Changes to Social Assistance Also Affect Children
In the future, according to a recent proposal, a part-time worker receiving social assistance would be required to apply for full-time work. From the perspective of parents of small children who receive social assistance and the children growing up in these households, this proposal may pose a risk: Part-time work may be the only way for families with children to combine paid work and caregiving.
Written: Mia Tammelin & Satu Pyöriä
The government of Petteri Orpo is preparing significant reforms of social assistance. The working group that prepared the reform has published a memorandum on reforming social assistance. One of the key proposals in the memorandum is to further tighten job search obligations for benefit recipients.
Social assistance is last-resort financial support intended to prevent social exclusion and secure household livelihood in crisis situations. Social assistance includes Kela’s basic social assistance benefit as well as the discretionary and preventive social assistance granted by wellbeing regions. The need for changes based on research into social assistance has also been assessed by a large expert group (see Saikkonen and Mukkila et al. 2025).
Many families with children rely on social assistance. Of all households receiving social assistance, families with children accounted for 18%, and of all families with children, 8.5% (46,953 households) received social assistance in 2023 (Sotka.net). The share of families with children among households receiving social assistance is quite large.
The working group preparing the reform of the Social Assistance Act outlined ways to reform social assistance (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 2025). The need for reform is indicated by a significant problem, the fact that many recipients receive assistance for a long period (i.e., more than 12 months).
Social assistance is intended to be short-term support for livelihood. The goal of reducing the need for long-term social assistance, which is also included in the government program, is therefore commendable. This goal can be pursued in various ways. The working group’s proposals emphasize cutting the basic amount of social assistance provided and imposing job search obligations on those in need of support. However, the need for social assistance also exists among those who are already working, which is often forgotten. Below, we examine the working group’s proposal from the perspective of low-income families with children.
Single-Parent Families and Social Assistance
Among families with children, social assistance is often received by single-parent households, especially those consisting of mothers and children. Households consisting of single mothers and children accounted for 10% of all households receiving social assistance in 2023. Single-parent households accounted for 61% of families with children receiving social assistance in 2023. This means that in single-parent households, wages and entrepreneurial income as well as primary benefits were not sufficient to cover family expenses, even before the changes. The proposed changes to social assistance will therefore particularly affect mothers.
Parents in families with children combine work; care, including childcare, and household tasks. In a single-parent household, the family’s only parent is generally responsible for not only work and making a living but also caregiving tasks. Sometimes, the other parent does not participate in the family’s everyday life and caregiving, and there is no other support network.
The Good and Bad of Part-Time Work
In the public discussion of social security in general and social assistance in particular, the fact that even those who work may temporarily need social assistance is often forgotten. Earnings from work may not be sufficient for living.
Why are earnings not enough? Factors related to the labor market may explain this situation. Women’s position in the labor market may be weak. Work may only be available part time or on a fixed-term basis. In terms of Nordic comparisons, Finland stands out negatively regarding atypical employment. Almost one-third of employed Finns are already working in part-time or fixed-term jobs or self-employed (Ojala et al. 2021). Typically, atypical jobs are staffed by poorly educated women in service sectors. Such jobs must often be supplemented by social security.
Part-time work may be not only poorly paid but also poorly timed. Service sector work often occurs during early mornings, late evenings, nights, and weekends, which can be problematic from the perspective of childcare. Services such as care and nursing, which are typically provided by women, require work around the clock and throughout the year, regardless of whether it is Christmas Eve or an ordinary Monday. For single mothers with small children, only part-time work may be possible given these schedules.
Finland has an internationally unique system of round-the-clock childcare (i.e., care is available 24/7). However, it is not necessarily available to everyone and everywhere (Rönkä et al. 2019). There is no subjective right, that is that every child would be guaranteed a right to round-the-clock care, so families often rely on care provided by relatives and acquaintances if this can be arranged. Round-the-clock care also does not extend to young schoolchildren.
Even if round-the-clock care exists locally, access may be difficult to arrange or out of reach due to distance. It is fair to ask children to endure long care periods and long-distance travel when their mothers’ work obligations increase. What is a reasonable travel time for a preschool child at 5 a.m.?
The share of work that is part time has grown over the past decades. Almost one in four female employees worked part time in 2023. For one in ten of them, the main reason for part-time work was childcare, and for one in four, the reason was that full-time work was not available (Sutela et al. 2024, 54–55). Part-time work can enable attachment to the labor market and the reconciliation of work and family, but it can also be involuntary and create livelihood problems.
According to the working group’s proposal, in the future, the recipients of social assistance would have to apply for full-time work, and if this or other job search obligations are not met, the basic amount of social assistance can be cut by up to half. Because social assistance is a household benefit, children’s opportunity for an adequate standard of living would also be reduced. Research describes this as social policy dependent on adults’ behavior, rather than needs-based support (Steward et al. 2024). Researchers note that in many countries, children have no social security or it is taken away from them due to adults’ behaviour and circumstances.
Accepting full-time work is not necessarily a realistic option in all families. Limiting the right to social assistance can therefore weaken parents’ and families’ opportunities for action and conditions for necessary livelihood.
Social Policy and Benefits Must Also Be Examined from the Perspective of Children
Why does this matter? If full-time work is not possible for a parent, reducing the basic amount of social assistance provided may push even more families with children into poverty. Research shows that poverty limits opportunities and agency and affects the health, family relationships, and well-being of both children and adults (Lister 2015; Beasley et al. 2022; Wray 2015; Salmi et al. 2016).
Poverty experienced in childhood is particularly problematic because it weakens children’s well-being and sense of inclusion in the present, and its effects extend far into adulthood (Ristikari et al. 2018). The more children live in poverty here and now, the more adults will struggle in the future to feel like full members of society, and the more adults will bear the marks of poverty in terms of health and well-being.
Social Security Systems Have Been Reformed in Many Countries
Social security systems have been reformed in many countries. The extensive Universal Credit reform (UC; see Andersen 2023, 43–45) implemented in the United Kingdom has proven problematic, particularly from the perspective of families and the women responsible for caregiving tasks within them. In the case of Universal Credit, simplifying the benefit has not succeeded. Due to heavy conditionality, the benefit has not been suitable for various life situations (Economic Affairs Committee 2020, 3): Family life involves diverse care obligations and responsibilities that do not align with rigid benefit conditions.
The Universal Credit reform in the UK has had significant harmful effects on family life, well-being, and mental and physical health. Paradoxically, this has negatively affected employment prospects, even though the reform was specifically intended to promote employment (Wickham et al. 2020). The most essential lesson for families that can be derived from the example of the UK is that benefit reforms must have sufficient flexibility to accommodate various life situations.
International research on social security reform, particularly benefit sanctioning, shows that increasing conditionality in social security can have many harmful effects. The job search obligations reinforced by various benefit sanctions are associated with negative well-being impacts and even child maltreatment (Mäkinen & Ojala 2024; Pattaro et al. 2022; Dwyer 2018). Reforms that increase conditionality can, contrary to their goals, erode equality among various population groups (Economic Affairs Committee 2020, 3) and well-being across generations.
Child Increases Are Still Needed
All changes to social security affect not only adults but also children. There is extensive research data on the factors influencing children’s well-being, and knowledge also exists on how well-being and equality can be promoted. This knowledge must be utilized in decision-making and when reforming social security. Ignoring existing knowledge and maintaining or even deepening inequality can be considered a form of structural violence (Bildjuschkin et al. 2020).
Securing the livelihood of single parents and their families should be ensured in benefit reforms, for example, sufficient child increases in unemployment benefits. People in various life situations should not be treated rigidly so as not to paradoxically weaken their ability to provide and care for their households.
This blog was previously published in Finnish language in Alusta! Muutokset toimeentulotukeen kohdistuvat myös lapsiin | Alusta! | Tampereen korkeakouluyhteisö
The blog is based on writing published in report Toimeentulotuki 2020-luvulla: tavoitteena parempi viimesijainen turva (toim. Saikkonen P. & Mukkila S., 2025)
References:
Andersen, Kate (2023): Welfare That Works for Women? Mothers’ Experiences of the Conditionality Within Universal Credit. Bristol: Policy Press.
Beasley, Lana O., Jespersen Jens E., Morris, Amanda, S., Farra, Aisha & Hays-Grudo, Jennifer (2022): Parenting Challenges and Opportunities among Families Living in Poverty. Social Sciences, 11 (3), 119.
Bildjuschkin, Katriina, Ewalds, Helena, Hietamäki, Johanna, Kettunen, Hanna, Koivula, Tanja, Mäkelä, Jukka, Nipuli, Suvi, October, Martta, Peltonen, Joonas & Siukola, Reetta (2020): Väkivaltakäsitteiden sanasto. THL 2020 [Luettu 10.8.2024]
Dwyer, Peter (2018): Punitive and ineffective: benefit sanctions within social security. Journal of Social Security Law 25(1), 142–157.
Economic Affairs Committee (2020): Universal Credit isn’t working: proposals for reform.
Economic Affairs Committee 2nd Report of Session 2019–21, [Luettu 11.9.2024].
Lister, Ruth (2015): To count for nothing: poverty beyond the statistics. Journal of the British Academy, 3, 139–165.
Mäkinen, Niklas & Ojala, Satu (2024): Etuussanktioiden vaikutukset toimeentuloon, hyvinvointiin ja palveluihin osallistumiseen: systemaattinen kirjallisuuskatsaus. Sosiaalilääketieteellinen Aikakauskirja 61, 122–143.
Ojala, Satu, Saari, Tiina, Jonker-Hoffrén, Paul & Pyöriä, Pasi (2021): Non-standard work in Finland. Teoksessa Anna Ilsøe & Trine P. Larsen (toim.): Non-standard work in the Nordics.
Troubled waters under the still surface. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, 97–107.
Ristikari, Tiina, Merikukka, Marko & Hakovirta, Mia (2018): Timing and duration of social assistance receipt during childhood on early adult outcomes. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 9(3), 312-326.
Rönkä, Anna, Turja, Leena, Malinen, Kaisa, Tammelin, Mia & Kekkonen, Marjatta (2019). Flexibly scheduled early childhood education and care: Experiences of Finnish parents and educators. Early Years, 39(4), 376–391. doi:10.1080/09575146.2017.1387519
Saikkonen Paula & Mukkila Susanna (toim.), (2025) Toimeentulotuki 2020-luvulla: tavoitteena parempi viimesijainen turva. Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos THL 2025.
Salmi, Minna, Närvi, Johanna & Lammi-Taskula, Johanna (2016): Köyhyys, toimeentulo ja hyvinvointi lapsiperheissä. Teoksessa Sakari Karvonen & Minna Salmi (toim.); Lapsiköyhyys Suomessa 2010-luvulla. Työpaperi 30/2016. Helsinki: Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos, 13-44.
Sotka.net https://sotkanet.fi/sotkanet/fi/index ja liitetiedostot (viitattu 3.9.2024)
Stewart, K., Patrick, R., & Reeves, A. (2025). The sins of the parents: Conceptualizing adult-oriented reforms to family benefits. Journal of European Social Policy, 35(1), 68-82.
STM (2024) Toimeentulotukilain kokonaisuudistusta valmistelevan työryhmän loppumuistio. Helsinki: sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö.
Pattaro, Serena, Bailey, Nick, Williams, Evan, Gibson, Marcia, Wells, Valerie, Tranmer, Mark & Dibben, Chris (2022): Impact of Benefit Sanctions: A scoping Review of the Quantitative Research Evidence. Journal of Social Policy 51(3),1–43.
Tammelin, Mia & Ojala, Satu (2025) Lapsiperheet toimeentulotuen saajina. Teoksessa: Paula Saikkonen & Susanna Mukkila (toim.), (2025) Toimeentulotuki 2020-luvulla: tavoitteena parempi viimesijainen turva. Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos THL 2025.
Wickham, Sophie, Bentley, Lee, Rose, Tanith, Whitehead, Margaret, Taylor-Robinson, David & Barr, Ben (2020): Effects on mental health of a UK welfare reform, Universal Credit: a longitudinal controlled study. The Lancet Public Health 5(3), e157–e164.
Wray, Wendella (2015): Parenting in Poverty: Inequity through the Lens of Attachment and Resilience. American journal of social sciences, 4 (2), 223-232.