Introduction
The situation of young people who are not in employment, education or training (NEET) has gained much attention in recent decades (Eurofound, 2016). Besides sharing experiences of being at the margins of labour markets and education systems, young people in NEET situations often struggle, for example, with mental health problems, socioeconomic disadvantage and low education (Plenty et al., Reference Plenty, Andersson, Hjalmarsson, Mood, Rudolphi and Treuter2018; Gariépy et al., Reference Gariépy, Danna, Hawke, Henderson and Iyer2022). So far, uses of the NEET concept have been criticised for essentialising and homogenising a group by defining them by what they are not (i.e., in education, employment or training) (Yates & Payne, Reference Yates and Payne2006; Boland & Griffin, Reference Boland and Griffin2023). To avoid reinforcing stereotypes and to recognise the structural and social conditions that shape their lives, we refer to the group as young people in NEET situations or NEET-situated young people, consistent with other reports (Norvell Gustavsson & Jonsson, Reference Norvell Gustavsson and Jonsson2024). While scholars have problematised the NEET concept, policy efforts have been made to reduce the proportion of this youth demographic.
Policies directed towards jobless individuals, such as NEET-situated young people, have largely adopted a supply-side focus, emphasising employability and individual responsibility (Frøyland et al., Reference Frøyland, Andreassen and Innvær2019). This has been expressed through work-first and human capital strategies, which are concerned with rapid labour market entry and prescribed skill development, respectively (Dean et al., Reference Dean, Bonvin, Vielle and Farvaque2005; Lindsay et al., Reference Lindsay, McQuaid and Dutton2007; Paju et al., Reference Paju, Näre, Haikkola and Krivonos2020). Research has generally shown mixed results, particularly in supporting young people with complex needs (Bredgaard, Reference Bredgaard2015; Dall & Danneris, Reference Dall and Danneris2019). This may follow from work-first approaches overlooking the challenges faced by the group, assuming that they are always ready and able to take any job (Dean, Reference Dean2003; Frøyland, Reference Frøyland2016). Similarly, human capital approaches often place a burden of self-development on individuals, even when the necessary changes are beyond their control (Dean, Reference Dean2003; Paju et al., Reference Paju, Näre, Haikkola and Krivonos2020).
While work-first and human capital approaches differ in their underpinning logic, both are rooted in the neoliberal ideals of New Public Management (NPM), which have been embraced by Western governments since the 1980s (Hänninen et al., Reference Hänninen, Lehtelä, Saikkonen, Hänninen, Lehtelä and Saikkonen2019). NPM has been shown to reduce costs and enhance efficiency (Pollitt & Dan, Reference Pollitt and Dan2011) but has also been criticised for promoting specialisation and marketisation of welfare systems (Lodge & Gill, Reference Lodge and Gill2011). In response to these shortcomings, calls have been made for new paradigms of public governance, with relational welfare appearing as one example of this shift (Cottam, Reference Cottam2018). Relational welfare is concerned with life-first rather than work-first, the creation of capability rather than human capital, and the use of co-creation rather than command and control management. These qualities have made relational welfare gain the reputation of offering a more humanitarian perspective to social policy (Cottam, Reference Cottam2012; Von Heimburg & Ness, Reference Von Heimburg and Ness2021).
Although research has recognised the importance of building capability among NEET-situated young people (Egdell & McQuaid, Reference Egdell and McQuaid2016; Frøyland, Reference Frøyland2019), few studies have integrated the perspectives of relational welfare, capabilities and co-creation. This knowledge gap exists despite the concept’s potential to assess how relational and co-creational approaches can meet the needs of NEET-situated young people while contributing to a broader set of outcomes than employability or rapid employment by building capabilities. Integrating Cottam’s work (Reference Cottam2012, Reference Cottam2018) rooted in co-creation and the capability approach, this study aims to enhance understandings of how and why relational welfare works to support NEET-situated young people.
The promise of relational welfare
Relational welfare is a person-centred approach that prioritises connection and participation (Cottam, Reference Cottam2018; Von Heimburg & Ness, Reference Von Heimburg and Ness2021). Consistent with other scholars (Boland & Griffin, Reference Boland and Griffin2023), it rejects the idea that welfare systems should solely manage crises or risks in a work-centric society. Instead, it should act as a guarantor of wellbeing by enabling individuals to lead good lives. Central to these ideas is Sen’s (Reference Sen, Nussbaum and Sen1993) capability approach, which emphasises meeting people’s real needs and supporting them in directions that they value (Cottam, Reference Cottam2018). Based on participation through co-creation (Von Heimburg & Ness, Reference Von Heimburg and Ness2021), relational welfare seeks to empower individuals and communities to lead their own change by strengthening ‘beings’ (the kinds of persons that they are able to be) and ‘doings’ (the activities that they are able to undertake) (Robeyns & Fibieger Byskov, Reference Robeyns, Fibieger Byskov, Zalta and Nodelman2021). This contrasts with work-first and human capital strategies by prioritising opportunities over individual responsibility while focussing on needs for, rather than obligations to, work (Dean et al., Reference Dean, Bonvin, Vielle and Farvaque2005).
Relational welfare, introduced by Cottam (Reference Cottam2018) in the United Kingdom (UK), criticises the British system for inadequately addressing modern societal complexities. In contrast to this liberal regime, countries in Northern Europe are famous for their emphasis on equality, solidarity, public responsibility and personal autonomy. However, like the UK and other Western democracies, Nordic countries have undergone changes in recent decades (Hänninen et al., Reference Hänninen, Lehtelä, Saikkonen, Hänninen, Lehtelä and Saikkonen2019). Despite Sweden’s universal welfare system, NPM principles have been adopted to increase its administration and control (Lauri, Reference Lauri2016). Defined as a unitary decentralised state in which 21 regional and 290 municipal councils work alongside the central government (Andersson, Reference Andersson2022), this shift has led to a somewhat fragmented system focussed on documentation, referrals and individual responsibilities.
The Swedish welfare system
The Swedish welfare system has not only been subject to NPM but also faces criticism for its fragmentation, where siloed and specialised organisations at various administrative levels risk neglecting individuals with complex needs, especially young people (SOU, 2017, p.9; Almqvist & Lassinantti, Reference Almqvist and Lassinantti2018). The Social Insurance Agency (SIA) and the Public Employment Service (PES) are government agencies responsible for administering benefits and implementing labour market policies while supporting unemployed job seekers, respectively. At lower levels of government, the regions are responsible for healthcare, while municipalities are responsible for childcare, primary and secondary education, and social services, based on a considerable degree of autonomy (Andersson, Reference Andersson2022).
During the last few decades, municipalities have become more involved in labour market policies, which are traditionally governed in Sweden by the central government. This shift has been underway in Sweden since the 1990s financial crisis (Andersson, Reference Andersson2022) but has intensified in recent years owing to major reforms of PES aiming at digitalisation and marketisation. The reformation has, amongst other things, reduced the agency’s local presence owing to office closures which, in turn, has contributed to an ‘unacceptable transfer of tasks to municipalities’ (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, 2023, p.6). Consistent with studies seeing how some young people do not engage with statutory services or withdraw early (Van Parys & Struyven, Reference Van Parys and Struyven2013; Gjersøe et al., Reference Gjersøe, Jones, Leseth, Scullion and Martin2024), Swedish municipalities have also come to play a bigger labour market role based on local dissatisfaction with PES in reaching and supporting those with complex and more comprehensive needs (SOU, 2023, p.7).
Besides taking more responsibility in labour market policy by compensating for the shortcomings of PES, municipal movements in this area are often also guided by local self-interest. On the one hand, this may be to reduce costs for income support by promoting self-sufficiency of those needing social assistance. Following international trends (Van Berkel & Van Der Aa, Reference Van Berkel and Van Der Aa2012), this means that benefits are conditioned against participation in activation programmes (Andersson, Reference Andersson2022; Bengtsson et al., Reference Bengtsson, Panican and Ulmestig2022). On the other hand, municipalities may seek to meet the statutory responsibilities of serving citizens in need based on the social work principles of empowerment, self-determination and integrity as specified in the Social Services Act (2001:453). This means that municipalities can move beyond conditioned activations of social assistance recipients to provide responsive, inclusive and personalised support to a broader group of young people who are not working or studying.
In this study, we explore how municipalities meet the needs of NEET-situated young people through community-based multicomponent initiatives (CBMIs) while demonstrating relational welfare in action at local levels (Von Heimburg & Ness, Reference Von Heimburg and Ness2021).
Community-based multicomponent initiatives
The proportion of young people in NEET situations aged 16–29 years in Sweden has fluctuated between 7% and 11% of the total youth population (130,000–170,000 individuals) since 2007 (Agency for Youth and Civil Society, 2023). Although low compared with other European countries, the stability of this trend has concerned policymakers over the past decade (Ministry of Education, 2012). Nationally, the ‘NEET problem’ has been linked to the vulnerability of this demographic but also to the welfare system’s inadequacy in supporting them (Jonsson et al., Reference Jonsson, Gotfredsen and Goicolea2022). At the local level, municipalities have addressed this issue with tailored solutions, often with some external funding from the European Social Fund. In this study, we focus on eight of these CBMIs, which are similar despite being independently designed and implemented.
Like other programmes, CBMIs in our study adopt a holistic approach to address participants’ whole life situation by combining activities and support in line with person-centred needs and aspirations through collaborations with other actors (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Dermody, O’Donoghue, Davis and Isard2017; Wiedel & Bolin, Reference Wiedel and Bolin2019; Brown et al., Reference Brown, Douthwaite, Savvides and Costas Batlle2022; Mackrill et al., Reference Mackrill, Salado-Rasmussen and Bonfils2023). Although the official goal is to promote self-sufficiency through (re-)engagements with school or work, building capability beyond employability and rapid employment are prioritised. This means that notions of ‘success’ are not limited to labour market participation but include meeting needs of belonging, financial support, formal education and specialist care.
Engagement is voluntary and not time limited while participants are co-creators of their programming (Cottam, Reference Cottam2018, Von Heimburg & Ness, Reference Von Heimburg and Ness2021). Acting as ‘street-level bureaucrats’ (Lipsky, Reference Lipsky1980), this is facilitated by practitioners’ discretionary judgements which, through smaller caseloads, less stringent performance targets and collaborations with other actors, allows for shared decision-making with and more time for each participant as well as access to various programme offerings (Jewell, Reference Jewell2007; Van Berkel & Van Der Aa, Reference Van Berkel and Van Der Aa2012). These frontline workers often have different qualifications and trainings. They may have backgrounds in pedagogy, social work, guidance counselling, psychiatry, social psychology and public health, but also experience from working with education, the PES, the SIA, or other activation programmes. Overall, their work is guided as much by personal qualities as professional competencies adhering to a social work professionalism rather than managerialist bureaucracy. However, consistent with other research, their role lacks the status of a defined and demarked profession (Van Berkel & Van Der Aa, Reference Van Berkel and Van Der Aa2012).
The use of realist evaluation
Responding to calls for theory-driven evaluations in the field (Mawn et al., Reference Mawn, Oliver, Akhter, Bambra, Torgerson, Bridle and Stain2017), we conducted a realist evaluation (RE). The RE approach was developed to explain how, for whom, under what conditions and why programmes work (Pawson & Tilley, Reference Pawson and Tilley1997). It follows a process of theory gleaning, testing and consolidation, where the first phase seeks to elicit programme theories (PTs) about how the programme is supposed to work by articulating its underpinning assumptions (Manzano, Reference Manzano2016). The second phase concerns testing the PTs, while the third phase synthesises evidence from the testing to refine them (Pawson, Reference Pawson2013). RE follows similar principles, albeit applying different concepts and depth, as Theory of Change approaches to understand how programmes work (Blamey & Mackenzie, Reference Blamey and Mackenzie2007). However, based on a generative view of causality, it goes further by assessing why they work by linking outcomes with context and mechanisms, as detailed in Table 1 (Greenhalgh et al., Reference Greenhalgh, Pawson, Wong, Westhorp, Greenhalgh, Manzano and Jagosh2017). In this regard, the concepts of context, mechanisms and outcomes are different processes and entities of a programme, while PTs provide more comprehensive explanations of the programme’s functioning.
Table 1. Definitions of key realist concepts
Methods
This study reports findings from theory testing and consolidation, where PTs elicited during theory gleaning have been scrutinised (Jonsson et al., Reference Jonsson, Goicolea, Hjelte and Linander2022). To facilitate this, a retroductive analysis of data triangulated from participatory observations, programme documents and realist interviews with participants (NEET-situated young people) and practitioners (managers and frontline workers) of eight CBMIs was conducted (Wong et al., Reference Wong, Westhorp, Manzano, Greenhalgh, Jagosh and Greenhalgh2016; Mukumbang, Reference Mukumbang2021).
Data collection
CBMIs were selected on the basis of the municipality’s size, geographical location, and urbanisation level to gather diverse perspectives. We conducted theory refinement interviews (Manzano, Reference Manzano2016; Mukumbang et al., Reference Mukumbang, Marchal, Van Belle and Van Wyk2019) digitally during May and June 2022 with 34 practitioners from the eight CBMIs (Table 2). Between September 2022 and March 2023, we visited each site for at least 2 days to interview the participating young people and conduct participatory observations. While some interviews were held via phone, the majority took place face-to-face in a private room at the CBMI. All interviews aimed to scrutinise the PTs (Mukumbang et al., Reference Mukumbang, Marchal, Van Belle and Van Wyk2019).
Table 2. Characteristics of study participants
In total, 39 participants who were willing and able to engage with us during our visits were interviewed individually or in smaller groups (Table 2). In line with European (Eurofound, 2016) and Swedish (SOU, 2017, p.9) descriptions, all faced multiple challenges, including early school leaving, immigration, socioeconomic disadvantage, mental health problems, neurodiversity (e.g. attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and dyslexia) and sickness or disability with or without reduced work capacity. Participants were at various stages of their CBMI engagement, with some just starting, while others were nearing completion.
All theory refinement interviews were recorded using a dictaphone and transcribed verbatim. Additionally, we collected information on the number of participants in the CBMIs and reasons for leaving (i.e. education, employment, other welfare actors or dropout). Our participatory observations of the daily practices were summarised in field notes to triangulate the data.
Analysis and synthesis
We analysed a dataset of 61 interview transcripts, 15 programme documents, and 10 pages of field notes in parallel with the data collection to scrutinise and refine the PTs (Manzano, Reference Manzano2016). The analysis began after the first interviews and visits in May 2022, with ongoing refinements through reading and discussing the emerging transcripts. Our retroductive analysis of the entire dataset started after the last visit and interviews in March 2023 by assigning interpretive labels and notes related to, and extending beyond, the PTs. This led to the development of 5 mechanisms covering 3 areas. On the basis of the emergent findings, we explored theoretical frameworks that could explain the patterns, finding alignment with literature on relational welfare. The data were then re-analysed, considering the literature iterating between context, mechanism and outcome configurations (Mukumbang, Reference Mukumbang2021).
In the final stage, we conducted 14 theory consolidation interviews (Manzano, Reference Manzano2016; Mukumbang et al., Reference Mukumbang, Marchal, Van Belle and Van Wyk2019) between October and November 2023, with 6 participants and 8 groups of practitioners (25 in total) from all CBMIs. These interviews aimed to clarify conceptualisations and links between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes resulting in minor specifications.
Ethical considerations
This research was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr 2021-01418). Before providing written informed consent, each participant and practitioner received details about the study’s purpose and implications, that taking part was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time without explanation. No financial or other incentives were provided. Personal information likely to lead to identification was excluded from the transcripts to protect their identity.
Results and discussion
Three thematic areas capturing different phases – preparatory, planning, and programming – were developed. These explain how and why relational welfare works to support NEET-situated young people through mechanisms of closeness for connection, belief for hope, flexibility for control, challenging for courage and coordination for calmness. Within the context of practitioners collaborating with other actors and participants aspiring for change, the mechanisms enabled them to overcome isolations and form a future orientation. This also contributed to strengthening their beings and doings to enhance wellbeing. Figure 1 summarises the findings, which are narrated below with quotes. To ensure confidentiality, pseudonyms are used in the text.
Figure 1. Summary of the main findings (C = context, M = mechanism and O = outcome).
Preparatory phase
This section shows how preparatory processes, where practitioners engaged with a personal professionality while enabling participation and offering ‘low threshold’ activities, helped participants overcome social and emotional isolations by fostering senses of safety and connectedness.
Closeness for connection
Similar to other literature (Dean, Reference Dean2003; Aaltonen et al., Reference Aaltonen, Berg and Ikäheimo2016; Brown et al., Reference Brown, Douthwaite, Savvides and Costas Batlle2022; Mackrill et al., Reference Mackrill, Salado-Rasmussen and Bonfils2023), many participants’ lives were shaped by health-related and social challenges, unreachable demands and a sense of shame and failure for not meeting perceived expectations. Consequently, they described being socially or emotionally withdrawn, feeling closed off from their surroundings. Some expressed loneliness or limited social contact, while others shared broader anxieties and worries about opening up and letting people in, owing to fear of judgement, blame and rejection. Several had negative experiences from earlier welfare encounters characterised by conditioned, inadequate and inattentive support. These narrations illustrate how their lives involved many adversities upon entering the CBMI, leaving them reserved and reluctant to engage with new people, especially in positions of power and authority (context). This was mirrored by practitioners who explained that:
These are [young] people who have been quite burned by the system in the past and may have… some have been bullied and relationships have been a big challenge. And I also think that you have to remember that this is a socially… not damaged person but a person who has been mistreated.
The practitioners, prompted by participants’ reservations and reluctance to engage, employed a ‘personal professionality’ (relational resource). Similar to earlier reports (Mackrill et al., Reference Mackrill, Salado-Rasmussen and Bonfils2023) and Cottam’s (Reference Cottam2018) concept of the relational worker, they listened actively and saw beyond problems without judgement, while balancing warmth in interactions yet keeping proper boundaries. When discussing the first PT, practitioners emphasised the importance of approaching participants with kindness but without avoiding difficult topics. They also valued keeping promises and showing genuine care by responding supportively to dismissive behaviours. Additionally, they described sharing aspects of their lives to foster reciprocity and break hierarchical barriers. Being sensitive to individual differences, rather than categorising or questioning participants, was also emphasised, in line with earlier research (Aaltonen et al., Reference Aaltonen, Berg and Ikäheimo2016; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Dermody, O’Donoghue, Davis and Isard2017). As explained by one practitioner:
There is no chance in the world that they [the participants] would be questioned when they come here. We don’t care so much about how things are or have happened… It’s just, talk to us. That’s the only thing we hope that they dare.
Since many participants had withdrawn socially or emotionally and were reluctant to engage, most CBMIs offered low-threshold activities in groups as a first step (practical resource). Consistent with the voluntary participation whereby an ‘enforced caregiving’ was avoided (Gjersøe et al., Reference Gjersøe, Jones, Leseth, Scullion and Martin2024, p.607), these activities were optional, aiming to encourage and enable engagement by tapping into their interests (co-creation resource). As described by Axel (age 30):
They have activities (…) we go out for coffee, barbecues, and stuff like that. And you have to sign up and then… Especially if you don’t have anything to do, they’ll ask you “sign up”, but if don’t feel like it that day, you don’t have to. I think this helps a person to come out of their shell, that they don’t need to hold on to everything themselves.
The personal professionality, guided by ‘human qualities rather than the rule books’ (Cottam, Reference Cottam2012, p.139), was described by participants in terms such as positive, open, honest, caring, reliable and understanding. This approach, together with opportunities to engage at their own discretion, made them feel safe and a sense of connectedness (connection response), consistent with earlier research (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Douthwaite, Savvides and Costas Batlle2022; Rauwerdink-Nijland et al., Reference Rauwerdink-Nijland, Van den Dries, Metz, Verhoeff and Wolf2024). Some felt valued as individuals rather than mere numbers or a job, while others expressed how they had found a safe space where they could be themselves and open up without fear of judgement. By enabling them to overcome social and emotional isolations, this made them feel better, happier and more energised, which enhanced wellbeing (preparatory outcomes) as narrated by Lauren (age 25):
I’ve been here now for a year and a half now and I’ve really seen people blossom. People who come here, they hardly dare to look you in the eye and then suddenly, they sit and discuss with someone in the groups and like… you may think it’s just to start talking, but it can be such a huge threshold for some to do that. So, to be supported to get over it, that will do so much in the long run for that person. And I think that everyone needs a place in their life where they can feel safe, and it may be that many who come here have not felt safe at school or at home or … so to be able to come here a few hours a week and feel safe is so incredibly important.
Planning phase
This section describes the planning phase, occurring in parallel with the preparatory processes, in which practitioners showed a belief in participants’ abilities and possibilities for a changed situation by engaging with responsive curiosity and discussing needs and aspirations in personalising action plans. This enabled them to move from a bleak view of the future to a more positive one through a sense of optimism and hope, which enhanced wellbeing.
Belief for hope
Echoing earlier research (Dean, Reference Dean2003; Bryant & Ellard, Reference Bryant and Ellard2015; Frøyland, Reference Frøyland2016), participants often aspired to different paths in life, yet feeling uncertain about what to do (context). Upon entering the CBMI, there was a will without a way, with many feeling lost or stuck. Prompted by the will to change, regardless of how strong, explicit or directed it was, practitioners employed a ‘responsive curiosity’ (relational resource). This approach, akin to the holistic focus found in other reports (Aaltonen et al., Reference Aaltonen, Berg and Ikäheimo2016; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Dermody, O’Donoghue, Davis and Isard2017), involved an initial mapping that looked beyond barriers to education and employment into participants’ broader life situations. Health-related and social challenges were identified, but the focus remained on discovering strengths and interests through active listening (see Cottam, Reference Cottam2018), as explained by one practitioner.
(…) we are very curious; we really try to listen in and find this one, but what do you like? Or what are you good at? To really find these small things.
In contrast to other welfare services, where participants had been passive recipients, in the CBMIs they were considered active subjects and experts in their own lives, aligning with relational welfare (Von Heimburg & Ness, Reference Von Heimburg and Ness2021). Practitioners believed in meeting each participant where they were, engaging them in discussions to centre in on needs and aspirations after mapping broader life situations (co-creation resource). The importance of not offering solutions or answers was emphasised, focussing instead on ‘what works and what they want to do’, as noted by one practitioner. Participants valued exploring alternatives, finding it helpful, inspiring and energising, as they were often overwhelmed and unclear when thinking about the future. They were never forced to quickly take any job or obligated to assert to self-development by situating themselves in relation to norms of competencies and ‘the right track’ (Dean, Reference Dean2003, p.446). Instead, they were given the time and support to identify what they wanted to be or do, with aspirations being formulated as personal goals and translated into tentative action plans, making them tangible and concrete (practical resource). Consistent with this approach, the plan-making is vital in relational welfare, as it is both a means to an end and an end in itself (Cottam, Reference Cottam2018). It supports people in ‘weaving together a new story’ that moves beyond challenges and constraints while allowing them to find a purpose and reason for building capabilities (p.52).
By engaging with responsive curiosity while discussing needs and aspirations to develop personalised action plans, practitioners showed a belief in abilities and possibilities for a changed situation, a key aspect highlighted in earlier reports (Aaltonen et al., Reference Aaltonen, Berg and Ikäheimo2016; Danneris & Caswell, Reference Danneris and Caswell2019). This contributed to a sense of optimism and hope (hopefulness response) that supported participants in developing a future-orientated mindset that enhanced wellbeing (planning outcomes) as uncertainties narrowed and directions forward improved consisted with other studies (Bryant & Ellard, Reference Bryant and Ellard2015).
When I came here, it was like “okay, I have no opportunities”. I have studies behind me, I have work experience, but it’s been so long and… You get stuck. But now, you get support, and I went from having no confidence at all in anything to having a goal (Sara, age 26).
Programming phase
This final section shows how flexible, challenging and coordinated programming offered participants opportunities to exercise and experience control, courage and calmness to strengthen beings and doings, which enhanced wellbeing.
Flexibility for control
In contrast to standardised and time-limited activation programmes, CBMIs had a flexible design where nothing was forced or ‘set in stone’ (Ines, age 24). When discussing the second PT, flexibility was reflected in the programming, with the action plan serving as a guide rather than an evaluative framework consistent with relational welfare (Cottam, Reference Cottam2018). Participants did not have to follow a fixed set of activities, and the process was subject to adjustments as necessary through regular follow-up (practical resource). Once directions had been pointed out in the planning, activities relevant for each person to move towards their goals were identified. For those who had been reserved and reluctant to engage (context), this could foster progress, but also prevent disengagement as one practitioner explained:
It’s not like everyone has to learn how to write a CV. If you know you’re not going to look for a job, or maybe you already have a CV, why should we spend time on that? Many of the participants would also probably not come back if we forced them to do something that they didn’t see a purpose in, understood the meaning of, or benefited from. Then we would lose them again.
Participants highlighted how practitioners continuously sought their input and respected their self-determination (relational resource), always asking ‘Do you want to do this? Shall we do this? Is this what you want?’ (Claudia, age 29). They also noted an openness to dropping ideas and finding alternative solutions by acknowledging that not all activities suited them or were what they wanted, as Joel (age 23) described:
We’ve gone through various alternatives and it’s… I have shot some down and some I’ve accepted. This is a good approach for me, especially since where I want to go is… well, what I want to work with is something that they haven’t dealt with before, so they’ve been trying new solutions for me. So, it really feels like… I don’t feel forced to do anything, but everything I do is… It might be one suggestion and if I agree, I agree because I want to.
Flexibility was facilitated by engagements with other public, private and civil society actors, making practitioners informed about alternatives available in the community (context). The CBMIs did offer some, but not all, activities ‘in house’, which meant that collaborations with others were crucial and that practitioners often functioned as coordinators or case managers rather than providers, similar to other reports (Mackrill et al., Reference Mackrill, Salado-Rasmussen and Bonfils2023). Against this backdrop, the programming involved cycles of discussing activities that could be relevant (e.g. work experience in ordinary workplaces, subsidised employments or forms of vocational training) and follow-ups of subsequent engagements. This provided space for participants to reflect and recount experiences together with practitioners (co-creation resource), consistent with relational welfare and the capability approach (Cottam, Reference Cottam2018; Clark et al., Reference Clark, Biggeri, Frediani, Clark, Biggeri and Frediani2019). As narrated by Lauren (age 25):
My next step is a work placement, and xx [practitioner] has been very clear that “we go on a study visit first and if it feels ok, then you might be there for a couple of hours a week. If it doesn’t feel right, then we take a step back, but it’s not that you’ve failed in any way”. It’s just “okay, then we’ll continue from there”. I feel that this is very important for me to develop, to just… it’s okay to take a step back.
Through flexibility, a key aspect highlighted in previous reports (Dean et al., Reference Dean, Bonvin, Vielle and Farvaque2005; Aaltonen et al., Reference Aaltonen, Berg and Ikäheimo2016; Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Dermody, O’Donoghue, Davis and Isard2017; Frøyland, Reference Frøyland2019), participants could decide what activities to do and how, but also take steps back and change direction as needed (control response). There was nothing in the programming called a failure, only learning, as one practitioner noted. Participants described having become more resilient and relaxed through the flexible programming, with Elsa (age 23) saying ‘I’ve gotten a lot better at… just like being kind to myself. It’s something I’ve been able to achieve thanks to them’. Descriptions also appeared of how participants had gained more confidence from being able to try things following the flexible design.
(…) just trying all of these activities has improved my self-esteem, which I had lost a bit because I feel so constrained because I don’t manage what an average person might manage (Claudia, age 29).
The flexible programming, characterised by respect for participants’ self-determination in tailoring and follow-up of activities coupled with space to reflect and recount experiences, can be a source of recognition and ways to internalise learning (Cottam, Reference Cottam2018; Clark et al., Reference Clark, Biggeri, Frediani, Clark, Biggeri and Frediani2019; Von Heimburg & Ness, Reference Von Heimburg and Ness2021). By enabling them to gain a sense of control and mastery, this strengthened beings through a growing self-esteem that enhanced wellbeing as they became more secure and stable in themselves: their strengths, weaknesses and worth (programming outcomes).
Challenge for courage
Discussing the second and third PTs revealed that CBMIs, alongside their flexible programming, adopted an experiential approach to provide real-world activities in integrated settings (practical resource). This was facilitated by collaborations with other actors (context) and involved working closely with municipal adult education and folk high schools to enable participants with experiences of early school leaving to complete upper secondary education. It also entailed collaborating with PES to access services such as subsidised employment and vocational training. Consistent with previous reports (Frøyland, Reference Frøyland2019), practitioners often engaged in job enabling/customisation themselves to create opportunities for employment or work placements by collaborating directly with employers.
Some participants found the journey through activities simple, often only needing opportunities and a small push. Others needed more time; they tried things because they were uncertain about what they wanted or changed their mind because of new experiences. Some also needed time because of adversities, which made them reluctant to engage in activities that could be too demanding or lead to disappointments (context). In such cases, it was crucial to prevent setbacks that might add more strain and reinforce feelings of fear and shame. Practitioners explained how the experiential programming had to be properly paced and balanced. They also shared the need to provide careful support and guidance (co-creation resource), starting with a lot of ‘handholding’ and gradually ‘letting go’ to allow participants to manage by themselves, albeit often staying in the background if their help was needed. As handholding was gradually reduced, practitioners gently nudged the participants (relational resource), providing encouragement while raising expectations. As shared by Elsa (age 23):
In the beginning, it was lot that they had to listen and help and like, hold your hand a little, but then challenging you to feel like, do you dare…? Can we test this in small steps, and do you want to take this meeting yourself? Yes, it went well. Ok good.
Experiential opportunities coupled with careful support and gentle nudging communicated a belief in participants’ abilities and opportunities for a changed situation. This made them feel comfortable and capable of engaging (courage response), enabling them to try activities that they previously ‘did not dare to’ (Jonas, age 23). This allowed many participants to move towards their goal(s), strengthening doings by (re)engaging in formal education or competitive employment, which enhanced wellbeing (programming outcomes). Across the CBMIs, participants who left because they had accepted a job or started school varied between 41% and 67%.
Coordination for calmness
As noted above, many participants faced various adversities. This sometimes led to needs that acted as barriers for moving forward but exceeded the scope of the CBMIs, yet most participants had problems accessing or managing other specialist care and support (context). On the one hand, the majority had negative experiences from earlier welfare encounters and struggled to navigate a specialised and fragmented system. On the other hand, many had a hard time managing existing contacts or felt uncertain about where or how to obtain help. Following a life-first perspective (Dean et al., Reference Dean, Bonvin, Vielle and Farvaque2005; Cottam, Reference Cottam2018), practitioners would validate participants’ needs and experiences (relational resource) as explained by Sara (age 26):
Just that they [practitioners] consider that many of us have little trust in SIA and PES because of having been treated badly in the past.
In line with earlier studies seeing parallel health and vocational processes as key (Aaltonen et al., Reference Aaltonen, Berg and Ikäheimo2016; Frøyland, Reference Frøyland2019), practitioners would facilitate access to and management of specialist care and support. They started by obtaining consent to get permission (co-creation resource). Contacts were then coordinated, for example, with healthcare, SIA and PES while being integrated into the programming (practical resource). This meant making referrals, following participants to meetings and helping them keep track of formalities. It also implied informing them about their rights and responsibilities, as explained by one practitioner.
It might be that they lack knowledge or maybe the engine to get it together… or just to remember “what do I need to send in for income support and why was the public employment service even in that meeting”. So, then we’re more of a memory that remind them like “yes, you are supposed to do this, do you know how to do it? No, but then I’ll help you”.
The coordinated programming lowered participants’ thresholds and lifted burdens from their shoulders in seeking and receiving other specialist care and support, contributing to a sense of calm and relief by reducing anxiety, stress and frustrations (calmness response). Through collaborations with other actors (context) consistent with earlier research (Mackrill et al., Reference Mackrill, Salado-Rasmussen and Bonfils2023), this strengthened their doings by facilitating access, for example, to activity compensation, neurodevelopmental assessments and treatments for mental health problems that enhanced wellbeing (programming outcome).
Concluding remarks
This study builds on research critiquing work-first and human capital strategies while aligning with those advocating for more humanitarian approaches to welfare (Dean, Reference Dean2003; Cottam, Reference Cottam2018; Dall & Danneris, Reference Dall and Danneris2019; Von Heimburg & Ness, Reference Von Heimburg and Ness2021; Boland & Griffin, Reference Boland and Griffin2023; Gjersøe et al., Reference Gjersøe, Jones, Leseth, Scullion and Martin2024). It also responds to calls for theory-driven insights into approaches for young people that move beyond employability and rapid employment (Mawn et al., Reference Mawn, Oliver, Akhter, Bambra, Torgerson, Bridle and Stain2017; Clark et al., Reference Clark, Biggeri, Frediani, Clark, Biggeri and Frediani2019; Frøyland et al., Reference Frøyland, Andreassen and Innvær2019). By conducting a RE while ‘giving voice to both sides of the service counter’ (Aaltonen et al., Reference Aaltonen, Berg and Ikäheimo2016, p.10), the study adds to this literature by deepening understandings of how and why relational, co-creational and practical resources work to support NEET-situated young people.
Beyond illustrating relational welfare in action to meet the needs of a youth group high on the policy agenda in Sweden and beyond, we conclude with key findings and directions for further research. In line with scholars calling for shifts from impersonal interactions and command or control management in social policy (Van Berkel & Van Der Aa, Reference Van Berkel and Van Der Aa2012; Cottam, Reference Cottam2018; Dall & Danneris, Reference Dall and Danneris2019; Von Heimburg & Ness, Reference Von Heimburg and Ness2021), our results show the value of welfare support resting on relationships and relying on capability building and co-creation in their delivery. On the one hand, this can contribute to a range of outcomes for young people in NEET situations by meeting needs and enhancing their prospects to be and do in life what they have reason to value (Robeyns & Fibieger Byskov, Reference Robeyns, Fibieger Byskov, Zalta and Nodelman2021). On the other hand, it can contribute to broader efforts focussed on addressing inequities by strengthening the opportunities for and rights of marginalised groups (Von Heimburg & Ness, Reference Von Heimburg and Ness2021).
Focussing on how and why relational welfare works with an emphasis on mechanisms and outcomes, little attention has been paid in this study to structures that shape both the lives of NEET-situated young people and the CBMI support provided to them. This limitation can be criticised for reinforcing liberal-individualist ideals inherent in the capability approach, which is concerned with freedom to choose over constraints on people’s life chances (Dean, Reference Dean2009). Dean (Reference Dean2009) also questions the capability approach for disregarding the constitutive nature of human dependency, needs to belong, and struggles for recognition. In this study, such limitations were addressed with the concept of relational welfare, acknowledging how practitioners respected participants’ autonomy by supporting them with issues that they needed through relationships of negotiation and struggle. Consistent with a street-level perspective (Jewell, Reference Jewell2007; Van Berkel & Van Der Aa, Reference Van Berkel and Van Der Aa2012), at the heart of the CBMIs was the interdependence of practitioners and participants building on the former’s discretion in response to the latter’s needs, e.g. of feeling safe and a sense of connectedness.
While it may be difficult, albeit desirable, for statutory services such as the PES to adopt the approaches in this study (Van Parys & Struyven, Reference Van Parys and Struyven2013), the findings suggest that, by collaborating with other actors such as municipalities who can be more responsive, inclusive and personalised, NEET-situated young people might still receive the support they need. In this regard, Wiedel and Bolin (Reference Wiedel and Bolin2019) describes the value of co-location where CBMIs are staffed part-time by personnel from healthcare and government agencies. This means that the latter actors can borrow the safe space and ‘relational capital’ that the municipality has created and accumulated, something that they cannot build or achieve themselves owing to high workloads, resource constraints and rigid regulations. With a focus on coordination and collaboration, CBMIs moved beyond concerns with participants’ personal developments towards a combined supply/demand approach (Frøyland et al., Reference Frøyland, Andreassen and Innvær2019). Despite this, they are not exempt from Foucauldian or other governmentality critiques, although the findings illustrate that the focus is not on ‘disciplining and combating idleness’ (Bengtsson et al., Reference Bengtsson, Panican and Ulmestig2022, p.366), but about supporting in line with needs and aspirations for improved wellbeing by ‘actually listening and empathising’ (Boland & Griffin, Reference Boland and Griffin2023, p.885).
This study has provided important building blocks for continued research, although many knowledge gaps remain. Future endeavours should extend our findings to other settings, examine organisational and broader social structures that shape the workings, explore alternative explanations and evaluate the effectiveness of more responsive and personalised welfare support.
Acknowledgements
We thank all the practitioners and young people taking part in this study. Many thanks also to Isabel Goicolea and Anne Gotfredsen, who contributed to the data collection and initial analyses.
Funding statement
This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare (Forte) under Grant [2020-01339]. Open Access funding was provided by Umeå University. The funding bodies had no further involvement in the research process.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Open access
