Time to Shift to Relational Welfare
Written by: Dr. Jackie Oncescu & Dr. Jules Maitland
Contributions made by:
Colleen Gauvin
Cathy Halstead
Hope Twinamatsiko
Julia Frigault
Madeleine Whalen
Amanda Hachey
Courtney Ivey
Molly Balcom Raleigh
Daneka Headly
Paul Nopper
Raymond Funk
We also want to acknowledge the support of: Matt Wilson, Kendra Woodland, Chantal Bernard, Max Starke, Brendan McGuire, and Page Dick.
Acknowledgements
We want to acknowledge that this work was carried out on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqey, and Passamaquoddy peoples.
The “Treaties of Peace and Friendship” were signed in 1725 and 1726 between the British Crown and the Wabanaki; however, these treaties did not deal with the surrender of lands and resources or shift the “ownership” to the crown. Instead, they established rules for an ongoing relationship between nations.
Recognizing the land is a way to raise awareness of the Indigenous presence and land rights in all facets of life. It also allows us to acknowledge the history of colonialism and the need for change in settler colonial societies. It is crucial to understand the struggle against the systems of oppression that have dispossessed Indigenous peoples of their lands and denied their rights to self-determination and to honour that history as we continue to work toward reconciliation.
This work would not have been possible without the provincial, regional, and local sport, recreation, and leisure providers, community allied stakeholders, and equity-owed residents who shared their time, knowledge, stories, and experiences with us. We must also extend a special thanks to the System Shifters, who provided and continue to provide invaluable insights into their communities and grounded this project's research and design processes.
Finally, we thank the Economic and Social Inclusion Corporation (ESIC) and the Sport and Recreation Branch of the Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture (THC) for funding an incredibly important project for the well-being of equity-owed residents.
Dedication
For Kyle Harrington (1992-2023) – father, husband, volunteer, cultural teacher, community advocate, and proud member of Ugpi’Ganjig First Nation Kyle was an original member of this project, and we wanted to reflect on his profound impact on the Reimagining Access to Sport, Recreation and Leisure (RASRL) project.
Kyle’s creativity and dedication to ensuring equity-owed residents’ access to sport, recreation, and leisure opportunities were instrumental in shaping the inception and evolution of the System Shifters. His unwavering commitment to centring community voices and fostering meaningful relationships has also guided us through the challenges of this project and continues to inspire our ongoing efforts. Kyle’s legacy lives on in every aspect of our work, reminding us to prioritize inclusivity and collaboration in our pursuit of dignified access to and belonging within sport, recreation, and leisure.
We all miss Kyle’s attendance and contributions at our team meetings; however, we cannot thank him enough for continuing to influence and inspire this work in New Brunswick. We hope you and everyone you inspired are proud of the RASRL project, Kyle.
Wela’lin.
—————————————————————
“The welfare state is based on an outdated, transactional model and needs to be replaced with something that is shared, collective and relational”
— Hillary Cottam [1]
Every social system is perfectly constructed to produce the results it gets. This is particularly true for sectors that design, deliver and facilitate participation in physical activity, recreation, sports, outdoor activities, and arts and culture. These sectors act as health-producing ecosystems across NB that are essential for promoting well-being, reducing chronic disease risk, and fostering resilient, inclusive, expressive communities—playing a vital role in improving health outcomes and quality of life for individuals and communities across NB. The challenge, however, is that these sectors are primarily designed as pay-to-play or pay-to-access, where the majority of staff/leader/volunteer-led programs and facility-based physical activity, recreation, sports, outdoor, and arts and culture provisions become luxuries where residents must “earn” access rather than having the “right” to access [2]. This user fee prioritization creates and maintains inequitable access to physical activity, recreation, sports, outdoor activities, and arts and culture and privatizes their health benefits.
This service delivery model emerged from the economic woes and recession of the late 1970s and 1980s, which shifted municipal recreation departments and nonprofit organizations to operate under neoliberalism [3], where the responsibility of social programs was transferred from the government and public entities to the private sector [4]. This era in governance shifted municipal and nonprofit sport and allied organizations to adopt a business model approach that focused on the revenue generation of programs and services through increased user fees, evaluation measures, and pay-per-use models. Municipalities and organizations soon began to lose sight of equal opportunity and the distribution of services for individuals [5].
Modern-Day Troubles: Transactional Approaches Equal Relational Distance. In this transactional service delivery model, residents are viewed as individuals with distinct preferences and needs, often framed as consumers of public services rather than as members of a collective society. Services are often designed and delivered top-down and provided to the individual to be consumed or participated in. Residents and community groups are sometimes called on for planning activities, such as master plans, advisory committees, etc. Still, community engagement strategies rarely move beyond informing, consulting and involving, leaving the power, decision-making and problem-solving in the hands of the municipality and/or organizations. This approach prioritizes market-based solutions, efficiencies, and individual responsibility over collective welfare and solidarity. The belief at the time was that governments could responsibilize residents through a specific type of thought, policies, and strategies so that populations could handle their problems on their own and not be a burden for the government, particularly an economic burden [6].
It has been suggested that neoliberalism’s emphasis on privatization, accountability, individualism, and efficiency produces relational distance; this term describes the obstacles to relationship building between non-profit social services and their clients and public sectors and their residents [7]. In other words, relationship development is hindered due to a lack of trust, respect, and common understanding between organizations and the individuals they serve, thus making it challenging to address the profoundly political, economic and social issues that impact communities today—including the inequities that prevent participation in physical activity, recreation, sports, outdoor activities, and arts and culture.
When a service delivery model is designed to generate revenue, it focuses on populations with higher socioeconomic status for participation. In contrast, lower socioeconomic populations are provided financial (i.e., fee assistance) and material resources (i.e., equipment) to support access and participation. However, these resources–intended to create access and foster “inclusion”–can perpetuate exclusion for many and create an “us versus them” narrative. This responsibilization of access provisions can produce harmful effects (i.e., shame), creating obstacles to building relationships that are necessary for supporting participation. For example:
Proving low-income status for financial assistance creates shame and causes stigmatization.
Surveillance of financially assisted participants creates a narrative that equity-owed citizens cannot be trusted.
Hidden or hard-to-find access fees or the failure to disclose financial assistance send the message to equity-owed residents that they are not welcome here.
Limited access to facilities based on “free” or low-cost access hours sends the message to equity-owed residents that they are only welcome in this space during designated times.
Providing equity-owed residents with one-time, free events instead of sustained programming that includes leadership and instructor guidance creates an inequitable experience. In contrast to fee-based programs that offer access to instructors, coaches, skill development, ongoing participation, and facilities, this approach implies a limited standard of support. The underlying message is, "I don't deserve better."
Complicated financial forms and rigid payment options shame equity-owed residents because they have not earned enough to play.
This is not to suggest that these provisions are not important and that some residents don’t feel shame or harm when securing such support. Still, for many equity-owed individuals, these resources are not enough to create access and inclusion or come close to cultivating a sense of belonging—how these provisions get designed, by who, and how they are delivered can have tremendous impact.
Research has shown that feelings of acceptance, safety, trust, and recognition of others are vital to experiencing a sense of belonging8. Notably, social capital, both bridging and bonding, play essential roles in designing for belonging. Bonding social capital is within a group or community, whereas bridging social capital is between social groups, social class, race, religion or other important sociodemographic or socioeconomic characteristics [9]. The challenge, however, is that transactional service delivery models designed to support those who fit predetermined criteria (e.g., access to money, time, transportation, English language, etc.) often create a relational distance that further hinders equity-owed residents from accessing services due to mistrust and the absence of a relationship between individuals and organizations. It is time for a shift towards doing the work differently!
Relational Welfare: Care For All. The pressures on municipal recreation departments and nonprofit recreation and allied organizations to be efficient and accountable to funders, councils and taxpayers through revenue-generating programs no longer work when addressing the social issues NB communities face. Cottam suggests that the “social, cultural effect of the market reforms has been to intensify a transactional relationship, when what is actually wanted is something more human, caring and time rich.” [10]
Rather than relying on traditional transactional, expert-driven, top-down, and consultative community approaches—which often lead to siloed efforts, exclusion, and short-term solutions such as pilot projects with no uptake, guidebooks, tool kits, or fee assistance programs—we need service delivery models guided by relational welfare and system change.
Relational welfare is described as a ‘radical change’ in which relational bonds between human beings should serve as a starting point for promoting health and well-being in the 21st century—revolutionizing the relationship between people (i.e., the public) and the welfare state (i.e., the public sector) [11].
Von Heimburg and Ness [12] proposed a definition of relational welfare (care for all):
Relational welfare is a human-centred and collaborative approach premised on human rights, social justice, and sustainable development in society. Relational welfare means that welfare is a resource that people co-create together, where personal and collective relationships and environments are placed at the centre of development. Within this, the foremost mission of the public sector is to build public value as a common good by supporting conditions that enable all people to flourish and live a life they have reason to value, and the capacity to sustain. The purpose is to strengthen the resources, relationships and communities to create positive and sustainable life courses, now and in the future.
Von Heimburg and Ness [13] proposed the 4 R’s of Relational Welfare centred on justice:
Redistribution—Redistribution means the fair allocation of divisible goods, typically economic in nature, that relates to society’s class structure. It requires addressing the root causes of social inequities. It supports citizens in accumulating capabilities and proportionally distributes and prioritizes according to needs (e.g., individuals, groups, places, and settings).
Recognition—Recognition is essential to developing a sense of self and being acknowledged, loved and valued as an equal peer and for one’s specific identities, such as gender, race, age and sexuality. It ensures inclusive citizenship by recognizing diversity, allowing residents to be universally recognized and appreciated for who they are, and creating trust, possibilities, and empowerment through a people-centred, family-oriented, and community-based approach.
Representation—It points to social belonging in decision-making processes (the “who”) and the procedures that structure democratic processes (the “how”). Politicians and publicsector employees across sectors and societal levels facilitate empowerment to ensure inclusive participation. It requires politicians to be held responsible for health, well-being, and equity as a common good through transparent accountability systems that integrate public sector governance in democratic processes and political leadership.
Relationships—Act as the starting point, driving force and outcome of transformative processes that make participation easy, intuitive and natural. Nurtured by acts of empathy, kindness and relational responsibility in community life, public services and policy processes.
A relational turn to welfare would shift away from transactional approaches to service delivery and instead embrace collaborative and relational approaches where welfare is not just delivered as a service but is also co-created with others in the community. Relational welfare emphasizes prioritizing people and their connections as the foundation for redesigning societies and welfare systems. This approach places clear accountability on the public sector and political leaders to create systems that foster meaningful relationships and community wellbeing [14].
Shifting Systems Through Relational Welfare: The System Shifters. Tackling the system inequities in NB’s health-producing ecosystems requires a collective and intersectoral approach centred on relational welfare that targets system-level change. Since 2021, the Reimagining Access to Sport, Recreation and Leisure project has been working to uncover and address these system inequities to support a sense of belonging and dignified access to physical activity, recreation, sports, outdoor activities, and arts and culture for equity-owed NB residents. Rather than relying on traditional transactional and consultative community approaches, our project embraced principles of relational welfare and conditions of system-change interventions.
In 2022, we launched and tested the System Shifters prototype. Prototypes are a preliminary model of something from which other forms are developed. A representation of an idea used to get feedback and generate learnings, prototypes make ideas tangible and testable, de-risking innovation by breaking big ideas into more manageable, testable chunks. Here, the concept being tested was codesign as a lever for change within the NB recreation sector.
Codesign brings together lived experience, lived expertise and professional experience to learn from each other and make things better by design. Co-design involves centring care, working with the people closest to the solutions, sharing power, prioritizing relationships, being honest, being welcoming, using creative tools, balancing idealism and realism, and building and sharing skills. Co-design uses inclusive facilitation that embraces many ways of knowing, being and doing.
Focusing on relational, place-based system interventions, the System Shifters comprised equity-owed residents, community service providers, and research and design practitioners.
Relationships were built with local equity-owed residents over 8 months and then recruited to co-lead, co-design, and co-implement alongside community service providers. Together, they identified and implemented solutions that address barriers and cultivate a sense of belonging and dignified access to physical activity, recreation, sports, outdoor activities, and arts and culture. This collaborative approach prioritized inclusive outcomes while cultivating a sense of belonging for residents—project findings can be found here.
What we have learned about testing System Shifters in NB is two-fold. First, change is possible when we reduce the relational distance between equity-owed residents and community service providers and target system conditions as the level of intervention.
When relationships were central to the work, several things started to shift [15]:
Service providers became more aware of the oppression, trauma, and discrimination evident in their communities, as well as their diversity. They realized that they must change the design and delivery of some provisions to cultivate belonging in their respective communities.
The ongoing social interactions between diverse groups of people helped challenge myths and assumptions that often result from fear of and cultivated respect for differences—bridging divides.
As service providers and equity-owed residents worked together, new relationships and possibilities for new ideas emerged. This is because relational work can help people see themselves and others differently and witness the wisdom and skills of equity-owed residents that can lead to solutions to community issues.
Human dignity (e.g., individuals' inherent worth and value) was expanded as equity-owed residents were respected and treated as experts in their lived experience and had the power to cocreate solutions implemented in the community.
However, it is important to note that the potential for transformational change signalled by these shifts and the potential for relational work to take root at the community level is severely limited by constraints imposed in the existing transactional model of public service policy, programming, funding, and evaluation.
Operationalizing relational welfare in NB requires changes across multiple levels of the public service ecosystem to create the conditions to flourish at the community level.
Examples of barriers to be addressed include:
Duplication of resources and disconnection among provincial departments undermine the effective and impactful flow of resources, collaborative relationships, practices, policies and power dynamics, creating inefficiencies that compromise the delivery of cohesive and impactful solutions.
Allocating small, fragmented pockets of money to address complex social problems (i.e., social exclusion, physical inactivity, mental health, and newcomer settlement) in an already overburdened sector is ineffective. It exacerbate burnout as community service providers are forced to chase funding that fails to drive meaningful, sustained change, leaving systemic issues unresolved.
Lack of evidence-based decision-making to ensure public investments get results.
Limited understanding and capacity among policymakers and community service providers on how to design and deliver policies, programs, resources and services that cultivate a sense of belonging and dignified access.
The belief is that physical activity, recreation, sports, outdoor activities, and arts and culture are luxuries to be earned. This perspective perpetuates a system that increasingly privatizes the health benefits from such activities, restricting access and undermining their vital role in promoting well-being for all.
Let's agree that these activities are critical components of New Brunswick’s healthproducing ecosystem and acknowledge that the transactional service delivery model—which fosters relational distance and lacks systemic change—is a significant barrier to achieving health and well-being outcomes. It becomes clear that we must reimagine the recreation sector’s service delivery model.
Let’s Reimagine
Imagine, for a moment, that NB establishes an intersectoral community of practice situated in the recreation sector—a collaborative network that works together to be accountable to the public and mandated to serve the public good. This community of practice would leverage an intersectoral workforce and partnerships across sectors, including health, education, justice, local government, sport, immigration, and allied local and provincial organizations, with access to sustainable funding, cohesive workflows, and supportive policies and practices. By prioritizing relational welfare and fostering system change conditions, it would specifically enhance belonging and promote dignified access to physical activity, recreation, sport, outdoor activities, and arts and culture—transforming these sectors into powerful drivers of inclusion, health, and well-being.
Sustained, trusting, and authentic relationships across sectors and levels of government are essential to achieving the most significant collective impact on the health and well-being of NB residents. This approach shifts accountability from individuals to the collective, emphasizing participatory and inclusive engagement driven by evidence-based decision-making. This approach would see citizens as co-creators of public good, experts as facilitators, service providers as arenas for the co-creation of public good, and government as responsible for fostering systems that produce the public good [16]. The design of such initiatives is intentional, focusing on bridging divides between historically separated groups and fostering capacitybuilding among individuals, practitioners, and communities. By working collaboratively, this approach seeks to create a unified, collective response to the challenges faced by the community, driving systemic change and long-term resilience.
The recreation sector is uniquely positioned to lead an innovative community practice centred on relational welfare and system change for several reasons:
Community centred. Recreation is inherently community-centred, prioritizing activities that unite people across demographics, abilities, and interests. It already functions as a bridge, making it a logical starting point for building an intersectoral community of practice.
Cross-sector connections. The recreation sector collaborates extensively with health, education, immigration, sport, justice, social services, etc.; leveraging these partnerships and its deep understanding of community needs to unify diverse sectors would benefit coordinated efforts.
Focus on health promotion and wellbeing. At its core, recreation enhances quality of life, health and well-being.
Local reach and trust. Recreation services are often delivered at the municipal level, providing a trusted and direct connection to communities. This local and/or regional presence enables the sector to act as a catalyst for broader collective efforts.
Trained workforce. The recreation sector comprises a trained and skilled workforce uniquely equipped to support a community of practice that could foster inclusion and address systemic barriers.
Existing infrastructure. The recreation sector already has the infrastructure—physical spaces, programs, and networks—to support the coordination and delivery of collaborative initiatives.
What if the recreation sector shifted towards relational welfare as its foundation for service provisions? What could be imagined and developed that has never existed before?
What’s Next?
As was pointed out in the recent white paper by NB's Child, Youth and Seniors’ Advocate [17], the current structure of government and public service reflects a political response to the societal needs of 30 years ago. As we head into 2025, the transactional service delivery model is no longer fit for purpose.
We cannot afford to continue investing in a failing system while increasing our expectations of those working within it and of those who depend on it – or are currently excluded by it. If we want a radically different future, we must take a radically different approach.
Relational welfare has the potential to rehumanize public services, centring communities, cultivating relationships, and making care a visible and legitimate component of public service design and delivery.
Given its close proximity to the community and the immediate benefits that participation brings to community members, the recreation sector is ideally situated to take a bold leap and lead this paradigm shift.
Our next steps are to start the conversation in communities here and across the province and country to get below the surface where targeted action for system change is needed to thread essential relationships for public good reform centred on relational welfare.
Who’s ready to join us? Register interest in leading, supporting, or joining a community of practice here.
—————————————————————
Please cite this report as: “Oncescu, J., & Maitland, J. (2024). Time to shift to relational welfare. Reimagining Access to SRL.
PDF version available for download here.
References
Cottam, H. (n.d.). Relational welfare. [pdf]
Oncescu, J., & Frigault, J. (2023). Reimagining access and inclusion in sport, recreation and leisure for equity-owed residents. Reimagining Access to SRL. [pdf]
Cureton, K., & Frisby, W. (2011). Staff perspectives on how social liberal and neo-liberal values influence the implementation of leisure access policy. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 3(1), 3-22.
Woolford, A., & Curran, A. (2011). Neoliberal restructuring, limited autonomy, and relational distance in Manitoba’s nonprofit field. Critical Social Policy, 31(4), 583-606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018311415571
Smale, B., & Reid, D. (2002). Public policy on recreation and leisure in urban Canada. In E. P. Fowler & D. Siegel (Eds.), Urban policy issues: Canadian perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 172-193). Oxford University Press.
Oncescu, J., & Fortune, M. (2022). Keeping citizens living with low-income at arm’s length away: The responsibilization of municipal recreation access provisions. Leisure/Loisir, 46(4), 495-517.
Oncescu, J., & Fortune, M. (2022). Keeping citizens living with low-incomes at arm’s length away: The responsibilizations of municipal recreation access provisions. Leisure/Loisir, 46(4), 495-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2022.2032806
Oncescu, J., & Loewen, M. (2020). Community recreation provisions that support low-incomes families’ access to recreation. Leisure/Loisir, 44(2), 279-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2020.1760120
Claridge, T. (n.d). What is the difference between bonding and bridging social capital. Institute for Social Capital. Retrieved from: https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/difference-bonding-bridging-social-capital/
Cottam, H. (n.d.). Relational welfare. [pdf]
Cottam, H. (2018). Radical help: How we can remake the relationships between us and revolutionize the welfare state. Virago.
Von Heimburg, D., & Ness, O. (2021). Relational welfare: A socially just response to co-creating health and wellbeing for all. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49(6), 639-652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820970815
Von Heimburg, D., & Ness, O. (2021). Relational welfare: A socially just response to co-creating health and wellbeing for all. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49(6), 639-652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820970815
Von Heimburg, D., & Ness, O. (2021). Relational welfare: A socially just response to co-creating health and wellbeing for all. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49(6), 639-652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820970815
Oncescu, J., Frigault, J., Headley, D., Maitland, J., & Whalen, M. (forthcoming). Building bridges: Codesigning and sense of belonging. Leisure/Loisir.
Heimburg, D. V., Prilleltensky, I., Ness, O., & Ytterhus, B. (2022). From public health to public good: Toward universal wellbeing. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 50(7), 1062-1070. https://doi.org/10.1177/14034948221124670
New Brunswick Child, Youth and Seniors’ Advocate. (March, 2024). How it all broke: Fixing how government manages social policy in New Brunswick. [pdf]