Reflexivity and participation in communities CZ

A dilemma often arises when finding ways to support and finance service users’ engagement. This is particularly difficult if service users are in receipt of financial support through state social security which typically disbars teaching or research project payment of monies. Where the state can support participation, this may have a perverse outcome where communities can lose their independence and advocacy role through assimilation (for example, with Roma and Traveller organisations). The following examples of positive support and financing are provided to address these dilemmas:

Theme 6) Case Study Example: Support and Financing of Participants

In the Finnish case study, during rehabilitative work activities, the client receives a labor market subsidy and maintenance compensation. On the other hand, rehabilitative work activities are compulsory. If the unemployed jobseeker does not take part in the making of the activation plan or refuses to participate in rehabilitative work activities, the unemployed jobseeker will be given a 15-60 day mandatory waiting period, or the unemployment benefits may be refused for the time being. This can be viewed as problematic from a participatory approach point of view. Clients’ motivation to participate in an activation plan or rehabilitative work activities can involve a fear of losing the unemployment benefits temporarily or for longer. In conclusion: these financial constraints and conditions reduce the opportunity for authentic service user participation.