the volunteering or community participation you were involved in true volunteering? 10. Did you feel as though your participation was entirely your choice or did you feel obliged or

compelled to participate? 11. If there was not full choice, was there an element of choice in relation to your participation? 12. If it had been entirely voluntary would that have made a difference to the way you thought

about it then/think about it now? 13. Did you perceive that there was a stigma associated with volunteering and community

participation before getting involved? And now? Social/ psychological benefits

14. How would you describe your satisfaction with the volunteering or community participation experience?

15. In what ways, if any, did you find volunteering or community participation beneficial? 16. Before getting involved did you feel self-reliant? Did it help you feel self-reliant?

36

17. Before getting involved did you feel as though you were doing something worthwhile with your life? Did it help you in this regard?

18. Before getting involved did you feel as though you had good social networks? Did it help you build social networks?

19. Before getting involved, did you feel as though you could offer something to the task you were asked to perform? And once you had started, did you feel more or less able to offer something?

20. Before getting involved did you feel good about yourself? Did it make you feel good about yourself?

21. Before getting involved did you feel as though you had control over your life? Did it make you feel more in control?

22. Before you got involved in the volunteering or community participation activity you described at the start, did you feel: − Lonely/socially isolated − Depressed − Disconnected from the community − Dependent on welfare − Under-utilised?

23. Did your involvement in the volunteering or community participation activity you described at the start change those feelings?

Transition to work outcomes

25. Did you feel that the volunteering or community participation activity gave you knowledge, skills or abilities that made you more ready for a job?

26. If applicable, how have employers reacted to seeing the volunteering or community participation activity on your resume?

27. Did you get a job after participating in volunteering or community participation? If so… − Roughly how long after participating? − Did the volunteering or community participation activity play a part? − What other factors played a part?

28. If not, was the volunteering or community participation activity worth it anyway? 29. How would you compare the value of paid employment and volunteering or community

participation? Carrots and sticks

30. Is it appropriate to provide incentives for people to get involved in volunteering or community participation and penalties for those who do not participate or fail to complete their placement?

31. Did an incentive, if any, play a role in your decision to get involved in volunteering or community participation?

32. Are the incentives that do currently exist for some programs [describe] sufficient, just right or insufficient?

33. Did you feel as though there would be negative consequences if you failed to participate in volunteering or community participation? What about if you failed to complete it?

Post program behaviours

34. Did you continue with the volunteering or community participation activity [after your MO commitment was completed]?

35. Have you been involved in volunteering or community participation in any [other] way since?

36. Did the experience leave you inclined to volunteer/get involved in the community? 37. Did it become clearer how to get involved in volunteering or community participation as a

result of your participation in the volunteering or community participation activity? 38. Do you feel as though you are more or less interested in your community following

participation in your volunteering or community participation activity? Attitudes to welfare/ MO

39. Do you feel unemployed people are entitled to income support? 40. Do you feel that welfare cheating is widespread? 41. Do you feel that it is reasonable for unemployed people to be asked to give something back

in return for their benefits? 42. If so, do you feel as though unemployed people live up to their side of the bargain by

participating in volunteering or community participation? 43. And does the government fulfil its side of the bargain by paying unemployed people income

support benefits? 44. Do you feel the government has a role in facilitating volunteering or community participation

activities? What role?

37