Assessment of theWork of the Welfare
Watch

Mars 2015

Study Description

Commissioned by

The Icelandic Ministry of Welfare

Study objective

To assess the operations of the Welfare Watch

Report submission date

14th of July 2015

Responsible party

The Social Science Research Institute of the Universityof Iceland
The Social Science Research Institute of the
University of Iceland:

Preparation and datacollectionÁsdís A. Arnalds
Vala Jónsdóttir
Anna Soffía Víkingsdóttir
Hugrún Björnsdóttir
Guðbjörg Andrea Jónsdóttir
Ingibjörg Lilja Ómarsdóttir
Expert advisory group:
Lára Björnsdóttir
Ingibjörg Broddadóttir
Guðný Björk Eydal

Report authorsÁsdís A. Arnalds
Vala Jónsdóttir
Heiður Hrund Jónsdóttir
Anna Soffía Víkingsdóttir
Guðbjörg Andrea Jónsdóttir

1

CONTENTS
Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 2
MINISTER‘S FOREWORD .............................................................................................................. 7
The Welfare Watch – an innovation success ....................................................................... 7

Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 12
Nordic Welfare Watch and Responses to Danger ............................................................................................ 12
Recession and welfare – Lessons for the future ................................................................................................ 13
Nordic welfare indicators.......................................................................................................................................... 13
Aims of the assessment ....................................................................................................... 13

METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Surveys .................................................................................................................................. 15a) Survey among the members of the Welfare Watch working groups .................................................. 16
Table 1.
Survey sent to the members of the Welfare Watch working groups.................. 16
Table 2.
Background of participants in the survey among the members of the working
groups.................................................................................................................. 17
Table 3.
Breakdown of participants by working group ..................................................... 17b) Survey among the Welfare Watch affiliates ................................................................................................. 18
Figure 1. The Welfare Watch affiliates ............................................................................... 18
Table 4.
Survey sent to the Welfare Watch affiliates ....................................................... 19
Table 5.
Background of participants in the survey among the Welfare Watch affiliates . 19c) Survey among the general public (The Social Science Research Institute’s online panel) ......... 20
Table 6.
Survey sent to the general public........................................................................ 20
Table 7.
Background of participants among the general public, with a comparative
breakdown of the respondents and of the Icelandic population as a whole bygender, age, place of residence and education .................................................. 21
Processing quantitative data ................................................................................................................................... 21
Individual interviews, focus group interviews and content analysis .............................. 22
Qualitative interviews with ministers and members of the Welfare Watch steering committee . 22
Focus groups of members of Welfare Watch working groups .................................................................... 23
Content analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 24

FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 25
Establishment of the Welfare Watch................................................................................... 25
Development and organisation of the Welfare Watch ...................................................... 27
The ministers of the Welfare Watch ..................................................................................................................... 27
Welfare Watch steering committee ...................................................................................................................... 29
Welfare Watch working groups.............................................................................................................................. 30
Purpose and Role of the Welfare Watch ............................................................................ 31
The role of the Welfare Watch as analysts and advisers .............................................................................. 31
Table 8.
How well or poorly do you think the Welfare Watch achieved its goal ofmonitoring the social, as well as financial, consequences of the economic crisison Icelandic families and households? ................................................................ 32
Table 9.
How well or poorly do you think the Welfare Watch has achieved its goal ofsubmitting proposals for improvement? ............................................................ 33
The role of the Welfare Watch in information dissemination .................................................................... 34
Table 10. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The
work of the Welfare Watch was well promoted in Icelandic society .................. 36
The role of the Welfare Watch as an independent group ............................................................................. 36
Objectives of the working groups ........................................................................................................................... 372

Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.

Was the role of the working group clearly defined? ........................................... 39
What were the objectives of the working group?............................................... 40
On the whole, how well or poorly do you feel the objectives that the working
group set itself were achieved? .......................................................................... 41
Why was it difficult to achieve the objectives that the working group set itself?41

The Projects of the Welfare Watch...................................................................................... 42
Resolutions, proposals and recommendations .................................................................................................. 43
Table 15. The resolutions, proposals and recommendations of the Welfare Watch ......... 43
Progress reports ............................................................................................................................................................ 44
Assessments..................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Project Execution .......................................................................................................................................................... 48
Grant Provisions ............................................................................................................................................................ 51
Presentations and information disclosure .......................................................................................................... 52
Table 16. Symposiums organised by the Welfare Watch ................................................... 53
Figure 2. Have you heard about the Welfare Watch? - Comparison of the responses fromaffiliates and the general public .......................................................................... 54
Figure 3. How familiar or unfamiliar are you with the work of the Welfare Watch? –Comparison of the responses from affiliates and the general public ................. 55
Working methods and management of the steering committee ...................................... 55
Steering committee meetings .................................................................................................................................. 55
Democratic working practices ................................................................................................................................ 56
Management................................................................................................................................................................... 57
Working group methods and management ....................................................................... 58
Work contribution........................................................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 4. To what extent did your involvement in the working groups consist of…? ........ 58
Table 17. Would you have liked for your working group to meet more or less often than it
did? ...................................................................................................................... 59
Allocation of responsibilities and organisation ................................................................................................ 59
Table 18. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how responsibilities
were allocated within your working group? ....................................................... 60
Table 19. Was it clear what was expected of you in the working group? .......................... 61
Table 20. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how the working
group’s tasks were organised? ............................................................................ 62
Table 21. As regards the organisation and procedures of your working group, was there
anything that you would have liked to see done differently? ............................ 63
Table 22. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with working groupefforts? ................................................................................................................ 64
Task prioritisation ....................................................................................................................................................... 64
Table 23. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how tasks were prioritised withinyour working group? ........................................................................................... 65
Democratic working practices ................................................................................................................................ 65
Management................................................................................................................................................................... 66
Table 24. Was the role of the chairperson of the working group clear? ............................ 66
Figure 5. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with communication withthe chairperson of the working group? – Frequency .......................................... 67
Table 25. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with communication withthe chairperson of the working group?............................................................... 67
Communication and information provision within the Welfare Watch ........................... 68
Communications in the steering committee ...................................................................................................... 68
Communications in the working groups ............................................................................................................. 69
Figure 6. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with communications withothers in the group? – Frequency ....................................................................... 69
Table 26. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with communications withothers in the group? ............................................................................................ 70
Table 27. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with information provision
within the working group? .................................................................................. 71
3

Working group and steering committee communications .......................................................................... 71
Table 28. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with information provision
between the steering committee and the working group? ................................ 72
Table 29. How familiar or unfamiliar were you with the work of the Welfare Watch
steering committee? ........................................................................................... 73
Proposals from the Welfare Watch working groups ......................................................... 74
Table 30.
Table 31.
Table 32.
Table 33.
Table 34.
Table 35.
Table 36.
Figure 7.
Table 37.

Proposals from the working group on children and families with children ........ 76
Proposals from the working group on persons at risk both before and after thefinancial crisis ...................................................................................................... 78
Proposals from the working group on the recession and health / on publichealth .................................................................................................................. 79
Proposals from the working group on youth and young people ........................ 81
Proposals from the working group on unemployed people ............................... 82
Proposals from the working group on household financial difficulties ............... 84
Proposals from the merged group on unemployed people and young people .. 85
How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the proposals that the steeringcommittee opted to take forward? – Frequency ................................................ 86
How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the proposals that the steeringcommittee opted to take forward? ..................................................................... 86

Proposals from the steering committee to the government and what became ofthem ....................................................................................................................................... 87
Steering committee proposals based on the work of the working groups ............................................. 87
Figure 8. Steering committee’s proposals for the period 2009–2013 related to the issues
dealt with by the working group on children and families with children,
together with what became of them .................................................................. 90
Figure 9. Steering committee’s proposals in the period 2009–2013 regarding the issues
dealt with by the working group on persons at risk both before and after thefinancial crisis ...................................................................................................... 92
Figure 10. Steering committee’s proposals for the period 2009–2013 related to the issues
dealt with by the working group on the recession and health ........................... 93
Figure 11. Steering committee’s proposals for the period 2009–2013 related to the issues
dealt with by the working group on youth and young people ............................ 94
Figure 12. Steering committee’s proposals for the period 2009–2013 related to the issues
dealt with by the working group about unemployed people, together with whatbecame of the proposals ..................................................................................... 96
Figure 13. Steering committee’s proposals for the period 2009–2013 related to the issues
dealt with by the working group on household financial difficulties .................. 98
Figure 14. Steering committee’s proposals for the period 2009–2013 relating to the issues
dealt with by the joint group on unemployed people and young people........... 99
Proposals from the Welfare Watch steering committee ............................................................................... 99
Figure 15. Steering committee’s proposals 2009–2013 ..................................................... 102
Attitudes towards the actions of public authorities..................................................................................... 104
Figure 16. Attitudes of affiliates and the general public on whether the government has
placed much, little or no emphasis on various welfare actions. Average scale of
1–5, where 1 is little or no emphasis and 5 is great emphasis .......................... 104
Other results from the work of the Welfare Watch .......................................................... 104
Table 38.
Table 39.
Table 40.
Table 41.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? – I
informed my colleagues about the endeavours of the working group. ............ 106
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? – I
noticed the results of the working groups in my professional environment. ... 107
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? – The
reports of the working group were utilised in my professional environment. . 108
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? – The
results of the working groups were of use in my work elsewhere. .................. 108

The importance of the Welfare Watch .............................................................................. 109
4

The importance of the Welfare Watch for the government of Iceland ................................................ 109
The importance of the Welfare Watch for its members ............................................................................. 109
Table 42. To what extent do you agree or disagree that your participation in the working
group has strengthened your professional contacts network? ........................ 110
Table 43. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? – My
contribution mattered in the working group. ................................................... 111
Table 44. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? – I am
proud to have taken part in the work of the working group. ........................... 112
The importance of the Welfare Watch for the general public in Iceland ............................................ 112
Figure 17. Do you think that the Welfare Watch was of great or little importance for
Icelandic society during the first few years after the economic collapse? –Comparison of the responses from affiliates and the general public. .............. 113
Table 45. In your opinion, why was the Welfare Watch important for Icelandic society? –Responses of affiliates. ...................................................................................... 114
Table 46. In your opinion, why was the Welfare Watch important for Icelandic society? –Responses from the public. ............................................................................... 115
Table 47. Why do you feel that the Welfare Watch was of little importance for Icelandic
society? – Responses of affiliates. ..................................................................... 116
Table 48. Why do you feel that the Welfare Watch was of little importance for Icelandic
society? – Responses from the public. .............................................................. 116

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 117
Establishment of the Welfare Watch................................................................................. 117
Role and goals of the Welfare Watch................................................................................ 117
Proposals made by the Welfare Watch ............................................................................ 118
Communications and co-operation .................................................................................. 119
Working procedures and results ....................................................................................... 120
The Watch's visibility ......................................................................................................... 121
The importance of the Welfare Watch .............................................................................. 121
Looking to the future .......................................................................................................... 122

Annex 1: Background analysis of the responses in the survey among affiliates ........................ 123
Table i.
Table ii.
Table iii.
Table iv.
Table v.
Table vi.
Table vii.
Table viii.
Table ix.
Table x.
Table xi.
Table xii.

Have you heard about the Welfare Watch?...................................................... 123
How familiar or unfamiliar are you with the work of the Welfare Watch? ...... 123
Do you think that the Welfare Watch was of great or little importance for
Icelandic society during the first few years after the economic crisis? ............ 124
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on trying toprevent poverty? ............................................................................................... 124
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
supporting low-income families with children? ................................................ 125
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
supporting low-income people with housing problems? .................................. 125
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on reducing
the medical expenses of patients struggling with severe, chronic diseases? ... 126
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on ensuringthat all children are provided with lunch in Icelandic primary schools? ........... 126
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on ensuringmental health services for children? ................................................................. 127
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
formulating a comprehensive policy for housing issues? ................................. 127
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort oncomprehensively analysing the financial situation of households? .................. 128
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on ensuringthat all students at the age of secondary school level are guaranteed a place inschool? .............................................................................................................. 128
5

Table xiii.
Table xiv.
Table xv.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on offeringsummer jobs for young people? ....................................................................... 129
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort onstrengthening vocational rehabilitation for people seeking employment? ...... 129
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on involving
parents when streamlining measures are applied in schools? ......................... 130

Annex 2: Background analysis of the responses in the survey among the public ...................... 131
Table i.
Table ii.
Table iii.
Table iv.
Table v.
Table vi.
Table vii.
Table viii.
Table ix.
Table x.
Table xi.
Table xii.

Table xiii.
Table xiv.
Table xv.

Have you heard about the Welfare Watch?...................................................... 131
How familiar or unfamiliar are you with the work of the Welfare Watch? ...... 132
Do you think that the Welfare Watch was of great or little importance for
Icelandic society during the first few years after the economic collapse? ....... 133
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on trying toprevent poverty? ............................................................................................... 134
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
supporting low-income families with children? ................................................ 135
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
supporting low-income people with housing problems? .................................. 136
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on reducing
the medical expenses of patients struggling with severe, chronic diseases? ... 137
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on ensuringthat all children are given lunch in Icelandic primary schools? ......................... 138
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on ensuringmental health services for children? ................................................................. 139
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
formulating a comprehensive policy for housing issues? ................................. 140
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort oncomprehensively analysing the financial situation of households? .................. 141
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on ensuringthat all students at the age of secondary school level are guaranteed a place inschool? .............................................................................................................. 142
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on offeringsummer jobs for young people? ....................................................................... 143
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort onstrengthening vocational rehabilitation for people seeking employment? ...... 144
Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on involving
parents when streamlining measures are applied in schools? ......................... 145

6

MINISTER‘S FOREWORD
The Welfare Watch – an innovation success
The financial crisis of 2008 presented Icelanders with a brand-new situation. February 2009 saw
the decision to set up a Welfare Watch. The Welfare Watch was intended to monitor the social andfinancial consequences of the financial crisis for families and households in Iceland, assess themeasures already taken, propose improvements, and implement them on behalf of thegovernment. The Welfare Watch has been staffed by representatives of various stakeholders, e.g.
the labour market, municipalities, government agencies and ministries – all parties who in one way
or another are connected to the welfare system and work on welfare issues. The Welfare Watch
has proven its worth. It has played a crucial role and helped improve the situation of various groups
in society who needed support. It has also been an important forum for discussing the issues
surrounding the disadvantaged in society. It is, however, still important to monitor developments
and receive proposals for improvements.
It is vital to promote welfare in the Nordic countries for the future. The decision was made,therefore, that one of the tasks of the 2014 Icelandic presidency of the Nordic Council of Ministers
would be the 2014–2016 Nordic Welfare Watch. The project is a three-year research project whichaims to strengthen and promote the sustainability of the Nordic welfare systems, by promoting
research and increasing collaboration and the exchange of experience and knowledge between
the Nordic countries. The project aims to find ways of measuring and monitoring citizens’ welfare,to study the effects of financial crises and the consequences thereof on Nordic welfare systems
and to contribute to informed policy-making in welfare matters. A presentation given by
representatives of the Social Science Research Institute of the University of Iceland introducing a
draft assessment report for the Welfare Watch for 2009–2014 (part of the overall Nordic project)
showed just what a good job the Welfare Watch has been doing. The Welfare Watch is to becongratulated for this.
The Welfare Watch has no direct foreign model to base itself on and can therefore beconsidered a powerful and successful example of innovation that we Icelanders can be proud of. I
am convinced that history will look back on the Icelandic and Nordic versions of the Welfare Watch
as having ultimately improved welfare in the Nordic countries and better enabled them to handle
unexpected setbacks.
Eygló Harðardóttir

7

SUMMARY
The financial crisis in the autumn of 2008 created a new playing field in Icelandic society. Many
people lost their jobs, and the Icelandic economy fell into deep recession. One of the government’s
responses to the financial crisis was to set up the Welfare Watch, which was in operation fromearly 2009 to December 2013. This assessment report discusses the organisation, implementationand outcome of the proposals made in the course of this first Welfare Watch.
The work of the Welfare Watch has been assessed by means of interviews, questionnaires
and content analysis. Data was collected in the autumn of 2014. Interviews were held with theHead of the Welfare Watch, one of the project’s workers and three other representatives from thesteering committee. The various ministers in office during the lifetime of the Welfare Watch werealso interviewed. Discussions were held in two focus groups amongst working group members
who had participated in the Welfare Watch activities. The project was then assessed by means of
three questionnaires sent to members of the Welfare Watch working groups, staff in agencies
involved in the project and the general public. Finally, the content of reports, minutes and othermaterial connected to the Welfare Watch was analysed in order to gain insight into the organisationof the project and the proposals generated.
The Welfare Watch was set up and mandated by Ásta Ragnheiður Jóhannesdóttir, thenMinister of Social Affairs and Social Security. The Minister entrusted the then-Head of the Welfare
Service, Lára Björnsdóttir, with the task of running the Welfare Watch and recruited Ingibjörg
Broddadóttir, who at that time worked as an expert in the Employment and Equality Office, to workon the project. The Director of the Icelandic Federation of Skilled Construction and Industrial
Workers, Þorbjörn Guðmundsson, was also brought in to work on the project. This group decided
jointly on the composition of the Welfare Watch’s steering committee.
The steering committee was made up of representatives from ministries, stakeholders,
Reykjavik City Council, the Association of Icelandic Local Authorities and the third sector (NGOs).
From the interviews with ministers and members of the steering committee, it emerged that people
were generally satisfied with how successfully a broad group of people with varying knowledge
and experience had been put together. The steering committee set up working groups to deal withthe various projects that it deemed urgent to tackle. Each working group was headed by a chairman
who also sat on the Welfare Watch steering committee. These chairmen had the task of callingupon people with expert knowledge in the specific fields dealt with in each group. Each working
group had the task of assessing the consequences of the financial crisis on the group in questionand proposing improvements for the use of the steering committee in its interim reports to thegovernment.
When the Welfare Watch was set up, it was given the task of monitoring the social andfinancial repercussions of the financial crisis on individuals and families and proposing
improvements. The Welfare Watch’s mandate was renewed during the term of office of Guðbjartur
Hannesson. The commission letter he issued stated that the steering committee must keep both
the government and public fully informed and act independently. A survey among the members of8the Welfare Watch working groups contained questions on how well the Welfare Watch had fulfilled
its role. A large majority, i.e. 84%, felt that the social and financial consequences of the economiccrisis had been well monitored, but fewer considered that proposing improvements had beensuccessful. The role of the Welfare Watch was also discussed in interviews with ministers andmembers of the steering committee. These discussions included what people understood
regarding the Welfare Watch’s independence. Respondents agreed that the Welfare Watch had
been independent in the sense that the group decided for itself what issues were discussed andhow these issues where discussed. Some, however, felt that a working group appointed by thegovernment could hardly be considered independent.
The Welfare Watch handled projects of various types. Meetings were held on the situation in
Icelandic society in both the steering committee and working groups, and the steering committeeof the Welfare Watch also issued conclusions, recommendations and challenges; wrote fiveprogress reports containing recommendations for the government; had audits done; and organised
meetings and forums. These projects were more often than not aimed at children, families withchildren and young people. Respondents from the steering committee agreed that urging municipal
councils to ensure school-meal provision was one of the most important recommendations thecommittee had issued and that the number of schools offering children free porridge in the morning
had risen considerably. The recommendation to ensure children’s dental health was also
considered to have been effective.
The defined role of the Welfare Watch was to act as analysts and advisors. In two cases,
however, the Welfare Watch was actually responsible for implementing projects. One of these two
projects was to set up social indicators – respondents from the steering committee felt this to be
one of the most important of the Welfare Watch’s projects. These social indicators provide acollection of statistical data in one place, enabling the public and the government to follow
developments and changes in society and compare the situation of various groups to that in othercountries. The other project was to set up the Suðurnes Watch. The results of the Suðurnes Watch
include fostering co-operation between the police, social services and child protection services in
the field of domestic violence.
Meetings of the Welfare Watch steering committee were used to discuss the activities of theworking groups, to present the work performed at the workplaces of the group’s members and to
gain insight and expertise from individuals outside the Welfare Watch. The role of the Welfare
Watch chairman was to convene the group and oversee its activities. They did not, however, set
the group specific tasks, as the members of the steering committee would generally reach theirown conclusions as to which matters needed attention at any given time. Interviews with membersof the steering committee included discussions of how the group’s meetings had been used.
Respondents appreciated how often the Welfare Watch met, particularly in the early stages of thefinancial crisis when many matters were pressing. There were, however, some instances ofexcessively long agendas and meetings. Some indicated that excessively long meetings could getin the way of members’ other activities and prevent material presented by attendees from being

9

utilised as it should. There were high levels of satisfaction with the work of the chairman, who wasconsidered to possess a good deal of knowledge and experience.
Assessing the work of the Welfare Watch included assessing working methods andmanagement within the working groups. The replies given by respondents suggest that working
methods were similar to those present in the steering committee. The chair ran and convened thegroup, but in every other respect, things were done by teamwork, with the group decidingcollectively what material was worth examining. From focus group discussions, it emerged that, insome cases, the division of tasks within working groups was unclear. A questionnaire answeredby members of the working groups showed that 57% of respondents were satisfied with how tasks
were divided within their groups, while 13% were unsatisfied.
Interviews with members of the steering committee revealed that, while heated debates on
individual matters were frequent, the group had worked well together. A majority (78%) of working
group questionnaire respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the level of communication
with others in the working group. Respondents from the Welfare Watch working groups did,
however, consider that more co-operation was needed between the steering committee and theworking groups. It was considered important to strengthen the ties between the members of theworking groups and the steering committee to ensure that the members of the working groups
gained a better understanding of what was expected of them. Information was requested on the
results of the work carried out in the working groups.
Analyses of progress reports from the working groups and interim reports from the steeringcommittee to the government revealed that the steering committee utilised the work performed by
the working groups to propose improvements. The working groups formulated most of their
proposals in 2009 – the first year of the Welfare Watch operations – and the steering committee
passed on most proposals to the government that same year. The steering committee focused on
the issues of unemployed people, bolstering labour-market measures, household debt issues, andeducation issues, to name but a few. Information on the website of the Icelandic national parliament(hereinafter “Alþingi”) for 2009–2013 was looked at in order to ascertain what had happened to thevarious proposals put by the steering committee to the government. Several plans and legal acts
entering into force in the early years of the financial crisis closely resemble proposals made by the
Welfare Watch. Examples of this are various labour market measures for young people notcovered within the unemployment insurance system and measures for people struggling withmortgage payments.
Interviewees considered the Welfare Watch to have had a significant effect on welfare in
Iceland at the beginning of the financial crisis. This was also the case for individuals external to
the Welfare Watch. Surveys among the general public and the staff in public bodies represented
in the Welfare Watch revealed that half of those who had heard of the Welfare Watch considered
it to have been very important for Icelandic society in the early years of the financial crisis. One
aspect of the importance of the Welfare Watch was the various reports containing proposed
improvements used by the government to prioritise tasks. One respondent indicated that the workof the Welfare Watch may have contributed to fewer cutbacks being made in welfare than in other10

areas. Note was also made of the fact that, although not all the Welfare Watch’s proposals had
been implemented, its work had an indirect impact on welfare in Iceland by raising awarenessabout issues requiring attention. Increased debate subsequently led to entities other than thegovernment taking on such issues.
Through the Welfare Watch, various public bodies and organisations worked together on
welfare issues, and representatives of the Welfare Watch felt they had learnt a great deal fromtheir participation in this cross-discipline project. Respondents agreed that co-operation on a broad
basis had played a crucial role in efforts to improve the situation of people in Iceland. A large
majority of working group members expressed pride at having taken part in the Welfare Watch
working groups.

11

INTRODUCTION
The Ministry of Welfare gave the Social Science Research Institute of the University of Iceland thetask of assessing and mapping the work of the Welfare Watch, which was set up in 2009 following
the economic collapse. The Welfare Watch operated until the end of 2013, and a successor project
was set up in June 2014. The aim of the assessment study was to assess the organisation, workand results of the work performed by the Welfare Watch in 2009–2013. The assessment study isa part of the Nordic Welfare Watch study project launched on the occasion of the Icelandic
presidency of the Nordic Council of Ministers.
The project aims to strengthen and promote the sustainability of the Nordic welfare systems
by promoting research and increasing collaboration and the exchange of experience andknowledge between the Nordic countries. It is important for welfare systems to be able to deal withchanges and challenges. Iceland focuses on using and sharing its own experience, and theexperience gained by other Nordic countries, of financial crises. This expertise will be used toassess the effect on public welfare and on Nordic welfare systems, as well as the effect on specificgroups in society. This will enable an assessment of what has been successful and where further
improvements are needed. There will also be an assessment of the ability of welfare systems todeal with danger, whether natural or man-made, and with the consequences thereof. Researchshows that greater knowledge is required of long-term reactions in this field. The project will run
from 2014 to 2016 and is split into three main areas (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, no date). The
assessment study focused on in this report is part of the Nordic Welfare Watch and Responses toDanger.

Nordic Welfare Watch and Responses to Danger
This project component included an assessment study on the work of the Welfare Watch, which isdealt with in this report. The response systems of the Nordic countries will be mapped, focusing
on the role of welfare systems and, specifically, social services. Knowledge of the potential
challenges that Nordic welfare systems may need to face in the future will be collated with a viewto protecting welfare from potential negative consequences. An answer will be given to thequestion of whether or not there is good reason to set up a Nordic Welfare Watch. The findings ofthis study will be allied to the study findings under other project components and used as a basis
for proposals regarding a Nordic Welfare Watch (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, no date). The projectis run by a group of Nordic academics and experts headed by Guðný Björk Eydal, Professor in
Social Work at the University of Iceland’s Faculty of Social Work.

12

Recession and welfare – Lessons for the future
There will be an analysis of which measures taken in response to economic crises in the Nordic
countries were successful, what could have been done better and which consequences of thefinancial crises are attributable to a lack of action on the part of the government. To this end, a coordinated database will be set up containing statistical data and policy measures implemented inindividual countries. This database will be used to compare countries and time periods in thiscontext. It provides plenty of material for analysing links between government measures andsuccessfully exiting recessions with as little effect as possible on citizen welfare (Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, no date). The project is run by a group of Nordic academics headed by Stefán Ólafsson,
Professor in Sociology at the University of Iceland’s Faculty of Social and Human Sciences.

Nordic welfare indicators
Nordic welfare indicators will be developed. Importance is placed on finding or developing
indicators that describe the state of citizen welfare in the Nordic countries. It is important for such
indicators to point to possible negative developments for the general public or specific groups, inorder to enable the government to take countermeasures as quickly as possible. Nordic welfare
indicators will be an important addition to bolstering the foundations of future policy-making in
welfare matters (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, no date). The project is run by a group of Nordic experts
and academics headed by Sigríður Jónsdóttir of the Ministry of Welfare.

Aims of the assessment
The Welfare Watch was set up by the government in February 2009 and ran until December 2013.
A successor project was set up in June 2013 to take over from the previous one. This report deals
with the Welfare Watch that was set up in 2009. The purpose of the Welfare Watch was to monitor
the social and financial consequences of the economic collapse on homes in Iceland and to submit
proposals and opinions to the authorities. A steering committee was set up composed ofrepresentatives from ministries, government agencies, municipalities, unions, non-governmentalorganisations and others. Figure 1 on page 18 gives the names of all agencies and organisations
represented in the steering committee at the end of the Welfare Watch’s operations. Under thesteering committee were a number of working groups, each chaired by a member of the steeringcommittee. The Welfare Watch submitted five interim reports to the Minister of Social Affairs andSocial Security (later the Minister of Welfare) as well as many other reports. These are available
on the Welfare Watch website (http://www.velferdarraduneyti.is/velferdarvaktin). The Welfare
Watch also ran several specific projects, e.g. conducting independent surveys, setting up social
indicators and setting up a welfare consultation group in Suðurnes (Ministry of Welfare, 2013a).
The aim of the assessment study dealt with here was to assess the organisation, work andresults of the proposals submitted by the Welfare Watch over the years it operated. A detailed
analysis was made of the establishment, organisation and role of the Welfare Watch, as well as its
tasks and working groups. Working procedures, management and co-operation in both the steering
13

committee and working groups were looked into by means of questionnaires and interviews. The
proposals made by the Welfare Watch steering committee and working groups were looked at andtheir results assessed. An analysis was also made of which working group proposals were
supported by the Welfare Watch steering committee. An attempt was also made to ascertain how
these proposals had fared in Icelandic society, by analysing the government’s reaction to the
proposals submitted by the Welfare Watch during this period.
The assessment was conducted by experts from the Social Science Research Institute of the
University of Iceland. A group of consultants was also at hand: Guðný Björk Eydal (Professor at
the University of Iceland heading the Nordic Welfare Watch and Responses to Danger project),
Lára Björnsdóttir (former Ministry of Welfare expert and Chair of the Welfare Watch 2009–2013)
and Ingibjörg Broddadóttir (a Ministry of Welfare expert and member of the Welfare Watch staff).
The consultancy group met with the project managers of the assessment study in the preparation
stages, gave advice on designing and conducting studies and assessment tools (questionnaires,interview guides, interview frameworks) and provided comments on the report to be published.
Experts from the Social Science Research Institute presented a draft report at an earlymorning meeting at the University of Iceland on 10 December 2014. The report will be translated
from Icelandic into other Nordic languages and was translated into English in the spring of 2015.
It will be available on the websites of the Ministry of Welfare and the Social Science ResearchInstitute.

14

METHODS
The assessment project described here aims to assess the quality and value of the work under
examination and is, in that respect, different from research where the main aim is to gather dataand create new knowledge (see for example Hatry, 2007; Patton, 1990; and Scriven, 1991, on
quality assessment and success measurement). The assessment aims to give information on what
has been successful in the Welfare Watch’s operations, what needs to be changed, what shouldbe improved and whether or not the Welfare Watch or a similar project should be continued. Two
different approaches were used in the assessment. One is an objective/outcome approach andthe other, a management approach. Focus was placed on how the stated objectives have beenachieved and on extracting those aspects that could be of use to the Ministry of Welfare when
taking decisions on continuing or changing operations. The report describes the aims of the
Welfare Watch and the contribution and input into the project. This is followed by a description of
the process and output of the project. This concludes the descriptive purposes of the assessment,
and there is no attempt at assessing the outcome of the project; this comes under the Recession
and welfare – Lessons for the future project described above (page 10).
The same two approaches underpin data collection, whether for an assessment or researchin social sciences. Quantitative methods are generally used for large groups of people when theaim is to compare deeds, attitudes and characteristics by statistical means. Qualitative studies, on
the other hand, are based on the notion that reality is variable and that people perceive things indifferent ways. The aim of qualitative studies is to understand people’s circumstances from theviewpoint of those taking part in the study. Under this method, researchers collect data directly
without using questions involving pre-determined reply options. This method enables researchers
to get right into the heart of the topic under study (Creswell, 2008). Both qualitative and quantitative
methods were used to assess the organisation, work and results of the proposals submitted by the
Welfare Watch over the years it operated.

Surveys
Questionnaires were compiled by the Social Science Research Institute of the University of
Iceland in co-operation with the consultancy group of the assessment study. Data was collectedby means of three online questionnaires:a) A questionnaire sent to the members of the Welfare Watch working groupsb) A questionnaire sent to the Welfare Watch affiliatesc) A questionnaire for the general public, sent to a sample from the Social Science ResearchInstitute’s online panel

15a) Survey among the members of the Welfare Watch working groups
The operations and development of the Welfare Watch are described in a Ministry of Welfare report(Hilma Hólmfríður Sigurðardóttir, in press). Information on the composition of the Welfare Watch’s
working groups 2009-2013 was taken from that report. The report gives details of when people
began and ended work in their working group(s). A questionnaire was sent to all those who had
sat in a working group at any time when the Welfare Watch was in operation. There was no overall
list of working group members’ e-mail addresses available at the time. Finding everybody’s e-mailaddress online or by other means involved a considerable amount of work.
An online questionnaire was sent on 9 September 2014 to the 124 members who sat in the
Welfare Watch working groups in the period 2009–2013. Four e-mail reminders were sent toensure a high rate of reply. Data collection ended on 24 September 2014. In total, replies werereceived from 79 individuals, i.e. 64% response rate (see Table 1).
Table 1. Survey sent to the members of the Welfare Watch working groups
Data gathered
Data-collection method

9 - 24 September 2014
Web survey

Total population

124

Number of respondents

79

Response rate

64%

Background of participants in the survey among the members of the working groups
Table 2 gives an overview of the background of those taking part in the survey sent to membersof the Welfare Watch working groups. Proportionately more women than men answered thequestionnaire (59% women and 41% men); this tallies with the gender share in the working groups
themselves. The average age of respondents was 53.4 years, and one in four respondents werealso members of the Welfare Watch’s steering committee.

16

Table 2. Background of participants in the survey among the members of the working
groupsNumber of

Response

respondents percentage

Response percentage

Gender
Male

36

46%

46%46%

Female4354%54% 54%

24–49 y ears

20

25%

50–59 y ears

39

49%

25%
25%
49% 49%60–68 y ears
Field of employment

20

25%

25%
25%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

12

15%

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

16

20%

15%
15%
20%
20%

14

18%

Other public serv ices

Age

20

25%

18%
18%
25%
25%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
17
Membership of the Welfare Watch steering committee

22%

22%
22%

Member of the steering committee

18

24%

Not member of the steering committee

58

76%

24%
24%
76%

76%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Table 3 gives a breakdown of participants by working group. Some were members of more than
one working group, but recipients of the questionnaire were asked to reply in respect of the working
group in which they had participated most. The small number of members in each group made it
impossible to analyse the background of the results by working groups.

Table 3. Breakdown of participants by working group
Number of

Response

respondents percentageSuðurnes Watch – collaborativ e w orking group on w elfare in

Response percentage
20%

15

20%

Group on social indicators

12

16%

Financial difficulties of households

11

15%

Children and families w ith children

811%Youngsters and y oung adults

79%Persons at risk both before and after the crash

57%

The unemploy ed

57%

Public health group4

5%

The joint group of unemploy ed people and y oung people

3

4%

4%

the Suðurnes region

16%
15%
11%
9%
7%
7%
5%

The recession and health

2

3%

3%

Basic serv ices group

2

3%

3%

Number of responses

74

100%

Don't know

5

Total

79

17

b) Survey among the Welfare Watch affiliates
Many agencies and organisations had representatives in the Welfare Watch’s steering committee
and working groups who were involved with the work carried out there. The Social Science
Research Institute of the University of Iceland put together a list of the staff of those agencies
which were represented in the Welfare Watch. An overview of these agencies and organisations
is given in Figure 1.

Icelandic Teachers’
Union

Ministry of Education, Science
and Culture

The
Icelandic
Red
Cross

Icelandic
Confederation ofLabourBishop's
OfficeMinistry of theInterior

Directorateof Labour

The Welfare Watch

GenderEqualityCouncil

Ministry of Welfare

Directorate
of Health

Icelandic Disabled
Persons' Association
and Disabled Help

Ministry of Industries andInnovation

National Federation of Senior
Citizens

The Debtors'
Ombudsman

Federation of State
and Municipal
Employees

City of
Reykjavík

Association of
Academics

Icelandic Human
Rights Office
Association of
Local
Authorities in
Iceland

SA-Business Iceland

Figure 1. The Welfare Watch affiliates(Source: Based on a report from the Welfare Watch steering committee, see Ministry of Welfare, 2013a).

The sample included directors, managers, nurses, lawyers, experts, administrators and project
managers at the various agencies and organisations. Only people performing work directly linked
to the operations of the agency or organisation in question were contacted. Reception, cleaning,
IT staff, drivers, cooks and secretaries were therefore excluded. Staff without a registered e-mailaddress and staff on leave were not included in the sample.
Reykjavik City Council employees dealing with welfare issues were also contacted. It was
decided to confine contact to council employees working in welfare and school and leisureactivities. The names and e-mail addresses of staff dealing with school and leisure matters wereobtained from the general office of the department in question. Information on school principals
was available on the Reykjavik City Council website. Primary-school principals, deputy principals
and department heads (in some cases, project managers) were also sent the questionnaire, as
were nursery-school principals and deputy principals. If no e-mail address could be found for these
individuals, then the department head was selected. The questionnaire was also sent toschoolmasters and deputy schoolmasters in secondary schools. In those cases where the deputy
schoolmaster was not registered, the questionnaire was sent to the school director or head18

teachers. Finally, it was ensured that those present in the working group sample did not also
receive the questionnaire for affiliates.
A web survey was sent to the Welfare Watch affiliates on 17 October 2014. Four e-mailreminders were sent to ensure an appropriate rate of reply, and data collection ended on 13
November 2014. A total of 768 replied, i.e. a response rate of 71% (see Table 4).
Table 4. Survey sent to the Welfare Watch affiliates
17 October – 13 November 2014

Data gathered

Web survey

Data collection method
Total population

1082

Number of respondents

768

Response rate

71%

Background of participants int he survey among the Welfare Watch affiliates
Many more women than men answered the questionnaire (74% women and 24% men); this tallies
with the gender division among the staff of the Welfare Watch affiliates (one-quarter men, threequarters women). The average age of respondents was 50.2 years (see Table 5).

Table 5. Background of participants in the survey among the Welfare Watch affiliates
Number of

Response

respondents percentage

Response percentage

Gender
Male

202

26%

Female566

74%

22–39 y ears

134

17%

40–49 y ears

202

26%

50–59 y ears

273

36%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

157

20%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

65

9%

9%

9%

Healthcare serv ices

49

7%

7%

7%

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

302

41%

41%
41%

110

15%

Other public serv ices

99

13%

15% 15%
13% 13%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

61

8%

8%

8%

Other sector or outside labour market

48

7%

7%

7%

26%
26%
74%

74%

Age
17%17%
26%
26%
36%
20%20%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%19c) Survey among the general public (The Social Science Research Institute’s
online panel)
The online panel of the Social Science Research Institute of the University of Iceland comprises
7,000 individuals aged eighteen and older across the whole of Iceland who have agreed to takepart in the Institute’s online surveys. Participants in the online panel are chosen by random sample
from the national register. Participants are recruited for the online panel on a continuous basis,and the composition of the panel is closely monitored. For instance, efforts are made to ensurethat the gender, age, residence and education profile of the panel is as close as possible to that of
Icelanders generally, aged eighteen and above. Ensuring the quality of the online panel in this way
makes it possible to extrapolate results in surveys based on the answers the panel gives.
A stratified random sample of 1,499 individuals was taken from the Social Science ResearchInstitute’s online panel. The sample was stratified by gender, age and place of residence in sucha way as to be as representative as possible of Icelandic society as a whole. The sample of the
Welfare Watch affiliates was compared to the sample from the online panel to check for duplicate
entries who would receive two questionnaires. Two such duplicates were found and removed,
leaving an online panel sample of 1,497.
Data collection began on 4 November 2014 and ended on 21 November 2014. Four e-mailreminders were sent to ensure an appropriate rate of reply. A total of 948 answered the survey, a
response rate of 63% (see Table 6).

Table 6. Survey sent to the general public
Data gathered4 - 21 November 2014

Data collection method

Web survey

Total population

1497

Number of respondents

948

Response percentage

63%

Table 7 gives a breakdown of the respondents and of the Icelandic population as a whole bygender, age, place of residence and education. The average age of respondents was 46.4 years.
The table indicates a difference in the age profile of respondents as compared to the general
population, owing to the fact that fewer young people replied than expected. Similarly, there wasa difference in the education level of the respondents and the education level of Icelanders aged
eighteen and above generally. The percentage of university graduates was higher among
respondents than among Icelanders generally, according to data from Statistics Iceland. The datacollected was weighted by gender, age, place of residence and education to make the results as
accurate a representation of the Icelandic population as possible.

20

Table 7. Background of participants among the general public, with a comparative
breakdown of the respondents and of the Icelandic population as a whole bygender, age, place of residence and education
Number of

Response

respondents

percentage

Total population

population

Male

483

51%

122.482

50%

Female465

49%123.14950%

18–25 y ears

91

10%

38.92616%

26–35 y ears

158

17%

45.56819%

36–45 y ears

174

18%

41.99917%

46–55 y ears

184

19%

43.062

18%

56–65 y ears

165

17%

36.14615%

66–75 y ears

101

11%

22.1319%

Age 76 and older

75

8%17.7997%

Greater Rey kjav ík area

625

66%

158.04164%

Outside Rey kjav ík area

323

34%

87.59036%

Primary school education

119

13%

89.52838%

Secondary school education

331

37%

85.94736%

Univ ersity degree

445

50%

60.86326%

Proportion of

Gender

Age***

Residence

Education***

There is a significant difference in the number of respondents and the population number; * p <0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Processing quantitative data
The results of the three questionnaires are plotted in tables and figures showing the proportion ofeach reply given. The tables give only the replies of those who answered each question, whichmeans that total numbers of replies may differ from table to table. Some columns give an aggregate
total of answers from two or more reply options. In such cases, the percentages given in thecolumns may differ slightly from the percentages arrived at by adding the individual proportions in
the table together. This is due to rounding up to the nearest decimal place.

Working groups
The questions put to the working groups are analysed by gender, age, field of work and whether
or not the individual in question was also in the steering committee. The survey among membersof the working groups was a population study aimed at all those who have worked in the Welfare
Watch working groups during the period 2009–2013. Therefore, no significance tests were
calculated to assess the difference of the distribution of replies between groups. It should be bornein mind that percentages should be interpreted with care, as the number of respondents behindeach percentage is often low.

21

Affiliates
Replies to the questionnaire sent to Welfare Watch affiliates, i.e. those agencies and organisations
with representatives in the steering committee over the years the Welfare Watch operated, areanalysed by gender, age and field of work. No significance tests were calculated to assess thedifference of the distribution of replies between groups, as participants in the survey were chosenon the basis of their suitability. It is therefore not possible to extrapolate the results to any othergroup than that which took part in the survey.

General public (The Social Science Research Institute’s online panel)
Percentage figures are calculated from weighted replies. The tables give percentages andnumbers of replies broken down by gender, place of residence, marital status, whether or not
respondents have children at home, education, labour-market status, income, household income
and respondents’ voting intentions if there were to be an election tomorrow.
A chi-squared significance test was used to assess whether or not there was a significant
difference in the replies of the different groups. Statistical significance is indicated by a system ofasterisks. One asterisk indicates that there is a less than 5% chance of the difference observed ina given group being coincidental (p<0.05). In other words, it can be claimed with 95% certainty
that the difference observed among respondents also exists among Icelanders as a whole inNovember 2014. Two asterisks indicate that the difference is significant with 99% certainty(p<0.01), and three indicate that the difference can be claimed with 99.9% certainty to exist in theoverall population (p<0.001). If the significance test is invalid owing to too few members in a given
group, the abbreviation “inv” is used.

Individual interviews, focus group interviews and content
analysis
Eight individual interviews were held – three with various ministers of welfare regarding the Welfare
Watch, one joint interview with the chair and a member of the Welfare Watch steering committee
and interviews with three other individuals who were part of the steering committee at one point or
another in the period the Welfare Watch operated. Discussions were also held in two focus groupsof people who had participated in the Welfare Watch. Finally, the content of reports and otherpublished material from the Welfare Watch was analysed.

Qualitative interviews with ministers and members of the Welfare Watch
steering committee
Open interviews are one way to collect data under qualitative research methods. They provide
information on what the interviewees consider significant, what importance they place on the topic
under study and how they understand and define specific items. In open interviews, the subject ofthe discussion is usually determined in advance but not the specific content of the discussion. The
researcher encourages the interviewee to talk about topics relevant to the study but also allows
22them to speak freely from their own viewpoint. Interviews therefore differ from one participant to
the next, despite the subject under study being the same (Kvale, 1996).
On 20 June 2014, a joint interview was held with Lára Björnsdóttir, Head of the Welfare Watch,and Ingibjörg Broddadóttir, an employee of the Welfare Watch. Three more interviews were heldwith members of the steering committee from 26 June to 3 July 2014. Interviews were then heldwith the three ministers of welfare involved in the operations of the Welfare Watch. On 4 July 2014
an interview was held with Ásta Ragnheiður Jóhannesdóttir, Minister of Social Affairs and Social
Security from February to May 2009. Ásta Ragnheiður was the founder of the Welfare Watch andalso appointed its steering committee. Ásta Ragnheiður’s successor, Árni Páll Árnason, wasinterviewed on 9 July 2014. Guðbjartur Hannesson succeeded Árni Páll in 2010 and wasinterviewed on 30 June 2014. Guðbjartur was minister until May 2013, when Eygló Harðardóttir
took over as Minister of Social Affairs and Housing.
An interview guide was prepared to refer to during individual interviews. This enabledresearchers to keep the discussion topics to the subject of the study, although efforts were madeto allow interviewees to talk about whatever they felt to be important and in the order they desired.
Interviews usually began with an open question about the interviewee’s involvement in the Welfare
Watch. This was followed up with questions and discussions regarding the development, purpose,importance, organisation, procedures, collaboration and results of the Welfare Watch. Finally,
interviewees were asked if they had anything to add. This enabled them to bring up any otherissues they felt to be important but which were not directly related to the questions put to them by
the researcher.
Interviews were recorded with the permission of interviewees and transcribed verbatim. The
data was analysed by reading each interview carefully and extracting themes or main issues bygiving each section a name, a technique known as encoding. The encodings emerging from allinterviews were then grouped into main themes and sub-themes. The ministers, the Head of the
Welfare Watch and the Welfare Watch employee were named personally in the write-up of theinterviews and were informed at the beginning of their interviews that this would be the case.
References to these individuals in the report were submitted to them for their approval. Threemembers of the steering committee who were interviewed were not named in the report.

Focus groups of members of Welfare Watch working groups
Focus groups, or group interviews, enable a large amount of data to be collected in a short time.
By holding discussions in small groups, it is possible to get to the attitudes and experiences of agiven group as regards the subject of a study. This is the researcher’s way of listening to people
talk together and learning about what they have to contribute (Sóley S. Bender, 2003).
Discussions were held in two focus groups, the members of which were people selected fromthe Welfare Watch working groups in the period 2009–2013. Twelve people were called to eachfocus group. Nine attended one of them and five the other. Discussions were held at the Universityof Iceland on 25–26 August 2014. Each group met for ninety minutes.
23

Beforehand, an interview framework was prepared with elements to be discussed. Discussions
began with introductory remarks from the moderator, explaining the purpose and expected benefitsof the study. Participants were then asked to introduce themselves. They were then given a few
minutes to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the Welfare Watch and note down theirthoughts. This was followed up with questions and discussions regarding the development andpurpose of the Welfare Watch, the procedures and organisation of working group meetings,
collaboration within the groups and the results of their involvement in the Welfare Watch. Finally,
participants were encouraged to express further thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the
Welfare Watch that had not already been discussed in the groups.
The groups’ discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcriptions were thencarefully read and encoded. These encodings were then grouped into main themes and subthemes. Interviewees were guaranteed confidentiality, and the interviews will not be published intheir entirety. Participants are not named in the write-up of the interviews. Neither are they referred
to directly if it is deemed that certain information could be traced back to the individual in question.
Findings will therefore be presented as the opinion of the groups instead of describing the viewsof individual participants.

Content analysis
Qualitative content analysis is based on analysing an available text. This text could be of various
text types, e.g. books or other published material, minutes or transcribed interviews. This method
is used to gain insight into a given issue and enables the researcher to form a new picture of theissue under study. The text is analysed by reading it carefully with the researcher’s questions inmind and encoding it with a view to categorising and locating key concepts and patterns in the text
(Hsieh and Shannon, 2005).
As part of the assessment of the Welfare Watch’s work, texts were analysed and grouped
under various themes in order to obtain information on how the Welfare Watch was organised,
which proposals came from the steering committee and which proposals were selected by thesteering committee from the reports of the working groups and sent on to the government. The
following material was analysed: a 2013 summary of Welfare Watch operations (Hilma Hólmfríður
Sigurðardóttir, in press), steering committee minutes, steering committee and working groupreports and other material published by or related to the Welfare Watch on the Ministry of Welfare
website (http://www.velferdarraduneyti.is/velferdarvaktin/skyrslur/). Proposals were submitted to
the government, but it is difficult to assess which measures were subsequently taken on the basisof the Welfare Watch’s work. To try to gain an idea of the fate of the proposals submitted to thegovernment during this period, material from the Alþingi website (e.g. action plans, work
programmes and parliamentary documents) from 2009–2013 was looked at. There were also
efforts to find reactions to the Welfare Watch’s proposals on the website of its affiliates, particularly
the municipalities.

24

FINDINGS
Establishment of the Welfare Watch
The financial crisis in the autumn of 2008 caused havoc in Icelandic society. The collapse of thebanks in October was followed by a series of bankruptcies and redundancies, sharp recession andjob losses. In September 2008, 1% of the residents of Iceland were registered as unemployed.
Three months later, this figure was 5% (Directorate of Labour, 2008). There were large-scaledemonstrations outside Alþingi. One of the demonstrators’ demands was that the then-government(a coalition of the Independence Party and the Social Democratic Alliance) should stand down.
The government broke down on 26 January 2009 following an internal dispute, and a new coalition
government (comprising the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left-Green Movement) came to
power (Work Programme of the Social Democratic Alliance and Left-Green Movement Coalition
Government, 2009).
The concept of a “welfare watch” first appeared in the work programme of the new government
as one of their responses to the new situation. The idea caught the attention of the media on 3
February 2009 when a journalist from the Morgunblaðið newspaper asked the new Minister ofSocial Affairs and Social Security, Ásta Ragnheiður Jóhannesdóttur, about this item in thegovernment’s work programme. Ásta Ragnheiður stated that the concept was not new and that
she herself had used it often over the years, but that the circumstances created by the financial
crisis had thrown the idea into relief (“Government on Welfare Watch, February 2009). The creationof the Welfare Watch was approved at a cabinet meeting on 10 February 2009.
The creation of the Welfare Watch was discussed in interviews with ministers and membersof the Welfare Watch steering committee. The Welfare Watch was born out of specificcircumstances. The ministers and the steering committee members all agreed that it would nothave been created if it had not been for the sudden changes in Icelandic society that were seen.
Setting up the Welfare Watch was one of the first tasks of Ásta Ragnheiður Jóhannesdóttir when
she became the Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security. In her interview, she described thesituation in Iceland in the first few months following the economic collapse. Many people had losttheir jobs and children suffered from changing situations within their families. According to ÁstaRagnheiður, many MPs were very concerned that the new circumstances might pose a threat tocertain groups in society. The Alþingi Social Affairs Committee and MPs therefore, began collecting
information on the financial crisis in Finland and the consequences thereof. The percentage ofindividuals on disability pension in Finland rose following the crisis and reached very high levels
among people of a given age group. The Icelandic government considered it important to preventa rise in the numbers on disability pension. Emphasis was also placed on protecting children fromthe effects of the crisis. It was, therefore, decided to include setting up a “welfare watch” in thecoalition agreement of the new Social Democratic Alliance/Left-Green Movement minority
government. As Ásta Ragnheiður was Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security in thatgovernment, it fell to her to set up the Welfare Watch.
25

It is slightly reminiscent of […] a country finding itself at war – such a major shock for somany. People losing their jobs, relatives of all those in trouble, not least children sufferingfrom the situation, and so on. The shock needs to be worked through. This sort of thing
has never happened to us before. This was an extraordinary new situation and a reaction
had to be found. Particularly in order to avoid the same problems experienced in Finland[Ásta Ragnheiður Jóhannesdóttir, former Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security].

Ásta Ragnheiður gave Lára Björnsdóttir the task of heading the Welfare Watch and recruited
Ingibjörg Broddadóttir. They had both been working at the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social
Security at the time the Welfare Watch was set up. Ingibjörg, who at the time managed theMinistry’s Welfare Service, was named Head of the Welfare Watch. Ingibjörg was an expert in the
Employment and Equality Office. Ásta Ragnheiður was asked why she had chosen Lára andIngibjörg to run the Welfare Watch:
They were the most competent and experienced candidates. They knew the welfare
system so well and had been working on welfare issues for so long—and I knew them bothso well— that I knew that they were the best people for the job. They had a lot of experienceof working with and appearing before the Alþingi Social Affairs Committee […]. I feel thatmany people owe them a debt of gratitude for all the work they took on at such a difficult
time [Ásta Ragnheiður Jóhannesdóttir, former Minister of Social Affairs and Social
Security].

The Director of the Icelandic Federation of Skilled Construction and Industrial Workers, ÞorbjörnGuðmundsson, was also brought in to work on the project. One of the first tasks for the Welfare
Watch’s head and staff was to decide who would make up the steering committee. The steeringcommittee had the task of overseeing the project, co-ordinating data collection and communicating
Welfare Watch proposals. According to Lára and Ingibjörg, the decision on who was to make up
the steering committee was taken in consultation with the Minister and Hanna Sigríður
Gunnsteinsdóttir, Permanent Secretary to the ministry. Lára likened the task of deciding who
belonged in the Welfare Watch steering committee to spinning a spider’s web. The inner circle wasmade up of ministry staff, then people working in various areas of society. This included
representatives of the Church of Iceland, the Red Cross, Reykjavik City Council, the Associationof Icelandic Local Authorities, the municipalities themselves, and SA-Business Iceland. On 17
February 2009, once the composition of the steering committee had been decided, the Ministry ofSocial Affairs and Social Security sent a letter to the individuals in question requesting their
participation in the Welfare Watch. Replies arrived quickly, and just two days later, a notice wasposted on the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security website announcing that the Welfare
Watch steering committee had been appointed (Ministry of Welfare, 2009a).
Everybody replied. The line was drawn and everybody responded in the most positive way.
Right from day one. That was what was so unbelievable. Maybe it was because thefoundations were there; everybody was desperate and afraid [Lára Björnsdóttir, former
Head of the Welfare Watch].

Setting up the Welfare Watch was in the coalition agreement of the minority government in
power from 1 February 2009. The Welfare Watch was intended to run for eighty days up to the26

next general elections. At that point, it was unclear whether it would operate after the eighty days
were up, as it was unknown which parties would form a government after the general elections.
The Social Democratic Alliance and the Left-Green Movement formed a new government after theelections held on 25 April 2009 and Árni Páll Árnason took over as Minister of Social Affairs andSocial Security. It therefore fell to him to decide whether or not the Welfare Watch should continue.
According to him, he immediately decided that it should. This decision was based on his opinion
that it was important to monitor developments in society closely in order to be able to react quickly
if it emerged that the crisis was affecting a specific group particularly badly. The Welfare Watch
staff also recommended to the Minister that the Watch continued to operate. The existence of the
Welfare Watch made it possible to find information in one place where experiences were pooled,rather than having to apply to various experts in order to monitor the situation.

Development and organisation of the Welfare Watch
The ministers of the Welfare Watch
Four ministers gave the Welfare Watch their mandate in the five years it operated: Ásta Ragnheiður
Jóhannesdóttir, Árni Páll Árnason, Guðbjartur Hannesson and Eygló Harðardóttir. ÁstaRagnheiður was Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security from 1 February to 10 May 2009.
She was minister in Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir’s minority government, following the collapse of the
Independence Party/Social Democratic Alliance coalition. Ásta Ragnheiður gave the Welfare
Watch its mandate by means of a letter appointing the steering committee of 17 February 2009.
The letter stated that the Welfare Watch was meant to “effectively monitor the social and financial
consequences of the bank collapse on Icelandic families and individuals and propose measures
to help households” (Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, 2009a). In the eighty days during
which Ásta Ragnheiður was minister, she did not attend steering committee meetings. She did,
however, follow the work of the committee via the Head of the Welfare Watch, Lára Björnsdóttir,
and the Welfare Watch employee, Ingibjörg Broddadóttir (Hilma Hólmfríður Sigurðardóttir, inpress).
Árni Páll Árnason succeeded Ásta Ragnheiður as Minister of Social Affairs and Social
Security. He served as such from 10 May 2009 to 2 September 2010 in Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir’s
government, a majority coalition composed of the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left-GreenMovement. Árni Páll did not formally renew the Welfare Watch’s mandate while he was minister,
despite being asked to do so. Lára and Ingibjörg were asked what the significance of a renewed
mandate was for the Welfare Watch. They indicated that a renewed mandate was asked for
because the time had come to formally redefine the role of the Welfare Watch. That said, the nonrenewal of the Welfare Watch’s mandate did not affect its working methods, as it had always inany case worked independently.
Minutes shows that Árni Páll attended a total of four meetings of the steering committee in thetime he was minister. On the first occasion, on 12 June 2009, he informed the committee of
possible economising measures in the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security (Ministry of27

Welfare, 12 June 2009). He subsequently expressed his wish to take advice from the steeringcommittee, seeing the importance of the Welfare Watch in those unstable times. In the spring of
2010, Árni Páll submitted a steering committee report to Alþingi. The report contained a summaryof the issues dealt with by the Welfare Watch in its first year of operations, an overview of what
was ahead and a description of the proposals that had been submitted. At Árni Páll’s second
meeting with the steering committee, on 9 March 2010, the Head of the Welfare Watch, Lára
Björnsson, declared that the time had come to give more thought to what was expected of the
Welfare Watch. Árni Páll replied that the Welfare Watch should monitor developments and promote
specific research. He indicated that the Welfare Watch had no executive role and that its task was
to monitor the situation in society and inform the government of such. He stressed the independent
nature of the Welfare Watch and reminded members that they could discuss matters at their
meetings free of restriction and did not need to consult the minister as regards their conclusions(Ministry of Welfare, 9 March 2010). In this way, Árni Páll described the role the Welfare Watch
was to perform without actually renewing its mandate in writing.
The Welfare Watch’s mandate was formally renewed in October 2010, one month afterGuðbjartur Hannesson became minister. Guðbjartur was minister from 2 September 2010 to 23
May 2013, first as Minister of Health and Social Affairs, then as Minister of Welfare from 1 January
2011, when the Ministries of Health and of Social Affairs and Social Security were merged into one
Ministry of Welfare. Guðbjartur renewed the Welfare Watch’s mandate by means of a terms ofreference document sent to the steering committee (Ministry of Welfare, no date (a)). A certainchange in focus can be detected in these terms of reference as compared to the first letter
appointing the steering committee’s members. The steering committee was described as “anadvisory body to the Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security and the government”, with theextra role of providing targeted information to the government and general public. It was also
indicated that the Welfare Watch was independent from the government (Hilma Hólmfríður
Sigurðardóttir, in press). In the two and a half years that he was responsible for the Welfare Watch,Guðbjartur attended one steering committee meeting but met regularly with the Head andemployee of the Welfare Watch. At his meeting with the steering committee, on 13 September
2011, Guðbjartur highlighted that the Welfare Watch was independent and should give constructive
criticism and guidance. Its role was to propose improvements and provide the government with acertain level of support (Ministry of Welfare, 13 September 2011). He confirmed at this meetingthat the Welfare Watch was free and independent from the government; he had hitherto only
discussed this definition with the Head and employee of the Welfare Watch (Hilma Hólmfríður
Sigurðardóttir, in press).
Eygló Harðardóttir was the next Minister of Social Affairs and Housing, taking office on 23 May
2013 after the Independence Party and Progressive Party formed a coalition. She attended ameeting of the steering committee on 25 June 2013, where she expressed her satisfaction withthe work of the Welfare Watch. She also confirmed her view that the Welfare Watch should
continue to operate (Ministry of Welfare, 25 June 2013). The Welfare Watch ended operations on

28

December 2013, and Eygló appointed a new Welfare Watch in June 2014 (Ministry of Welfare,2014).
The minister, therefore, appointed and mandated the Welfare Watch but otherwise had little
involvement in its work. Communications between the Welfare Watch and the minister were mainly
channelled through the Head of the Welfare Watch, Lára Björnsdóttir. According to Lára, a tradition
developed whereby a formal meeting was held with the minister whenever the Welfare Watch
issued specific proposals. In addition, Lára was in informal verbal contact with the minister, as she
worked in the ministry.
We were able to discuss matters […] and of course, the Minister could ask: “What’s the
Welfare Watch’s view on this, informally?” So we would of course have conversations.
Sometimes, I was asked in my capacity as a member of the Welfare Watch rather than asa ministry employee [Lára Björnsdóttir, former Head of the Welfare Watch].

Welfare Watch steering committee
When the Welfare Watch was set up, the steering committee had fifteen members. Lára
Björnsdóttir represented the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security. There were also
representatives from the Icelandic Confederation of Labour, the Association of Academics, theFederation of State and Municipal Employees, SA-Business Iceland, the Bishop’s Office, theMinistry of Justice, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Finance, theMinistry of Health, the Icelandic Teachers’ Union, Red Cross Iceland, Reykjavik City Council, and
the Association of Icelandic Local Authorities. Ingibjörg Broddadóttir, employee of the Ministry ofSocial Affairs and Social Security, and Þorbjörn Guðmundsson, from the Icelandic Federation of
Skilled Construction and Industrial Workers, also worked with the group (Hilma Hólmfríður
Sigurðardóttir, in press; Ministry of Welfare, 2009a).
The idea initially was not to have too big a group, but member numbers grew with time.
According to interviewees from the steering committee, there were two reasons for these additions.
First, existing members considered on occasion that somebody was missing, and second, there
were some examples of independent organisations asking to be represented. The steeringcommittee received its sixteenth member – a representative appointed by the Icelandic Disabled
Persons’ Association and Disabled Help – on 27 February 2009 (Ministry of Welfare, 27 February2009). In October, a representative of the Directorate of Labour joined the group. This individual
was appointed by the Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security (Ministry of Welfare, 13 October2009). Later that month, a Director of Health appointed by the Ministry of Health on behalf of the
Directorate of Health joined the group (Ministry of Welfare, 27 October 2009). When Equality
Watch was wound down at the end of 20091, the Head of Equality Watch was brought in to workin the Welfare Watch (Ministry of Welfare, 8 December 2009).
In October 2010, the Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security appointed the Debtors’
Ombudsman – a new function at the ministry – to the steering committee (Ministry of Welfare, 12

1 Equality Watch was set up by Ásta Ragnheiður Jóhannesdóttir, then Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security, in early2009 to assess the consequences of the economic situation on the gender situation (Minister of Welfare, no date (b)).

29October 2010). A representative of the National Association of Senior Citizens joined the group in
August 2012, and the Icelandic Human Rights Centre appointed a representative in February 2013
(Hilma Hólmfríður Sigurðardóttir, in press). The steering committee thus gradually grew from fifteen
members to 22. According to Ásta Ragnheiður Jóhannesdóttir, she occasionally heard suggestions
that the Welfare Watch was too big, but she never agreed with this criticism.
I think it was right to have many people around the table and to include not just the public
sector but also independent organisations and others involved in welfare matters [ÁstaRagnheiður Jóhannesdóttir, former Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security].

Interviewees were generally satisfied with how successfully a broad group of people with varying
knowledge and experience had been put together. For instance, Árni Páll Árnason (ÁstaRagnheiður’s successor as minister) claimed to be satisfied with the composition and set-up of the
Welfare Watch.
During this five-year period, there were some changes to the composition of the group, bothbecause of changes in human resources in the represented agencies and because of the active
participation of deputies in steering-group meetings (Hilma Hólmfríður Sigurðardóttir, in press).
Members were not specifically paid to participate in the Welfare Watch. However, meetings were
held during working hours, so working for the Welfare Watch was to some extent part of their workduties, as all members represented either an agency or an organisation.

Welfare Watch working groups
In their interviews, Lára Björnsdóttir, Head of the Welfare Watch, and Ingibjörg Broddadóttir,
employee of the Welfare Watch, gave an account of how the working groups were arranged. At
the first meeting of the Welfare Watch, on 20 February 2009, all members of the steering committee
were given the opportunity to identify which issues they felt it was most important for the Welfare
Watch to focus on. Many points were made, and it quickly became clear that the committee could
not discuss all the issues that were high on the agenda at the time. There was a collective decision
to form individual groups to handle the various tasks selected. At the second Welfare Watch
meeting, the idea of working groups was further developed; six working groups and one advisorygroup were proposed. There was also a discussion on who should head each of the working groups(The Welfare Watch, 27 February 2009). Each group was headed by an individual who was alsoa member of the Welfare Watch’s steering committee. Working group chairs applied to individuals
in society who were considered experts in the specific fields handled by each group. Frominterviews with members of the steering committee, it emerged that the field of interest and expert
knowledge of the various members governed which group each chaired. According to Lára, Headof the Welfare Watch, members heading a given working group were free to choose who theycalled upon. The only condition imposed on the groups was that they must gather data on thegroup dealt with by the working group in question and submit a report with proposed improvements.
Interviewees indicated that members of the working groups were selected more or lessautomatically. For instance, when putting together a group to discuss young people’s issues, it
30

seemed obvious to contact the Sports and Leisure Activity Board of Reykjavik City Council,
secondary schools, youth movements, student bodies, the Directorate of Labour and the Ministryof Education. Interviewees from the working groups considered that efforts to make up diverse
working groups had been successful. Although it had sometimes been difficult to work with people
with differing professional focuses, it was important to bring together people from different areasof society to obtain different viewpoints on the same topic.
I think, though, that it was important to get a good mix in the groups. This led to much more
useful and fruitful debate [a member of a working group].

The minutes of the steering committee meeting of 27 February 2009 state that it had been decided
to set up six working groups. The six groups were to be as follows: 1) working group discussing
children under eighteen; 2) working group discussing young people aged 15–25; 3) working group
discussing individuals who were vulnerable due to the financial crisis and recession and those who
were already vulnerable prior to the financial crisis; 4) working group discussing household
finances; 5) working group discussing unemployed people; 6) working group discussing health andhealthcare (Ministry of Welfare, 27 February 2009). More working groups were subsequently set
up. By the end of 2009, a working group discussing basic services was set up at the request of thegovernment. A working group on social indicators and the Suðurnes Welfare Watch were set up
in 2010. These two groups were, however, different from the usual working groups inasmuch as
they had an executive role. At the steering committee meeting of 12 October 2010, it was decided
that the working group discussing young people should be merged with the working group
discussing unemployed people (Ministry of Welfare, 12 October 2010). As well as the working
groups, a collaborative group was set up with the aim of fostering co-operation between thevoluntary and public sectors and co-ordinating services between agencies. This collaborative
group drafted a report which was posted on the Ministry of Welfare’s website in the spring of 2010
(Ministry of Welfare, 2010a).

Purpose and Role of the Welfare Watch
The role of the Welfare Watch as analysts and advisers
In interviews with ministers, members from the Welfare Watch steering committee and people inworking groups, the discussion was directed towards the role and purpose of the Welfare Watch.
Respondents agreed that the main role of the Welfare Watch had been monitoring the status of
welfare issues and analysing the social impact of the economic collapse on the people of Iceland.
In particular, the Watch was created to identify the most vulnerable groups in society. In a survey
among the members of the working groups, participants were asked how well or poorly the Welfare
Watch had achieved its goal. Table 8 shows that the majority said that monitoring the social, as
well as the financial, consequences of the economic collapse on Icelandic families and households
had been successful. Proportionally more women than men thought it had been successful, andrespondents who were over 50 years of age had a more positive attitude than younger
31

respondents. All those who worked within the public services of the ministries, or for the local
authorities, and all those who belonged to the steering committee of the Welfare Watch, said that
achieving this goal had been successful.

Table 8. How well or poorly do you think the Welfare Watch achieved its goal ofmonitoring the social, as well as financial, consequences of the economic crisison Icelandic families and households?
RatherNeither w ell

RatherVery

Very w ell

w ell

nor poorly

poorlypoorlyNumber

24%

60%

11%

5%

0%

75

84%

84%

Male

19%

61%

14%

6%

0%

36

81%

81%

Female

28%

59%

8%

5%

0%

39

87%

87%

24–49 y ears

16%

47%

21%

16%

0%

19

50–59 y ears

28%

61%

8%

3%

0%

36

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

25%

70%

5%

0%

0%

20

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

27%

45%

18%

9%

0%

11

73%

73%

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

7%

73%

20%

0%

0%

15

80%

80%

43%

57%

0%

0%

0%

14

Other public serv ices

Total

Very or rather w ell

Gender

Age
63%

63%

89% 89%95% 95%

26%

58%

11%

5%

0%

19

100%
100%
84% 84%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
19%
Membership of the Welfare Watch steering committee

63%

6%

13%

0%

16

81%

Member of the steering committee

44%

56%

0%

0%

0%

18

Not member of the steering committee

16%

64%

13%

7%

0%

55

100%
100%
80%
80%

81%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

The role of the Welfare Watch was to inform ministers and the relevant authorities about the resultsof this information gathering concerning the status of welfare in Iceland. Interviews with ministers
revealed that this work had been very important to the government. This mapping of the situation
was, for exapmple, helpful in discussions on where cuts could be made and into which projects
funds should preferably be directed.
It was important to try and identify where we could best utilise any surplus we could create.
Are there cut backs that should not be made, or if there is any possibility of increasing
funds, where would the money be best spent? Where would the money be most effective?
[Árni Páll Árnason, former Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security]

According to Guðbjartur Hannesson, it was highly relevant that this information was the result of
the work of people holding a diversity of positions in society and who had different levels ofknowledge and experience. In this way, different points of view were obtained, which may not havebeen brought to light if information on the status of welfare issues in Iceland had only beenrequested from one expert.

Very different groups were represented in the Welfare Watch, including small groups,
some of which could also be defined as pressure groups. I felt it was important, because
then you get a number of different perspectives [Guðbjartur Hannesson, former Ministerof Welfare].
32Guðbjartur also pointed out that different groups in society had already spent time and funds
analysing various aspects of the welfare system and the effects of the economic collapse on
different people and that by calling these groups together, the ministry obtained access to
information that they would otherwise not have obtained.
The advantage to the ministry was that there, you had a large pool of human resources
and a tremendous value from all these groups. You had a representative from all thesegroups, who provided manpower, to examine and share information [...]. You could never
buy this work [Guðbjartur Hannesson, former Minister of Welfare].

In addition to collecting information about the status of welfare issues and communicating themto the ministers, respondents agreed that the Welfare Watch also had the role of making
recommendations or suggestions on how it was possible to improve the situation of people in
Iceland and in particular those groups which were vulnerable. Thus, there was a direct connection
between the mapping of the status of welfare issues in society and the recommendations whichwere addressed to the government. It was pointed out that the Welfare Watch had the advantage
of being a group that could reach a common consensus on what recommendations should be
addressed to the government, instead of different groups pressuring the government separately.
In a survey among the members of the working groups, they were asked how well or poorly
the Welfare Watch has achieved its goal of submitting proposals for improvement. Table 9 showsthat 63% of respondents said that it had been successful in achieving that goal.

Table 9. How well or poorly do you think the Welfare Watch has achieved its goal ofsubmitting proposals for improvement?
NeitherRatherw ell nor

RatherVery

Very w ell

w ell

poorlypoorlypoorlyNumber

15%

48%

24%

7%

6%

71

63%
63%

Male

9%

44%

32%

9%

6%

34

Female

22%

51%

16%

5%

5%

37

53% 53%73%

24–49 y ears

5%

32%

37%

11%

16%

19

50–59 y ears

15%

58%

18%

6%

3%

33

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

26%

47%

21%

5%

0%

19

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

27%

36%

9%

9%

18%

11

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

0%

58%

25%

17%

0%

12

38%

46%

15%

0%

0%

13

Other public serv ices

5%

63%

26%

5%

0%

19

Associations (e.g. trade assoc., union)
13%
Membership of the Welfare Watch steering committee

31%

38%

6%

13%

16

Member of the steering committee

28%

50%

17%

6%

0%

18

Not member of the steering committee

10%

49%

25%

8%

8%

51

Total

Very or rather w ell

Gender

Age
37%

37%

73%
74%
64%
64%
58%58%
85%
85%
44%

68%
68%
44%

78%
78%
59%59%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%33

Proportionally more women than men said that it had been a success. Respondents over 50 yearsof age were generally more positive than those who were aged 24–49 years. When the answers
were analysed by occupation, a fifth of workers in non-governmental organisations and more than
one-quarter of respondents who worked in the local authority social services or in the healthcare
services felt that submitting proposals for improvement had not gone well. In comparison, none ofthose who worked in public services in ministries or local authorities were of that opinion.
From the above, it can be observed that the task of the Welfare Watch was both to analyse
and advise, which is consistent with the role that the Minister defined for the Welfare Watch when
it was created. The purpose of establishing the Welfare Watch was to "obtain information on thesocial and economic consequences of the collapse of the banks on individuals and families, obtain
information on other countries' experience of recession, identify the ways the state, local authorities
and NGOs have to deal with the problem and consult with representatives of public institutions,
NGOs and others who could contribute their knowledge and experience. On this basis, the Welfare
Watch shall make recommendations on measures to assist households and coordinate them"(Ministry of Welfare, 2009b).
The Welfare Watch could not, however, ensure that the projects would be implemented. Ininterviews with people from the steering committee, the impression was given that it was
sometimes difficult to be in a position to come up with suggestions for improvement without being
able to see that such improvements were implemented.
We could have an opinion and make suggestions, but there were no guarantees that theywould be implemented. [...] I really wanted to just go in and talk to the minister face to face,say, my friend, such is the situation, as politicians what are you going to do? [a member ofthe steering committee].

The role of the Welfare Watch in information dissemination
A new letter of appointment from Guðbjartur Hannesson, Minister of Welfare, from 8 October 2010,
stated that the steering committee should "disclose information to the government as well as the
public and [shall] provide information to them in a meaningful way" (Ministry of Welfare, n.d.-a).
Interviews with people from the Welfare Watch steering committee revealed that members of thegroup had seen it as their role to share information with the public and with the public bodies orcompanies who had representatives in the Welfare Watch. Thus, both the government and thosepublic bodies who had representatives in the Welfare Watch, as well as the general public, would
profit from the existence of the Watch. Although the interviewees thought that the Watch shouldhave been more visible to the public, an example was given of how the Welfare Watch managed
to reduce the negative discussion in society by sharing information about the state of affairs withthe media.
I remember there was a [discussion of] an increase in the number of individuals who took
their own lives and it was exaggerated in the news. When you went through the numbers,
it was just not right. It was the Welfare Watch that gathered the information and presented
it to the media again. It was very pleasant at this time to do this, as Iceland was in anexistential crisis, and things were a little chaotic [a member of the steering committee].
34

Respondents discussed the importance of sharing information on the activities of the Welfare
Watch to colleagues, and the obligation was on members of the Welfare Watch steering committee
to inform their colleagues and clients on issues and priorities of the Welfare Watch (Ministry of
Welfare, 2013a, December). There were examples where members of the steering committee
shared information in meetings with colleagues, although one respondent was uncertain that it
applied to everyone.
I think that in some cases, people may have been alone at the Welfare Watch, been there
because of interest, but I do not know exactly how much came out of it. In some cases,
you heard that people had a group inside their agencies and then, naturally, this worked[a member of the steering committee].

Similar views were reflected in the focus groups amongst people who had participated in theactivities of the working groups. Mention was made that one of the objectives of the working groups
had been to call people together so that they could share their experiences and learn from eachother. In this way, participation in the working groups could be used to share information about thekind of work that was ongoing in different public bodies and NGOs in the field of welfare issues.
In the web survey among members of the working groups, participants were asked whether
they would agree or disagree that the work of the Welfare Watch had been well promoted within
Icelandic society. The response options rather disagree and disagree strongly were combined foranalysis due to the small number that selected these categories. Table 10 shows that more thanhalf of the participants agreed, but a third neither agreed nor disagreed that the work of the Welfare
Watch had been well promoted within Icelandic society. Proportionally more women than men
agreed with the statement, and respondents 50 years and older agreed with the statement more
often than younger respondents.

35

Table 10. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
The work of the Welfare Watch was well promoted in Icelandic society
Neither

Strongly

Strongly

Ratheragree noror rather

agree

agree

disagreedisagree

Number

22%

31%

32%

15%

72

53% 53%

Male

23%

23%

43%

11%

35

Female

22%

38%

22%

19%

37

46% 46%59%59%

22%

17%

33%

28%

18

39%

Total

Strongly or rather agree

GenderAge
24–49 y ears

39%

56%56%
61%
61%

50–59 y ears

17%

39%

36%

8%

36

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

33%

28%

22%

17%

18

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

17%

33%

25%

25%

12

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

7%

36%

29%

29%

14

58%

8%

17%

17%

12

67%
67%

Other public serv ices

26%

26%

47%

0%

19

Associations (e.g. trade assoc., union)
7%
Membership of the Welfare Watch steering committee

47%

33%

13%

15

53% 53%
53% 53%

Member of the steering committee

27%

33%

33%

7%

15

60%60%

Not a member of the steering committee

20%

31%

31%

18%

55

51% 51%

50% 50%43%

43%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

The role of the Welfare Watch as an independent group
Discussions which took place in the individual interviews with people from the steering committee
on the object and purpose of the Welfare Watch revealed the view that the Welfare Watch should
be an independent group. This definition was presented in a new letter of appointment on the roleof the steering committee, which was released on 8 October 2010. In an interview with Guðbjartur
Hannesson, he was asked about the significance of the Welfare Watch being independent. It wasGuðbjartur's understanding that this meant that the Welfare Watch was not managed by ministers
and that ministers should avoid influencing the work of the group. This meant that it was possible
to observe the consequences of government action and indicate if not enough was being done toimprove the situation of certain social groups. Three of the ministers interviewed felt that one of
the strengths of the Welfare Watch was that it brought to their attention ideas on what needed to
be improved in Icelandic society. Accounts from Árni Pall and Guðbjartur showed, however, thatthey had differing views on whether it was detrimental to the independence of the Welfare Watch
that the government could ask it questions. It was Guðbjartur's opinion that he was not required toseek information from the Welfare Watch, as it was an independent group, but Árni Páll said that
he had not been afraid to consult the Welfare Watch and had continued to do so after he became
Minister of Economy and Commerce.
When I was trying to put in controls for the micro-loan companies [then as Minister of
Economy and Commerce], I asked for information about whether it [the Welfare Watch]
could obtain information about the impact of micro-loans on the more vulnerable groups
within Icelandic society, share with authorities examples of such effects and advise onwhether we should be looking for ways to limit these activities [Árni Páll Árnason, former
Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security].
36

The ministers considered that it did not make a difference in respect of the neutrality of the Welfare
Watch that the chairman and employee came from the staff of the ministry. In this regard,Guðbjartur noted that during his term, he emphasised that the proposals that came from the
Welfare Watch were not discussed within closed groups within the ministry before they received
general introduction. Other respondents also mentioned that the neutrality of the Welfare Watch
was one of its strengths. A member of the steering committee noted that although certain issues
were discussed extensively, consensus was always reached on the proposals that went to thegovernment. It was felt that the neutrality of the Welfare Watch delivered this success because
members were not politically appointed and therefore not subject to a declared policy of a politicalparty.
People reached a consensus that would not have been possible, I think, if the members
had been politically elected. They would have needed to bring in all sorts of minority
opinions [a member of the steering committee].

Interviewees from the steering committee were unanimous in that the Welfare Watch had been
independent in the sense that the group decided for itself what issues were discussed and how
these issues were discussed. There were, however, differing opinions as to whether a group
appointed by the government could be defined as independent.
I mean, this is a group appointed by the government, and that means that things are donein a certain way, rather than if it had been a spontaneous group or an NGO. Such a groupcannot be completely independent, but it was quite clear that we had complete control overwhat we looked at and how we did it [a member of the steering committee].

Whether people chose to define the Welfare Watch as a completely independent group or not, it
was pointed out that it was an advantage that the group worked at the behest of the Minister andthat the chairman had ties with the ministry. Lára, Chairman of the Welfare Watch, worked in the
Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, which later became the Ministry of Welfare, during
most of the time that the first Welfare Watch was at work. When Lára resigned from the ministry in
2012, she missed being directly connected to the minister and other ministry staff on issues
involving the Welfare Watch.
When I worked [in the ministry], one knew what issues were predominant, what was
happening and could get hold of whoever was needed, ministers, assistants or whatever
it was [Lára Björnsdóttir, former chairman of the Welfare Watch].

Objectives of the working groups
When the working groups were established at the meeting of the steering committee on 27
February 2009, the objectives of the working groups were decided. First, they had to map thesituation, assess the consequences of the economic collapse on the target group and make clear
what information was lacking to get a clearer picture. Second, the groups were intended to preparea summary of what had already been done to mitigate the effects of the crisis. Third, it was agreed
that each working group would recommend improvements, and finally, the recommendation was37made that the groups should at all times keep equal rights in mind and examine the effects ofactions or omissions on both sexes, immigrants and other minorities (Ministry of Welfare, 27
February 2009). In this way, the steering committee defined the role of the working groups, but themembers of the working groups were allowed to further decide what the objective of each group
was. Judging by the words of the interviewees who participated in the focus group discussions, it
was sometimes difficult to define specifically the role of each group, even though the overall aimof the working groups was clear. This was particularly relevant to the interviewees who had a seatin groups whose topics covered a wide subject range.
I strongly agree that the overall objectives were both clear, noble and very good. [... but]there was perhaps a certain insecurity or dissatisfaction within the group because we didn't
really know what was expected of us, how we should deliver it and what the time limits
were; yes, that is what it was like. We felt the objectives were rather vague [a member ofa working group].

Another interviewee from the working group said:
It was good to have a dedicated network that meets regularly and takes the pulse ofsociety, but what is it meant to deliver? [a member of a working group].

Although some felt that the objectives were vague, it is clear that each group had a different roleto play. The web survey among the members of the working groups revealed that most agreed thatthe role of their working group was well defined, but 29% said the role of the group was always oralmost always well defined and half of the respondents said the role of the group was usually welldefined. Almost a quarter of respondents said that the role of the group was sometimes, rarely ornever well defined. When the results were examined by background factors, it was revealed that
employees in local authority social services and healthcare services felt more often that the role oftheir working group was well defined compared to those who worked in other areas (see Table
11).

38

Table 11. Was the role of the working group clearly defined?
Alw ay sor almost

Seldom or

Alw ay s, almost alw ay s or

alw ay s

Usually

Sometimes

nev erNumber

29%

49%

13%

10%

70

77%
77%

Male

32%

38%

18%

12%

34

Female

25%

58%

8%

8%

36

71%
71%
83%
83%

24–49 y ears

33%

44%

11%

11%

18

50–59 y ears

29%

49%

17%

6%

35

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

24%

53%

6%

18%

17

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

25%

67%

0%

8%

12

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

0%

67%

20%

13%

15

36%

27%

9%

27%

11

Other public serv ices

44%

33%

17%

6%

18

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
36%
Membership of the Welfare Watch steering committee

50%

14%

0%

14

Member of the steering committee

36%

64%

0%

0%

14

Not a member of the steering committee

26%

44%

17%

13%

54

Total

usually

Gender

Age
78%
78%
77%
77%
76%
76%
92%
92%
67%
67%
64%64%
78%
78%
86%
86%
100%100%
70%
70%
0% 25% 50% 75%100%

In the survey, people were asked to identify the goals of the group to which they belonged in theirown words. Table 12 shows a summary of their responses. The table shows that the group who
released the report called Recession and health had a similar role to the public health group, which
was established in 2010 after the former was disbanded. These groups did not work at the sametime, but the group that dealt with the recession and state of health had the name health andhealthcare and working group on healthcare services (Hilma Hólmfríður Sigurðardóttir, in press).
The former is for simplicity referred to as the working group on the recession and the state of healthhere below.
From the responses of the participants, it can be seen that the objectives of the working groups
were very close to those of the Welfare Watch's steering committee on the purpose behind theestablishment of working groups. Respondents indicated that the role of groups had been
analysing the impact of the economic collapse on the social group under review and making
recommendations on how they could improve people's circumstances. This is consistent with therole of the Welfare Watch as an analyst and an adviser.

39

Table 12. What were the objectives of the working group?
Working group

Summary of responses
To monitor the effects of the economic collapse on children and families with children. This meansmonitoring the circumstances of children in nursery and primary schools, in the social and healthcare
system and in the child welfare system. The focus was directed at examining whether child services

Children and families with children

worsened due to cutbacks or savings and whether increases in various expenditures for children led toe.g. changes to their participation in sports and leisure activities and also whether they were provided withlunch in the school. Particular attention was paid to children who were in difficult circumstances prior to therecession, such as those who used the services of the Children's Psychiatric Department at theLandspítali University Hospital and the children's welfare services.

Persons at risk both before andafter the crash
The recession and healthYoungsters and young adults

To monitor whether the circumstances of those living under poor conditions before the recession had
worsened. Also examined was whether there had been any changes to the composition of the group, andefforts were made to come up with proposals for improvements for this group.
The group operated for a short period. Its object was to monitor the various effects of the recession on
public health.
To assess the effects of the recession on young people and seek ways to strengthen education in primaryand secondary schools and to reintegrate young people who were disadvantaged due to the economic
collapse.
The goals of the group were threefold: 1) to gather information on the position of those who were

The unemployed

unemployed, 2) to inform the authorities of the possible consequences of long-term unemployment and themanner in which unemployment could affect different groups and 3) to come up with proposals for actions
to prevent the negative consequences of unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.
To monitor the circumstances regarding the financial difficulties of households (individuals and families),
monitor the remedial measures that have been taken to help households facing payment difficulties and try

Financial difficulties of households

to assess how far these measures have enabled households to restructure their finances. In addition, toseek to assess where the greatest difficulties of households lay at the time and to point out which problems
were the most pressing to resolve with further remedies or actions by the government and/or financial
undertakings.

Basic services group

To define the basic services provided by the authorities to ensure that such services are protected from
cutbacks and to ensure that these services are given priority when circumstances again allow increases
in public services.
To examine the effects of the recession on the health and wellbeing of the nation. The group was intended

Public health group

to examine the effects of the recession on the health of individuals at different stages of life, i.e. during
pregnancy, young children, school children and youngsters, employed people and the elderly. In addition,
the group was to analyse who were at a disadvantage regarding healthcare services.
To develop social indicators that are a collection of statistical information, to be accessible in a single

Group on social indicators

location and which are to provide an indication of the developments and changes in society. Thus, thesocial indicators were to be indicators of the social environment just as economic indicators are for the
economic environment.
To strengthen connections between professionals in the area and highlight the solutions available in thearea that could be useful to those at a disadvantage after the collapse of the banks, whether such solutions

The Suðurnes Watch

were from the authorities, the municipalities or NGOs. The Suðurnes Watch was also to monitor theeffects of the recession on welfare in the Suðurnes region and take mitigating measures whereverconsidered necessary.

The joint group of unemployedTo map the circumstances of young people, particularly in light of employment and education and to point

people and young people

out remedies for improvement.

40

Two out of every three respondents in the survey among the members of the working groups said
that achieving the objectives set for the working group had gone well, but one-fifth of respondents
said it had gone neither well nor poorly. Those working in NGOs or in public services felt that
achieving the objectives of groups had gone better than those who worked in the local authority
social services, healthcare services or in education and training (see Table 13).

Table 13. On the whole, how well or poorly do you feel the objectives that the working
group set itself were achieved?
RatherNeither w ell

RatherVery

Very w ell

w ell

nor poorly

poorlypoorlyNumber

13%

51%

22%

7%

7%

72

64%
64%

Male

15%

45%

21%

6%

12%

33

Female

10%

56%

23%

8%

3%

39

61%61%
67%
67%

24–49 y ears

13%

44%

19%

6%

19%

16

50–59 y ears

11%

55%

21%

8%

5%

38

56% 56%66%
66%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

17%

50%

28%

6%

0%

18

67%
67%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

0%

50%

25%

17%

8%

12

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

0%

44%

44%

6%

6%

16

17%

50%

17%

8%

8%

12

Other public serv ices

22%

61%

11%

6%

0%

18

67%
67%
83%
83%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
21%
Membership of the Welfare Watch steering committee

50%

14%

0%

14%

14

71%
71%

Member of the steering committee

27%

40%

33%

0%

0%

15

Not a member of the steering committee

9%

56%

18%

7%

9%

55

67%
67%
65%
65%

Total

Very or rather w ell

GenderAge

50% 50%44%

44%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Respondents who felt that achieving the objectives set by the working group had gone poorly(14%) were asked why. The question was an open-ended question. The responses have beenclassified into four categories in Table 14. The most common reason given for difficulties inachieving the objectives was ineffective work practices and co-operation problems.

Table 14. Why was it difficult to achieve the objectives that the working group set itself?
Category

NumberExamples of comments"Meeting chairmanship not in tune w ith the importance ofIneffective work practices or co-operation difficulties

6

the task. Ill prepared meetings and managers not clear
about the importance of the issue at hand.""There w ere few meetings and in the end no calls to

The project faded away

4

meetings w ere sent and the project appeared to fadeaw ay ".

Objectives unclear from the beginning

2

Lack of funding and remedies

1"Vague objectiv es and lack of time of the participants".
"Lack of remedies, law s and regulations w ere not in tune
w ith w hat w as happening, lack of funds..."41

The Projects of the Welfare Watch
From the beginning, it was decided that the Welfare Watch should, amongst other projects, focus
on the issues of families with children and of young people. The steering committee felt it was
important to try to prevent young people from dropping out of school and to consider labour market
measures for those who were completing their studies. When asked how they reached the decision
to focus on this subject, people from the steering committee said that the appointment letter thatcame from the Minister had to some extent created a specific framework for the group. The firstmeetings of the Welfare Watch discussed which issues should be focused on, and in that
discussion, it was decided to focus on the importance of learning from the experience in Finland
and their economic crisis and also to look at the education, health and general welfare of children
and young people, in order to prevent future problems.
Personally, I found it very positive, that there was so much focus on families with children
and poverty because..., we can use Finland as an example, by not looking at it [poverty,
and families], we are just creating problems for the future [a member of the steeringcommittee].

When ministers were asked about what they thought about this approach by the Welfare Watch,they expressed great satisfaction with the choice of focus topic.
They took the children as the focus point and worked with it a great deal, and it, of course,
hit close to home. I strongly agreed with it; I found it to be a very exciting approach for the
Welfare Watch to examine all the issues from the impact on children in the community[Guðbjartur Hannesson, former Minister of Welfare].

But despite the satisfaction with the Welfare Watch's choice of topics, the interviewees in the focus
groups felt that a comprehensive policy had not been formulated for the issues that the Welfare
Watch was allocated. During the first years after the economic collapse, the work of the Welfare
Watch was characterised as being reactive, and one respondent pointed out that if Iceland
continued to operate a Welfare Watch, its objectives needed to be part of a comprehensive
strategy for welfare. That is why it seemed appropriate to pause, to redefine the role of the Welfare
Watch and to commence the operation of a new Welfare Watch in 2014.
Because of the situation, the discussion was focused on the goal of responding to asituation that either had arisen or could potentially occur, while the best solution was
perhaps some kind of comprehensive policy [a member of a working group].

The circumstances that the interviewees from the working group described were dealt with invarious ways. Meetings were held on the situation in Icelandic society in both the steeringcommittee and working groups, and the Welfare Watch steering committee also issued resolutions,
proposals and recommendations, wrote progress reports with recommendations to thegovernment, had studies carried out and organised meetings and forums.

42

Resolutions, proposals and recommendations
Decisions on which recommendations and proposals should be submitted to the government andother agencies in order to improve people's conditions were made at the meetings of the steeringcommittee. Table 15 provides a summary of resolutions, proposals and recommendations that the
Welfare Watch issued in the period 2009–2013.

Table 15. The resolutions, proposals and recommendations of the Welfare Watch
Month and year
June 2009
September 2009, 2010 and 2011
December 2009

December 2009

March 2010

March 2010

April 2010

June 2010

October 2010 and November 2011

December 2010

December 2010
March 2011
November 2011
November 2012
January 2013
May 2013

Substance
Recommendation to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security to harmonise the registration ofcases before Child Protection Services.
Recommendations to municipal authorities and school committees to ensure by any means possible andmonitor that the children in their schools are provided with lunch on all school days.
Opinion to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security of the dangers of delaying the payment of
parental and childbirth leave in part as planned in the bill to amend the act.
Recommendation to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security to not to ignore young job-seekers
and to take every possible measure to ensure that these people do not become isolated in inactivity.
Recommendation to the Municipal Executive Committee of the City of Reykjavík closely re-examine
collection claims for school meals, nursery school fees and children's leisure time activities before sending
such claims to collection companies.
Municipal Child Protection Services are urged to always submit, within the prescribed timeframe, allcompleted forms and other information to the Government Agency for Child Protection.
Municipalities and their Child Protection Services are urged to encourage increased discourse among theiremployees and elected representatives about diverse remedied to meet the needs of children and families
with children.
Appeal the members of parliament to keep the welfare of those most at risk in the forefront of their work andview public finances comprehensively and objectively in order to make sensible prioritisation possible. .
Appeal to the Parliamentary Budget Committee and municipal authorities to exercise caution when making
decisions on cutbacks.
Appeal to the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, Minister of Economy and Commerce, Minister ofSocial Affairs and Social Security, Minister of Justice and Human Rights, the Icelandic Financial
Services Association, Arion Bank hf., Íslandsbanki hf., NBI Bank hf., Byr hf., Association of Icelandic
Pension Funds, MP Bank, and the Housing Financing Fund for an easily understandable effective
presentation of the actions taken in the wake of the statement of intent issued by the government and the
Appeal to the Minister of Health to seek every means to ensure that children living in low-income
circumstances or other difficult social circumstance receive the dental health care they require.
Opinion to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Commerce on the harmfulness of micro-loan companies
and the ministry urged to employ all means possible to prevent their operation.
Resolution to the Minister of Welfare on the worries of the Welfare Watch regarding cutback to funding to
the Government Agency for Child Protection.
Appeal to the authorities that they create conditions that encourage companies and private persons toinvest and embark on job creating projects.
Municipalities are urged to formulate or revise their family affairs police and establish for themselves anaction plan with the goal of strengthening the position of families in Iceland.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Welfare are urged to finalise agreements as
regards the decision on the subsidisation of dentistry services for children.

(Source: Hilma Hólmfríður Sigurðardóttir, in press)

43

As can be seen, the content of the letters often concerned children, families with children andyoung people, which was in accordance with the decision of the steering committee on the Welfare
Watch's focus issues. The table also shows that most of the letters were written in the early yearsof the Welfare Watch. In 2009, the Welfare Watch sent four letters, and the following year, it waseight. The Welfare Watch sent fewer resolutions, proposals and recommendations in the years
2011–2013. The table also shows that every autumn, a letter was sent to the local authorities andmunicipal school boards asking them to ensure that children received lunch in primary schools, aswell as reiterating the need to ensure that the costs posed to households due to the school
attendance of children must be kept to a minimum. Interviewees from the steering committee
agreed that the encouragement to local authorities to ensure school meals was the most important
recommendation sent from the group. The idea behind these letters came during the information
gathering on the economic recession in Finland. In Finland, the focus on providing lunch in primaryschools was seen as having contributed to reducing the serious consequences of the economic
recession on children. Ingibjörg Broddadóttir, employee of the Welfare Watch, said that
immediately after the Watch's first recommendation to ensure that children received lunch at
school, and due to the discussion on how Finland had responded to its economic crisis, the numberof schools who offered children porridge in the morning had increased significantly. Ingibjörg
considered this initiative to have been successful and that the local authorities had taken the
conclusions into account.
The challenge to ensure children's dental health was also considered to have been effective.
In May 2012, Guðbjartur Hannesson, Minister of Welfare, appointed a working group to makerecommendations about dentistry for children. Just less than a year later, an agreement between
the Icelandic Health Insurance and the Icelandic Dental Association on dental care for children andadolescents younger than 18 years was signed at the Ministry of Welfare (Ministry of Welfare,2013b).
One could see completely, with just this one "concrete" example, such as with the dentistry[for children] – I mean, it is something that you can put your finger on [a member of thesteering committee].

Progress reports
The steering committee released five progress reports. The first was published in March 2009 andthe second in August of the same year. The third report was published in 2010, and Árni Páll, thethen-Minister of Welfare, brought it before the Alþingi in the spring of 2010. The fourth report was
published in June 2011 and the fifth in December 2013.
The reports discuss the status of welfare issues at the time they were issued, together withrecommendations for improvement. The first report was released just a month after the steeringcommittee held its first meeting. In the report, the steering committee recommended that progress
reports should be released every three months, although this was not achieved. The principal
purpose of the first report was to account for the work that the Welfare Watch had done in the shorttime that it had been operational. At the time, the Welfare Watch was of the opinion that the44

consequences of the economic collapse had not become fully visible. 90% of the population was
employed, most were paying their debts on time and the number of children in nursery schools
had not decreased, to name but a few indicators. On the other hand, it was believed that morethan six hundred children had parents who were both unemployed. In addition, the number ofrequests for assistance from the local authority social services had increased. The fact that local
authorities, the state and NGOs had launched many initiatives in response to the impact of
economic collapse on individuals and families in Iceland was highlighted (Ministry of Social Affairs
and Social Security, 2009a).
The second progress report from the Welfare Watch drew up a rather bleak picture of thesituation within society. In that report, the Welfare Watch put forward its concerns that young
people were more likely to lose their jobs than older people and that the number of long-term
unemployed had increased. Local authorities' social services experienced an increase inapplications for financial aid, and the workload at Child Protection Services had increased. The
report also outlined the status of the projects mentioned in the government's action plan for welfare.
The action plan was based to some extent on the proposals submitted by the steering committee
in its first report to the Minister (Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, 2009b).
The third Welfare Watch report was released in January 2010, and Árni Páll submitted it to theAlþingi during the 138th legislative session, 2009–2010. The report contained information on theorigins of the Welfare Watch, its objectives and the main issues that the Watch's steeringcommittee and working groups looked into in 2009. There was also a summary of the proposals
that the Watch had put forward in 2009, but no new ones were added in this third report.
Interviewees from the steering committee said that it made a huge difference and that it had aneffect that Árni Páll had submitted the report to the Alþingi.
The fourth report from the Welfare Watch noted that there was significant evidence to suggestthat serious consequences of the recession had been avoided. The report recommended,however, that the situation of low-income families with children needed to be improved.
Unemployment continued to be a concern for the Welfare Watch (Ministry of Welfare, 2011a). In
the fifth and last progress report, it was again noted that in most areas, the serious consequencesof the economic recession had been successfully avoided. In this context, it was pointed out thatlabour market measures for young people had been established and that the family services of thelocal authorities were both diverse and dynamic. However, concerns were raised about poverty
amongst families with young children, the unemployment rate among foreign nationals and ofpeople on disability pension, people who were reliant on financial aid from the local authorities andpeople with low incomes who had high housing costs (Ministry of Welfare, 2013a).
According to the interviewees, the work of preparing the progress reports was done by eachgroup, who wrote a report on the result of its work. The steering committee presented a report to
the Minister, which contained certain proposals from the working groups, which the members of
the steering committee had agreed upon, together with other material from the steering committee.
From the accounts of the interviewees, the subject matters addressed by the groups varied in theirlevel of difficulty. Thus, a member of the working group intended to deal with people without work45

stated that due to the nature of the subject, the group examined the impact of the economic
collapse on people's position in the labour market. Conversely, the members of the working groupintended to define what is considered a basic service found it harder to find an approach to thesubject.
It all becomes so assessment based – where do we draw the line if we decide that basic
services covers both statutory services and also some of the services that are traditionallyprovided [a member of a working group].

Assessments
The Welfare Watch was responsible for a number of reviews and studies. Some were carried out
by members of the Welfare Watch, while in other cases, outsiders were brought in to work on
projects. The debate in society at the time called for specific responses, and when writing thereports, a number of questions that needed answers came up. An example was the review carriedout on the number of notifications sent to the Child Protections Services, as at the start of therecession, there was a lot of debate about an increase in the number of notifications.
People wanted to blame the recession for everything, for all the poverty, all the problems
and all the notifications to Child Protection Services. [...] We did not want to continue on inthis alarmist way [...], instead all the proposals were to be based on knowledge that we
had analysed and preferably on studies [Lára Björnsdóttir, former chairman of the Welfare
Watch].

Since the establishment of the Welfare Watch in 2009 until the first Welfare Watch completed its
work in 2013, seven reviews or smaller studies were carried out. In May 2009, the Welfare Watch
sought information from the local authorities in Iceland on whether and how social services had
become aware of the effects of the economic recession. The enquiry consisted of a few openended questions sent to the directors of the social services of local authorities. They felt that almost
all social services had felt the consequences of the recession, as applications for financial aid had
increased and more people requested social service counselling. In part, the issues were similarin nature as before, but the staff found them to be more difficult and have more complex solutions.
The survey also asked which issues the Welfare Watch should focus on in their work. It was foundthat the wishes of social services were very much in line with the focus issues of the Watch. For
example, it was mentioned that it was necessary to attend to children and families with children
and the disadvantaged in society, that there should be studies available that would monitor
developments in these special populations, that household finances should be kept in mind andthat basic services of the welfare system should be ensured (Ministry of Social Affairs and Social
Security, 2009d).
The aforementioned report on the increase of notifications to the Child Protection Services
came out in November 2009 and was prepared by the Centre for Children and Family Research.
During the assessment, statistical data was collected from the child protection committees of
Reykjavik, Reykjanesbær and Árborg for the first 6 months of the years 2005 to 2009. The results
showed that reports to child protection services increased by 20–32% in the first six months of46

each year, except in 2008, when they decreased. The media had noted that reports to child welfare
had increased in early 2009, but the author of the report showed that the increase in reporting was
similar to that of the preceding years, except for 2008. There was no evidence that the increase
was a result of the economic crisis (Halldór Sig. Guðmundsson, 2009).
In the summer of 2010, the Directorate of Labour set in motion a campaign for job seekers.
With this opportunity, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security decided to draw up twostudies at the behest of the Welfare Watch and hired three employees to work on the projects.
One of the projects dealt with local authority services for children and families with children andinvolved the collecting of information on local authorities from the Internet. The second project wasentitled Voices of children, 2010 and was based on interviews with eight children, concerning theirviews on the recession and how they had experienced the discussion of the economic situation insociety (Ministry of Welfare, 24 August 2010).
In the first half of 2011, a report was released entitled Women in the Economic Crisis. As of
the first working year of the Welfare Watch, the decision was made to integrate equal rights policies
throughout the work of the Watch. During the Welfare Watch working day in September 2010, thedecision was made that one of the main projects of the working year should be to ensure that thepolicy of equal rights would be reflected in the statistics that the Welfare Watch requested. Eva
Bjarnadóttir and Eygló Árnadóttir were subsequently asked to collect gender-disaggregated datafrom government agencies and interest groups that could reveal the impact of the crisis on thewelfare of women. The report included consideration of the status of parents of young children, as
paternity leave pay to fathers had decreased from the start of the recession, while at the sametime payments to mothers from the Parental Leave Fund had increased. The report also contained
gender-disaggregated information about household financial difficulties, as women made up the
majority of those who felt they could not meet unexpected expenses and had difficulty in making
ends meet. There was also a discussion about the impact of the financial crisis on the status ofmen and women in the labour market and people's health and figures published on gender-based
violence (Eva Bjarnadóttir and Eygló Árnadóttir 2011).
In the spring of 2011, the Welfare Watch sent out questions to the child protection committees,
healthcare centres and primary schools to investigate the situation of children in difficult
circumstances. A year later, a summer employee was hired to analyse the results of thesequestions, to steer the discussion in three focus groups amongst the staff of these organisations
and to take three interviews with representatives of the Single Parents' Society, the Women Of
Multicultural Ethnicity Network and Icelandic Church Aid. The results of the report were that acomprehensive view of the issues faced by children and families with children was lacking, thatthe ability for both parents to take parental leave needed to be ensured, that independence needed
to be promoted by emphasising the ability of individuals to help themselves, that co-operation
between services should be encouraged and that there was a high demand for psychological andmental health services for children (Ministry of Welfare, 2011b).
In December 2012, a report was released on the causes of foreclosure sales in Suðurnes. The
study was conducted at the initiative of the District Commissioner of Keflavík and was funded by47

the Ministry of Welfare. The introduction to the report states that the dynamic work of the Welfare
Watch was crucial to the success of the study. Lára Kristín Sturludóttir was asked to work on the
study, and two university students were hired to assist her through the efforts of the Directorate ofLabour to increase the number of summer jobs for students. The study covered the period 2001–
2011. There was a sharp increase in foreclosure sales in 2008, and when the report came out, therate had not decreased. However, it was noted that the foreclosure sales of apartments ofindividuals decreased between 2010 and 2011, whilst the number of foreclosure sales ofapartments of legal entities increased (Lára Kristín Sturludóttir, 2012).

Project Execution
The tasks of the working groups on social indicators and on the Suðurnes region were later madeinto independent projects and therefore differed from other Welfare Watch working groups.

Social indicators group
Interviews with people from the steering committee revealed that the work on social indicators was
the project that stood out. Soon after the establishment of the Welfare Watch, people found thatthey lacked a tool that provided quantitative information on the status of various groups and theability to view trends over time. According to Lára, Chairman of the Welfare Watch, the group often
got into trouble when an opinion or proposal was needed when information was not available about
the changes that had occurred since the economic collapse. For example, there was no available
information in one place about the changes that had taken place in the number of people with low
incomes, household debt, the status of the rental market and the number of school drop-outs. The
Welfare Watch called together a group of experts to work on making social indicators. A working
group on social indicators was approved at a meeting of the steering committee in March 2009
after research advisors attended the meeting of the group (Ministry of Welfare, 6 March 2009 and
13 March 2009). The chairman of the group came from the ranks of the steering committee andthe experts from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security. According to interviewees fromthe steering committee, the establishment of the social indicators was meant to end speculation
about whether changes in the positions of certain groups were a result of the recession or not.
Getting the social indicators changed our work. We were able to get information about thesituation as current at any time and could base our work on it [a member of the steeringcommittee].

With the development of these social indicators, the Welfare Watch departed to some extent fromits role as an analyst and an advisor. The Welfare Watch was not generally designed to ensure
project implementation, but people from the steering committee played an important role inestablishing the social indicators.
In the autumn of 2010, the Welfare Watch steering committee approved the formation of six
working groups with representatives from organisations that work with statistics. These groups met
regularly and worked on the development of social indicators. There was a group on performance48

indicators (1), which analysed the situation of those dependant on a pension or local authority
financial aid; a group on social and educational indicators (2), whose analysis included number ofschool drop-outs and frequency of offences; a group of indicators on household finance (3),analysing the debt, debt service and household financial difficulties; a group on health indicators(4), which identified the factors that affect the health of the nation; a group of indicators on thelabour market (5), which analysed the status and composition of those who were unemployed; andfinally, a demography group (6), who provided statistical information that could be useful to thework of other groups. Parallel to the establishment of the working groups, it was decided toconvene a group of representatives from the university who were to scrutinise the work of theworking groups and make suggestions on how best to set out the data and define it (Welfare
Watch, 2009a).
In February 2012, the social indicators were issued for the first time. The report contained
statistical information on demographics, equality, sustainability, health and solidarity. In its firstreport, the Welfare Watch placed emphasis on ensuring that the work on the development andmaintenance of these social indicators would be continued. It was deemed important to decide
which organisation or ministry should be responsible for the supervision and storage of the social
indicators, in order to ensure that they were updated regularly (Welfare Watch, 2012a). The
existence of the social indicators was secured in December 2012, when the Ministry of Welfare,the Ministry of Finance and Economics and Statistics Iceland signed an agreement to the effectthat Statistics Iceland would be in charge of the data collection and processing of the data for social
indicators and hired an expert for the implementation of the project. The second edition of thesocial indicators was prepared by Statistics Iceland for the Ministry of Welfare and was releasedin October 2013 (Statistics Iceland, 2013).
In the opinion of Guðbjartur Hannesson, the former Minister of Welfare, the social indicators
were still not as firmly established as he had hoped.
I hope that the project will continue as we planned it [...] that certain scales will be created,
and in that way, certain social factors will be followed and that every three months or every
six months [...] social indicators are released, which show what the trend is. Social
indicators should literally follow the economic statistics because economic statistics arealways released for all kinds of things but are a very limited measure of society [Guðbjartur
Hannesson, former Minister of Welfare].

The Suðurnes Watch
The establishment of the Suðurnes Watch was another example of a project launched by the
Welfare Watch. In many cases, the Suðurnes region was worse off than any other region soonafter the economic collapse. Unemployment in the area was high compared to other parts of thecountry, the debt problem was great and level of education was low. At a meeting of therepresentatives of organisations and public bodies in Suðurnes on 13 October 2010, a request
was submitted that the Welfare Watch assist organisations and public bodies in Suðurnes to work
together on urgent welfare issues, in light of the serious recession and to ensure the welfare of the
population. Two months later, a collaborative group had been created to address welfare issues
49

in Suðurnes. The government approved the proposals of the Welfare Watch to provide funding foran employee for a three-year project, and Lovísa Lilliendahl was hired. The decision was madethat Ingibjörg Broddadóttir would be the chairman of the group. The group was composed ofrepresentatives from all municipalities in the Southern peninsula (Reykjanesbær, Grindavík,Garður, Sandgerði and Vogar) and principal service agencies. The objective of the group was topromote municipal co-operation in the field of welfare issues. The Suðurnes Watch operated under
the auspices of the Ministry of Welfare until the end of 2013, and the composition of the Watch
remained mainly the same during the time it was operational, although several members did join
the group after it was established (Ministry of Welfare, 2011a).
The first progress report of the Suðurnes Watch was released in June 2011. This was ananalysis of the situation in the Suðurnes region, and the report included information about
unemployment, financial difficulties and bankruptcy of companies in the area, as well as a
discussion on the major actions that had been taken in the field of employment, education andwelfare (The Welfare Watch, 2011a). The second progress report was released in June 2012. The
report noted that the formal co-operation between local authorities in the field of welfare had
increased with the establishment of the Suðurnes Watch. There were a number of positive signs
in the development of employment and welfare in the region. For example, it was felt that a project
aimed to promote education had performed well, and an Industrial Regional Development Agency
had been established and was involved in diverse projects in the field of employment and regional
development. Unemployment had fallen since the first progress report had been written.
Unemployment, however, was still highest in Suðurnes (The Welfare Watch, 2012b). The third andlast progress report from the Suðurnes Watch, released in December 2013, included a discussion
to the effect that the situation in the region had improved. This was especially true in the field of
employment, as unemployment had been substantially reduced since the establishment of theSuðurnes Watch. In addition, the average performance on standardised tests in primary schools
in Reykjanesbær, Garður and Sandgerði in autumn 2013 were the best ever. However, a numberof households in Suðurnes were still defaulting on payments, and the number of foreclosure sales
was still increasing. The cost of local authority financial aid had also increased, as was the caseelsewhere in the country (The Welfare Watch, 2013).
The Suðurnes Watch was responsible for a number of projects during the period in which it
was operational, including an early alert project on domestic violence, which began in 2011. In
connection with the project, a booklet on domestic violence was released and was distributed to
all houses in Suðurnes, seminars on domestic violence were held and the police and social
services in the region began a special collaboration. The collaboration involved, amongst otherthings, improving investigations into domestic violence, to firmly address cases from the beginning,to help victims and perpetrators effectively by calling out social service employees to the scene
and to better utilise the resources of restraining orders and eviction (The Welfare Watch, 2013).
According to the responses of the participants in the working groups to an open- ended question
in a web survey, the pilot project on domestic violence in Suðurnes and the collaboration between

50

the police, social services and child welfare was meant to last one year, but it subsequently became
recognised practice in the region.

Grant Provisions
One of the proposals in the committee's first progress report in March 2009 was the establishmentof a counterbalance fund that had the role of providing funds for necessary welfare research, coordinating projects on behalf of third parties and affiliates, supporting staff working with those worst
affected by the recession, creating initiatives for specific groups that the economy has effectedbadly and other necessary work. At the meeting of the steering committee on 27 March 2009, theChairman of the Welfare Watch confirmed that counterbalance fund would be created.
Subsequently, the chairman of the Welfare Watch and its 2 employees put together the rules ofthe fund. The rules were submitted to the steering committee at a meeting on 26 June 2009, andit was also agreed that the Chairman of the Welfare Watch and its employees would manage thefund with representatives from the Ministry of Education and the Red Cross in a steeringcommittee. In the rules of the fund, it was noted that the fund was intended to support actions that
could reduce the consequences of the economic recession for the people of Iceland. The plan was
to spend 75% of the grant fund on initiatives, support staff within welfare services, welfare researchand the work on social indicators, while a quarter of the amount was to be used to co-ordinate
projects run by the third sector and for other necessary projects. The initial contribution to the fundwas ISK 30 million, and it was to be kept by the Treasury under the oversight of the Ministry ofSocial Affairs and Social Security (Ministry of Welfare, 26 June 2009).
Applications for grants from the fund were requested in early 2010. The meeting of the steeringcommittee on 27 April 2010 revealed that 45 applications had been received and that a working
group had been established to prepare proposals for allocation. The decision was made to support
15 projects for a total of ISK 13 million (Ministry of Welfare, 27 April 2010). This was the only
allocation from the Counterbalance Fund, and the Welfare Watch did not advertise for further
applications to the fund. In an interview with Lára, Chairman of the Welfare Watch, and Ingibjörg,
employee at the Watch, they were asked why there had only been one allocation. They responded
that the projects that applied for funding were not consistent with the ideas of the steeringcommittee as regards the purpose of the fund. As a result, the decision was made to use the funds
that the government had granted, to pay for reviews. In this way, it was possible to finance studies
on the impact of the crisis on women and on the increased notifications to Child Protection
Services.

51

Presentations and information disclosure
When the Welfare Watch was established, a website was opened on the Ministry of Social Affairs
and Social Security homepage, where information could be found on the work of the steeringcommittee, government actions and where people could find various information. In the firstprogress report from the Welfare Watch, it was noted that in the short time that the site had been
opened to the public, the most frequently opened link referred to where people could seek
information on employment issues, housing issues, payment difficulties, immigration issues,children and families with children, the local authority social services and information on relocating
to Scandinavia (Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, 2009a).
At the second meeting of the Welfare Watch steering committee, the importance of the media
in the debate on welfare was discussed. The media plays an important role in all debate, andnegative discussion was considered to potentially have a major impact on children, young people
and vulnerable people in society. There was a discussion on whether the steering committee could
be used to direct media speculation in a positive direction, as there had been examples of
misleading news, which could potentially cause people anguish. At the meeting, it was agreed that
one of the employees of the Welfare Watch would contact the news channels (Ministry of Welfare,
27 February 2009). At a meeting of the steering committee two weeks later, it was reported that ameeting with the media had been held on 9 March and the establishment of a collaboration
between the Welfare Watch and the media had been agreed (Ministry of Welfare, 13 March 2009).
The Chairman of the Welfare Watch stated that it had been decided not to try and establish thiscollaboration after their meeting with the media, but that the public relations representative of the
Ministry of Welfare was invited to all meetings of the Watch and would take care of all news
distribution.
In addition to directing matters to the media, the Welfare Watch steering committeeemphasised the promotion of the important issues related to the economic recession that the
Watch was dealing with, by holding meetings and seminars. Table 16 is a summary of the seminars
and meetings organised by the Welfare Watch. At these meetings, external parties were asked togive presentations that could shed light on the situation of different social groups in society.

52

Table 16. Symposiums organised by the Welfare Watch
Month and year

Substance

November 2009

Breakfast meeting on the financial position of households

November 2009

Workshop on employment issues

February 2010
November 2010
January 2014

Discussion and information meeting on the welfare and health of children during timesof economic difficulties
Help to self-help: Consultative day on the co-operation of public bodies and the "third
sector" (NGOs)
Conference on the diversity of family forms(Source: Hilma Hólmfríður Sigurðardóttir, in press)

Members of the steering committee were also responsible for introducing material relevant to the
Welfare Watch at meetings and conferences organised by others, both in Iceland and abroad. In
this way, Lára, the Chairman of the Watch, presented, for example, information on the activities ofthe Watch at the annual meetings of ASI, at seminars held by institutions and faculties of the
University of Iceland, at meetings with representatives of the local authorities, at a seminar for
priests, and e.g., Nordic guests and partners at the Nordic Council of Ministers (Hilma Hólmfríður
Sigurðardóttir, in press). The interviewees from the steering committee also found considerable
interest in the Watch from abroad. According to Lára, Chairman of the Welfare Watch, andIngibjörg, an employee of the Watch, other countries were interested in the fact that in Iceland,
there was a group of people from different backgrounds who had the aim to come up with ideas
for the government. Lára was asked to give a presentation on the activities of the Welfare Watchat international meetings and conferences held in Iceland. She also travelled to France, Finlandand Sweden to promote the Welfare Watch and subjects related to it. Ingibjörg, an employee ofthe Watch went to Ireland to introduce the Welfare Watch, at an international conference there.
Many foreign visitors and groups also came and asked for an introduction. Despite the tasks of the
Welfare Watch being presented in this way, one respondent from the steering committee said thatthey would have liked to create an additional forum for debate on the situation in Iceland.
It was often discussed that the Welfare Watch could possibly have held more seminars
and meetings in order to further the discussion [a member of the steering committee].

From the above, it is clear that the Welfare Watch employed various methods to publicise its
activities and the issues that the Welfare Watch took on, as well as created dialogue and soughtknowledge on the status of welfare issues. In light of this, it was interesting to explore how visible
the Welfare Watch was to the public and to people who worked within organisations that wererepresented in the Welfare Watch. In a survey of the public and Welfare Watch affiliates, people
were asked whether they had heard of the Welfare Watch.
There were large differences in the responses, depending on the group to which the
respondents belonged. One-quarter of those who answered the survey among the general public
had heard about the Welfare Watch, while the same was true of almost 80% of those who belonged53

to the group of affiliates (see Figure 2). A background analysis of the responses to the question
may be found in Table i in Annexes 1 and 2 (Annex 1 for the public and Annex 2 for affiliates).

Figure 2. Have you heard about the Welfare Watch? - Comparison of the responses fromaffiliates and the general public

Respondents who had heard of the Welfare Watch were asked how well or poorly they knew about
its work. Figure 3 shows that more than a quarter of those who worked within organisations thatwere represented in the Welfare Watch (affiliates) knew the work of the Welfare Watch well,compared to 9% of the public. About 36% of affiliates said they knew little of the work of the Welfare
Watch, compared with 68% of the public. Nearly 40% of affiliates said they knew neither well nor
poorly the work of the Watch, compared with about a quarter of the public. A background analysisof the responses to the question may be found in Table ii in Annexes 1 and 2.

54

Figure 3. How familiar or unfamiliar are you with the work of the Welfare Watch? –Comparison of the responses from affiliates and the general public

Working methods and management of the steering committee
Steering committee meetings
The meetings of the Welfare Watch steering committee were used to discuss the activities of theworking groups, to present the work performed at the workplaces of the group’s members and to
gain insight and expertise from individuals outside the Welfare Watch. Meetings were held
fortnightly, for two hours at a time, and in addition to regular meetings, the steering committee helda longer meeting in the autumn to discuss specifically the groups' procedures. In interviews withmembers of the steering committee, people were asked to express their views on the frequency ofthe meetings. Interviewees agreed that there was a need to meet frequently, especially in the
beginning of the economic crisis, when a number of important Welfare Watch issues needed to be
discussed.
We felt it was necessary to do it this way at that time. We were taking on situations as they
were at any given time because there was so much going on during the first few months
after the economic collapse [a member of the steering committee].

In addition, it was remarked that by meeting on a regular basis, a certain kind of continuity wascreated.
There wasn't such a long time between meetings that you had to begin by reviewing
everything; therefore I think it was definitely necessary [a member of the steeringcommittee].

The chairman and employees of the Watch prepared the agenda for each meeting, and then thechairman called the meeting. From the beginning, the focus was on keeping good records of what
took place at meetings, and the meeting minutes and presentations of guests were made available
online so that they could be used by the working groups to write reports. The role of the chairman
55

also entailed managing the steering committee's meetings. Mention was made in interviews withpeople from the steering committee that at times, the management of meetings had not been goodenough. On occasion, the agenda was too long and the meetings often dragged on. Respondents
from the steering committee noted that excessively long meetings of the steering committee could
get in the way of members’ other work related activities and that too long of an agenda might also
prevent material presented by attendees to the steering committee from being utilised as it should.
This was especially the case at the beginning, just after the Watch had been established.
Sometimes guests had a very short time and there was little room for discussion. Intervieweesfrom the steering committee said that the agenda had to be long because the debate that took
place in the steering committee called for large amounts of information, particularly at the beginningof the crisis. The Watch based its proposals on the knowledge, and often the results of research,that was being presented at their meetings.
Once again, I think in the beginning we just wanted to know all, to have our finger on thepulse of everything [a member of the steering committee].

This changed over time, however, as the group agreed it would be better to have fewer guests atthe Watch's meetings and have more time for discussion. Also considered was that meeting
agenda should not be so extensive as to prevent suggestions for issues that were thought to beimportant to discuss at the Welfare Watch.

Democratic working practices
According to interviewees, the Welfare Watch insisted on democratic working practices. This
meant that only recommendations and resolutions that all the members of the steering committee
approved could be submitted. Interviewees from the steering committee were asked how thisarrangement unfolded. From their accounts, there was an informal democracy. The group did not
vote on whether a proposal should go to the government, but rather had the opportunity to provide
comments and amendments before the proposals were presented in a report that was submitted
to the government.
It was agreed that it was this group that would complete the work and then send it out, andthen you had time to provide comments or anything. Therefore, I don't think there was evera need for a vote [a member of the steering committee].

Guðbjartur Hannesson, former Minister of Welfare, felt that this emphasis on democratic working
practices was one of the strengths of the Watch, as it urged people to come to a consensus.
Democratic practices were also used when subjects were selected for the Watch, as themembers of the steering committee would generally reach their own conclusions as to whichmatters needed attention. The precedent was set at the first meeting of Welfare Watch, on 20
February 2009, where the chairman and the Watch's employees asked all representatives to
identify which issues they felt were most important for the Welfare Watch to focus on. After thisfirst meeting, issues were often selected based on the debate in society at any time.
56

It was not necessarily the chairman who said, "Now we will look at this, and it will be worked
like this." It was a very dynamic and broad steering committee who came up with a numberof suggestions about what would be focused on at any given time [a member of thesteering committee].

The decision about which guests to invite to the Welfare Watch steering committee meetings
was also often taken in the light of the debate that took place in the group. Often, the members of
the steering committee themselves requested people to hold presentations at the Watch's
meetings, sometimes the chairman of the Watch invited guests and there were also examples ofpeople that were not part of the committee who asked to take part in the meetings in order toprovide information to members. Although the need for certain information and education usuallycame from members of the steering committee, respondents mentioned that occasionally, outside
participants held presentations on a subject that they felt was not relevant to the Welfare Watch.
In this context, for example, a debate on surrogacy, though important, should not have been taken
up by the Welfare Watch, where it was intended to discuss the situation of vulnerable groups.
But of course, there were some issues that came up in a meeting that perhaps should havebeen discussed elsewhere [a member of the steering committee].

Management
From the above, it can be concluded that the role of the Chairman of the Steering Committee wasto bring the group together and keep track of its work, rather than assigning specific projects. The
chairman presided over the meetings and represented the Watch. Interviewees from the steeringcommittee were generally satisfied with how the Watch was managed. Interviewees were quoted
as saying that both Lára and Ingibjörg had extensive knowledge, and members of the committefelt it was beneficial to approach them when questions arose. It was also mentioned that the
Chairman of the Watch had been flexible and allowed the Watch to develop with the people in it.
She had not formed an opinion on how this should look [...]. She was great as chairman
because of this [a member of the steering committee].

The three ministers were also very pleased with the work of the Watch's management, andaccording to Guðbjartur, it was at his request that Lára continued as Chairman of the Welfare
Watch after she left the Ministry of Welfare.
When interviewees from the steering committee were consulted on whether something could
have been done better by the management of the Watch, one recipient from the steering committee
said they would have liked to have more support from the ministry with writing reports. It was her
belief that there was a lot of work behind the reports, and much of the work involved searching for
information.

There was so much chaos in society, which is why the subject matter was so broad. What
could have been done differently was that there could have been more support to thegroups from the ministry, for help with writing reports and other such things, as this was ofcourse, unpaid work, just completely on top of all other work [a member of the steeringcommittee].
57

Working group methods and management
Work contribution
The work contribution of working group members included attending meetings, collecting data andsources, drafting reports and giving presentations. In response to an online survey about their roleand contribution within the groups, 93% of working group respondents indicated that their roleconsisted either to a considerable extent or to some extent of attending meetings. Collecting dataand sources was another major part; 62% of respondents indicated that their role consisted either
to a considerable extent or to some extent of this type of work. Some 31% indicated that they had
been involved to a considerable extent or to some extent in data processing, while 30% had been
involved to a considerable extent or to some extent in drafting reports. Finally, 29% of respondents
indicated that giving presentations had been a major or quite major part of their work (see Figure
4).

Meetings

93%

Data collection

62%

Processing of data

31%

Writing reports

30%

Presentations

29%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion

Figure 4. To what extent did your involvement in the working groups consist of…?

58

Working group members were asked whether they would have liked for their group to meet moreor less often than it did. A majority, 63%, were satisfied with the regularity of meetings. 30% would
have liked more frequent meetings and 7%, less frequent (see Table 17).

Table 17. Would you have liked for your working group to meet more or less often than it
did?
Much more Slightly more Neither more

Much more
or slightly

Much more or slightly more
often

often

often

8%

21%

63%

7%

71

30%

11%
6%

26%
17%

54%
72%

9%
6%

35
36

22%

6%
8%
12%

17%
22%
24%

72%
58%
65%

6%
11%
0%

18
36
17

9%
13%
27%
0%
0%
Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
Membership of the Welfare Watch steering committee
0%Member of the steering committe
9%
Not a member of the steering comittee

27%
27%
27%
11%
20%

45%
53%
45%
79%
80%

18%
7%
0%
11%
0%

11
15
11
19
15

21%
22%

79%
61%

0%
7%

14
54

Total
GenderMale
FemaleAge
24–49 years
50–59 years
60–68 years
Field of employment
Municipal social services / Healthcare services
Education
Public service in ministries or local authorities
Other public servicesof less often more seldom

Number

30%

37%

22%
31%

35%

37%
22%
22%
31%
35%

36%
40%
55% 55%
11%
20%

36%

40%
11%
20%

21%
31%

21%
31%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Allocation of responsibilities and organisation
Responsibilities were allocated informally, with members of working groups taking on tasks
themselves rather than having them allocated centrally. Over half (57%) of the working groupsurvey respondents were satisfied with how members allocated themselves tasks. Just under athird were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the allocation of responsibilities. Women were moresatisfied with the allocation of responsibilities within the group than men. People working in NGOs
and municipal social services or in health services were generally more dissatisfied with theallocation of responsibilities than others (see Table 18).

59

Table 18. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how responsibilities
were allocated within your working group?
Neither

Very or

Very

Rathersatisfied norrathersatisfiedsatisfieddissatisfied

dissatisfied

Number

18%

39%

31%

13%

72

57%57%

Male

14%

34%

31%

20%

35

Female

22%

43%

30%

5%

37

49% 49%65%
65%

24–49 y ears

22%

28%

22%

28%

18

50–59 y ears

19%

43%

27%

11%

37

50% 50%62%
62%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

12%

41%

47%

0%

17

53% 53%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

8%

42%

33%

17%

12

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

7%

47%

33%

13%

15

50% 50%53% 53%

18%

45%

27%

9%

11

Other public serv ices

Total

Very or rather satisfied

Gender

Age

26%

42%

26%

5%

19

64%
64%
68%
68%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
27%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

20%

33%

20%

15

47% 47%

Member of steering committee

43%

21%

36%

0%

14

Not a member of steering committee

13%

45%

27%

16%

56

64%
64%
57%57%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

From discussions in focus groups among the members of the working groups, it emerged thatsome felt that the division of tasks had been unclear. There was also a suggestion that it would
have been better to split up the groups into smaller groups to discuss specific issues. This would
have saved discussion time and improved the organisation of the groups’ work. As well as a wish
for clearer debate within working groups, there was a suggestion that workloads had not been
evenly shared, owing to a lack of strong management.
There was no clear management. It was very easy for people just to take charge of thegroup’s work and make decisions. As indicated, everybody was extremely busy and hadvery little time […] so if somebody took the initiative […] and drafted a report, everybody[would] be very happy [a member of a working group].

Stronger management, therefore, was considered something that would have made the working
groups more effective. Proof that such was needed can be inferred from the declarations of working
group interviewees, who described how fatigue began to be felt among the members of the working
groups as their work progressed. The same viewpoint emerged from interviewees who weremembers of the Welfare Watch steering committee and also chaired a working group.
The last report, for instance, had a very difficult birth. At that time, I was still in charge ofthe group and it was very difficult to convene the members. People seemed somehow tohave had enough of all the work and no longer wished to do it [a member of the steeringcommittee].

Focus group discussions also revealed that good management would have made it possible tobetter define each member’s area of work. One member indicated that too much time had gone
into explaining and discussing what each person’s role could possibly be. Working group members
60were asked in an online survey whether it was clear what had been expected of everybody in theworking group. Some 69% of respondents felt that it had always or most often been clear. A thirdof respondents felt that it had sometimes, rarely or never been clear what had been expected ofthem in the working group. People from NGOs or in public service were more inclined to say that
their role was clear than other respondents were. Those who were also members of the steeringcommittee felt that it was clearer what was expected of them than those who were not membersof the steering committee (see Table 19).

Table 19. Was it clear what was expected of you in the working group?
Alw ay s oralmostalw ay s

Usually

Sometimes

RarelyNev erNumber

31%

38%

18%

7%

6%

71

69%
69%

Male

29%

35%

18%

9%

9%

34

Female

32%

41%

19%

5%

3%

37

65%
65%
73%

24–49 y ears

26%

37%

11%

21%

5%

19

50–59 y ears

40%

31%

20%

0%

9%

35

63%
63%
71%
71%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

18%

53%

24%

6%

0%

17

71%
71%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

17%

42%

25%

17%

0%

12

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

7%

53%

27%

0%

13%

15

58%58%
60%60%

36%

36%

9%

18%

0%

11

Other public serv ices

56%

22%

11%

6%

6%

18

73%
78%
78%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

33%

40%

20%

0%

7%

15

73%

Member of steering committee

36%

43%

21%

0%

0%

14

Not a member of steering committee

30%

37%

19%

9%

6%

54

79%
79%
67%
67%

Total

Alw ay s, almost alw ay s or usually

GenderAge

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

As regards the organisation of working group tasks, it emerged that some two-thirds of
respondents were satisfied with how things were organised, while 17% were dissatisfied.
Participation in the steering committee was a factor here, with those sitting on the steeringcommittee being generally more satisfied with how work was organised than those who were notmembers of the steering committee (see Table 20).

61

Table 20. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how the working
group’s tasks were organised?
Neither

Very or

Very

Rathersatisfied norrathersatisfiedsatisfieddissatisfied

dissatisfied

Number

21%

42%

21%

17%

72

63%
63%

Male

23%

40%

17%

20%

35

Female

19%

43%

24%

14%

37

63%
63%
62%
62%

24–49 y ears

28%

28%

17%

28%

18

50–59 y ears

16%

49%

22%

14%

37

56%56%
65%
65%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

24%

41%

24%

12%

17

65%
65%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

8%

42%

17%

33%

12

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

20%

33%

27%

20%

15

50% 50%53% 53%

27%

27%

27%

18%

11

Other public serv ices

Total

Very or rather satisfied

Gender

Age

32%

47%

16%

5%

19

55% 55%79%
79%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
13%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

53%

20%

13%

15

67%
67%

Member of steering committee

29%

57%

14%

0%

14

Not a member of steering committee

20%

39%

20%

21%

56

86%86%
59%59%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%Survey respondents were also asked an open-ended question on whether they would have liked
to have the organisation and procedures of the group be any different. Table 21 shows a summaryof their comments. The table shows that a significant number would have liked to have seen thingsorganised differently. Most of those expressing an opinion on how organisation and procedures
could have been improved said that work could have been more targeted and the allocation of
responsibilities clearer.

62

Table 21. As regards the organisation and procedures of your working group, was there
anything that you would have liked to see done differently?
Category

Number Examples of comments

Would not have had it any different

10"Would not hav e had it any different.""Working procedures w ere unclear and there w as little flow of information. This requires
planning ahead, hav ing clear goals, assigning tasks, organising the arrangement ofMore focused work and clearer division of tasks

12

meetings and the goals of each meeting, increase collaboration and seek information from agreater number of parties than the v ery few w ho attended. Connect much better w ith othergroups and improv e information sharing betw een them.""The role and object of the group could hav e been better defined and dialogue w ith thesteering committee w as lacking. The position of each member could hav e been better

Clearer goals

8

ex plained, and w here each person stood w ith regard to possible proposal preparation anddev elopment of remedies. Coordination w as missing in some fields and the generalknow ledge of the role of members of the group w as not good enough.""The contribution of group members to the w ork v aried, should hav e been more equal."Group members not all equally active

3

Poor attendance to meetings

2

Meetings called too seldom2"Call more meetings."

Timeframe too narrow

8"That this project had been giv en more time."

Other aspects mentioned

8"Get someone w ho can manage reporting, etc., perhaps from the ministry .""Attendance to meetings w as not ev en enough and a great deal of time w as spent on
repeatedly informing others w hat had been done."

Working group members were asked in an online survey how satisfied or dissatisfied they were on
the whole with the work of the working group they had been in. A majority, i.e. two-thirds, said thatthey were satisfied, 22% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 14% were dissatisfied. Onefifth of men were dissatisfied with the work of their working group, as compared to just 8% of
women. Those who were engaged in public services in ministries and those working for local
authorities were usually more satisfied on the whole with the work of their working group than those
who worked elsewhere. Nobody sitting on the steering committee expressed dissatisfaction withworking group efforts (see Table 22).

63

Table 22. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with working groupefforts?
Neither

Very or

Very

Rathersatisfied norrathersatisfiedsatisfieddissatisfied

dissatisfied

Number

21%

43%

22%

14%

72

64%

64%

Male

23%

37%

20%

20%

35

60%

60%

Female

19%

49%

24%

8%

37

68%

68%

24–49 y ears

28%

22%

33%

17%

18

50% 50%50–59 y ears

16%

54%

16%

14%

37

70%

70%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

24%

41%

24%

12%

17

65%

65%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

8%

50%

25%

17%

12

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

13%

47%

27%

13%

15

58% 58%
60% 60%

36%

18%

18%

27%

11

55% 55%

Other public serv ices

37%

42%

16%

5%

19

79%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
7%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

53%

27%

13%

15

60%

Member of steering committee

21%

50%

29%

0%

14

71%

71%

Not a member of steering committee

21%

43%

18%

18%

56

64%

64%

Total

Very or rather satisfied

Gender

Age

79%
60%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Task prioritisation
According to focus group interviewees who had taken part in a working group, it was sometimes
difficult to delimit the discussion topics for each group and to prioritise tasks, as in some cases,
the material in question was extensive. One interviewee from the working group on youth andyoung people indicated, for instance, that the notion of “young people” was wide-ranging and could
mean children, teenagers or young parents, and working group discussions could therefore end
up getting out of hand. Working group members were also concerned that one group might bediscussing issues that another was expected to be discussing. For instance, the working group on
children and families with children spent a lot of time discussing when a child stopped being achild, as the group wanted to be sure that it did not encroach on the remit of the group discussing
youth and young people.

64

Working group members were asked in an online survey how satisfied or dissatisfied they werewith how tasks had been prioritised within the group. A total of 61% of respondents said they weresatisfied, 27% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 11% dissatisfied. Women were generally moresatisfied than men, and respondents in the 50–59 age range were more satisfied than other age
groups. Those employed in education and training and in NGOs were more satisfied than thoseworking in other areas (see Table 23).

Table 23. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how tasks were prioritised withinyour working group?
Neither

Very or

Very

Rathersatisfied norrathersatisfiedsatisfieddissatisfied

dissatisfied

Number

16%

46%

27%

11%

70

61%
61%

Male

14%

37%

31%

17%

35

Female

17%

54%

23%

6%

35

51% 51%71%
71%

24–49 y ears

22%

28%

28%

22%

18

50–59 y ears

14%

57%

19%

11%

37

50% 50%70%70%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

13%

40%

47%

0%

15

53% 53%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

8%

42%

25%

25%

12

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

7%

64%

21%

7%

14

50% 50%
71%
71%

20%

30%

30%

20%

10

Other public serv ices

32%

32%

32%

5%

19

50% 50%63%
63%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
7%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

60%

27%

7%

15

67%
67%

Member of steering committee

21%

50%

21%

7%

14

Not a member of steering committee

15%

46%

26%

13%

54

71%
71%
61%
61%

Total

Very or rather satisfied

GenderAge

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Democratic working practices
As with the steering committee, working groups focused on reaching a consensus on the proposals
put forward in the groups’ reports. Interviewees from the working groups felt that this had beendifficult, as the groups contained people from so many different walks of life. For instance, aninterviewee from Reykjavik City Council stated that it had been difficult for them to subscribe tomeasures to be taken by local authorities at the same time as the institution they worked at wasundertaking streamlining measures or formulating policies in specific matters. This individual
indicated that this had been solved by discussing the issues in question and that the group had
been able to reach a joint conclusion. Interviews revealed one case where the democratic
procedures used had prevented one matter from being resolved. The working groups on young
people’s issues considered it important to increase the opportunities of young people who had
dropped out of school, to take up studies again. Kópavogur College offers a course in foodprocessing and was keen to offer special opportunities for people who had dropped out of school.
Problems with this idea emerged, however, as the school had difficulty entering into work-training
contracts with companies in the industry. The school therefore applied for permission to act as65

trainer itself and send students on external training placements for a few months instead of bringing
in a trainer from the industry to teach the students for two years. This application was rejected, adecision criticised by some in the working group. One member could not agree due to a conflict ofinterests, and work on developing this measure was stopped.

Management
Interviewees from the Welfare Watch steering committee and the working groups indicated thatworking methods had been similar to those in the steering committee. The chair ran and convened
the group, but in every other respect, things were done by team work, with the group decidingcollectively what material was worth examining. The online survey among working group members
contained two questions on respondents’ attitudes towards the chairpersons of the working groups.
Table 24 shows that four-fifths of respondents felt that the role of the chairperson was always orusually clear. Those working in municipal social services or healthcare services or in NGOs feltthat the role of the chairperson was clear to a greater extent than those working elsewhere.

Table 24. Was the role of the chairperson of the working group clear?
Alw ay s oralmostSeldom or

alw ay s

Usually

Sometimes

nev erNumber

42%

37%

11%

10%

62

79%
79%

Male

37%

40%

10%

13%

30

Female

47%

34%

13%

6%

32

77%
77%
81%
81%

24–49 y ears

35%

47%

6%

12%

17

50–59 y ears

47%

33%

13%

7%

30

82%
82%
80%
80%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

40%

33%

13%

13%

15

73%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

55%

36%

0%

9%

11

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

27%

47%

27%

0%

15

40%

30%

0%

30%

10

91%91%
73%
70%
70%

Other public serv ices

47%

29%

18%

6%

17

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

44%

44%

0%

11%

9

76%
76%
89%89%

Member of steering committee

50%

50%

0%

0%

8

100% 100%

Not a member of steering committee

42%

34%

13%

11%

53

75%
75%

Total

Alw ay s, almost alw ay s or usually

GenderAge

The chairmen of the w orking groups did not reply to this question.

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%66

A considerable majority, i.e. 85%, of respondents were satisfied with communications with thechairperson of their working group, while 5% were dissatisfied (see Figure 5 and Table 25). Given
the very low number of “dissatisfied” replies, these reply options were merged with those replying“neither satisfied not dissatisfied” for the purposes of the background analysis.
50%

46%

45%
38%

40%

Proportion

35%
30%
25%
20%

15%

11%

10%
5%

3%

2%

0%
Very satisfied

Rather satisfied

Neither satisfied Rather dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
nor dissatisfied

Figure 5. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with communication withthe chairperson of the working group? – Frequency

Respondents working in social organisations were more dissatisfied with communication with thechairperson of the working group than those working in other areas (see Table 25).
Table 25. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with communication withthe chairperson of the working group?
Neither/nor,
Ratherv ery or rather

Very satisfied

satisfieddissatisfied

Number

46%

38%

15%

65

85%
85%

Male

35%

48%

16%

31

Female

56%

29%

15%

34

84%
84%
85%
85%

24–49 y ears

50%

28%

22%

18

50–59 y ears

50%

34%

16%

32

78%
78%
84%
84%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

33%

60%

7%

15

93% 93%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

55%

36%

9%

11

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

40%

47%

13%

15

91%91%
87%87%

30%

60%

10%

10

Other public serv ices

68%

21%

11%

19

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

20%

40%

40%

10

Member of steering committee

63%

38%

0%

8

100% 100%

Not a member of steering committee

45%

38%

18%

56

82%
82%

Total

Very or rather satisfied

GenderAge

The chairmen of the w orking groups did not answ er this question.

90%90%
89%89%
60%60%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

67

Communication and information provision within the Welfare
Watch
Communications in the steering committee
Interviews with members of the steering committee included discussions on co-operation withothers in the group. Interviewees revealed that, while heated debates on individual matters were
frequent, the group had worked together well. In this connection, it was an important factor that the
Welfare Watch was working towards a common goal.
From the very first meeting, everybody agreed that the main objective was to protect
welfare [Lára Björnsdóttir, former Head of the Welfare Watch].

It should be borne in mind that members of the steering committee had different professional
focuses, but Lára indicates that “people were not necessarily just looking after their own pet
projects”. Instead, people not only gave an account of what they thought the important points were,
but also listened to other people’s points of view. For instance, the representative of theOrganisation of Disabled in Iceland spoke of the difficult situation of people on disability pension,and the representative of the National Association of Senior Citizens spoke about the position ofelderly people. They did so without arguing with other members of the steering committee that it
was more important to focus on the welfare of these groups rather than on other vulnerable groups
in society. Interviewees said that mutual respect had reigned at steering committee meetings.
People felt important in these meetings, and I felt that the meetings were all – what’s theword? – that great respect was shown for all the participants [a member of the steeringcommittee].

When it came to drafting reports and correspondence, there were occasions of disagreement on
how or what to write, but interviewees indicated that people were generally satisfied with the results
once they had had the opportunity to submit comments.
There were frequent heated debates and exchanges of views and many people disagreed.
We would then often reach some sort of compromise on how to change the wording sothat everybody would be satisfied [a member of the steering committee].

68

Communications in the working groups
The working groups were also composed of people with differing professional focuses. For
instance, one interviewee from the steering committee indicated that their group contained
representatives from the Homes Association of Iceland, who were very critical of government
actions and of the Debtors’ Ombudsman on the subject of household debt. Their views were so
different from those of the other members of the working group that the 2011 interim report fromthe working group on household financial difficulties had to be accompanied by a Homes
Association of Iceland protocol. The protocol stated that the Association’s views had not been wellreceived in the working group and that the report gave only limited information on their demandsof the government (Welfare Watch, 2011b). Despite these differences, interviewees said that cooperation had been good and that people respected each other’s views.
Results from the survey among members of the working groups reflect the views of theinterviewees from the steering committee; just under 80% of respondents were satisfied with theco-operation with others in the group, 18% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 4% weredissatisfied (see Figure 6).
50%
44%

45%
40%

Proportion

35%

34%

30%

25%
18%

20%
15%
10%
5%

1%

3%

0%
Very satisfied

Rather satisfied

Neither satisfied nor Rather dissatisfied
dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Figure 6. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with communications withothers in the group? – Frequency

69Given the very low number of “dissatisfied” replies, these reply options were merged with those
replying “neither satisfied not dissatisfied” for the purposes of the background analysis. Women
were more satisfied with the collaboration than men, and those sitting on the steering committee
were more satisfied with the collaboration than those not sitting on the steering committee. Those
who were engaged in public services in ministries and those working for local authorities wereusually more satisfied with the collaboration than those who worked elsewhere (see Table 26).

Table 26. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with communications withothers in the group?
Neither/nor,
Ratherv ery or rather

Very satisfied

satisfieddissatisfied

Number

34%

44%

23%

71

77%
77%

Male

29%

43%

29%

35

Female

39%

44%

17%

36

71%
71%
83%
83%

24–49 y ears

29%

35%

35%

17

50–59 y ears

43%

38%

19%

37

65%
65%
81%
81%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

18%

65%

18%

17

82%
82%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

25%

50%

25%

12

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

29%

36%

36%

14

27%

64%

9%

11

75%
75%
64%
64%
91%91%

Other public serv ices

47%

32%

21%

19

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

33%

47%

20%

15

79%
79%
80%
80%

Member of steering committee

50%

50%

0%

14

100% 100%

Not a member of steering committee

31%

40%

29%

55

71%
71%

Total

Very or rather satisfied

GenderAge

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%70

There was general satisfaction – around 60% – with information provision within the working
groups. Roughly one out of ten were dissatisfied. Women were generally more satisfied than men.
All members of the steering committee were satisfied with information provision within their working
group, as opposed to three of every four who were not members of the steering committee (seeTable 27).

Table 27. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with information provision
within the working group?
Neither

Very or

Very

Rathersatisfied norrathersatisfiedsatisfieddissatisfied

dissatisfied

Number

39%

38%

11%

11%

71

77%
77%

Male

37%

31%

11%

20%

35

Female

42%

44%

11%

3%

36

69%
69%
86%86%

24–49 y ears

33%

44%

11%

11%

18

50–59 y ears

43%

32%

11%

14%

37

78%
78%
76%
76%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

38%

44%

13%

6%

16

81%
81%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

25%

58%

8%

8%

12

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

29%

50%

7%

14%

14

83%
83%
79%
79%

36%

36%

18%

9%

11

Other public serv ices

63%

16%

16%

5%

19

73%
79%
79%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
33%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

40%

7%

20%

15

73%

Member of steering committee

57%

43%

0%

0%

14

100% 100%

Not a member of steering committee

36%

36%

13%

15%

55

73%

Total

Very or rather satisfied

GenderAge

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Working group and steering committee communications
Communications between the working groups and the Welfare Watch steering committee waschannelled through the chairpersons of the working groups, who were also members of thesteering committee. Discussions in the focus groups of members of the working groups suggested
that people would have liked to have seen more co-operation between the steering committee andthe working groups. One working group interviewee noted that their group had asked for a meetingwith the steering committee to obtain information on what was expected of the group but that they
had not been granted any such meeting. Other interviewees suggested that the working groups
had had some difficulty working completely independently. For this reason, one interviewee
suggested that it could have been possible to delimit the discussions taking place in working
groups, and thereby improve their performance, by appointing one person whose job it would havebeen to channel information between the working groups and the steering committee.

71

It might have helped discussions and made them more organised if […] The Welfare Watch
had provided one person to meet with all the groups. Because then […] that person would
have known what each group was talking about and such, and could have kept theactivities of the groups apart, if need be. Or they could have taken on the time-consuming
task of taking minutes and drafting reports. I think that would have been very helpful [amember of a working group].

Just under 60% of working group respondents to the online survey said that they were satisfied
with information provision between the steering committee and their working group. Just over onefifth were dissatisfied. There was a difference in responses depending on whether or not
respondents were also members of the steering committee, as just under half of those who were
not members were satisfied with information provision between the steering committee and theworking groups, as compared to almost all those who were members of the steering committee(see Table 28).

Table 28. On the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with information provision
between the steering committee and the working group?
Neither

Very or

Very

Rathersatisfied norrathersatisfiedsatisfieddissatisfied

dissatisfied

Number

13%

44%

22%

21%

63

Male

13%

50%

13%

25%

32

63%
63%

Female

13%

39%

32%

16%

31

52% 52%

24–49 y ears

19%

25%

31%

25%

16

50–59 y ears

6%

55%

21%

18%

33

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

21%

43%

14%

21%

14

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

8%

58%

25%

8%

12

67%
67%

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

0%

50%

17%

33%

12

33%

33%

11%

22%

9

50% 50%67%
67%

Other public serv ices

19%

25%

38%

19%

16

44%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
7%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

57%

14%

21%

14

64%
64%

Member of steering committee

21%

64%

14%

0%

14

Not a member of steering committee

9%

38%

26%

28%

47

86%86%
47% 47%

Total

Very or rather satisfied
57%57%

Gender

Age
44%

44%

61%61%
64%
64%

44%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%72

One interviewee from the working group focus group said that the Welfare Watch steeringcommittee had convened and met with all the working groups just once, to make preparations forwriting a report. This meeting was considered to have been very important as regards
strengthening relations with the steering committee members. It was considered important to enjoy
good ties between the members of the working groups and the steering committee to ensure thatthe members of the working groups gained a better understanding of what was expected of them.
Information was requested on the results of the work carried out in the working groups.
It was rather unclear what would happen to and what would be done with all of the sterling
work that was done. And it might have been difficult to get answers on this. But the Minister
received the report and it was up to him to take it to cabinet and have it discussed. And
when that did happen, the process was not that clear either. This was a weakness [amember of a working group].

62% of working group respondents indicated that they had good knowledge of the work conductedby the steering committee, while one-fifth said they had little knowledge of the same. Half of those
who were not members of the steering committee said they had good knowledge of the work
conducted by the steering committee. There was also a difference according to field of work, withthose engaged in public services in ministries and those working for local authorities or NGOs
having better knowledge of the work conducted by the steering committee than those who worked
elsewhere (see Table 29).

Table 29. How familiar or unfamiliar were you with the work of the Welfare Watch steeringcommittee?
RatherNeither w ell

RatherVery

Very w ell

w ell

nor poorly

poorlypoorlyNumber

22%

41%

18%

15%

5%

79

62%

Male

19%

44%

19%

14%

3%

36

64%

64%

Female

23%

37%

16%

16%

7%

43

60%

60%

24–49 y ears

10%

30%

15%

35%

10%

20

50–59 y ears

28%

38%

21%

8%

5%

39

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

20%

55%

15%

10%

0%

20

40%
40%
67%
67%
75%
75%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

17%

42%

0%

25%

17%

12

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

6%

38%

31%

19%

6%

16

58% 58%44%44%

36%

43%

7%

14%

0%

14

79%

Other public serv ices

15%

40%

30%

10%

5%

20

55% 55%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
35%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

41%

12%

12%

0%

17

76%

Member of steering committee

61%

39%

0%

0%

0%

18

100%

Not a member of steering committee

10%

40%

24%

19%

7%

58

50% 50%

Total

Very or rather w ell
62%

Gender

Age

79%
76%
100%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%73

Proposals from the Welfare Watch working groups
Each working group prepared interim reports containing proposals regarding that group’s issues.
The groups’ proposals were discussed at steering committee meetings and then used as a basis
for steering committee proposals put forward in reports to the government. In some cases, theworking groups found it difficult to put forward clear proposals for improvement. One interviewee
stated that their group had identified certain problems in society that needed to be addressed butthat it had been difficult to come to a joint conclusion on how best to do so. This, in their view, wasthe reason for the proposals in the interim report not being particularly well expanded upon.
Tables 30–36 give an overview of the proposals contained in the working groups’ interim
reports. The various working groups set out their proposals in different ways. Some groups
collected their proposals together in a list at the end of their reports, while others described themeasures that needed to be taken in the main text of the report. In order to be able to set out all
proposals in table form, the proposals of some groups had to be considerably shortened. This wasparticularly the case with proposals from groups who themselves had not presented them in lists.
In the tables, those proposals which the steering committee used in their reports to the government
are specifically marked. The wording and content of the proposals were, however, amended when
they were included in the steering committee’s reports, and in some cases, two or three working
group proposals were merged into one.
As can be seen in Table 30, the working group on children and families with children put
forward over 60 proposals in the three years that it operated. Some of these can be found in thesteering committee reports, albeit in a slightly different form. For instance, the steering committee
proposed in its March 2009 report that the conditions of young families with children should bespecifically looked into. This proposal is obviously derived from a proposal from the relevant
working group to the effect that changes in children’s conditions – from pregnancy to 18 years –should be monitored. Another steering committee proposal in the same report recommended thatchildren and families with children should be guaranteed access to professionals and that focus
should be directed at family work in healthcare and social services. This proposal was developedout of two working group proposals: (a) to guarantee children and families with children immediate
access to professionals, experts and consultants; and (b) to focus on family work in healthcare
centres. The steering committee twice recommended that the government increase support andtake specific action to improve the welfare and financial situation of low-income families withchildren, particularly single parents and their children. This proposal was contained in the steeringcommittee reports from June 2011 and December 2013 and is probably based on three proposals
from the April 2011 interim report of the working group on children and families with children. These
three proposals were: (a) to support children of unemployed parents and parents in financial
difficulties; (b) that Child Protection Services should consider support for children not growing up
with both of their biological parents; and (c) to focus on the education of children in step-families
and children of immigrants.

74

It can be seen that some of the group’s proposals are similar to the proposed actions
contained in the ICE-CCFR report on increasing numbers of notifications to Child Protection
Services in the period 2005–2009 (Halldór S. Guðmundsson, 2009). It can therefore be concluded
that this report was used as input for the group’s work. In 2011, the working group on children andfamilies with children put forward proposals to the effect that increased pressure on the childprotection system should be dealt with and that stress levels among those working with children
should be looked at. This is in accordance with the discussion of the subject in the ICE-CCFR
report. It emerged that a constant rise in caseload would likely increase pressure in Child Protection
Services and that the welfare and workload of staff should be looked at.

75

Table 30. Proposals from the working group on children and families with children
YearChildren and families with children

2009 Monitor changes in the circumstance of children, from pregnancy to the age of 18.
Monitor the position of children in fringe groups, such as the children of immigrants and children in step-families.
Ensure immediate access for children and families with children to professionals, experts and advice.
Focus on family based work in healthcare centres.

√
√
√
√

Prevent waiting lists for consultation with experts and ensure a harmonised price list for their services.
Offer support for those who work with children.
Offer inter-personal relationship courses for children and families.
Avoid cutbacks in child protection services.
Employees are to receive professional guidance.
Strengthen Internet education, e.g. text message-advice for children.
Listen to and talk to children in homes, institutions and in the media.
The media and people working with children are to choose their words with care when speaking near children.
Do not increase levies on the parents of children in primary school.
Co-ordinate educational material to parents, such as on computers, drugs and communications.

√Monitor whether children cease participating in leisure activities due to poverty. Consider having them free of charge.
Ensure that children get necessary exercise and use nearby areas for this purpose.
Co-ordinate price lists for school meals, monitor participation and examine the possibility of having them free of charge.
Ensure that the affairs of children are given financial priority by the state and the local authorities.

√

2011 Encourage primary school students to continue to study and assist them in finding appropriate schooling options.
Offer young unemployed people the option of shorter study programmes, even courses providing credits.
Promote the engagement of unemployed young people who are not entitled to benefits.
Work with support – youth programme workshop arrangements and folk high school at secondary school level.
Strengthen mitigating measures concurrently with cutbacks to ensure that the needs of groups receiving reduced services are met withspecial measures.
Decrease VAT on children's clothes and other goods needed by families with children.
Ensure that all children and youngsters have access to sports, leisure and youth activities irrespective of the financial standing of theirparents.
Harmonise age criteria in institutions, companies and association as regards the pricing of services for children and youngsters.
√
Monitor bullying issues in primary schools and examine the effect of cutbacks in supervision during breaks and the services of study andcareer counsellors.
Promote the preparation of bullying policies that covers the local community of each school.
Ensure that all students are granted a place in a secondary school once they have completed primary school.
Offer a greater number of study programmes and options for students once they complete primary school, e.g. folk high schools.
Specifically monitor that special education services are available in primary and secondary schools.
Place increased importance on the co-operation of all parties in each school community, especially increased involvement of parents.
Support children and parents of foreign origin whose mother tongue is other than Icelandic.
Ensure that children and youngsters have unrestricted access to educational material irrespective of financial standing, e.g. by using
Confront the increased pressure on the child protection system.
Provide support to the children of unemployed parents and parents in financial difficulties.
Child Protection Services should consider support for children who do not grow up with both parents.
Focus on education to children in step-families and the children of immigrants.

√√√

Establish a coordination centre for the affairs of children and youngsters.
√ The proposal of the working group was set forth as a proposal from the steering committee in the steering committee's progress report.
The table continues on the following page.

76

Table 30, (cont’d). Proposals from the working group on children and families withchildrenYearChildren and families with children

2011 Child Protection Services should direct their attention to children who are the children of the second or third generation benefit recipients.
Draw attention to the obligation to notify child protection authorities among those who work with children and youngsters.
Attend to the affairs of foster children who are temporarily living away from their domicile, both professional and financial aspects.
Ensure fluorine mouthwashes for all children.
Increase subsidies for dentistry services for children and youngsters. Children aged from 4 to 18 are to have free dental examinations.
Ensure psychiatric services for children with anxiety, behavioural or substance abuse problems.

√

Pay attention to youngsters of secondary school age due to the increased use of illegal narcotics.
Strengthen parent co-operation in secondary schools and promote the co-operation of the community with secondary schools.
Examine stress levels among employees in schools, social and healthcare services.
Employee wellbeing must be improved with targeted actions, e.g. strengthen education and ensure job security.
2013 Evaluate child protection issues and strengthen the work of Child Protection Services in order to better follow up on cases.
Ensure that the authorities are involved and employ special actions in the affairs of children living in very difficult circumstances.
Strengthen pre-natal examinations and infant healthcare and pay particular attention to young mothers and mothers in poor social
circumstances.
Attend to children and youngsters who have been involved in serious crime, have been convicted and have had to be in prison withadults.
Better support children who are living under difficult social circumstances due to the mental problems and/or drug abuse of their parents.
Strengthen community services to children and their families and respond sooner to the problems of children.
Increase co-operation between social services and healthcare services in order to e.g. reduce the load on BUGL (Department of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry) and Child Protection Services.
Attend to the dental health of children who are living under difficult social circumstances or who have low-income parents.
Strengthen co-operation between the school and children and their parents to ensure support and study encouragement in their nearest
surroundings.
Increase support to children of foreign origin and their parents, such as in homework, access to leisure activities and education on theirrights.
√Encourage fathers to use their right to paternity leave.
√ The proposal of the working group was set forth as a proposal from the steering committee in the steering committee's progress report.
(Sources: The Welfare Watch, 2009b, 2011c; Ministry of Welfare, 2013a).

Table 31 shows the proposals made by the working group on persons at risk both before and after
the financial crisis. The group’s first report from the spring of 2009 did not contain short, concise
proposals. Instead, the main text of the report discussed what needed to be done for job-seekers,
children and young adults in vulnerable families, pensioners, single parents and low-income
individuals. The subsequent two reports contained shorter proposals or elements to be looked into.
The steering committee included three of the group’s proposals in their interim reports to thegovernment, rewording the group’s comments and specifically defining which groups in society the
proposals were aimed at. In this connection, the June 2011 steering committee report proposes a
study of conditions of those 16-year-olds opting not to continue in secondary education after
completing primary education, the aim being to find ways for them to undertake suitable studies,
whether academic study, vocational study or training. Similarly, the conditions of students droppingout of secondary education would also be looked at and efforts made to find them a way back into
study. This proposal was very similar to the proposal put forward by the working group that same
year to find ways of catering financially to young people dropping out of secondary education77

because of the economic situation. The steering committee expanded the proposal to include boththose finishing primary education and those dropping out of secondary education.
Table 31. Proposals from the working group on persons at risk both before and after thefinancial crisis
Persons at risk both before and after the crash.

Year2009 Attend to those who are leav ing the labour market, aged 60 and older.
Attend to those who are completing their education and are unemploy ed.
Establish a "activ ities centre" to reach those who receiv e financial assistance from municipalities.
Increase the collaboration of public bodies and offer div erse options for employ ment seekers.
Utilise the "third sector" (NGOs) and sports associations better; recruit job seekers to carry out fix ed tasks each day and condition benefits
to tasks.

√√

Offer children liv ing in poor financial circumstances subsidised meals in schools and during summer courses.
Offer children courses that are cheap – free of charge for certain groups.
Strengthen measures already in place and make them free for children, e.g. public bus serv ices, swimming pools.
Spread the cost of items that primary school children need to buy /pay ov er the entire school y ear.
Strengthen study and social counselling in primary and secondary schools.
Pay particular attention to children of foreign origin within schools and leisure activ ity options for them.
Improv e information prov ision to immigrants, attend better to the rules of the social serv ices.
Attend to the children of immigrants who are apply ing for assistance and who seek the help of aid organisations.
Establish an information bank with educational material that makes it easier for professionals to inform the public.
Prev ent the unemploy ed being unable to return to the labour market.
Gather information on the composition and circumstances of people without employ ment.
Those who are seeking employ ment and are not entitled to benefits should be registered with a labour ex change serv ice and hav e the optionof education, courses and retraining. The financial assistance would remain with the municipality while the activ ities would be theresponsibility of the labour ex change.
Educational offers need to be increased, people with short employ ment records (e.g. due to illness, recent completion of studies) and who
are not entitled to other than social serv ices, need to be activ ated on a person to person lev el and encouraged to participate (e.g. inrehabilitation and v oluntary work).
Ensure that ev ery one who is unemploy ed receiv es comparable counselling and treatment on employ ment offers. Might be a good idea to2010 div ide the operations of the Directorate of Labour into two parts – a) Registration and monitoring and b) Counselling, courses and labour
ex change.
Attend to the position of those in the rent market.
Particular attention must be paid to how to approach unemploy ed men and possibly hav e them themselv es organise measures appropriate
to men in their position.
Focus on guidance, education and information dissemination to counsellors as regards measures due to the increasing load on welfare
serv ices.
Prepare a database containing information on the av ailable remedies for professionals so that they can educate others.
Immigrants need to be urged to register their domicile in Iceland due to the rights linked to the registration of domicile.
Pay better attention to indiv iduals who accept financial assistance from the municipalities to try to prev ent social isolation.
The long-term v iew must be taken with the interests of coming generations in mind; with short-term and long-term projects and solutions in
mind. A plan for 2010 needs to be prepared in the affairs of those at the greatest disadv antage, as for others, and in the debate on economic
growth and job creation, welfare and social justice may not be ignored.
Housing benefits should not be reduced when children who liv e with their parents become 18 y ears. The reference age should be raised to
20 y ears.
The parents of children aged 16 to 18 should be allowed to use the tax allowance of their children. This applies especially to single parents.
Strengthen family ties and the skill and the strength of parents with courses, education and open discourse about the challenges families face
today .
Find way s to financially address the problems of y oung people who drop out of secondary schools due to the economic conditions.
Ensure acceptable healthcare serv ices for indiv iduals and families in financial difficulties.

√

Ensure acceptable dentistry serv ices for indiv iduals and families in financial difficulties.
Ensure speech therapy serv ices for indiv iduals and families in financial difficulties.
Keep the cost of medicinal products at a minimum for those who are most disadv antaged – finish work already started on the ceiling for
medications and medical care.
Rev iew minimum liv ing ex penses criteria and children's insurance.
Rev iew interactions between benefits so that the increase in one ty pe of benefits does not automatically lead to decreases in other ty pes.
Ensure social housing where the rent is lower than in the open market.
Attend to other options to enable people to acquire cheap, safe housing (e.g. "manual workers' sy stem").
Strengthen indiv idually -tailored counselling to persons who hav e been on long-term unemploy ment benefits or who hav e receiv ed municipal
financial assistance.
√ The proposal of the working group was set forth as a proposal from the steering committee in the steering committee's progress report.

(Sources: The Welfare Watch, 2009c, 2009d, 2011d).

78

The working group on the recession and health was disbanded in 2010, and a new working groupon public health was set up (Hilma Hólmfríður Sigurðardóttir, in press). Table 32 shows that two of
the proposals put forward by the group in March 2009 were published in a report from the steeringcommittee to the government that same year. These were: (a) a proposal to ensure that
deteriorating finances did not impede access to health services; and (b) a proposal to ensure that
healthcare service levels would not be cut back. The steering committee merged these two
proposals into one, thus: “Measures must be taken to ensure that a deterioration in financial
standing does not prevent people from using healthcare services, to ensure that the healthcare
system will take the initiative in contacting those recipients of its services who are in particular risk
groups, to ensure that its level of services is not reduced and that all changes in the level of demandon the health services are closely monitored.”
Table 32. Proposals from the working group on the recession and health / on publichealthYear

The recession and state of health2009 Employees of healthcare centres must be systematically educated about the long-term effects of stress on health and behaviour.
Key groups must be systematically educated about the effects of long-term stress on health and wellbeing (school employees, priests,social services and the public).
Risk groups (such as the unemployed, chronically ill, young families with children) must be specifically defined and educational material
especially tailored for such groups.
√
Ensure that worsening finances do not hinder access to healthcare services.
√
Ensure that the service level of healthcare services is not reduced.
That employees of healthcare centres and elsewhere in the frontline receive increased professional and personal support due to the stressresulting from the economic circumstances.
That savings in one area do not lead to increased costs elsewhere.
Focus on free school meals, subsidised fitness programmes, use of unemployment benefits for new jobs, etc. or such preventative
measures where social and health-related aspects overlap.
Carry out a survey of health and wellbeing prior to 2009 to compare with the same survey carried out by the Public Health Institute of
Iceland in 2007.
It is important to closely monitor the feelings of healthcare workers as regards increasing distress within companies and the school
system.
Public health group
Seek specialised solutions for the group of pregnant women (20% ) who are believed to live under conditions for which specialised
2011
remedies are considered necessary (young women, women with learning disabilities, disabled women and women of foreign origin).
Revise the payment participation of pregnant women for pre-natal care services.
Reorganise services to pregnant women whose body mass index (BMI) is over 30.
Seek ways to improve the mental health of mothers during pregnancy and assist with emotional attachment to the newborn baby.
Strengthen education and training in interest stimulating conversation techniques for midwives and others providing pregnant women withservices, e.g. as regards smoking and the use of alcohol as well as nutrition and mental health.
Increase the sensitivity of those providing services to pick up on signs of violence during pregnancy.
Prepare a new electronic pre-natal care registry.
Increase co-operation with spontaneous groups for the support of pregnant women within the healthcare system.
Define quality indicators on pre-natal care, e.g. as regards psycho-social wellbeing.
√ The proposal of the working group was set forth as a proposal from the steering committee in the steering committee's progress report.
(Sources: The Welfare Watch, 2009e; Ministry of Welfare, 2013a)

79

Table 33 shows proposals from the working group on youth and young people. In the spring of
2009, the group put forward many proposals on the subject of opportunities for young people toundertake study. The main issues were identified as the supply, diversity and quality of study
programmes and opportunities for young people to earn income. The second interim report fromthe working group in June 2009 focused on the same issues as the previous report, but with six
extra proposals. These dealt with: the role of municipalities in shaping action on young people’s
issues; the supply of electronic study material; payment grace periods or payment plans forsecondary-school fees; the opportunities for young people to receive unemployment benefit inorder to study; and the amount of rural support grants. Three of the proposals put forward in thegroup’s first report were expanded upon and published in the steering committee’s first report to
the government. The working group’s proposal to increase employment opportunities by means ofstate and municipal initiatives was clarified in the steering committee report with a description of
how this might be done. State and local authorities were urged to recruit young people from theunemployment register for temping and summer work.

80

Table 33. Proposals from the working group on youth and young people
Year

Youngsters and young adults

2009 Accept all students who apply for a place in school.

√

Do not reduce funds to educational institutions.
Offer summer courses in secondary schools and universities.
Support social activities in schools.
Increase mental and medical assistance.
Increase student counselling services in schools.
Increase preventative work in schools.
Increase co-operation with public bodies and associations (outside schools) and support the activities of young people involved therein.
Increase teaching of the management of students' own finances and education on the economy.
Set up study rooms in schools to assist students in their studies.
Provide extra support to immigrants.
Increase the availability of leisure activities.
Ensure that all students have access to laptops and the Internet in school-work.
Increase job opportunities through state and municipal initiative projects.

√

Offer unemployment benefits or student loans during studies.
Organise schooling in the basic tenets of ethics together with links into all school stages.
Ensure that the equalisation grant remains in place. It may, however, be a good idea to make the grant performance-linked.
Reduce student costs for school attendance, such as due to study materials, transport, boarding and catering.
Review municipal rules on maintenance so that they require a certain level of engagement from those who receive maintenanceassistance.
Create projects that relate to engagement
It is important that the increase in the number of students is not detrimental to the quality of the education.
Rising rents (due to price indexations) in student apartments need to be addressed.
Establish summer semesters in the universities that do not have them, e.g. August examinations in the University of Iceland.
Raise student loans and pay them out on a monthly basis.
Raise housing benefits.
Unions, lifelong learning centres and secondary schools should work together on the affairs of unemployed young people and provide
shorter study courses, leisure activity options and recognition of courses from lifelong learning centres.

√

Offer a greater diversity of education for young people than is currently available; folk high schools, employment-related courses, etc.
Provide all youngsters with the opportunity to practice sports irrespective of financial position.
A better linkage between groups is needed, such as between the state and municipalities and different public bodies and associations.
Decision-making powers need to be clear in the affairs of the group, and issues need to be prioritised according to circumstances.
Lessons need to be learned and the measures taken during the last downturn in 1991–1993 need to be utilised.
Take advantage of the local authorities' social services. Local authorities need to immediately formulate measures to react to and change
their rules.
Make use of the system already in place. Municipalities that have rules on special support/remedies must activate such systems.
Book purchase grants must be available and book costs must be reduced, e.g. by providing more educational material in electronic
format.
Secondary schools should offer deferred payments or distribute school fees over a longer period. Under special circumstances, such
fees may have to be cancelled.
Allow young people on unemployment benefits to undertake credit-providing courses during normal day-time working hours instead of inevening courses.
Attention must be paid to the amount of rural support grants to young people domiciled in areas where there are no secondary schools.
√ The proposal of the working group was set forth as a proposal from the steering committee in the steering committee's progress report.
(Sources: The Welfare Watch, 2009f, 2009h)

81

The first progress report from the working group on unemployed people from the spring of 2009
contains various suggestions on how to improve things for people neither working nor studying.
The group did not put forward any proposals in its second progress report of 2009 but carried overthe proposals from the first report, which they considered to be still fully valid and in need of
implementation. Neither did the group’s third progress report, from 2011, contain a specific section
on proposals for improvement. That said, the group’s discussion of the position of unemployedpeople and the measures available did mention various things that should be looked into. Table
34 gives an overview of the group’s main focuses. It also shows that the steering committee used
several of the proposals put forward by the group in 2009.

Table 34. Proposals from the working group on unemployed peopleYear

The unemployed2009 Offer a broad range of options (e.g. educational options), assistance and provision of information.
√
Increase job-related measures for groups and adults who are not engaged.
Ensure that the employed can gain an overview of all available measures from a single source of information.
Prepare a document with all the necessary information for the unemployed (e.g. links to websites) and distribute it to them.
Organise financial support for individuals and their families so that they do not become "stuck" in the system and find it hard to accept√
paid work when such work is offered, e.g. by binding financial support to low disposable income and not benefits.
Care must be taken to ensure that all children enjoy services such as meals at school, placement in nursery schools, recreational activities√
etc. independent of their parents financial circumstances.
Collect together quality information on the needs and circumstances of the unemployed.
Strengthen measures that have been particularly successful at the Directorate of Labour (such as confidence building courses and workrelated courses).
Promote new ideas and innovation with support systems for the unemployed.
Revise the arrangements of disability pensions and rehabilitation pensions, e.g. by extending the period during which rehabilitation pensions√
can be paid.
Establish a work ability assessment to replace the disability assessment and ensure people's activeness through rehabilitation.
√
Speed up the revision of the social security system to allow the adoption of a new rights system as soon as possible.
Strengthen the collaboration between the Vocational Rehabilitation Fund, the Directorate of Labour and the Social Security Institute and√promote their consultancy services.
√
Attend to those wanting to return to the job market after a break and who have little or no entitlement to benefits (e.g. students).
Those
who
have
completely
exercised
theirentitlement
tounemployment
benefits
are
not
to
lose
their
benefitentitlement
if
theirspouseis2011
engaged in paid work with income exceeding minimum limits.
Revise the regulation that prevented the possibility of local authorities being able to use the same measures for their clients as the
Directorate of Labour offers to those receiving unemployment benefits.
Increase funding to secondary schools for measures for those aged 18 and older.
The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science must find a solution for students from UFTA (ungt fólk til athafna; "spurring the young toaction") who are unable to find a workplace willing to hire those who have completed occupational training within the school.
It is important that the municipalities focus on ensuring summer jobs for young people.
Approach foreign citizens, map the situation and offer more long-term measures, such as Icelandic language education lasting for up to a
year.
Attend to gender ratios: The number of women searching for work will probably not decrease as it is likely that the jobs created through theactions of the authorities will be "male" jobs.
√ The proposal of the working group was set forth as a proposal from the steering committee in the steering committee's progress report.
(Sources: The Welfare Watch, 2009g, 2009i, 2011e)

82

The first progress report from the steering committee from March 2009 used proposals from theworking groups on unemployed people on social security and on collaboration between the
Vocational Rehabilitation Fund, the Directorate of Labour and the Social Security Institute. The
steering committee’s 2011 report contained proposals for occupational measures and measuresfor people not entitled to benefits. These proposals were, however, amended considerably by thesteering committee. For instance, the steering committee put forward a proposal to speed up plansto revise the social security system, with a particular examination of the disability-assessment
system and the structure of disability-benefit payments. It was also proposed that work on therevision of the rules regarding maximum payments in the healthcare system be brought tocompletion as soon as possible. The first part of this proposal originated with the working groupon unemployed people, which had made special reference to the importance of speeding up thereview of the social security system and the need to examine the disability-assessment systemand the structure of disability-benefit payments. The second part of the steering committee
proposal, however, dealt with healthcare system costs, an issue not discussed in the first progress
report from the working group on unemployed people.
The progress reports from the working group on household financial difficulties points tovarious ways of supporting households but did not contain a specific list of the group’s proposals.
Table 35 brings together the various proposals put forward by the group. It also shows that thegroup’s work was used as a basis for proposals in the steering committee’s progress reports. For
instance, the steering committee’s reports from March and August 2009 contain five proposals on
the subject of household financial difficulties which are related to the issues dealt with in the reports
drafted by the working group on household financial difficulties that same year. Since the working
group couched their priorities in the main text of their reports, they were obviously reworded before
being included as proposals in the steering committee’s progress report.

83

Table 35. Proposals from the working group on household financial difficulties
Year

Financial difficulties of households

2009 Partial cancellation of debts.
Abolishment or reduction of price indexation.
Possibility that the debt cancellations of claim holders do not lead to the taxation of the debtor.
Enact legislation on debt mitigation.
Enact legislation on the netting of foreign currency loans or make it possible to renegotiate foreign currency loans.
The interest benefits system should be revised taking income criteria into account.
The refunding of interest and price adjustment should be revised.
The tax system should be used to encourage individuals to invest in commercial concerns.
Comprehensively review remedies intended to: a) help those in the greatest difficulties, b) assist those who are at risk and are likely toexperience difficulties, c) support those who are still able to cope and who, through the simple actions of the authorities and creditors canlower their payment burdens and thereby survive the difficulties that are likely to emerge in the next 1–2 years.

√

Focus on ensuring that those who are able to pay, pay their loans in order to make it possible to support those in the greatest difficulties.
The authorities should review the housing system as a whole to ensure that people do not remain debt-ridden into old age.
√
The authorities should avoid actions the lead to too much reduction in private consumption.
Companies should be assisted to maintain employment levels.
Ensure that the Central Bank of Iceland is able to process data on household finances and regularly publish conclusions on the situation
as current.
Tailor information on the measures available to needs so that people can make informed decisions.
The media should present such measures in a positive manner and provide guidance.
The Family Finances Advisory Office should continue to be operated.
The authorities should clearly state whether further mitigating measure are to be taken with respect to debtors.
√
Further mitigating measures must be found for people who took exchange rate indexed loans to purchase housing.
√
Correct the misunderstanding that people who have defaulted on the loans cannot take advantage of payment difficulty measures.
Set forth measures for people who had car loans in foreign currencies.
√
It is necessary to create a consensus in the community through extensive collaboration with as many stakeholders as possible.
Make the refinancing of indexed loans possibly more economical.
Assess the usefulness of the available mitigating measures and revise such measures if necessary.
√√
Prevent further increases in the number of people in payment difficulties.
2011 Adopt a centralised database on the financial standing of households.
√
Examine whether it is possible to extend the application deadline for the 110% method.
√
It should be noted that fewer households have taken advantage of the mitigating measures than was anticipated.
√ The proposal of the working group was set forth as a proposal from the steering committee in the steering committee's progress report.
(Sources: The Welfare Watch, 2009b, 2009j, 2011f)

84

The working group on youth and young people and the working group on unemployed people were
subsequently merged, and in their last Welfare Watch progress report, the new group went under
the name of “Working group on young people (15–25)”. This report carried over to a considerable
extent the proposals from the progress reports of the two original groups, as they were considered
to be still fully valid.

Table 36. Proposals from the merged group on unemployed people and young peopleYear

Merged group: The unemployed and young people

2011 Utilise the educational options already available, particularly short and practical vocational training courses.
Ensure that workplaces can accept people for on-the-job training.
Encourage municipalities to ensure summer jobs for young people.
Accept applications for placement in secondary schools and universities, from both new students and those planning to begin studying
after a break.
Increase mental and medical assistance together with student counselling and preventative work in schools.
Set up study rooms in schools to assist students.
Increase collaboration with public bodies and associations (outside schools). Opportunities for collaboration with the "third sector" (NGOs).
Provide all youngsters with the opportunity to practice sports irrespective of financial position.
Increase teaching of the management of students' own finances and education on the economy.
Provide special support for immigrants and their children.
Ensure that all students have access to a laptop and the Internet for schoolwork.
Increase job opportunities through state and municipal initiative projects.
Focus on ensuring the social engagement of the unemployed. Guide this group in a positive direction, e.g. work with NGOs.
Ensure sufficient availability of projects involving engagement and offer "real" projects that young people can undertake and see the resultsof their work.
Address rising rents (due to price indexations) in student apartments. Raise rent benefits and student loans.
Decision-making powers need to be clear in the affairs of the group and prioritise issues according to circumstances.
√ The proposal of the working group was set forth as a proposal from the steering committee in the steering committee's progress report.
(Source: Ministry of Welfare, 2013a)

The tables above all show that the vast majority of working group proposals emerged in the earlyyears of Welfare Watch. Furthermore, the steering committee included more working groupproposals from 2009 in its progress reports than those put forward by the working groups later.
Participants in the working group online survey were asked whether or not they were satisfied
with the proposals that the steering committee opted to take forward. Three-quarters of
respondents said that they were satisfied with the proposals that the steering committee opted totake forward, while around one-fifth had no opinion on the subject (see Figure 7).

85

70%
62%
60%

Proportion

50%
40%
30%
20%

19%

13%

10%

4%

2%

0%
Very satisfied

Rather satisfied

Neither satisfied Rather dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
nor dissatisfied

Figure 7. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the proposals that the steeringcommittee opted to take forward? – Frequency
Given the very low number of “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” replies, these reply options weremerged with those replying “neither satisfied not dissatisfied” for the purposes of the background
analysis.
This background analysis revealed that women were more satisfied with the steeringcommittee’s decisions on selecting proposals than men. People working in public services inministries or local authorities were more dissatisfied than others. Unsurprisingly, the steeringcommittee respondents were more satisfied with the steering committee’s decisions on selecting
proposals than those who were not members of the steering committee (see Table 37).

Table 37. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the proposals that the steeringcommittee opted to take forward?
Neither/nor,
Ratherrather or v ery

Very satisfied

satisfieddissatisfied

Number

13%

62%

25%

52

75%
75%

Male

7%

56%

37%

27

Female

20%

68%

12%

25

63%
63%
88%88%

24–49 y ears

30%

40%

30%

10

50–59 y ears

7%

68%

25%

28

70%
70%
75%
75%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

14%

64%

21%

14

79%
79%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

0%

86%

14%

7

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

10%

60%

30%

10

10%

50%

40%

10

86%
86%
70%
70%
60%60%

Other public serv ices

27%

53%

20%

15

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

10%

70%

20%

10

Member of steering committee

13%

80%

7%

15

93% 93%

Not a member of steering committee

14%

56%

31%

36

69%
69%

Total

Very or rather satisfied

Gender

Age

80%
80%
80%
80%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%86

Proposals from the steering committee to the government andwhat became of them
The main role of the Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security (later the Minister of Welfare) is
to take on board the Welfare Watch’s proposals and try to bring them to fruition. According toformer Minister of Welfare Guðbjartur Hannesson, “this was done with various degrees ofsuccess”. He specifically identifies a lack of funds as the reason for some Welfare Watch proposals
not being implemented.
This was a time of severe cutbacks, and unfortunately, we had to choose where thesecutbacks would fall. Development was not a priority [Guðbjartur Hannesson, former
Minister of Welfare].

Árni Páll Árnason, former Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security, was of the same mind
when asked about what had happened to the Welfare Watch’s proposals. He also indicated thatsome issues would have been difficult to pass due to a lack of political agreement or differencesof opinion on how they should be implemented.
Some challenges, such as the debt issue, were unpopular. I felt great reluctance on thepart of the government to deal with them. Nobody wanted to touch them unless they had
to [Árni Páll Árnason, former Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security].

Although these comments from the two ministers suggest that the government only partiallysucceeded in utilising the proposals from the Welfare Watch steering committee, a content analysis
of material issued by the government and Alþingi in the period 2009–2013 revealed that various
plans and pieces of legislation entering into force during that time were very similar to the Welfare
Watch’s proposals. For instance, many of the proposals put forward in the Welfare Watch’s firstinterim report were taken up in the government’s welfare action plan (Ministry of Social Affairs andSocial Security, 2009a). The Welfare Watch was given the task of monitoring various actions set
out in the action plan, and according to a report from the steering committee later that year, thegovernment had begun work on various actions, as detailed below (Ministry of Social Affairs andSocial Security, 2009b).

Steering committee proposals based on the work of the working groups
As indicated above, a content analysis was conducted of material published by the Welfare Watch,including reports related to the Watch and proposals from working groups and the steeringcommittee. One of the purposes of this analysis was to monitor the steering committee’s proposals
and to ascertain the impact they had had on government action. Government and Alþingi actions
and activities in welfare matters in the period 2009–2013 were scrutinised and their relation to thesteering committee’s proposals analysed. The work of public agencies and the Welfare Watch
affiliates during this time was also looked at, with a view to establishing links to the Welfare Watch’s
proposals. As indicated above, the Welfare Watch’s proposals were based on working groupreports, although they were often elaborated on in steering committee reports. Some steering87committee’s proposals were clearly worded and their potential success if implemented was clear.
One example of this was the proposal to ensure all children would receive lunch in Icelandic
schools as of 2009. Other proposals were less clear, and it is therefore difficult to trace what
happened to them after referral to the minister. An example of this from the same year was the
proposal to launch measures to assist persons who were basically still able to cope but werepotentially at risk of becoming ensnared in financial difficulties, in order to prevent an expansion of
the group of persons in financial difficulty.
Figures 8–15 below give an overview of all the proposals put forward by the steeringcommittee in the period 2009–2013, grouped according to the same themes as the working groups
were allocated. The last figure, Figure 15, is an overview of proposals emerging from steeringcommittee meetings but which do not seem to be related to the work of the working groups. The
fate of these proposals with the authorities (government and Alþingi) appears at the bottom of the
figures, together with examples in the text of further success with public agencies and the Welfare
Watch affiliates. It should be borne in mind when tracing what happened to these proposals, that
it is almost impossible to conclude whether the authorities’ response was a result of
recommendations from the Welfare Watch or whether these actions would have been implemented
in any case. It should also be noted that what follows is not an exhaustive list of the successachieved thanks to the Welfare Watch activities. There are certainly many other examples otherthan those listed here of success stories in Icelandic society which came about thanks to the
Welfare Watch.
Figure 8 shows the steering committee’s proposals related to the work of the working groupon children and families with children, together with what happened to such proposals. The Welfare
Watch proposal to ensure that all children receive lunch in Icelandic schools was taken up in thegovernment’s action plan of 2009. The Welfare Watch, in consultation with the Association of
Icelandic Local Authorities, issued a request to this effect to all municipalities and school boards
on 16 September 2009 (Parliamentary Document 714, 2009–10). The request was reiterated tomunicipalities every autumn. This work seems to have been successful, as two years after
municipalities and school boards received the first request, the steering committee was informedthat school lunches for all children had become a reality and that in many places they would also
be offered porridge for breakfast (The Welfare Watch, 2011).
Not all of the steering group’s proposals, however, received the hoped for response. The
Welfare Watch issued a warning regarding the government’s plan in late 2009 to partially postpone
parental and maternity leave payments. Following the economic collapse, maximum payments formaternity leave were reduced three times by means of amendments to Act No. 95/2000 on
Maternity/Paternity and Parental Leave. Payments were reduced from ISK 480,000 to ISK 400,000(cf. Act No. 173/2008 on State Finance Measures), then from ISK 400,000 to ISK 350,000 (cf. Act
No. 70/2009 on State Finance Measures) and finally, from ISK 350,000 to ISK 300,000 (cf. Act No.
120/2009) (Parliamentary Document 912, 2010–11). In 2011, the steering committee
recommended that payments to parents on maternity/paternity leave should not be reduced
further, but rather increased towards previous levels to enable both parents to make use of their88

entitlement to such leave (The Welfare Watch, 2011). In late 2012, maximum payments wereincreased to ISK 350,000 by means of Act No. 143/2012 amending Act No. 95/2000 on
Maternity/Paternity and Parental leave, as amended. The Welfare Watch’s proposal from 2011
was reiterated in 2013 (Ministry of Welfare, 2013a).

89

2009
Special attention should be given to theposition of families with young children.

2009
Particular attention should be given to
marginal groups in society, i.e. thehandicapped, the chronically ill, immigrants
and the disabled.

2009Children, and families with young children,
should be guaranteed access to professionals,
with an emphasis on family counselling by thehealth services and social services.

2009
Steps should be taken to ensure thatchildren receive lunch in all schools in
Iceland.

2011 & 2013
The government should increase support andtake specific action to improve the welfare andfinancial situation of low-income families withchildren, particularly single parents and theirchildren.

2011–2013
Special funds are to be allocated to healthcare
centres to ensure mental health and psychosocial services for children.

2011 & 2013
Payments to parents taking parenting and maternity/paternity leave are not to be reduced more than isthe case at present. The payments should be raised to their previous level so that both parents use theirentitlement and children enjoy the company of both parents during the earliest stage of their life.

Click the links below for further information:








In early winter 2009, the Welfare Watch sent a request to all municipalities and school boards to ensure
and monitor by all possible means that school children in their purview should receive lunch on every
school day. The letter was sent in consultation with the Association of Icelandic Local Authorities. The
proposal was adopted.
The report from the Minister of Welfare on maternity/paternity and parental leave indicates thatmaximum payments for maternity leave were reduced three times in 2008–09.
Co-operation agreement on an experimental project to support chronically ill children and children
diagnosed with ADHD.
Parliamentary resolution on improved health care and the health of young people. Approved by
Parliament on 15 May 2012.
Policy formulation. Association of Local Authorities in Iceland 2011-2014 (e.g. Articles 1.4., 3.7., 3.9. and3.11).

(Sources: Icelandic Parliament, 2012; Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, 2009a, 2009b; Ministry of Social Affairs andSocial Security, Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of Health and the Association of Icelandic Local Authorities, 2009,2011; Ministry of Welfare, 2011a, 2013a; Parliamentary Document 714, 2009–10; Parliamentary Document 912, 2010–11)

Figure 8. Steering committee’s proposals for the period 2009–2013 related to the issues
dealt with by the working group on children and families with children, together
with what became of them90

Figure 9 shows the steering committee’s proposals based on the work of the working group on
persons at risk both before and after the financial crisis. One of the proposals of the government’s
action plan was for NGOs, in co-operation with the government and municipalities, to help withensuring that the work of public bodies and the third sector is co-ordinated and that targeted actions
would be undertaken to enable social capital to be used in the best possible way (Ministry of Social
Affairs and Social Security, 2009c; Ministry of Welfare, 2010a). A Welfare Watch working group on
the third sector was set up in 2010 to respond to what had been proposed. The group put forward
the idea of setting up a centre which would gather together and provide information on voluntarywork. As regards the co-ordination of projects within the third sector, one of the group’s proposals
was for the Welfare Watch steering committee, in co-operation with the municipalities, to hold ameeting with representatives of the third sector at which knowledge could be exchanged (Ministryof Welfare, 2010a).
The Workplace Learning Fund Act entered into force in 2012. The fund was created to support
public bodies and companies with their self-training and workplace-learning needs. The Directorateof Labour’s Pathway initiative of 2013 was a response to the Welfare Watch’s proposal to step up
co-operation between the Directorate of Labour and local authority social services. The project
related to services for unemployed people not entitled to unemployment benefits but who werereceiving financial support from local authority social services. The objective was to support thosein search of work and reduce the number of those needing financial support from local authorities(Directorate of Labour, 2013).

91

2009
Collaboration between the Directorate ofLabour and the local authorities' social
services should be increased, not least
as regards young persons, the long-term
unemployed and persons who areseeking employment but do not qualify
for unemployment benefit payments.

2009
The work of the "third sector"(NGOs) should be coordinated, with deliberatemeasures to utilise social
resources.

2011
A study of conditions of those 16-year-olds opting not to continue
in secondary education after completing primary education
should be examined, with the aim of finding ways for them toundertake suitable studies, whether academic study, vocational
study or training. Similarly, the conditions of students droppingout of secondary education should also be looked at and efforts
made to find them a way back into study.

Click the links below for further information:



The Welfare Watch working group on the voluntary sector was set up to co-ordinate the activities of thevoluntary sector and public agencies and to plan targeted action to use social capital in the best way
possible.
The Workplace Learning Fund Act entered into force in 2012. The Fund supports workplace learning andself-training (defined as part of professional training in the National Curriculum for secondary schools).

(Sources: Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, 2009a, 2009b; Workplace Learning Fund Act (No. 71/2012); Ministry of
Welfare, 2010a, 2011a)

Figure 9. Steering committee’s proposals in the period 2009–2013 regarding the issues
dealt with by the working group on persons at risk both before and after thefinancial crisis

92

The Icelandic Director of Health had a seat on the Welfare Watch steering committee and informed
the other members of the health impact of the financial crisis. The Directorate of Health changed
focus after the financial crisis and took specific action to step up monitoring. It also began regularly
monitoring the changes occurring in healthcare service usage (Directorate of Health, 2009), a
decision which tallied with part of the Welfare Watch steering committee proposal from 2009 toproperly monitor changes in healthcare service usage (see Figure 10).

2009
Steps must be taken to ensure that a deterioration in people's financial position should not prevent them from having access to health services,that the healthcare services take the initiative on contacting care recipients who are in risk groups, that the level of the healthcare services
should not be lowered and that changes in demand for health care be monitored closely.

Click the links below for further information:



The Directorate of Health monitors key figures on health-service usage in Iceland. The Welfare Watch regularly
keeps up with any changes in health-service usage through the Director of Health, who is a member of thesteering committee. These figures include mortality figures, particularly data on medication use and suicide.

(Sources: Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, 2009a; Directorate of Health, 2009; Parliamentary Document 714,
2010–11)

Figure 10. Steering committee’s proposals for the period 2009–2013 related to the issues
dealt with by the working group on the recession and health

Figure 11 gives examples of government action related to steering committee’s proposals on youth
and young people. A parliamentary resolution on education and job creation brings together themain strands of government policy on education and employment, with the focus on defining
education needs in employment, developing diverse learning programmes and increasing thevalue of vocational training (Parliamentary Document 736, 2010–11). Secondary schools wereopened up in the autumn of 2011 to enable all applicants for secondary education up to 25 yearsof age to be admitted. At the same time, efforts were made to increase the availability of learning
opportunities for the unemployed. Up to 1,000 such opportunities were offered in secondary
schools, universities and elsewhere, funded from the Unemployment Benefit Fund.
In June 2011, the government approved ISK 100 million for labour market measures for young
unemployed people not covered within the unemployment insurance system. Subsequently, a93

project known as Employment Centre (jointly run by the Ministry of Welfare, the Directorate ofLabour, Reykjavik City Council and the town councils of Reykjanes, Hafnarfjörður and Kópavogur)
was launched in 2012. The aim of the project was to mobilise young job seekers and provide young
people neither in work nor in study with support and advice to find suitable solutions for themselves(Ministry of Welfare, 2012a). Employment Centre catered specifically to those not entitled tobenefits, but also those who had just lost their entitlement at the Directorate of Labour or needed
further assistance to get onto the job market (Reykjavik City, no date).

2009
Young people (aged 18–25) in special
circumstances should be enabled,
financially, to pursue studies in seniorschool, senior schools should accept all
pupils who apply for admission and pupils
pursuing practical subjects should beguaranteed the opportunity to complete theirstudies.

2009
Special remedies must be initiated for
unemployed young people who are entering
the labour market for the first time. The moral
responsibility of employers, and particularly of
the state and local government sectors, mustbe harnessed as regards engaging young
unemployed people in supply positions andsummer jobs.

2009
It must be ensured that the courses, andacademic and vocational counselling, thathave been available in continuing educational
programmes to persons with shorter formal
education continue to be provided.

Click the links below for further information:









Learning is a winning formula: Secondary schools – 1000 new learning opportunities for jobseekers.
Continuing Education Act No 27/2010.
In 2010, the operations of the Business Education Centre were extended, with the approval of theFederation of State and Municipal Employees, the Association of Icelandic Local Authorities and theMinistry of Finance.
Parliamentary resolution on education and job creation for young people, passed by the Icelandic
Parliament on 7 June 2011.
Employment Centre: Co-operation project between municipalities, Directorate of Labour and the Ministryof Welfare offering services to young people on financial support and those in search of work and coming
out of benefit entitlement.
Report from the Minister of Social Affairs and Housing on the success of job-market measures for young
people, requested by Árni Páll Árnason (Parliamentary Documentary 70 in Case 31 in the 142th Legislative
Session of 2013).

(Sources: Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, 2009a; Business Education Centre, no date; Parliamentary Document
714, 2009–10); Ministry of Welfare, 2011c, 2012a; Continuing Education Act No. 27/2010; Parliamentary Document 736, 2010–11)

Figure 11. Steering committee’s proposals for the period 2009–2013 related to the issues
dealt with by the working group on youth and young people

94Much of what was proposed in relation to employment issues concerned the operations of the
Directorate of Labour (see Figure 12). The Welfare Watch sent a letter to all government agencies
and municipalities encouraging them to take advantage of the job market measures offered by the
Directorate of Labour (Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, 2009b). One of the Directorateof Labour measures identified by the Welfare Watch was the Youth Action initiative, the aim ofwhich was to ensure that no more than three months should elapse between young people (18–24) losing their job and being offered a new job, a learning opportunity, vocational training or otheropportunity (Ministry of Welfare, 2010). Knowledge and Experience was a personalised solution
offered by the Directorate of Labour for the long-term unemployed. The Welfare Watch formed theview that such initiatives particularly catering to older unemployed people should be supported(Ministry of Welfare, 2011). The 2012 experimental project WORK (run jointly by the Ministry of
Welfare, the Directorate of Labour, the Icelandic Confederation of Labour and SA – Business
Iceland) was set up to promote more active job market measures to improve unemployed people’s
chances of getting back on the job market. Another Directorate of Labour job market measure
worthy of mention is Pathway (2013), which caters to jobseekers not entitled to benefits.
Interviewees from the Welfare Watch steering committee felt that the measures taken by the
Directorate of Labour in the aftermath of the financial crisis were very similar to the proposals
coming from the Welfare Watch (there was, after all, a representative of the Directorate of Labourin the Welfare Watch). They also felt that the Welfare Watch had played an important role in youth
employment issues, although some admitted that the Directorate of Labour would of course havetaken important action even if the Welfare Watch had not been around.
For instance, I think we influenced […] certain measures regarding youth summer jobs andthe project set up by the Directorate of Labour called Youth Action. […] So I do think thatquite a bit was achieved. Maybe there could have been more, though [a steering committee
member].

Reykjavik City Council has also offered projects in line with the Welfare Watch’s priority of having
a variety of resources for unemployed people. Energy is a Reykjavik City Council project giving
young people better access to career advisors who are in regular contact with employment seekers(Welfare Department, Reykjavik City Council, 2012).
One of the steering committee’s proposals to the government was to foster close collaboration
between the Vocational Rehabilitation Fund, the Directorate of Labour and the Social Security
Institute. According to a steering committee report, work began in 2011 by bolstering co-operation
between the Social Security Institute and the Directorate of Labour. The directors of these bodies
had jointly looked into the interaction of their two benefit schemes (Ministry of Welfare, 2011).

95

2009
Attention must be given to coordinated measures involving local
authorities, central government andthe social partners, with the aim of
avoiding a situation in whichunemployed people remain stuck in
dependency on social benefit
payments.

2009
Close and smooth collaboration must be
established between the Vocational
Rehabilitation Fund, the Directorate ofLabour and the Social Security Institute.

2009
Through collaboration between the
Directorate of Labour and the local
authorities' social services, methods
should be examined of assisting families
in which there are dependent children up
to the age of 18 and both parents areseeking employment.

2011
New and more diverse labour-market measures
are to be offered to ensure that the measuresappeal to and are of use to the long-term
unemployed.

2009
Plans to revise the social security system should be
speeded up, with a particular examination of thedisability assessment system and the structure of
disability benefit payments. In addition, the work on therevision of the rules regarding maximum payments in thehealthcare system should be brought to completion assoon as possible.

2011
Young people seeking work who are not entitledto unemployment benefits are to be granted
access to the labour-market measures of the
Directorate of Labour.

Click the links below for further information:

Reply of the Minister of Social Affairs and Housing to a question from Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson on theimplementation of job-market measures, what they consist of, where they are offered, how many havetaken advantage of them, etc.
Parliamentary bill on social-security pension rights and social support.
Reinforcement. An agreement between municipalities, the State’s and job-market representatives in late
2012.

(Sources: Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, 2009a, 2009b; Ministry of Welfare, 2011; Parliamentary Document
1116, 2012–13; Parliamentary Document 643, 2013–14)

Figure 12. Steering committee’s proposals for the period 2009–2013 related to the issues
dealt with by the working group about unemployed people, together with whatbecame of the proposals
Household finances and debts were obviously in the spotlight in the first years after the financial
crisis, and the government focused heavily on these issues. The final report of the steeringcommittee indicates that it had proven difficult to give an overall assessment of how successful
government measures regarding household finances had been, as there was no centralised
database containing the relevant information (Ministry of Welfare, 2013a).
Ásta Ragnheiður Jóhannesdóttir indicated that several measures proposed by the Welfare
Watch were implemented. The first report with proposals to the government was issued in March
2009. According to Ásta Ragnheiður, various measures for households in financial difficulties andother support actions for families in difficulties were launched based on these proposals. It is,96however, a matter of opinion how much success was achieved in this. For instance, one
interviewee from the steering committee indicated that the Welfare Watch had discussed measuresrelating to household financial difficulties and put forward proposals to look into why fewer people
had taken advantage of the measures than was expected and to review the measures so that morehouseholds might benefit from them. In this area, the interviewer felt that the Welfare Watch
recommendations had not been adequately followed.
It was quite clear who was receiving assistance – middle income groups and above. So
the people we were dealing with, i.e. people who hadn’t yet had payment problems orexceeded 110% debt, but those who still had extremely pressing debt problems didn’t geta penny. We were very critical of this, and we would have liked to have seen things dealt
with differently [a steering committee member].

In this context, it should be noted that according to data available to the working group on
household financial difficulties, far fewer had taken advantage of government measures than had
been expected, particularly the “110% method” and debt adjustment. According to creditors, one
reason for this was that some borrowers had been advised by the Homes Association of Iceland,
the Association of Borrowers and others not to accept the measures in question while discussions
on the recalculation of foreign-denominated loans were still ongoing in the courts (Ministry of
Welfare, 2011a).
Figure 13 shows the steering committee’s proposals on household debt problems for theperiod 2009–2013, as well as examples of the many measures for households and individuals inpayment difficulties put forward by the government during this time.

97

2009
Solutions aimed at ameliorating the financial difficulties faced by households should
be of a comprehensive nature, with the aim of creating a chain of solutions aimed
at: a) helping those in the greatest difficulties, b) assisting those who are at risk andare likely to experience difficulties, c) supporting those who are still able to cope
and who, through the simple actions of the authorities and creditors, can lower their
payment burdens and thereby survive the difficulties that are likely to emerge in thenext 1–2 years.

2009
Measures adopted by the government toenable households in financial difficulties totackle payment difficulties should beassessed and analysed regularly, withparticular attention given to those who arein the worst positions. The measures should
be revised if necessary.

2009
The government should
state clearly whether any
further steps will be taken
to address the position of
those
who
are
experiencing
difficulty
paying off exchange-ratelinked mortgages.

2009
Measures should be launched to assist
persons who are basically still able to cope
but are potentially at risk of becoming
ensnared in financial difficulties, in order toprevent an expansion of the group of persons
in financial difficulty.

2011
The government should form a working group to assess the authorities' measures asregards household debt problems. The working group should consist of independent
experts who are to examine why significantly fewer took advantage of the measures than
was anticipated in the report prepared by the group of experts on household debt
problems in November 2010. The group should both assess the measures and submit
proposals for improvements so that a greater number of households can reap the benefits.

2009
The government should
launch measures to help
those who are in financial
difficulty due to loans taken
in foreign currencies topurchase automobiles.

2011
The government is to ensure the adoption of acentralised database on the financial positionof households in order to enable the analysisof the financial position and difficulties ofhouseholds in a comprehensive manner.

2013
The government should speed up, as far as possible, theformulation of a comprehensive housing policy and theninitiate an action plan for support to low-income families withhousing problems.

Click the links below for further information:











Debtors’ Ombudsman Act.
110% method: Act amending Act No. 44/1998 on housing issues, as amended (reduction of
Housing Financing Fund mortgage claims).
110% method – measures for over-mortgaged homes.
Act on measures for individuals, households and companies in the aftermath of the bank andcurrency crash.
Act on debt adjustment for individuals (entered into force in 2010).
Act on temporary debt adjustment for real-estate mortgage claims for residential
accommodation (entered into force in 2009).
Reciprocal interactions that curtail benefits are to be abolished (cf. amendments to legislation)
Amendments to the Act on Social Security
Policy formulation. Association of Local Authorities in Iceland 2011-2014 (e.g. Article 3.10.
Housing issues)(Sources: Association of Local Authorities, 2009; Ministry of Welfare, 2011d, 2011e)

Figure 13. Steering committee’s proposals for the period 2009–2013 related to the issues
dealt with by the working group on household financial difficulties

98

A joint group on unemployed people and young people began work in 2013. Based on the work ofthat group, the steering committee issued a proposal that year regarding co-operation between the
Directorate of Labour and the municipalities. The proposal encourages the Minister of Welfare andmunicipality associations to promote ongoing co-operation in the development of professional
rehabilitation measures for the long-term unemployed (see Figure 14). The proposal was madebecause the number of long-term unemployed people had increased despite an overall fall in
unemployment five years after the financial crisis (Minister of Welfare, 2013a).

2013
The Minister of Welfare and municipality associations should promote ongoing co-operation in the development of professional
rehabilitation measures for the long-term unemployed

Click the links below for further information:

Reply of the Minister of Social Affairs and Housing to a question from Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson on theimplementation of job-market measures, what they consist of, where they are offered, how many have taken
advantage of them, etc.
Parliamentary bill on social-security pension rights and social support.

(Sources: Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, 2009a, 2009b; Ministry of Welfare, 2011; Parliamentary Document 643,
2013–14; Parliamentary Document 1116, 2012–13)

Figure 14. Steering committee’s proposals for the period 2009–2013 relating to the issues
dealt with by the joint group on unemployed people and young people

Proposals from the Welfare Watch steering committee
All of the steering committee’s interim reports contained proposals emerging from the committee’s
meeting work. Figure 15 gives an overview of these proposals, many of which were successful, as
indicated. The Welfare Watch’s Counterbalance Fund was set up in 2009. According to Article 4of the rules governing the Counterbalance Fund, 75% of the annual grant amount was to be used
for initiatives, support for welfare service staff and work on social indicators and other necessary
welfare projects. The remaining quarter was to be spent on co-ordinating projects run by the third
sector and other necessary projects (Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, 2009e). A oneoff call for projects to be financed from the Fund was made in the spring of 2010 (Hilma Hólmfríður
99

Sigurðardóttir, in press), as indicated above in the discussion of Welfare Watch’s most important
projects.
Although some interviewees found it difficult to pinpoint whether the actions of the authorities
were the direct consequence of the work of the Welfare Watch, social indicators were one easily
identifiable example of something which had come about through the Welfare Watch. The proposal
to develop social indicators was put forward in the Welfare Watch’s first interim report in March
2009. As indicated earlier, Welfare Watch subsequently set up working groups on social indicators.
According to the Chair of the Welfare Watch, Lára Björnsdóttir, the Watch worked on ensuring thatsocial indicators would be further developed after the publication of the first report on social
indicators in February 2012. The government decided to provide funds for the project, and in June
2012, the Ministry of Welfare and Statistics Iceland entered into an agreement for social indicators
to be saved at Statistics Iceland, who would see to it that they would be updated regularly.
In my view, if the Welfare Watch had achieved nothing more than setting up social
indicators, then it would have been worth it [Lára Björnsdóttir, former Chair of the Welfare
Watch].

One of the steering committee’s proposals to the government was that the steering committee
should take steps to establish closer collaboration with the media. As discussed in the chapter on
presentations and information provision, media people were contacted and the decision was madeto foster co-operation between the media and the Welfare Watch. There was an idea to open aninteractive website for children and teenagers, in co-operation with academics and media people,
dealing with the financial crisis in a simple way, but this did not come to fruition. Another idea wasto draft a checklist for the media to enable them to present content in a convenient way forvulnerable groups, e.g. as theatrical performances to make understanding the material easier orin primary schools to help children deal with their experiences of the financial crisis (Ministry ofSocial Affairs and Social Security, 2009a).
Another useful example of what happened to the steering committee proposals is thewww.island.is website, which was set up to give the general public easier access to public services;
the Welfare Watch had stressed the importance of finding ways to ensure effective means ofproviding information. The website is part of the Icelandic government’s 2013–16 policy for the
information society, Internet-Driven Growth.
The steering committee also proposed reducing the financial participation of people sufferingfrom severe chronic illness. This proposal was made after a new co-payment system for
medication purchases entered into force on 4 May 2013 in accordance with a legislative
amendment passed by the Icelandic Parliament in June 2012. The objective of the legislation was
to bring about a fairer co-payment system to cater to those who had high medication costs to cover,to simplify the system and to foster equality (Act amending the Act No. 122/2008 on Health
Insurance, as amended). The new system turned out to be difficult for those in difficult financial
situations. For instance, many recipients of disability pensions ended up having to pay more for
medication and training than before the change (Minister of Welfare, 2013a). The study conducted100

by Rúnar Vilhjálmsson in 2012 also showed that the general public’s financial contribution for
health services had increased in previous years, i.e. from 16.3% in 2000 to 18.2% in 2012. It also
showed that this rise hit hardest low income groups in society with chronic and/or life-threatening
diseases. A news article on budget changes for 2015 posted on the website of the Ministry of
Finance and Economic Affairs announced a 5% reduction in the personal financial contribution for
medication costs with an extra state contribution of ISK 150 million (Ministry of Finance andEconomic Affairs, 2014). At the time of this writing, it cannot be known if these announced changes
will materialise.
Árni Páll Árnason, then Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security, entrusted the Welfare
Watch with the task, in collaboration with the Association of Icelandic Local Authorities and thesocial partners, of maintaining the level of basic services provided by the local authorities. Thiswas his response to the Welfare Watch steering committee proposal in this regard. One of thetasks of the Welfare Watch was to define the concept of “basic services”, a term which had beenused extensively in the debate on streamlining and spending cuts. The Welfare Watch’s report on
basic services, published in December 2009, contained the recommendation that any streamlining
measures that involved transfer of expenditure from the state to the municipalities should be
avoided (Welfare Watch, 2009k). In her interview, Lára Björnsson, Chair of the Welfare Watch,referred specifically to this report when the discussion turned to whether or not the government
could have followed the Welfare Watch’s recommendations any better. Lára considers that suchmeasures were embarked on despite the Welfare Watch’s warnings.
Finally, the Welfare Watch has been reappointed by Eygló Harðardóttir, Minister of Social
Affairs and Housing, led by Siv Friðleifsdóttir. The role of the new Welfare Watch is similar to thatof the Welfare Watch 2009–2013 (Ministry of Welfare, 2014).

101

2009
A Welfare Watch counterbalance fund should be establishedand used for: – Necessary studies of welfare issues. – Coordination of projects carried out by the "third sector" (NGOs)
and other partners. – Support for staff who work with thepersons the most affected by the crisis. – Campaigns to assist
specific groups of persons who have been the most affected by
the economic crisis. – Other necessary projects.

2009
The Welfare Watch should take steps toestablish closer collaboration with themedia.

2009
Experts should be engaged toprepare social indicators which canbe used to monitor the situation on aregular basis.

2009
A simpler system should beestablished to enable individuals whoare experiencing severe difficulty withpaying their debts to renegotiate them.

2009
All official publicity and communication channels should be examined in collaboration with the "third sector"
and ways found to ensure effective presentation of information on remedies and offers to those in need ofthem (both individuals and families) and also for advisors both inside and outside the public executive
structure. It is important that people should be able to take informed decisions regarding their own welfare,not least regarding their financial affairs, and the prerequisite for this is the availability of sound and clear
information.
.

2009
Central and local government service institutions should define what
constitutes basic services, prioritise their work according to thisdefinition and ensure that these services are not cut or downgraded;
the definition should include services in the schools, healthcare systemand social services.

2009
University students, and persons who havecompleted training courses which grant
professional employment entitlements, should
be offered vocational training places infunctioning enterprises without forfeiting theirright to unemployment benefits.

2013
Payment participation will be reduced forpatients who suffer from severe and chronic
illnesses, as well as social and financial
difficulties.

2009
Basic social indicators should be published each month; the government
should also make collaborative agreements with selected local authorities
which represent the variety of Icelandic society, in which more detailed
information should be recorded.

2011
Special labour-market measures and othermeasures that foreign citizens seeking
employment can take advantage of.

2013
The government, state and Association of
Icelandic Local Authorities are to present acomprehensive, scheduled action plan on how
to eliminate poverty in Iceland.

2013.
The local authorities' home services are to be strengthened, as are thenumber of placements in nursing facilities, in accordance with thepredicted increase in the geriatric population in Iceland.

2011
Students who participate in the campaign
Education is the road to employment are to
be enabled to continue their studies in the2012 spring term by ensuring them
maintenance assistance during their studies.
2013
The Ministry of Welfare and the Associationof Local Authorities are to initiate efforts forthe purpose of formally establishingcollaboration between the schools and local
authorities' social services as regards theissues of children and families with children.
.

2013
The Welfare Watch will continue to operate in one form or another but will be
reorganised after requesting the appointment of representatives from publicbodies, local authorities, the employment sector and the "third sector" (NGOs).

The table continues on the following page.

.

Figure 15. Steering committee’s proposals 2009–2013102

Click the links below for further information:



The Welfare Watch Counterbalance Fund was set up in 2009. Part of the fund was used for specificWelfare Watch projects, e.g. social indicators, development projects for measures for young unemployed people and coordination of voluntary-sector projects (Parliamentary Document 714, 2009–10).

The rules governing the Counterbalance Fund can be found here.
Improve information provision of the Association of Icelandic Local Authorities and themunicipalities (Item 4.1 of the Policy Guidelines of the Association of Icelandic Local Authorities for 209 and 2010 – actionoplan).
Work on social indicators began in 2009, when Welfare Watch put forward a proposal to put together Icelandic social
indicators. Statistics Iceland took on the task in 2012 of publishing and regularly updating social







indicators, which are a collection of diverse statistical data on the social conditions of various groups in Iceland. Debtors’
Ombudsman Act from 2010.
Health nursery schools and Health primary schools under the Directorate of Health.
Internet-driven growth – build, connect, participate: State and municipal policy on the information society
2013-16.
Regulation on workplace learning and on-the job training.
Stability pact: The object of the pact is to promote the resurrection of the economy.
New Welfare Watch appointed by Eygló Harðardóttur.

(Sources: The Directorate of Health, no date (a), no date (b); Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security, 2009e; Prime
Minister’s Office, 2010; Association of Icelandic Local Authorities, 2009; Ministry of Welfare, 2012b; Ministry of Home Affairs,
2013; Ministry of Welfare, June 2014; Parliamentary Document 714, 2009–-10)

Figure 15 (cont’d). Steering committee’s proposals 2009–2013

103

Attitudes towards the actions of public authorities
An online survey was given to members of the public and staff of organisations with representatives
in the Welfare Watch (“affiliates”) to determine whether people outside the Welfare Watch felt thatthe government had implemented the Watch’s priorities. Respondents were asked whether theyfelt the government had put much, little or no emphasis on twelve welfare actions proposed by the
Welfare Watch in its reports to the government. Figure 16 shows that people most commonly feltthat the government had focused on ensuring all students admission to secondary school,
improving professional rehabilitation for jobseekers, and ensuring lunches for all children in Iceland
primary schools. It also shows a considerable difference between responses from affiliates andthe general public. Affiliates were much more likely to be aware of government action in the areas
focused on by the Welfare Watch.

Figure 16. Attitudes of affiliates and the general public on whether the government has
placed much, little or no emphasis on various welfare actions. Average scale of
1–5, where 1 is little or no emphasis and 5 is great emphasis

Other results from the work of the Welfare Watch
Interviewees and focus groups were of the opinion that the effects of the work of the Welfare Watch
could be seen widely. Note was made of the fact that the Watch's work often had an indirect impact
on welfare in Iceland by raising awareness about issues that require attention. Increased debate
subsequently led to entities other than the government taking on such issues.

104When such a large group, as we were, comes together with a variety of contact networks
and backgrounds, it's able to call a great deal of attention to various issues and to follow
up on such issues elsewhere. It is a bit like a spider's web. Someone begins and thensomeone else comes along and carries the issue forward [a member of the steeringcommittee].

An example of the spinning of such a web was when dentists, dental assistants and dentistry
students came together and offered free dental services for children from low income homes. Oneof the proposals issued by the Welfare Watch to authorities was to pay more attention to the dental
care of children living in difficult social circumstances. One interviewee pointed out that as a resultof the work of the Welfare Watch, the University of Iceland Faculty of Odontology and the Icelandic
Dental Association of Iceland decided to offer their work free of charge for the benefit of children
and youngsters.
This is an example of how people joined forces with us and ensured that such projects
were implemented [a member of the Welfare Watch].

A interviewee from the Welfare Watch's working group, moreover, pointed out that a number of
rehabilitation and confidence building measures had been initiated in the wake of the economic
collapse. Although the Welfare Watch cannot be credited for implementing all these measures,
they were the result of members of the Watch's steering committee or a working group calling
attention to the fact that certain groups needed such measures. Others subsequently undertook
responsibility for these projects.
Another example of a project that was executed by parties other than the government was anextensive survey into the circumstances of families with children in Reykjavík which the Universityof Iceland Social Science Research Institute and the Centre for Children and Family Research(ICE-CCFR) prepared at the request of the Reykjavik City Welfare Department. One of the goalsof the survey was to compare the social and economic circumstances of parents in Reykjavík
according to whether their income was in the form of paid employment, unemployment benefits orfinancial assistance. The survey, moreover, provided insights into the participation of children in
Reykjavík in sports and leisure activities depending on the source of their parents' income (Ásdís
Aðalbjörg Arnalds, Elísabet Karlsdóttir, Heiður Hrund Jónsdóttir and Vala Jónsdóttir, 2012). The
subject of the survey accords significantly with the focus of the Welfare Watch as regards issues
pertaining to children and families with children. One of the proposals the steering committee
submitted to the authorities was to investigate the circumstances of young families with children.
The working group that focused on children and families with children strongly recommended thatthe participation of children in leisure activities be monitored and that they should be ensured
access to sports and leisure activities irrespective of the financial standing of their parents.
Reykjavík City had a representative in the Watch's steering committee, and so it is quite likely thatthe work done by the Welfare Watch found its way to the Reykjavik City Welfare Department.
As can be seen from the above, it is fair to surmise that the members of the Welfare Watch
have presented the focal points of the Watch in the professional environment where they worked
on a daily basis. This view was clearly expressed in interviews with members from the Watch's
105steering committee, who were of the opinion that the Welfare Watch was of great value even if theauthorities have not implemented all the group's ideas. The mere presentation of the Watch's focal
points meant that public bodies and associations gained a better understanding of what groups
needed special attention.
This allowed one to actually see what the situation was and where intervention wasneeded, and then I could forward this information to the trade unions. The unions received
information on the situation and could implement the necessary actions and could eachprovide better services to their members [a member of the steering committee].

In an web survey among members of working groups, respondents gave their opinion of themanner in which reports issued by the working groups were of use in their professional
environment and whether their work had been of use in their working environment and elsewhere.
Table 38 shows that a large majority informed their colleagues about the work of the working group,with 82% of respondents agreeing with the statement. All those who worked in local authorities'
social services or health services said they agreed, as did a large majority of those working forNGOs, as compared to a fewer number who worked in the education sector or in public bodies. In
addition, responses differed according to whether they were members of the steering committee
or not. All members of the steering committee agreed with the statement.

Table 38. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? – I
informed my colleagues about the endeavours of the working group.
Strongly or
Strongly

RatherNeither agree

rather

agree

agree

nor disagree

disagree

Number

42%

40%

10%

8%

72

82%
82%

Male

31%

46%

11%

11%

35

Female

51%

35%

8%

5%

37

77%
77%
86%86%

24–49 y ears

47%

29%

12%

12%

17

50–59 y ears

39%

44%

8%

8%

36

76%
76%
83%
83%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

42%

42%

11%

5%

19

84%
84%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

75%

25%

0%

0%

12

100% 100%

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

33%

33%

7%

27%

15

36%

36%

18%

9%

11

67%
67%
73%

Other public serv ices

33%

44%

22%

0%

18

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
38%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

56%

0%

6%

16

78%
78%
94% 94%

Member of steering committee

53%

47%

0%

0%

15

100% 100%

Not a member of steering committee

40%

38%

11%

11%

55

78%
78%

Total

Strongly or rather agree

GenderAge

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%106

Almost 60% of respondents agreed that they had noticed the results of the working groups in theirworking environment. A quarter of the respondents disagreed with the statement. Women werelikelier than men to notice the results in their working environment, and those who were also
members of the Watch's steering committee said they were proportionally more often in agreement
than those who were not members of the steering committee (see Table 39).
Table 39. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? – I
noticed the results of the working groups in my professional environment.
Strongly

RatherNeither agree

RatherStrongly

agree

agree

nor disagree

disagreedisagree

Number

17%

41%

17%

11%

13%

70

59%59%

Male

17%

29%

26%

17%

11%

35

Female

17%

54%

9%

6%

14%

35

46% 46%71%
71%

24–49 y ears

12%

35%

18%

24%

12%

17

50–59 y ears

25%

44%

14%

3%

14%

36

47% 47%69%
69%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

6%

41%

24%

18%

12%

17

47% 47%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

18%

45%

18%

0%

18%

11

64%
64%

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

23%

31%

8%

15%

23%

13

27%

36%

18%

18%

0%

11

54% 54%64%
64%

Other public serv ices

16%

37%

26%

11%

11%

19

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
6%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

56%

13%

13%

13%

16

Member of steering committee

13%

67%

13%

0%

7%

15

80%
80%

Not a member of steering committee

19%

36%

15%

15%

15%

53

55% 55%Total

Strongly or rather agree

GenderAge

53% 53%63%
63%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Almost 60% of respondents agreed that the report of the working group had been used in theirprofessional environment, while a quarter of respondents disagreed with this statement. Women
were more of the opinion that the group's reports were utilised in their professional environment.
Participant responses differed according to age. Respondents aged over 50 were proportionallymore often in agreement with the statement than respondents aged 24–49 years. There was asignificant difference in responses depending on whether respondents were also members of theWatch's steering committee or not, as half of those who were not members agreed with thestatement as compared to almost all those who were members of the steering committee (seeTable 40).

107

Table 40. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? – The
reports of the working group were utilised in my professional environment.
Strongly

RatherNeither agree

RatherStrongly

agree

agree

nor disagree

disagreedisagree

Number

21%

34%

20%

13%

11%

70

Male

12%

32%

24%

21%

12%

34

Female

31%

36%

17%

6%

11%

36

24–49 y ears

18%

18%

29%

18%

18%

17

50–59 y ears

23%

46%

11%

9%

11%

35

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

22%

28%

28%

17%

6%

18

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

64%

9%

9%

9%

9%

11

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

8%

38%

31%

0%

23%

13

33%

25%

17%

17%

8%

12

73%
46% 46%58%58%

Other public serv ices

17%

28%

33%

11%

11%

18

44%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
0%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

63%

6%

25%

6%

16

Member of steering committee

25%

69%

0%

6%

0%

16

Not a member of steering committee

21%

25%

23%

15%

15%

52

Total

Strongly or rather agree
56%56%

Gender
44%

44%

67%
67%

Age
35%

35%

69%
69%
50% 50%

44%
63%
63%
94% 94%

46% 46%0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Six of every ten participants in the web survey among the members of the working groups agreed
that the results of the working groups were of use in their work elsewhere, while just under 20%
said that the results had not been of use in their other work. Those who were engaged in public
services in ministries and those working for local authorities agreed proportionately more often withthe statement than those who worked elsewhere. Those who were also members of the steeringcommittee were more likely to have noticed the results of the working groups in their work
elsewhere than those who were not members of the steering committee (see Table 41).
Table 41. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? – The
results of the working groups were of use in my work elsewhere.
Strongly

RatherNeither agree

RatherStrongly

agree

agree

nor disagree

disagreedisagree

Number

22%

38%

22%

10%

8%

72

60%60%

Male

21%

38%

21%

12%

9%

34

Female

24%

37%

24%

8%

8%

38

59%59%
61%61%

24–49 y ears

12%

29%

41%

18%

0%

17

50–59 y ears

25%

36%

19%

8%

11%

36

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

26%

47%

11%

5%

11%

19

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

33%

25%

17%

25%

0%

12

58%58%

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

14%

36%

29%

0%

21%

14

33%

42%

17%

0%

8%

12

50% 50%75%
75%

Other public serv ices

17%

44%

28%

0%

11%

18

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
19%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

38%

19%

25%

0%

16

Member of steering committee

38%

38%

13%

13%

0%

16

75%
75%

Not a member of steering committee

19%

37%

24%

9%

11%

54

56%56%

Total

Strongly or rather agree

Gender

Age
41%

41%
61%
61%
74%

61%
61%
56%56%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

108

The importance of the Welfare Watch
The importance of the Welfare Watch for the government of IcelandInterviews with the three ministers who granted the first Welfare Watch its mandate revealed that
the Watch had played an important role in their work. The Watch's reports primarily helped theauthorities to prioritise tasks.
The main problem facing governments is that someone starts to say that a problem is of acertain nature, and then people start to assume that this a fact and start allocating large
sums in that direction. The problem may, however, be of a completely different nature, orthere may be more pressing problems elsewhere [Árni Páll Árnason, former Minister ofSocial Affairs and Social Security].

The debate in political work is where to direct funds, and the results of the Welfare Watch could
be used as a tool in that struggle. By referring to the proposals prepared by a group working on abroad basis and which had not established a political party policy for itself, the minister was able
to better argue why funds should be directed toward one particular project rather than any other.
Thus, a group was formed. It was not political, its members were appointed by dissimilar
entities and it reached a consensus on results. And, when I, as minister, was fighting forfunds, I could refer to these results, use them for support, so it mattered [Guðbjartur
Hannesson, former Minister of Welfare].

In the discussion on the importance of the Welfare Watch among members from the Watch's
working groups, it was revealed that not all the proposals dealt with what actions the government
should take, but rather some of the proposals were intended to protect specific groups from budget
cuts. The importance of state and local government service institutions prioritising tasks inaccordance with what are considered basic services and to ensure that such services are not
reduced was pointed out. An interviewee from a working group said that the Welfare Watch had
thereby provided local authorities with a tool that could be utilised in budgeting and was of theopinion that perhaps this work had resulted in fewer cutbacks in welfare matters than in other fields.
On the other hand, we saw in the figures from 2009, 2010 and 2011 that the municipalities
cut construction almost completely to nil. So that [...] the fields that suffered the greatest
cutbacks during budgeting were clearly these asset and construction fields [a member ofa working group].

The importance of the Welfare Watch for its members
The importance of the Welfare Watch was also in the opportunities it provided for dissimilar publicbodies and NGOs to work together. In an web survey among the members of the working groups,
respondents were asked to provide an opinion of whether their participation in a working group
had strengthened their professional contact network. A large majority of participants were of theopinion that their participation in the efforts of the working group had strengthened their contact
network (73%). Those employed in the education and training sector experienced this less thanthose who were employed in other sectors (see Table 42).
109

Table 42. To what extent do you agree or disagree that your participation in the working
group has strengthened your professional contacts network?
Strongly

RatherNeither agree

RatherStrongly

agree

agree

nor disagree

disagreedisagree

Number

35%

38%

14%

5%

8%

74

73%

Male

31%

44%

8%

8%

8%

36

Female

39%

32%

18%

3%

8%

38

75%
75%
71%
71%

24–49 y ears

28%

39%

22%

6%

6%

18

50–59 y ears

49%

27%

11%

5%

8%

37

67%
67%
76%
76%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

16%

58%

11%

5%

11%

19

74%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

42%

33%

8%

8%

8%

12

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

25%

31%

19%

0%

25%

16

36%

45%

9%

9%

0%

11

75%
75%
56%56%
82%
82%

Other public serv ices

42%

37%

11%

11%

0%

19

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
31%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

44%

19%

0%

6%

16

Member of steering committee

53%

40%

0%

0%

7%

15

93% 93%

Not a member of steering committee

32%

35%

18%

7%

9%

57

67%
67%

Total

Strongly or rather agree

Gender

Age

79%
79%
75%
75%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

The interviews with members of the steering committee revealed that the establishment of theWatch had created a broad group of people who worked on welfare issues and that it had bridged
the gap between public bodies and the third sector (NGOs). According to an interviewee from thesteering committee, this co-operative venue was of great importance, as the subjects that publicbodies deal with are often the same even if they are of different nature. It is not least in the field of
welfare issues that there is a need for the co-operation of dissimilar entities, as the people who areat a disadvantage seldom have many resources to improve their position.
It is so important that the system manage to communicate because sometimes it appears
as though each part is doing something in their own corner with its own problems, but thenwhen they start to communicate with others, we find that everybody is dealing with similar
problems [a member of the steering committee].

The interviewees from the working groups of the Welfare Watch agreed with the members of thesteering committee that co-operation on a broad basis had made all the difference in their work to
improve the conditions of the people in the country. One participant in the focus group said, forinstance, that the contacts that formed in the establishment of the working groups had made iteasier for him to contact people who could provide information useful to his work. Also revealed
was the importance of people working on welfare issues receiving information on what actions theauthorities had initiated to improve the circumstances that arose in the wake of the economic
collapse.
So people received confirmation there at these meetings on what was happening. Lots ofthings are being done. That calms things a bit [a member of a working group].

110Interviewees believed that they had learned a lot by working with dissimilar entities, exchanging
ideas and sharing their own knowledge. It was pointed out that the people who were members of
the Watch's steering committee had almost without fail attended all convened meetings, despite
not being paid for the work. This fact was seen as an indication that participants saw a distinct
advantage in taking part in the Welfare Watch. This collaboration was subsequently believed tohave benefited the people who use welfare services as well as having benefited society as a whole.
All this work, the extensive exchange of ideas that occurred, will have a much greater longterm effect than we realise because it educated everyone involved in the Welfare Watch[a member of the steering committee].

The web survey among participants of the Welfare Watch's working groups revealed that a large
majority, or 81%, were of the opinion that their contribution to the working group mattered. Women
were more of this opinion than men, and all members of the steering committee agreed that theircontribution mattered, as opposed to three of every four who were not members of the steeringcommittee (see Table 43).
Table 43. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? – My
contribution mattered in the working group.
Strongly or
Strongly

RatherNeither agree

rather

agree

agree

nor disagree

disagree

Number

33%

48%

13%

6%

67

81%
81%

Male

32%

42%

19%

6%

31

Female

33%

53%

8%

6%

36

74%
86%86%

24–49 y ears

38%

38%

13%

13%

16

50–59 y ears

41%

38%

15%

6%

34

75%
75%
79%
79%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

12%

76%

12%

0%

17

88%88%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

36%

36%

18%

9%

11

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

15%

46%

23%

15%

13

36%

45%

9%

9%

11

73%
62%
62%
82%
82%

Other public serv ices

35%

53%

12%

0%

17

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
40%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

53%

7%

0%

15

88%88%
93% 93%

Member of steering committee

47%

53%

0%

0%

15

100% 100%

Not a member of steering committee

30%

46%

16%

8%

50

76%
76%

Total

Strongly or rather agree

GenderAge

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Participants were also proud of having participated in the work of the working group, with 77%
agreeing with that statement. Approximately 14% neither agreed nor disagreed, and one out of
every ten disagreed (see Table 44).

111

Table 44. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? – I am
proud to have taken part in the work of the working group.
Strongly or
Strongly

RatherNeither agree

rather

agree

agree

nor disagree

disagree

Number

44%

33%

14%

10%

73

77%
77%

Male

37%

37%

17%

9%

35

Female

50%

29%

11%

11%

38

74%
79%
79%

24–49 y ears

33%

33%

17%

17%

18

50–59 y ears

54%

26%

11%

9%

35

67%
67%
80%
80%

60–68 y ears
Field of employment

35%

45%

15%

5%

20

80%
80%

Municipal social serv ices / Healthcare serv ices

42%

25%

17%

17%

12

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

40%

33%

7%

20%

15

67%
67%
73%

42%

42%

8%

8%

12

Other public serv ices

39%

39%

17%

6%

18

83%
83%
78%
78%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)
56%
Membership of Welfare Watch steering committee

25%

19%

0%

16

81%
81%

Member of steering committee

75%

19%

6%

0%

16

94% 94%

Not a member of steering committee

36%

36%

15%

13%

55

73%

Total

Strongly or rather agree

GenderAge

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

The importance of the Welfare Watch for the general public in IcelandInterviews with the minister and members of the steering and working groups of the Welfare Watch
revealed the view that the analysis of the Welfare Watch as to what impact the economic collapse
had on the circumstances of different groups had the result of making the discourse on the negative
effects of the collapse milder. Guðbjartur Hannesson, former Minister of Welfare, for instance, said
that he was convinced that the Welfare Watch was the reason why the debate about the economic
collapse and its consequences had become more objective than it would otherwise have been. He
believes that if the Watch had not been established, people would have been more likely to reactby pointing fingers and issuing statements that could not be supported. One of the Welfare Watch's
strengths was its analysis of the conditions in society and the manner in which it was able to provide
information on the status of issues. An interviewee from a working group pointed out that with thisanalysis, the Watch was also able to raise awareness of a number of social aspects that would
otherwise not have been discussed in the public forum.
The Welfare Watch fostered speaking up for certain views which might possibly not havebeen taken seriously in the debate in the same manner if this venue had not been available[a member of a working group].

In light of how important a role the Welfare Watch is seen to have played in improving the welfareof people in Iceland, interviewees agreed that its continued existence needs to be ensured. The
Welfare Watch was created during times of considerable turmoil, and interviewees all agreed that
it would probably not have been created under different conditions. Nevertheless, the interviewees
did not wish to regard the Watch as a tool that should only exist in time of economic turmoil, as it112

does not matter what the circumstances in society are, as there are always some who are
disadvantaged.
One has worked in welfare services during times of economic prosperity and seen thatsuch prosperity does not always reach everyone. This is why there is always a need forsomething to point out to the authorities existing problems and shortcomings in the welfare
services even if everything appears to be going swimmingly for the majority. Then it isimportant to have individuals and such a body that knows what is going on [ÁstaRagnheiður Jóhannesdóttir, former Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security].

The importance of the Welfare Watch in Icelandic society was one of the questions in the web
survey among the staff of public bodies who had a representative in the Watch and in a survey
among the general public. Figure 17 shows that of the respondents that had heard of the Welfare
Watch, approximately half were of the opinion that it had been important during the first few years
after the economic collapse. The Watch's affiliates, i.e. the staff of public bodies involved in welfare
matters, were much more inclined to believe that the Watch made a difference than the generalpublic. Thus, a third of the general public believed that the Watch was of little importance for
Icelandic society during the first few years after the collapse, while around 19% of those belonging
to the group of affiliates were of the same opinion. More than a third of the public believed that the
Watch made little difference, as compared to just under a fifth of the affiliates. A background
analysis of the responses to the question may be found in Table iii in Annexes 1 and 2.

Figure 17. Do you think that the Welfare Watch was of great or little importance for
Icelandic society during the first few years after the economic collapse? –Comparison of the responses from affiliates and the general public.

113

The respondents in the survey who said that the Welfare Watch was of importance as regards
Icelandic society were asked why it was important. The question was an open question. The
responses from affiliates have been categorised and are shown in Table 45. Table 46 shows thecategorised answers of the general public. The tables show that the majority of both affiliates andthe public were of the opinion that the importance was that the Welfare Watch analysed the statusof welfare issues in Icelandic society and submitted proposals for remedies.
Table 45. In your opinion, why was the Welfare Watch important for Icelandic society? –Responses of affiliates.
Main category
Further description
Map the situation and provide support for improvements

Number95

Examples of comments"It prov ided an ov erv iew of the complicated problems that Icelanders

Analy se the status of w elfare issues, map
serv ices and point out w hat needs to be

w ere dealing w ith in the w ake of the crisis, measured the general52

improv ed

state of the nation. The Welfare Watch pointed out the difficulties
v arious groups w ere ex periencing and pointed out mitigating
measures.""Representativ es of those inv olv ed in w elfare issues met andDraw ing the attention of the authorities toissues and prov iding them w ith checks.

23

rev iew ed the situation. Act as a pressure group on members ofparliament and ministers and draw attention to areas w here actions
are required."

Monitor requirements and point out w hatneeds to be improv ed

Attending to the financial position and wellbeing of people

20

41

Guarding people's interest and minimisingsocial problems in the w ake of the"Tackling the problems of people w ho w ere the most affected in the23

economic collapse"The most important aspect w as to closely monitor the manner in
18

finances and w ellbeing

Data collection and education

collapse and finding social solutions to prev ent people from becoming
marginalised."

To monitor the effects of the economic
collapse on household finances, peoples'"To prov ide authorities w ith restraints in w elfare issues and prov ide
them w ith an ov erv iew of the status as current."

w hich the economic situation after the collapse had an effect onhouseholds. Particularly low -income households."

41

That the Welfare Watch ex ists, the problem
is recognised and a dialogue created
To collect information on the consequencesof the crisis
To educate

Establish multidisciplinary co-operation
Strengthening the ties of different serv ice
prov iders and harmonise actions

18
14
9

"Mainly to be v isible and make sure people know that something isbeing done.""Efforts spent to collect information in a single location – but noex ecutiv e pow ers.""To gain an ov erv iew and to educate."

34
34"By strengthening the collaboration of different administrativ e lev els
and groups tow ard a single and shared goal."

114

The Welfare Watch was also considered to have played a part in raising awareness of what groups
needed attention after the economic collapse as regards their subsistence and wellbeing.

Table 46. In your opinion, why was the Welfare Watch important for Icelandic society? –Responses from the public.
Main category
Further description
Number
Map the situation and provide suggestions for improvements
20
Analy se the status of w elfare issues, map
serv ices and point out w hat needs to be16

improv ed
Analy sing the situation – obtaining acomprehensiv e ov erv iew

Attending to the financial position and wellbeing of people
Monitoring the w ellbeing ofchildren/families/employ ment seekers
Attending to people in sensitiv e positions
Attending to Icelandic households in the w akeof the economic crisis

Raising awareness and providing checks

4

11

6
3

suggestions to the authorities as regards the problems faced.""Assessing people's situation in general.""Monitoring the w elfare of families.""Assisting the unemploy ed and those w ho are v ulnerable.""Helping those w ho w ere at a disadv antage before the crisis and w ho
w ere in an ev en w orse position after the crisis.
"That households in Iceland w ere not left behind in the economiccrisis."6

5

population – prov ide checks
Raising aw areness"Monitors w elfare in society – should be able to prov ide good20

Draw the attention of the authorities to issues
relating to the w elfare and quality of life of the

Examples of comments

1"Believ e it had a good effect on the w ork and decision making
processes of the Ministry of Welfare and the Minister.""Raising public aw areness."

Respondents to the survey who considered the Welfare Watch to have been of little importancefor Icelandic society during the first few years after the economic collapse were asked why theyfelt the Watch was of little importance. The responses from affiliates have been categorised andare shown in Table 47. Table 48 shows the categorised answers of the general public. Quite alarge proportion of the participants were of the opinion that the Watch was not a success. In thiscontext, mention was made of the fact that the Watch did not have the correct tools to tackle theproblem, that it lacked executive powers.

115

Table 47. Why do you feel that the Welfare Watch was of little importance for Icelandic
society? – Responses of affiliates.
Main category

Further description

Failed to achieve results

NumberExamples of comments

46

The operation achiev ed little results– did not achiev e its goals
The Watch's w ork did not inv olv e
any concrete actions

22
9"Has not achiev ed any results and did not hav e the tools to address
the problem.""Little or no funds w ere allocated to the actions that the Welfare Watch
did recommend. “"The decisions of the authorities as current hav e more often than not

The Watch did not hav e any effecton gov ernment policies

8

conflicted w ith the proposals presented as the Welfare Watch's
recommendations, i.e. hav e been shaped by other interests insociety ."Conditions hav e not improv ed
despite the w ork of the Watch

Lacking transparency

8"Little has changed since the crash, so I cannot see w hat use it isw hen there hav e been little or no changes."

16
Transparency and information
prov ision w as lacking

Contrivance

16"The w ork w as not transparent, little or no debate."

6
Establishing the Welfare Watch w asa contriv ed act"When the conditions are as they are, the Welfare Watch acts as a6

pretty flow er in the gov ernments lapel: pretty and makes a few people
happy but is useless in helping the crow d."

Also mentioned was the fact that conditions in society had not improved despite the existence ofthe Welfare Watch. Several mentioned that the Welfare Watch had not been sufficiently visible tothe public.

Table 48. Why do you feel that the Welfare Watch was of little importance for Icelandic
society? – Responses from the public.
Main category

Further description

Failed to achieve results

NumberExamples of comments

17

The operation achiev ed little results– did not achiev e its goals
Conditions hav e not improv ed
despite the w ork of the Watch
The Watch did not hav e any effecton gov ernment policies

Lacking transparency

12"The recommendations made by the Watch w ere insignificant, too lateand mattered little.""No account taken of the high debts people had. Medical costs high,3

cost of medicines v ery high. Food prices are rising and nothing isbeing done. “2"Its w ork and recommendations not taken seriously ."11
Hav e not heard much about thew ork of the Welfare Watch
Transparency and information
prov ision w as lacking

Contrivance83"Because I don't know much about and hav e not heard much – as aresult, I conclude that it is not doing w hat it is supposed to.""Hav e not seen any improv ement that can be traced to the Watch.
People should better informed about its w ork."

3
Establishing the Welfare Watch w as
an act of contriv ance3

"As w ith all other projects/groups/committee appointments establishedto pretend something outw ardly ... failed to make any difference."116

CONCLUSION
Establishment of the Welfare Watch
The establishment of the Welfare Watch was one of the first tasks of Ásta Ragnheiður
Jóhannesdóttir when she became the Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security. This firstWelfare Watch in Iceland's history was operational from February 2009 to December 2013. Lára
Björnsdóttir was the Chairman of the Welfare Watch, and Ingibjörg Broddadóttir and ÞorbjörnGuðmundsson were its employees. The Chairman of the Watch had the responsibility of deciding
who belonged in the Watch's steering committee in consultation with the Minister and thepermanent secretary. Contact was made with public bodies, companies and NGOs requesting their
participation in the Welfare Watch by means of a formal letter from the Ministry of Social Affairs
and Social Security. The response was good, seeing that people were concerned about the
Icelandic society in the wake of the economic collapse. The steering committee originally consistedof fifteen members. The group slowly grew, and when this first Welfare Watch ended, 22 publicbodies or NGOs had representatives in the steering committee of the Welfare Watch.
The members of the steering committee made their own decisions on what issues to addressin the Welfare Watch. Soon after the establishment of the Watch, the group sought informationfrom the municipalities on the extent to which social services had become aware of the effects ofthe economic recession. Also sought were the opinions of the municipalities as regards whatissues the Watch should focus on in their work (Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Security,
2009d). The Watch's focus was very much in tune with the requests made by the social services,
as the steering committee had focused specifically on the affairs of children and families withchildren. Interviews with the minister who granted the Watch its mandate and members from thesteering committee revealed the general popularity of the focus areas selected by the Watch.
Working groups for specific issues were created. These included the groups Youngsters andyoung adults and Unemployed people. Steering committee members chaired the working groups,
and the field of interest and expert knowledge of each governed which group each chaired. The
selection of people into the working groups was left to the chairs of the working groups. According
to interviewees from the steering committee, they sought to recruit the professionals and affiliates
they felt belonged to the group. The working groups changed during the period that the Watch
operated in that some were disbanded and new groups were added.

Role and goals of the Welfare Watch
The purpose of the Welfare Watch was to monitor the social and financial consequences of theeconomic collapse for homes in Iceland and to submit proposals and opinions to the authorities(Ministry of Welfare, 2013a). A survey among the members of working groups contained questions
on the extent to which the role of the Watch had been achieved. A large majority, or 84%, statedthat monitoring the social, as well as financial, consequences of the economic crisis on Icelandicfamilies and households had been successful. The respondents were not as positive as regards
117how successful the Watch had been in submitting proposals for improvements, as two out of every
three said that the Watch had been successful and a quarter said that the Watch had been neither
successful nor unsuccessful.
The survey among the members of the working groups asked about the role of the working
groups. The majority (77%) said that the role of the working group had always been or had usually
been well defined, and approximately 70% felt that their role was always or usually well defined.
One can say, therefore, that overall the participants thought that the role of the working groups
was clear. Some interviewees who participated in the discussions of focus groups, however, feltthat it was unclear what was expected of the group they belonged to and what their work was toresult in. In this context, it should be kept in mind that the focus groups only contained people who
had participated in working groups and had not been members of the steering committee. The
survey covered all members of working groups irrespective of whether or not they had also been
members of the steering committee. In general, the respondents of the survey who had also been
members of the steering committee were more positive than other respondents. Thus, for example,
all the respondents in the survey who were members of the steering committee were of the opinion
that the role of the working group was always or nearly always well defined, as opposed to 70% of
those who were not members of the steering committee. These results indicate that in some cases,
the role of the groups should have been better explained to the people who were selected as
members of the Watch's working groups.
The survey among the members of the working groups also contained questions on the extent
to which the objectives set by the working groups had been achieved. Two of every three said that
achieving the group's objectives had gone well, while a quarter said that it had neither gone wellor poorly, or that there had been difficulties. The most common reason given for difficulties inachieving the objectives was ineffective work practices and co-operation difficulties.

Proposals made by the Welfare Watch
Each working group prepared status reports containing proposals for improvements. The working
groups, however, submitted their proposals in a dissimilar fashion. Some proposals were generally
worded and unclear. In this context, mention can be made of a proposal that children should belistened to in homes, institutions and in the media and that attention should be paid to thosewanting to return to the labour market after a break and who have little or no entitlement to benefits.
An interviewee from a working group mentioned that it had been difficult to reach a consensus onsome subjects that were discussed in the group's meetings, and as a result, it had proved difficult
to present clear recommendations for improvements.
The steering committee subsequently took the reports and proposals of the working groups
for discussion and used them as the basis for the steering committee's progress reports. A survey
among members of working groups asked their opinion of the steering committee's selection of the
proposals of the working groups in the report of the steering committee. The majority, or 75% of118

members, were satisfied with the steering committee's selection. A rather substantial proportion,
however, was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (19%), and 6% were dissatisfied.
In its progress reports, the steering committee submitted proposals for improvements that were
submitted to the authorities. There were no guarantees, however, that the authorities would
implement the recommendations of the Watch, as the Welfare Watch had no executive powers. In
general, however, most interviewees could identify some actions implemented by the authorities
that accorded with what the Welfare Watch had proposed, although it can be difficult to pinpoint
whether the actions of the authorities were the direct consequence of the work of the Welfare
Watch. An interviewee from the Watch's working group found this to be a disadvantage and pointed
out that the Welfare Watch had done excellent work but that its members did not know what thiswork would be used for.
An analysis of the material on the website of the Alþingi indicates that much of what the Welfare
Watch recommended has been implemented, and one can, therefore, infer that the work carriedout by the Welfare Watch has made a huge difference. The results of the survey among the public
and stakeholders as to what aspect they felt that the authorities have focused on are in accordancewith this analysis, as the authorities appear to have focused on strengthening vocational
rehabilitation. In addition, the Welfare Watch itself implemented its recommendation to ensure
lunch was served in primary schools by sending out letters to such effect to the municipal schoolboards. As stated previously, however, it is difficult to definitively say whether the actions of theauthorities and other public bodies and associations in society are because of the work of the
Welfare Watch or because these actions would have been implemented in any case.

Communications and co-operation
Interviewees from the Welfare Watch's steering committee agreed that co-operation within thegroup had been excellent, and they also expressed their satisfaction with communications with thechairman of the Welfare Watch. Likewise, the majority of participants in the Watch's working groups
were satisfied with the co-operation with others in the working group, or 78%. It was revealed,
however, that the flow of information between the steering committee and the working groups could
have been better, as over a fifth of the respondents in the survey who were members of the working
groups were dissatisfied with the information flow between the steering committee and the working
groups. This applied to half of the respondents who were not members of the steering committee.
The same view was expressed by the focus groups amongst people who had participated in theactivities of the working groups of the Watch. It was also revealed that on one occasion, thesteering committee called the working groups together for a meeting to make preparations forwriting a report. Such a meeting was only convened once but was seen as extremely important tostrengthen the ties between the members of the working groups and the steering committee andalso to ensure that the members of the working groups gained a better understanding of what was
expected of them.

119Working procedures and results
Overall, two of every three participants in the survey among the members of the working groups
were satisfied with the work of the working groups, a fifth were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
and approximately 14% were dissatisfied. The members of the working groups were also asked
whether they would have liked to have had the organisation and the procedures of the group be
any different. A proportion of the group called for more targeted group management, better
clarification of the group's role and better definition of the role of those participating in the group's
work. Respondents in focus groups indicated that the division of tasks in the working groups had
been unclear. The survey among working groups revealed that 57% of participants in the working
group were satisfied with the manner in which the group allocated tasks among themselves, anda third were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
According to interviewees from the working groups, the workload was sometimes unevenly
apportioned; stronger task management might have increased the effectiveness of the members.
In addition, interviewees indicated that fatigue had begun to be felt among the members of theworking groups as their work progressed. Accounts from members also indicated that the results
could have been improved by delineating the issues discussed by each working group.
Interviewees from the working groups said that in retrospect, it might have been better to further
divide the working groups, as the intention had been to discuss a great deal of material. Also
revealed was the fact that there were material overlaps between working groups, as different
groups addressed the same issues. The working groups worked independently of each other, andthere were no communications between them. Employment issues, for instance, were discussed
by several groups, as was children's dental health. An interviewee from a working group statedthat it might have been useful to have an employee who would meet with all the working groups
and share information between them. Such an employee would then have been able to define thediscussions and increase the productivity of the working groups.
The productivity of the Watch was at its peak during its first few years of operation. This waswhen the greatest number of resolutions, proposals and recommendations were issued by the
Watch. The original objective of the Watch was to submit a progress report to the minister every
three months, although this was not achieved. The working groups, moreover, were at their mostactive in the beginning. An examination of their proposals shows how many of them are from thefirst year the Watch operated. This is an interesting fact in light of the statements of interviewees
to the effect that the working groups became ever more fatigued as the Watch's work progressed.
It could also be argued, however, that the dynamic work of the Watch at the beginning was inresponse to the economic recession and that as Icelandic society began to recover, there was lessneed for many proposals and resolutions on the manner in which to prevent the economic
recession impacting on specific groups.

120

The Watch's visibility
When Guðbjartur Hannesson took over the position of Minister of Health and Social Security(subsequently Minster of Welfare), he renewed the mandate of the Welfare Watch with a new letterof instruction. There were several shifts of focus in the new letter, which contained instructions that
the Welfare Watch was to disclose information to the government and the public in a meaningfulway (Ministry of Welfare, e.d.-a).
Approximately half of the members of the working groups agreed that the work of the Welfare
Watch had been well promoted within Icelandic society, while a little less than a third neither agreed
nor disagreed. A survey among the general public revealed that a quarter had heard about the
Welfare Watch, as compared to 80% of the Watch's affiliates that responded to the same question.
The people in the steering committee, therefore, had a role to play in informing the publicbodies it was representing about the focus of the Watch and its main subjects. A quarter of theaffiliates who had heard about the Watch were well informed about its work. The interviewees fromthe Watch's working groups also regarded this as their role. A large majority of working groupmembers (82%) considered themselves to have fulfilled their duty and informed their colleagues
about the work of the groups. Fewer were aware of the results of the work of the working groups
in their working environment (58%) or aware if the reports of the working groups had been utilisedin their professional environment (56%).

The importance of the Welfare Watch
The Welfare Watch was considered to play an important role for the government. The importanceinvolved providing the authorities with access to information and in providing advice as to where
cutbacks were possible. Guðbjartur Hannesson, the former Minister of Welfare, mentioned, forinstance, that the Watch had consisted of people from numerous dissimilar public bodies or
associations which already spent both time and money on examining urgent issues within thewelfare system. This meant there was access to information from people who had a broad range
of knowledge, something that would not otherwise have been obtained.
The results of the work of the Welfare Watch can be seen in various places in society. One
could point out that many of the actions taken by the government during the years between 2009
and 2013 are in accordance with the proposals submitted by the Welfare Watch. Interviewees also
stated that they had seen entities other than the government adopt the issues addressed by the
Watch. In this context, it was of paramount importance that members of the Watch had informed
their colleagues and the public about the activities of the Welfare Watch. An example of this iswhen dentistry students began offering free dental services for children from low-income homes
after the Watch focused on the necessity of attending to the dental needs of children living indifficult social circumstances. The members of the Welfare Watch generally appear to haveinformed their colleagues of the work carried out by the Watch, and 82% of respondents among
the members of the working groups said that they had informed their colleagues about the work of
the groups. Approximately two out of every three respondents stated that they had noticed the121results of the working groups in their work environment. Then there are the indirect effects of theWatch where public bodies have adopted projects, although the Watch cannot be directly credited
for such adoption.
Participation in the Watch was also important for the strengthening of multidisciplinary cooperation in the field of welfare, and 73% of the respondents in the survey among the members of
the working groups stated that they had strengthened their professional contacts network as aresult. The majority of the members (80%) said that their contribution in the working groups
mattered and that they were proud of their participation in the Welfare Watch.

Looking to the futureInterviewees agreed that the Watch could hardly have come into existence if it hadn't have been
for the sharp changes in Icelandic society at the time. The interviews revealed that the Welfare
Watch played an important role in reacting to the economic collapse. A member of a working group,
however, did submit the view that the work of Watch was characterised as being reactive and that
if Iceland should continue to operate a Welfare Watch, then its objectives needed to be part of acomprehensive strategy for welfare. It is clear that the Welfare Watch was established during atime of considerable turmoil in Icelandic society. The Watch developed and changed as time
passed given that efforts were being made to react to circumstances that people had not previously
experienced. It is quite normal for a group created as a reaction to an economic collapse to changeover time, seeing that there is more than a single issue to address. Reactions were required inmany fields, and the interest of many different groups needed to be guarded.
If a Welfare Watch is to be appointed to monitor welfare issues and prevent certain groups fromfalling by the wayside in society, attention must be paid to the manner in which it can be provided
with clear framework. For instance, it would be a good idea to define at the very beginning the roleof each member of the working groups and steering committee, the manner in which information
is to be disseminated and the manner in which people can monitor the results of their work.

122

ANNEX 1: BACKGROUND ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSESIN THE SURVEY AMONG AFFILIATES
Table i.

Have you heard about the Welfare Watch?
Yes, hav e heard about
Yes

No

Number

79%

21%

737

Male

82%

18%

Female78%

22%

22–39 y ears

69%

31%

134

69%

69%

40–49 y ears

76%

24%

196

76%

76%

50–59 y ears

84%

16%

258

84%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

85%

15%

149

85% 85%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

92%

8%

63

Healthcare serv ices

66%

34%

47

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

74%

26%

286

92% 92%
66%
66%
74%
74%

87%

13%

109

Other public serv ices

78%

22%

96

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

92%

8%

60

Other sector or outside labour market

69%

31%

48

Total

The Welfare Watch
79%

79%

194

82%

82%

543

78%

78%

GenderAge

84%

87% 87%78%
78%
92% 92%69%
69%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Table ii.

How familiar or unfamiliar are you with the work of the Welfare Watch?
Neitherfamiliar
Very

Ratherfamiliarfamiliar

5%

22%

37%

26%

10%

581

Male

6%

23%

30%

27%

14%

Female

5%

22%

40%

26%

8%

22–39 y ears

5%

15%

35%

34%

40–49 y ears

5%

26%

34%

22%

50–59 y ears

2%

21%

41%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

8%

24%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

7%

Healthcare serv ices3%

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

Total

nor

RatherVery

unfamiliar unfamiliar unfamiliar

NumberVery or rather familiar
27%

27%

159

29%

29%

422

26%

26%

10%

91

21%

21%

11%

148

27%

8%

216

34%

24%

10%

126

28%

33%

28%

5%

58

16%

29%

32%

19%

31

19%

19%

1%

18%

39%

28%

14%

212

19%

19%

7%

28%

34%

28%

3%

94

35%

35%

Other public serv ices

8%

20%

44%

23%

5%

75

28%

28%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

11%

35%

35%

11%

9%

55

Other sector or outside labour market

3%

15%

33%

33%

15%

33

Gender

Age
32%

32%
24%

24%

32%

32%

34%

34%

45%
18%

45%
18%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%123

Table iii.

Do you think that the Welfare Watch was of great or little importance for
Icelandic society during the first few years after the economic crisis?
Neither
Very

Ratherimportant nor

important important unimportant
Total

Very little
Ratheror no

unimportant importance

Number

12%

41%

29%

12%

7%

441

Male

7%

37%

33%

14%

9%

114

Female

13%

42%

27%

12%

6%

327

22–39 y ears

15%

35%

27%

15%

8%

40–49 y ears

15%

34%

29%

15%

6%

50–59 y ears

9%

44%

31%

9%

6%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

11%

45%

23%

13%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

15%

42%

29%

Healthcare serv ices

9%

39%

22%

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

10%

47%

8%

Other public serv ices

Very or rather important
52%

52%

Gender
44%

44%
55%

55%

62

50%

50%

112

49%

49%

169

53%

53%

7%

98

56%

56%

12%

2%

52

58%

58%

22%

9%

23

29%

9%

5%

152

30%

33%

21%

8%

73

5%

49%

26%

12%

7%

57

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

24%

40%

20%

9%

7%

45

Other sector or outside labour market

20%

20%

36%

16%

8%

25

Age

48%
57%

48%
57%
38%

38%
54%
64%

40%

54%
64%
40%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Table iv.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on trying
to prevent poverty?
Very

FairlyNeither

great

great

great nor

Ratheror noefforteffortlittle effort little effort

effortNumber

6%

23%

21%

31%

19%

743

29%

29%

Male

9%

27%

22%

25%

17%

194

36%

36%

Female

5%

22%

21%

33%

20%

549

27%

27%

22–39 y ears

3%

18%

24%

34%

21%

128

21%

21%

40–49 y ears

4%

24%

20%

32%

20%

196

28%

28%

50–59 y ears

7%

23%

22%

31%

17%

267

30%

30%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

10%

26%

17%

27%

20%

150

36%

36%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

6%

27%

19%

34%

14%

64

33%

33%

Healthcare serv ices

2%

9%

30%

36%

23%

47

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

5%

25%

19%

30%

20%

293

30%

30%

8%

25%

28%

24%

14%

106

34%

34%

Other public serv ices

4%

20%

14%

43%

19%

95

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

18%

27%

20%

23%

12%

60

Other sector or outside labour market

2%

22%

24%

26%

26%

46

Total

Very little
Very or fairly great effort

Gender

Age

11%

11%

24%

24%
45%

24%

45%
24%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%124

Table v.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
supporting low-income families with children?
Very

FairlyNeither

great

great

great nor

Ratheror noefforteffortlittle effort little effort

effortNumber

7%

29%

18%

29%

17%

743

Male

11%

34%

20%

22%

14%

195

Female

6%

27%

17%

31%

19%

548

33%

33%

22–39 y ears

5%

29%

16%

34%

16%

125

34%

34%

40–49 y ears

6%

30%

17%

28%

19%

199

36%

36%

50–59 y ears

8%

30%

17%

29%

16%

265

38%

38%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

11%

26%

20%

26%

18%

152

36%

36%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

8%

32%

15%

29%

15%

65

40%

40%

Healthcare serv ices

4%

17%

19%

36%

23%

47

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

7%

28%

18%

29%

19%

292

12%

33%

20%

27%

8%

107

Other public serv ices

4%

28%

17%

34%

17%

96

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

16%

31%

16%

21%

15%

61

Other sector or outside labour market

4%

29%

18%

27%

22%

45

Total

Very little
Very or fairly great effort
36%

36%

Gender
45%

45%

Age

21%

21%

34%
45%
32%
48%

33%

34%
45%
32%
48%
33%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Table vi.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
supporting low-income people with housing problems?

Total

Very

FairlyNeither

great

great

great nor

RatherVery little
or noefforteffortlittle effort little effort

effortNumber

5%

19%

19%

31%

26%

738

6%

24%

19%

31%

21%

Very or fairly great effort
24%

24%

196

30%

30%
22%

GenderMale
Female

4%

18%

19%

32%

27%

542

22%

22–39 y ears

3%

17%

20%

32%

28%

127

20%

20%

40–49 y ears

3%

23%

18%

33%

24%

195

26%

26%

50–59 y ears

5%

19%

18%

31%

27%

265

24%

24%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

7%

18%

21%

29%

25%

149

26%

26%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

3%

26%

17%

28%

26%

65

29%

29%

Healthcare serv ices

2%

15%

17%

38%

28%

47

17%

17%

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

5%

19%

19%

32%

26%

286

23%

23%

7%

24%

15%

33%

21%

105

30%

30%

Other public serv ices

4%

16%

19%

34%

27%

96

20%

20%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

8%

15%

34%

22%

20%

59

24%

24%

Other sector or outside labour market

2%

28%

15%

28%

28%

47

30%

30%

Age

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%125

Table vii.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
reducing the medical expenses of patients struggling with severe, chronic
diseases?

Very

FairlyNeither

great

great

great nor

Ratheror noefforteffortlittle effort little effort

effortNumber

3%

12%

17%

29%

38%

716

15%

15%

Male

4%

11%

24%

33%

29%

189

14%

14%

Female

3%

12%

15%

27%

42%

527

16%

16%

22–39 y ears

2%

12%

20%

31%

36%

118

14%

14%

40–49 y ears

3%

13%

13%

28%

43%

194

16%

16%

50–59 y ears

4%

8%

19%

31%

39%

259

12%

12%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

6%

15%

20%

25%

35%

143

20%

20%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

5%

10%

8%

40%

37%

62

15%

15%

Healthcare serv ices

2%

4%

13%

36%

45%

47

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

4%

11%

18%

27%

40%

280

5%

17%

18%

34%

26%

102

Other public serv ices

2%

11%

19%

28%

40%

94

13%

13%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

5%

14%

27%

20%

34%

56

20%

20%

Other sector or outside labour market

0%

12%

19%

19%

51%

43

Total

Very little
Very or fairly great effort

Gender

Age

6%

6%

15%

15%

22%

22%

12%

12%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Table viii.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
ensuring that all children are provided with lunch in Icelandic primaryschools?
Very

FairlyNeither

great

great

great nor

Ratheror noefforteffortlittle effort little effort

effortNumberVery or fairly great effort

11%

30%

24%

17%

19%

665

40%

40%

Male

8%

27%

28%

18%

19%

167

35%

35%

Female

12%

31%

23%

16%

19%

498

22–39 y ears

6%

27%

29%

15%

23%

98

33%

33%

40–49 y ears

11%

28%

20%

20%

20%

181

39%

39%

50–59 y ears

10%

27%

27%

18%

19%

242

36%

36%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

15%

39%

22%

11%

13%

142

Local authorities' social serv ices.

11%

34%

23%

16%

16%

56

Healthcare serv ices

10%

23%

28%

21%

18%

39

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

12%

32%

22%

17%

18%

278

44%

44%

8%

34%

27%

12%

18%

99

42%

42%

Other public serv ices

9%

21%

29%

22%

20%

82

29%

29%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

16%

16%

24%

26%

18%

50

32%

32%

Other sector or outside labour market

6%

32%

21%

9%

32%

34

38%

38%

Total

Very little

Gender
42%

42%

Age

54%

45%
33%

54%
45%
33%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

126

Table ix.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
ensuring mental health services for children?

Very

FairlyNeither

great

great

great nor

Ratheror noefforteffortlittle effort little effort

effortNumber

3%

9%

18%

31%

39%

677

Male

3%

9%

27%

31%

30%

Female

3%

8%

15%

31%

42%

Total

Very little
Very or fairly great effort
12%

12%

178

12%

12%

499

11%

11%

GenderAge
22–39 y ears

1%

9%

19%

30%

40%

99

10%

10%

40–49 y ears

2%

10%

13%

28%

47%

188

12%

12%

50–59 y ears

3%

7%

21%

31%

38%

245

10%

10%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

5%

9%

21%

34%

31%

143

14%

14%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

6%

5%

20%

30%

39%

64

11%

11%

Healthcare serv ices

2%

9%

23%

28%

37%

43

12%

12%

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

2%

7%

16%

32%

43%

275

9%

9%

3%

13%

18%

31%

36%

95

16%

16%

Other public serv ices

2%

10%

16%

35%

37%

82

12%

12%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

4%

13%

24%

27%

33%

55

16%

16%

Other sector or outside labour market

0%

11%

28%

19%

42%

36

11%

11%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Table x.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
formulating a comprehensive policy for housing issues?
VeryFairlyNeither

great

great

great nor

Ratheror noefforteffortlittle effort little effort

effortNumber

2%

13%

22%

29%

34%

717

16%

16%

Male

4%

11%

21%

26%

38%

192

15%

15%

Female

2%

14%

22%

30%

32%

525

16%

16%

22–39 y ears

3%

13%

18%

35%

29%

119

17%

17%

40–49 y ears

1%

17%

20%

28%

34%

192

18%

18%

50–59 y ears

3%

11%

21%

31%

34%

258

14%

14%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

3%

13%

27%

22%

35%

146

16%

16%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

3%

10%

24%

36%

26%

58

14%

14%

Healthcare serv ices

2%

5%

14%

34%

45%

44

7%

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

2%

15%

22%

26%

35%

282

2%

17%

21%

30%

29%

Other public serv ices

0%

15%

20%

29%

35%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

7%

12%

29%

26%

Other sector or outside labour market

4%

13%

17%

24%

Total

Very little
Very or fairly great effort

Gender

Age

7%

16%

16%

103

19%

19%

93

15%

15%

26%

58

19%

19%

41%

46

17%

17%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%127

Table xi.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort oncomprehensively analysing the financial situation of households?
Very

FairlyNeither

great

great

great nor

Ratheror noefforteffortlittle effort little effort

effortNumber

6%

28%

20%

22%

24%

727

Male

11%

25%

21%

18%

25%

Female

4%

29%

20%

23%

24%

22–39 y ears

8%

33%

20%

21%

18%

122

40–49 y ears

5%

27%

16%

24%

27%

197

32%

32%

50–59 y ears

5%

27%

20%

23%

25%

255

32%

32%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

7%

27%

25%

18%

24%

151

34%

34%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

6%

28%

16%

20%

30%

64

34%

34%

Healthcare serv ices

2%

20%

22%

29%

27%

45

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

4%

26%

18%

25%

27%

285

8%

32%

22%

23%

15%

106

41%

41%

Other public serv ices

5%

30%

22%

19%

23%

94

35%

35%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

11%

38%

21%

13%

18%

56

Other sector or outside labour market

7%

30%

20%

18%

25%

44

Total

Very little
Very or fairly great effort
34%

34%

194

36%

36%

533

33%

33%

Gender

Age
41%

41%

22%

22%

30%

30%

48%

48%
36%

36%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Table xii.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
ensuring that all students at the age of secondary school level are
guaranteed a place in school?
Very

FairlyNeither

great

great

great nor

Ratheror noefforteffortlittle effort little effort

effortNumber

14%

40%

24%

13%

10%

700

53%

53%

Male

13%

40%

26%

13%

8%

189

52%

52%

Female

14%

40%

23%

13%

10%

511

53%

53%

22–39 y ears

5%

36%

33%

14%

12%

110

40–49 y ears

11%

41%

26%

13%

10%

188

52%

52%

50–59 y ears

18%

40%

22%

12%

9%

250

57%

57%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

17%

39%

21%

13%

9%

150

56%

56%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

10%

32%

29%

19%

10%

59

42%

42%

Healthcare serv ices

10%

33%

26%

19%

12%

42

43%

43%

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

15%

40%

22%

12%

12%

286

55%

55%

18%

38%

25%

14%

4%

99

57%

57%

Other public serv ices

7%

49%

27%

12%

6%

90

56%

56%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

22%

40%

18%

13%

7%

55

62%

62%

Other sector or outside labour market

10%

37%

34%

12%

7%

41

Total

Very little
Very or fairly great effort

Gender

Age
42%

42%

46%

46%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

128

Table xiii.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on offeringsummer jobs for young people?
Very

FairlyNeither

great

great

great nor

Ratheror noefforteffortlittle effort little effort

effortNumberVery or fairly great effort

9%

29%

24%

20%

18%

716

38%

38%

Male

8%

31%

28%

19%

15%

189

39%

39%

Female

9%

29%

23%

20%

19%

527

38%

38%

22–39 y ears

9%

38%

19%

19%

15%

117

40–49 y ears

7%

26%

23%

21%

22%

189

34%

34%

50–59 y ears

8%

30%

23%

20%

18%

261

38%

38%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

12%

26%

31%

19%

12%

147

37%

37%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

12%

27%

17%

30%

15%

60

38%

38%

Healthcare serv ices

4%

11%

41%

22%

22%

46

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

8%

25%

24%

21%

22%

291

11%

43%

19%

21%

7%

101

Other public serv ices

5%

38%

24%

17%

15%

94

44%

44%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

13%

30%

28%

13%

15%

53

43%

43%

Other sector or outside labour market

10%

34%

22%

15%

20%

41

44%

44%

Total

Very little

Gender

Age
47%

47%

15%

15%

32%

32%
53%

53%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Table xiv.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort onstrengthening vocational rehabilitation for people seeking employment?

Very

FairlyNeither

great

great

great nor

Ratheror noefforteffortlittle effort little effort

effortNumber

9%

44%

22%

15%

9%

718

54%

54%

Male

9%

42%

26%

14%

9%

192

51%

51%

Female

10%

45%

21%

15%

10%

526

55%

55%

22–39 y ears

9%

41%

23%

17%

11%

123

50%

50%

40–49 y ears

9%

43%

21%

16%

11%

184

52%

52%

50–59 y ears

9%

46%

23%

13%

10%

261

55%

55%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

12%

44%

23%

14%

7%

148

56%

56%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

10%

51%

14%

17%

8%

63

60%

60%

Healthcare serv ices

7%

35%

30%

19%

9%

43

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

9%

44%

26%

13%

9%

276

9%

53%

19%

14%

5%

105

Other public serv ices

9%

45%

20%

17%

8%

98

54%

54%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

19%

29%

22%

16%

14%

58

48%

48%

Other sector or outside labour market

11%

38%

18%

16%

18%

45

49%

49%

Total

Very little
Very or fairly great effort

Gender

Age

42%

42%

53%
62%

53%
62%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%129

Table xv.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
involving parents when streamlining measures are applied in schools?

Total

Very

FairlyNeither

great

great

great nor

Ratheror noefforteffortlittle effort little effort

effortNumber

3%

11%

34%

25%

28%

633

14%

Very little
Very or fairly great effort
14%

Gender
Male

4%

5%

38%

25%

28%

170

9%

9%

Female

2%

13%

32%

25%

28%

463

15%

15%

22–39 y ears

3%

12%

35%

26%

24%

93

15%

15%

40–49 y ears

2%

11%

31%

21%

35%

179

13%

13%

50–59 y ears

2%

8%

36%

27%

27%

229

10%

10%

60–79 y ears
Field of employment

5%

16%

32%

25%

22%

131

21%

21%

Local authorities' social serv ices.

2%

13%

38%

15%

32%

47

15%

15%

Healthcare serv ices

0%

5%

45%

26%

24%

38

Education
Public serv ice in ministries or local authorities

3%

13%

27%

27%

31%

275

3%

11%

38%

25%

24%

Other public serv ices

1%

12%

39%

30%

18%

Associations (e.g. trade association, union)

2%

9%

37%

30%

Other sector or outside labour market

3%

3%

46%

11%

Age

5%

5%

16%

16%

93

14%

14%

77

13%

13%

22%

46

11%

11%

37%

35

6%

6%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%130

ANNEX 2: BACKGROUND ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSESIN THE SURVEY AMONG THE PUBLIC
Table i.

Have you heard about the Welfare Watch?
No. after No. before
Yes

No

24%

76%

876

877

24%

24%

Male

22%

78%

434

445

22%

22%

Female

26%

74%

442

432

26%

26%

18–29 y ears

5%

95%

187

133

30–44 y ears

18%

82%

262

259

45–59 y ears

36%

64%

217

254

36%

36%

Age 60 and older
Residency

36%

64%

209

231

36%

36%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

25%

75%

562

579

25%

25%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status***

23%

77%

314

298

23%

23%

Single

11%

89%

157

113

11%

Cohabiting

18%

82%

199

187

18%

Married/registered cohabitation

33%

67%

383

439

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home***

23%

77%

103

105

No children in the home

28%

72%

470

468

Children in the home
Education***

19%

81%

378

381

19%

19%

Primary school education

17%

83%

314

110

17%

17%

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

34%

66%

152

164

Academic education at secondary school lev el

16%

84%

148

139

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market***

32%

68%

220

422

32%

32%

Salaried employ ment

27%

73%

472

511

27%

27%

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

35%

65%

75

86

5%

95%

99

68

Other

24%

76%

205

188

Managers and ex perts

39%

61%

177

283

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

25%

75%

121

127

25%

25%

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

22%

78%

138

106

22%

22%

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual***

26%

74%

77

44

26%

26%

Less than ISK 200 thousand

11%

89%

145

99

ISK 201–300 thousand

24%

76%

147

125

24%

24%

ISK 301–400 thousand

27%

73%

132

120

27%

27%

ISK 401–600 thousand

30%

70%

166

202

30%

30%

More than ISK 600 thousand

32%

68%

147

190

32%

32%

Less than ISK 300 thousand

18%

82%

163

113

18%

18%

ISK 301–500 thousand

19%

81%

193

169

19%

19%

ISK 501–700 thousand

32%

68%

123

134

32%

32%

ISK 701–900 thousand

29%

71%

95

113

29%

29%

More than ISK 900 thousand

32%

68%

139

188

32%

32%

Bright Future

25%

75%

90

93

25%

25%

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

30%

70%

87

83

30%

30%

28%

72%

137

151

28%

28%

Alliance Party

25%

75%

108

128

25%

25%

Left-Green Alliance

27%

73%

81

93

27%

27%

Other political party or candidate

22%

78%

88

87

22%

22%

Total

w eighting w eighting

Yes

Gender

Age***
5%

5%

18%

18%

11%
18%

33%

33%

23%

23%

28%

28%

34%

34%
16%

16%

35%

35%
5%

5%
24%

24%

Labour-market status**
39%

39%

11%

11%

Household income**

Political party if elections were tomorrow

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.

131

Table ii.

How familiar or unfamiliar are you with the work of the Welfare Watch?
Neither
Very

Ratherfamiliar nor

RatherVery

No. after No. before

familiarfamiliar

poorlypoorlypoorlyw eighting w eighting

1%

9%

24%

42%

25%

Male

1%

9%

24%

41%

Female

0%

9%

23%

42%

18–29 y ears

0%

38%

14%

40%

8%

9

9

30–44 y ears

1%

8%

20%

43%

28%

45

53

9%

45–59 y ears

0%

5%

30%

39%

26%

78

99

5%

5%

Age 60 and older
Residency inv (--)

1%

10%

20%

45%

25%

76

91

11%

11%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

1%

10%

25%

36%

29%

137

165

11%

11%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status inv

1%

7%

21%

54%

18%

71

87

7%

7%

Single

2%

8%

26%

36%

28%

17

22

10%

10%

Cohabiting

2%

4%

23%

27%

44%

36

40

5%

5%

Married/registered cohabitation

0%

9%

23%

48%

20%

123

154

9%

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home inv (--)

0%

19%

28%

35%

19%

24

29

No children in the home

1%

9%

28%

39%

23%

133

154

10%

10%

Children in the home
Education inv (--)

1%

9%

15%

49%

27%

69

92

10%

10%

Primary school education

0%

4%

15%

55%

26%

54

21

4%

4%

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

0%

10%

20%

48%

22%

51

56

10%

10%

Academic education at secondary school lev el

0%

9%

15%

41%

34%

24

26

9%

9%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market* inv

2%

12%

34%

30%

22%

68

139

14%

14%

Salaried employ ment

1%

9%

24%

40%

26%

123

158

10%

10%

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

0%

2%

24%

44%

30%

27

28

2%

0%

0%

44%

24%

32%

5

6

0%

Other

0%

13%

21%

47%

19%

49

56

Managers and ex perts

2%

15%

27%

32%

24%

68

108

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

0%

0%

23%

48%

29%

31

34

0%

0%

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

0%

4%

21%

35%

40%

30

27

4%

4%

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual inv

0%

0%

13%

69%

17%

20

13

0%

0%

Less than ISK 200 thousand

0%

8%

17%

51%

24%

16

14

8%

8%

ISK 201–300 thousand

0%

8%

23%

55%

14%

36

32

8%

8%

ISK 301–400 thousand

2%

6%

17%

55%

20%

35

38

8%

8%

ISK 401–600 thousand

0%

11%

31%

33%

25%

49

71

11%

11%

More than ISK 600 thousand

2%

11%

25%

33%

28%

46

61

13%

13%

Less than ISK 300 thousand

0%

11%

15%

50%

24%

30

25

11%

11%

ISK 301–500 thousand

0%

11%

27%

42%

20%

37

42

11%

11%

ISK 501–700 thousand

1%

2%

31%

54%

12%

40

42

3%

3%

ISK 701–900 thousand

2%

5%

21%

51%

21%

27

39

7%

More than ISK 900 thousand

1%

17%

25%

29%

28%

43

63

18%

18%

Bright Future

0%

12%

35%

27%

26%

23

27

12%

12%

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

0%

23%

17%

20%

40%

26

32

0%

5%

26%

38%

31%

37

46

5%

5%

Alliance Party

4%

9%

41%

33%

13%

26

44

13%

13%

Left-Green Alliance

2%

10%

12%

62%

14%

22

32

11%

11%

Other political party or candidate

0%

3%

24%

44%

29%

19

21

Total

Very or rather familiar

9%

9%

116

10%

10%

136

9%

9%

208

252

25%

94

26%

114

Gender inv (--)

Age inv
38%

38%
9%

9%

19%

19%

2%
0%

13%

13%

17%

17%

Labour-market status inv

Household income inv

7%

Political party if elections were tomorrow inv

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

23%

3%

23%

3%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.
The categories Very familiar and Rather familiar w ere merged during statistical processing and significance indicated in parentheses.

132

Table iii.

Do you think that the Welfare Watch was of great or little importance for
Icelandic society during the first few years after the economic collapse?
Veryimportant

Total

RatherNeitherVeryimportantunimportantnor

Ratherimportant unimportant unimportantor not at all

No. after No. before

importantw eighting w eighting

Very or rather important

10%

36%

19%

18%

16%

136

161

46%

46%

Male

7%

32%

21%

16%

23%

58

67

39%

39%

Female

12%

39%

18%

20%

11%

78

94

18–29 y ears

38%

47%

15%

0%

0%

7

6

30–44 y ears

4%

19%

28%

13%

36%

29

35

45–59 y ears

5%

31%

23%

26%

16%

52

67

Age 60 and older
Residency

16%

50%

11%

16%

7%

48

53

Greater Rey kjav ik area

15%

38%

17%

17%

14%

88

101

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status inv

2%

32%

24%

22%

20%

48

60

Single

15%

32%

23%

12%

17%

11

16

Cohabiting

6%

21%

32%

10%

32%

22

24

Married/registered cohabitation

9%

38%

18%

25%

10%

81

98

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home**

13%

55%

14%

8%

9%

16

20

No children in the home

12%

42%

21%

18%

7%

87

97

Children in the home
Education inv (--)

5%

26%

18%

19%

32%

47

62

Primary school education

13%

31%

14%

21%

21%

39

15

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

6%

29%

26%

15%

23%

36

39

Academic education at secondary school lev el

13%

37%

26%

24%

0%

11

11

50%

50%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market* inv

9%

45%

20%

18%

8%

44

90

54%

54%

Salaried employ ment

12%

33%

24%

14%

17%

79

105

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

3%

28%

12%

40%

17%

16

14

0%

52%

23%

0%

25%

5

5

52%

52%

Other

8%

46%

13%

22%

11%

33

35

54%

54%

Managers and ex perts

10%

37%

18%

18%

17%

44

70

47%

47%

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

0%

24%

33%

23%

20%

22

25

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

38%

29%

24%

3%

6%

17

14

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual inv (--)

0%

28%

8%

28%

36%

12

8

Less than ISK 200 thousand

15%

35%

17%

23%

10%

12

9

50%

50%

ISK 201–300 thousand

14%

41%

19%

15%

11%

26

23

55%

55%

ISK 301–400 thousand

13%

48%

7%

16%

16%

25

27

61%

61%

ISK 401–600 thousand

6%

36%

27%

25%

6%

33

49

More than ISK 600 thousand

7%

25%

27%

17%

24%

29

38

Less than ISK 300 thousand

12%

44%

11%

14%

19%

22

17

56%

56%

ISK 301–500 thousand

14%

39%

15%

26%

6%

27

31

53%

53%

ISK 501–700 thousand

0%

41%

29%

17%

13%

27

28

41%

41%

ISK 701–900 thousand

3%

31%

29%

17%

20%

19

25

34%

34%

More than ISK 900 thousand

18%

32%

18%

20%

12%

30

43

Bright Future

7%

36%

36%

11%

10%

18

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

7%

30%

13%

29%

21%

18

2%

27%

18%

27%

26%

23

27

Alliance Party

12%

45%

15%

27%

3%

17

28

Left-Green Alliance

11%

63%

11%

11%

4%

13

20

Other political party or candidate

0%

28%

28%

14%

30%

9

12

Gender51%

51%

Age inv
85% 85%
23%

23%

35%

35%

66%

66%

52%

52%

34%

34%

48%

48%

26%

26%

48%

48%

68%

68%

54%

54%

31%

31%

45%

45%

35%

35%

45%

45%

31%

31%

Labour-market status inv
24%

24%

67%

67%

28%

28%

43%

43%

32%

32%

Household income inv (--)

50%

50%

19

43%

43%

22

37%

37%

Political party if elections were tomorrow inv

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

29%

29%

56%

56%

74%

74%

28%

28%
0%

25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.
The categories Very important and Rather important on the one hand and the categories Very unimportant and Not at all important on the other, w ere
merged in the statistical processing and their significance indicated in parentheses.

133

Table iv.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on trying
to prevent poverty?
Neither
Very great

Rathergreat nor

Rathereffortgreat effort

little effort

little effort or no effort w eighting w eighting

7%

12%

17%

29%

35%

890

902

Male

10%

13%

17%

26%

35%

445

Female

5%

10%

18%

32%

35%

445

18–29 y ears

3%

19%

22%

32%

24%

171

30–44 y ears

8%

10%

12%

30%

40%

253

45–59 y ears

8%

12%

22%

22%

36%

Age 60 and older
Residency

9%

7%

15%

33%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

8%

11%

17%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status

5%

13%

18%

Single7%

15%

Cohabiting

10%

10%

Married/registered cohabitation

7%

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home

Total

Very little

No. after No. before
Very or rather great effort

19%

19%

464

22%

22%

438

15%

15%

123

22%

22%

253

18%

18%

231

267

20%

20%

37%

235

259

16%

16%

29%

35%

575

597

19%

19%

29%

34%

314

305

18%

18%

13%

24%

41%

148

110

21%

21%

19%

31%

29%

187

180

20%

20%

11%

18%

29%

36%

412

468

17%

17%

7%

13%

14%

31%

35%

107

109

20%

20%

No children in the home

7%

12%

17%

29%

33%

481

490

20%

20%

Children in the home
Education*

8%

10%

17%

28%

37%

380

383

18%

18%

Primary school education

9%

10%

18%

31%

32%

309

109

19%

19%

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

7%

6%

15%

27%

44%

162

177

13%

13%

Academic education at secondary school lev el

4%

10%

18%

35%

33%

149

141

14%

14%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market**

8%

17%

18%

24%

32%

221

427

Salaried employ ment

7%

12%

16%

26%

39%

472

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

7%

11%

25%

36%

22%

82

3%

21%

21%

33%

21%

Other

10%

7%

16%

29%

Managers and ex perts

9%

20%

22%

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

4%

9%

14%

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

3%

10%

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual***5%Less than ISK 200 thousand
ISK 201–300 thousand

Gender*Age***

25%

25%

520

19%

19%

92

18%

18%

86

62

25%

25%

38%

223

202

24%

26%

176

283

27%

45%

125

134

14%

14%

16%

34%

36%

137

110

13%

13%

5%

22%

21%

47%

81

47

10%

10%

4%

17%

22%

32%

24%

140

93

21%

21%

8%

7%

11%

36%

38%

145

128

15%

15%

ISK 301–400 thousand

7%

6%

22%

20%

45%

142

134

14%

14%

ISK 401–600 thousand

4%

11%

17%

31%

38%

165

207

14%

14%

More than ISK 600 thousand

14%

15%

15%

28%

29%

149

189

Less than ISK 300 thousand

6%

13%

17%

32%

33%

153

106

ISK 301–500 thousand

6%

5%

17%

29%

44%

203

182

11%

11%

ISK 501–700 thousand

5%

11%

22%

24%

37%

123

138

16%

16%

ISK 701–900 thousand

13%

11%

12%

39%

25%

100

123

24%

24%

More than ISK 900 thousand

10%

14%

18%

27%

31%

137

183

24%

24%

Bright Future

6%

12%

15%

22%

46%

89

96

18%

18%

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

5%

13%

28%

36%

18%

91

88

18%

18%

5%

9%

29%

34%

22%

143

155

14%

14%

Alliance Party

15%

8%

14%

26%

38%

103

131

22%

22%

Left-Green Alliance

5%

12%

6%

28%

49%

89

103

17%

17%

Other political party or candidate

3%

10%

12%

28%

47%

94

89

13%

13%

16%

16%

Labour-market status***
29%

28%

29%

28%

Household income**
18%

18%

Political party if elections were tomorrow***

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.

134

Table v.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
supporting low-income families with children?
Neither
Very great

Rathergreat nor

Rathereffortgreat effort

little effort

little effort or no effort w eighting w eighting

7%

14%

17%

30%

32%

884

893

Male

7%

17%

18%

29%

28%

446

Female

6%

12%

15%

31%

35%

438

18–29 y ears

5%

21%

19%

32%

22%

172

123

26%

26%

30–44 y ears

8%

12%

13%

28%

39%

254

251

19%

19%

45–59 y ears

8%

16%

18%

26%

32%

231

267

24%

24%

Age 60 and older
Residency*

6%

11%

17%

35%

30%

227

252

17%

17%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

9%

13%

15%

31%

33%

569

589

22%

22%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status

4%

16%

20%

30%

30%

315

304

20%

20%

Single

5%

19%

16%

24%

36%

146

107

23%

23%

Cohabiting

12%

12%

14%

31%

32%

183

178

24%

24%

Married/registered cohabitation

6%

13%

18%

33%

30%

414

465

19%

19%

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home*

9%

11%

15%

35%

30%

106

108

20%

20%

No children in the home

7%

14%

18%

33%

27%

474

482

22%

22%

Children in the home
Education*

6%

14%

16%

27%

37%

382

382

20%

20%

Primary school education

7%

15%

17%

32%

29%

310

109

22%

22%

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

7%

6%

17%

30%

41%

161

175

12%

12%

Academic education at secondary school lev el

5%

13%

17%

33%

31%

147

139

19%

19%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market**

8%

20%

15%

29%

28%

218

422

28%

28%

Salaried employ ment

7%

15%

16%

29%

34%

473

517

22%

22%

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

5%

17%

19%

32%

27%

82

92

22%

22%

2%

27%

19%

31%

21%

84

61

28%

28%

Other

10%

7%

17%

34%

33%

218

197

Managers and ex perts

7%

23%

17%

30%

23%

178

282

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

4%

9%

16%

31%

39%

124

133

14%

14%

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

4%

16%

14%

24%

41%

138

109

20%

20%

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual

5%

7%

23%

32%

33%

81

47

Less than ISK 200 thousand

8%

15%

16%

35%

25%

136

90

ISK 201–300 thousand

8%

8%

16%

34%

35%

144

124

15%

15%

ISK 301–400 thousand

8%

10%

19%

28%

35%

142

133

18%

18%

ISK 401–600 thousand

4%

12%

13%

35%

37%

165

207

15%

15%

More than ISK 600 thousand

11%

17%

17%

29%

25%

148

188

Less than ISK 300 thousand

7%

13%

18%

32%

30%

149

102

ISK 301–500 thousand

5%

7%

15%

35%

38%

198

178

ISK 501–700 thousand

5%

16%

17%

29%

33%

126

137

21%

21%

ISK 701–900 thousand

9%

15%

9%

38%

29%

103

124

24%

24%

More than ISK 900 thousand

11%

14%

23%

27%

25%

137

183

25%

25%

Bright Future

7%

16%

9%

34%

34%

88

94

23%

23%

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

5%

17%

23%

35%

19%

94

89

23%

23%

5%

13%

27%

37%

19%

139

151

18%

18%

Alliance Party

13%

17%

4%

34%

32%

106

132

Left-Green Alliance

6%

11%

10%

22%

50%

88

101

Other political party or candidate

5%

4%

23%

24%

45%

93

88

Total

Very little

No. after No. before
Very or rather great effort

21%

21%

461

24%

24%

432

18%

18%

Gender

Age**

17%

17%

Labour-market status**

30%

12%
24%

28%

30%

12%
24%

28%

Household income*
20%

20%
12%

12%

Political party if elections were tomorrow***

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

30%
18%
9%

30%
18%
9%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.

135

Table vi.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
supporting low-income people with housing problems?
Neither
Very great

Rathergreat nor

Rathereffortgreat effort

little effort

little effort or no effort w eighting w eighting

6%

13%

13%

30%

37%

892

902

Male

8%

15%

15%

30%

33%

448

Female

5%

11%

12%

30%

42%

444

18–29 y ears

6%

20%

14%

32%

29%

177

126

25%

25%

30–44 y ears

6%

13%

11%

31%

39%

254

251

19%

19%

45–59 y ears

7%

12%

16%

29%

35%

230

266

19%

19%

Age 60 and older
Residency

6%

10%

12%

29%

44%

231

259

16%

16%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

8%

12%

12%

29%

39%

575

595

20%

20%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status

4%

14%

15%

32%

35%

317

307

19%

19%

Single

4%

16%

14%

22%

43%

147

108

21%

21%

Cohabiting

10%

14%

9%

31%

36%

189

181

24%

24%

Married/registered cohabitation

6%

11%

15%

31%

37%

412

467

17%

17%

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home

5%

15%

10%

35%

34%

108

111

21%

21%

No children in the home

7%

13%

13%

30%

37%

483

492

21%

21%

Children in the home
Education

5%

13%

14%

30%

39%

381

381

18%

18%

Primary school education

8%

13%

12%

31%

36%

310

109

20%

20%

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

6%

11%

10%

28%

45%

163

178

17%

17%

Academic education at secondary school lev el

5%

12%

15%

31%

37%

152

143

17%

17%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market**

6%

17%

15%

30%

32%

219

424

23%

23%

Salaried employ ment

6%

15%

12%

29%

37%

476

518

22%

22%

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

3%

9%

20%

34%

35%

82

93

3%

19%

22%

23%

34%

87

63

22%

22%

Other

9%

8%

11%

32%

40%

220

202

17%

17%

Managers and ex perts

6%

23%

14%

29%

28%

177

281

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

5%

8%

16%

29%

42%

125

134

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

3%

17%

7%

29%

43%

140

110

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual*

5%

4%

16%

35%

40%

81

47

Less than ISK 200 thousand

9%

15%

10%

35%

32%

142

94

24%

24%

ISK 201–300 thousand

8%

9%

12%

26%

45%

149

131

17%

17%

ISK 301–400 thousand

6%

8%

15%

35%

36%

141

133

15%

15%

ISK 401–600 thousand

2%

11%

12%

33%

42%

167

207

13%

13%

More than ISK 600 thousand

11%

17%

14%

27%

31%

149

189

Less than ISK 300 thousand

6%

14%

14%

32%

34%

156

109

ISK 301–500 thousand

4%

5%

11%

35%

45%

199

179

ISK 501–700 thousand

6%

14%

15%

27%

39%

127

139

19%

19%

ISK 701–900 thousand

7%

15%

6%

32%

40%

104

124

22%

22%

More than ISK 900 thousand

10%

14%

17%

31%

27%

138

184

25%

25%

Bright Future

5%

17%

11%

30%

37%

89

95

22%

22%

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

5%

18%

15%

31%

31%

94

89

23%

23%

7%

11%

20%

42%

21%

143

156

17%

17%

Alliance Party

9%

13%

11%

34%

32%

108

133

22%

22%

Left-Green Alliance

4%

11%

10%

18%

57%

87

101

14%

14%

Other political party or candidate

6%

2%

11%

28%

54%

94

89

7%

7%

Total

Very little

No. after No. before
Very or rather great effort

20%

20%

465

23%

23%

437

16%

16%

Gender*

Age

12%

12%

Labour-market status**

29%
13%
21%

29%
13%
21%
9%

9%

28%

28%

20%

20%

Household income**
9%9%Political party if elections were tomorrow***

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.

136

Table vii.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
reducing the medical expenses of patients struggling with severe, chronic
diseases?
Neither
Very great

Rathergreat nor

Rathereffortgreat effort

little effort

little effort or no effort w eighting w eighting

7%

9%

12%

26%

45%

872

873

Male

8%

11%

15%

24%

42%

430

Female

6%

8%

9%

28%

49%

442

18–29 y ears

7%

11%

15%

30%

37%

170

30–44 y ears

8%

9%

9%

25%

49%

242

45–59 y ears

6%

10%

15%

25%

44%

Age 60 and older
Residency

6%

8%

11%

25%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

8%

9%

13%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status

6%

10%

11%

Single6%9%Cohabiting

9%

11%

Married/registered cohabitation

7%

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home

5%

No children in the homeChildren in the home
Education

Total

Very little

No. after No. before
Very or rather great effort

16%

16%

443

19%

19%

430

14%

14%

120

17%

17%

236

17%

17%

229

262

17%

17%

49%

231

255

15%

15%

27%

44%

565

572

17%

17%

25%

48%

308

301

16%

16%

10%

28%

47%

141

103

14%

14%

15%

25%

40%

187

175

21%

21%

8%

13%

24%

47%

406

455

16%

16%

11%

9%

29%

46%

105

107

16%

16%

7%

9%

13%

25%

46%

483

483

16%

16%

7%

10%

12%

26%

46%

364

363

16%

16%

Primary school education

7%

12%

13%

28%

40%

310

109

19%

19%

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

8%

3%

12%

26%

50%

162

176

12%

12%

Academic education at secondary school lev el

6%

6%

10%

28%

50%

148

140

12%

12%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market

7%

11%

14%

24%

44%

206

402

18%

18%

Salaried employ ment

7%

10%

13%

23%

48%

467

504

16%

16%

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

5%

10%

17%

34%

33%

80

89

16%

16%

5%

13%

16%

26%

41%

85

58

18%

18%

Other

9%

7%

9%

27%

48%

215

198

16%

16%

Managers and ex perts

6%

11%

17%

24%

42%

167

268

18%

18%

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

5%

8%

13%

21%

53%

122

130

13%

13%

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

6%

11%

10%

29%

44%

140

109

17%

17%

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual*

3%

7%

17%

29%

45%

82

46

9%

9%

Less than ISK 200 thousand

9%

9%

14%

29%

39%

140

90

18%

18%

ISK 201–300 thousand

5%

9%

9%

29%

48%

148

128

14%

14%

ISK 301–400 thousand

6%

9%

8%

23%

55%

142

134

14%

14%

ISK 401–600 thousand

3%

5%

15%

27%

49%

159

199

8%

More than ISK 600 thousand

10%

15%

14%

26%

35%

144

180

Less than ISK 300 thousand

4%

9%

13%

30%

44%

152

102

13%

ISK 301–500 thousand

3%

6%

9%

32%

50%

195

176

9%

9%

ISK 501–700 thousand

4%

11%

16%

20%

49%

127

139

15%

15%

ISK 701–900 thousand

10%

9%

7%

21%

53%

99

120

19%

19%

More than ISK 900 thousand

9%

12%

17%

28%

34%

133

175

22%

22%

Gender**Age

Labour-market status

8%
25%

25%

Household income**
13%

Political party if elections were tomorrow**
Bright Future

6%

5%

9%

34%

46%

84

88

11%

11%

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

2%

17%

20%

26%

36%

93

88

18%

18%

6%

7%

19%

32%

36%

141

152

13%

13%

Alliance Party

7%

11%

10%

28%

44%

103

126

18%

18%

Left-Green Alliance

3%

9%

8%

28%

52%

86

98

12%

12%

Other political party or candidate

5%

3%

7%

30%

56%

93

87

8%

8%

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.

137

Table viii.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
ensuring that all children are given lunch in Icelandic primary schools?
Neither
Very great

Rathergreat nor

Rathereffortgreat effort

little effort

little effort or no effort w eighting w eighting

8%

15%

30%

22%

25%

754

742

Male

8%

15%

35%

21%

21%

376

Female

7%

15%

25%

23%

30%

377

18–29 y ears

11%

21%

27%

22%

19%

140

98

30–44 y ears

8%

9%

25%

25%

32%

211

201

17%

17%

45–59 y ears

7%

13%

36%

22%

23%

200

230

20%

20%

Age 60 and older
Residency

5%

20%

30%

20%

25%

202

213

25%

25%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

7%

15%

29%

24%

25%

474

478

22%

22%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status*

8%

15%

30%

20%

27%

280

264

23%

23%

Single

5%

15%

24%

31%

25%

118

85

20%

20%

Cohabiting

11%

10%

35%

20%

23%

155

143

22%

22%

Married/registered cohabitation

6%

14%

31%

21%

27%

360

392

21%

21%

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home**

6%

27%

26%

16%

25%

89

92

No children in the home

8%

18%

31%

23%

21%

407

Children in the home
Education

8%

11%

28%

21%

31%

320

Primary school education

9%

14%

33%

22%

22%

289

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

9%

12%

28%

26%

25%

136

Academic education at secondary school lev el

5%

17%

32%

21%

26%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market**

7%

17%

28%

21%

Salaried employ ment

6%

11%

30%

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

11%

16%

39%

7%

30%

Other

10%

Managers and ex perts
Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

Total

Very little

No. after No. before
Very or rather great effort

23%

23%

375

23%

23%

367

22%

22%

Gender*

Age**
32%

32%

33%

33%

395

25%

25%

319

19%

19%

102

23%

23%

148

21%

21%

111

106

21%

21%

28%

177

345

24%

24%

25%

28%

401

426

17%

17%

17%

18%

65

78

33%

14%

16%

64

45

18%

28%

20%

24%

200

169

7%

14%

27%

26%

26%

154

240

3%

10%

33%

25%

29%

107

111

13%

13%

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

6%

14%

36%

16%

28%

107

84

20%

20%

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual***

1%

11%

29%

31%

28%

71

40

Less than ISK 200 thousand

15%

22%

28%

23%

12%

115

72

ISK 201–300 thousand

7%

16%

20%

25%

31%

125

104

23%

23%

ISK 301–400 thousand

4%

15%

35%

22%

24%

127

119

19%

19%

ISK 401–600 thousand

5%

12%

30%

18%

36%

130

160

16%

16%

More than ISK 600 thousand

10%

9%

35%

23%

24%

129

163

18%

18%

Less than ISK 300 thousand

12%

22%

21%

26%

19%

122

77

ISK 301–500 thousand

6%

9%

33%

22%

30%

175

156

15%

15%

ISK 501–700 thousand

4%

13%

31%

23%

28%

107

115

18%

18%

ISK 701–900 thousand

8%

14%

32%

18%

28%

85

106

22%

22%

More than ISK 900 thousand

8%

14%

30%

25%

23%

114

149

22%

22%

26%

37%
28%

26%
37%
28%

Labour-market status

20%

20%

12%

12%
37%

37%

Household income
34%

34%

Political party if elections were tomorrow***
10%Bright Future

4%

6%

39%

33%

17%

73

73

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

10%

19%

32%

23%

17%

82

75

7%

13%

37%

28%

16%

124

130

20%

20%

Alliance Party

5%

20%

29%

24%

22%

91

110

25%

25%

Left-Green Alliance

3%

14%

15%

26%

42%

73

83

18%

18%

Other political party or candidate

8%

13%

36%

11%

32%

77

71

21%

21%

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

10%
29%

29%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.

138

Table ix.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
ensuring mental health services for children?
Neither
Very great

Rathergreat nor

Rathereffortgreat effort

little effort

little effort or no effort w eighting w eighting

8%

8%

15%

28%

40%

800

795

Male

8%

10%

19%

27%

35%

395

Female

7%

6%

12%

29%

45%

405

18–29 y ears

9%

17%

15%

26%

34%

151

103

30–44 y ears

9%

5%

11%

32%

43%

224

218

14%

14%

45–59 y ears

7%

5%

23%

25%

40%

214

247

12%

12%

Age 60 and older
Residency

6%

9%

13%

30%

42%

212

227

15%

15%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

8%

8%

15%

27%

42%

507

517

16%

16%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status

7%

9%

16%

31%

37%

293

278

16%

16%

Single

6%

13%

10%

28%

42%

126

92

19%

19%

Cohabiting

10%

7%

17%

27%

39%

168

161

18%

18%

Married/registered cohabitation

7%

7%

19%

28%

40%

379

415

13%

13%

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home

7%

10%

8%

33%

42%

96

98

16%

16%

No children in the home

7%

10%

15%

29%

39%

431

429

17%

17%

Children in the home
Education

8%

6%

16%

27%

43%

345

341

14%

14%

Primary school education

9%

10%

15%

30%

36%

300

106

19%

19%

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

8%

6%

14%

30%

43%

142

154

14%

14%

Academic education at secondary school lev el

5%

7%

20%

27%

42%

124

118

12%

12%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market***

8%

8%

15%

27%

42%

193

376

16%

16%

Salaried employ ment

7%

6%

18%

27%

42%

424

460

13%

13%

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

7%

8%

16%

33%

35%

75

82

15%

10%

24%

13%

15%

37%

72

51

Other

9%

7%

12%

34%

38%

208

181

Managers and ex perts

7%

7%

18%

29%

39%

159

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

6%

4%

14%

34%

43%

111

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

6%

11%

18%

24%

41%

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual**

1%

2%

23%

28%

Less than ISK 200 thousand

12%

10%

18%

ISK 201–300 thousand

6%

14%

9%

ISK 301–400 thousand

6%5%

ISK 401–600 thousand

4%

More than ISK 600 thousand

Total

Very little

No. after No. before
Very or rather great effort

16%

16%

403

19%

19%

392

13%

13%

Gender**Age***
26%

26%

15%

34%

34%

16%

16%

250

14%

14%

118

9%

9%

122

97

17%

17%

45%

75

44

34%

26%

126

80

22%

22%

25%

46%

138

117

20%

20%

14%

29%

47%

130

125

11%

11%

6%

15%

32%

43%

139

173

10%

10%

9%

8%

19%

28%

36%

131

167

17%

17%

Less than ISK 300 thousand

7%

14%

15%

33%

30%

134

89

22%

22%

ISK 301–500 thousand

4%

4%

11%

33%

48%

183

162

7%

7%

ISK 501–700 thousand

5%

10%

19%

26%

39%

117

126

15%

15%

ISK 701–900 thousand

9%

6%

9%

31%

44%

92

112

15%

15%

More than ISK 900 thousand

9%

9%

21%

26%

35%

119

157

18%

18%

Labour-market status

3%

3%

Household income**

Political party if elections were tomorrow**
Bright Future

6%

2%

13%

33%

46%

81

84

9%

9%

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

4%

12%

24%

34%

27%

86

79

15%

15%

6%

8%

28%

27%

31%

124

134

14%

14%

Alliance Party

6%

8%

11%

34%

41%

84

109

14%

14%

Left-Green Alliance

5%

6%

7%

31%

51%

78

90

11%

11%

Other political party or candidate

5%

1%

14%

32%

47%

85

79

6%

6%

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.

139

Table x.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
formulating a comprehensive policy for housing issues?
Neither
Very great

Rathergreat nor

Rathereffortgreat effort

little effort

little effort or no effort w eighting w eighting

5%

12%

17%

29%

37%

867

874

Male

7%

13%

19%

26%

36%

442

Female

4%

11%

15%

31%

39%

425

18–29 y ears

6%

15%

18%

29%

31%

162

30–44 y ears

5%

11%

17%

28%

38%

250

45–59 y ears

5%

11%

18%

27%

39%

Age 60 and older
Residency*

5%

11%

14%

30%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

7%

11%

16%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status

2%

14%

19%

Single5%9%Cohabiting

9%

10%

Married/registered cohabitation

4%

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home

Total

Very little

No. after No. before
Very or rather great effort

17%

17%

457

19%

19%

417

15%

15%

114

21%

21%

248

16%

16%

227

261

16%

16%

39%

229

251

16%

16%

29%

38%

567

580

18%

18%

28%

37%

299

294

16%

16%

17%

32%

37%

135

101

14%

14%

16%

26%

39%

186

177

19%

19%

13%

19%

28%

36%

411

460

17%

17%

7%

13%

11%

31%

38%

102

104

20%

20%

No children in the home

7%

12%

17%

28%

36%

478

478

18%

18%

Children in the home
Education

4%

12%

16%

28%

39%

364

370

16%

16%

Primary school education

5%

13%

15%

31%

37%

309

109

18%

18%

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

7%

8%

16%

28%

41%

156

170

15%

15%

Academic education at secondary school lev el

5%

13%

19%

27%

36%

147

138

18%

18%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market**

5%

13%

19%

27%

36%

214

415

18%

18%

Salaried employ ment

5%

12%

19%

27%

37%

465

503

17%

17%

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

3%

10%

14%

33%

40%

83

95

13%

13%

1%

24%

12%

23%

40%

84

61

Other

9%

8%

14%

30%

38%

215

194

Managers and ex perts

4%

16%

18%

29%

33%

174

278

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

3%

8%

22%

23%

43%

121

130

12%

12%

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

3%

14%

14%

33%

36%

133

103

17%

17%

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual**

5%

3%

23%

31%

38%

83

48

Less than ISK 200 thousand

8%

13%

13%

34%

32%

136

90

21%

21%

ISK 201–300 thousand

6%

9%

10%

27%

47%

145

125

16%

16%

ISK 301–400 thousand

5%

7%

18%

38%

32%

134

127

12%

12%

ISK 401–600 thousand

3%

8%

18%

31%

39%

161

200

11%

11%

More than ISK 600 thousand

7%

17%

21%

20%

35%

148

189

Less than ISK 300 thousand

6%

10%

14%

31%

39%

148

102

16%

16%

ISK 301–500 thousand

6%

6%

12%

31%

45%

192

174

12%

12%

ISK 501–700 thousand

5%

10%

20%

41%

24%

121

133

15%

15%

ISK 701–900 thousand

4%

13%

13%

24%

46%

101

120

17%

17%

More than ISK 900 thousand

6%

16%

25%

23%

29%

137

183

23%

23%

Gender

Age

25%

25%

17%

17%

20%

20%

Labour-market status

8%

8%

24%

24%

Household income***

Political party if elections were tomorrow***
10%Bright Future

5%

6%

22%

40%

28%

88

94

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

8%

17%

24%

18%

34%

93

89

24%

24%

7%

11%

25%

27%

30%

144

156

18%

18%

Alliance Party

4%

9%

15%

32%

39%

105

130

13%

13%

Left-Green Alliance

1%

6%

10%

34%

49%

85

97

8%

8%

Other political party or candidate

3%

3%

12%

38%

45%

86

82

6%

6%

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

10%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.

140

Table xi.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort oncomprehensively analysing the financial situation of households?
Neither
Very great

Rathergreat nor

Rathereffortgreat effort

little effort

little effort or no effort w eighting w eighting

6%

17%

17%

28%

32%

867

878

Male

7%

19%

19%

28%

26%

444

Female

4%

15%

15%

27%

39%

423

18–29 y ears

5%

26%

19%

31%

19%

161

115

30–44 y ears

8%

14%

16%

29%

33%

251

250

22%

22%

45–59 y ears

5%

18%

20%

23%

34%

231

265

23%

23%

Age 60 and older
Residency

4%

12%

14%

30%

40%

225

248

16%

16%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

7%

16%

15%

28%

34%

566

583

23%

23%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status

4%

18%

21%

27%

30%

302

295

22%

22%

Single

7%

17%

18%

26%

33%

134

101

23%

23%

Cohabiting

5%

19%

17%

30%

28%

188

180

25%

25%

Married/registered cohabitation

5%

16%

20%

28%

31%

414

462

21%

21%

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home

8%

13%

7%

25%

47%

103

106

22%

22%

No children in the home

6%

16%

16%

29%

33%

475

479

22%

22%

Children in the home
Education

5%

19%

19%

26%

31%

368

374

24%

24%

Primary school education

5%

16%

15%

31%

33%

306

108

21%

21%

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

7%

10%

20%

28%

34%

159

173

17%

17%

Academic education at secondary school lev el

4%

19%

22%

29%

26%

144

136

23%

23%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market

7%

22%

16%

23%

32%

216

419

29%

29%

Salaried employ ment

6%

19%

17%

26%

32%

473

511

25%

25%

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

4%

9%

21%

32%

33%

83

94

5%

26%

17%

29%

22%

77

58

Other

6%

12%

15%

29%

38%

213

194

Managers and ex perts

7%

23%

18%

27%

26%

177

282

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

4%

13%

23%

27%

33%

120

128

17%

17%

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

5%

16%

11%

34%

33%

139

109

21%

21%

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual***

2%

10%

22%

22%

45%

83

48

Less than ISK 200 thousand

6%

19%

15%

30%

30%

130

87

25%

25%

ISK 201–300 thousand

9%

10%

8%

36%

38%

143

124

19%

19%

ISK 301–400 thousand

2%

15%

19%

24%

39%

139

131

18%

18%

ISK 401–600 thousand

3%

16%

18%

34%

29%

164

203

19%

19%

More than ISK 600 thousand

10%

21%

22%

21%

26%

149

191

Less than ISK 300 thousand

7%

15%

10%

31%

37%

139

97

ISK 301–500 thousand

3%

11%

14%

32%

40%

195

175

14%

14%

ISK 501–700 thousand

7%

15%

21%

27%

30%

123

135

21%

21%

ISK 701–900 thousand

7%

19%

18%

24%

33%

104

124

26%

26%

More than ISK 900 thousand

8%

20%

24%

25%

23%

139

185

28%

28%

Bright Future

5%

18%

14%

31%

32%

87

93

23%

23%

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

7%

18%

21%

29%

26%

93

87

25%

25%

5%

18%

26%

21%

30%

146

158

23%

23%

Alliance Party

10%

18%

15%

31%

25%

104

130

29%

29%

Left-Green Alliance

3%

11%

8%

30%

49%

85

97

14%

14%

Other political party or candidate

6%

5%

12%

40%

37%

89

86

10%

10%

Total

Very little

No. after No. before
Very or rather great effort

23%

23%

456

26%

26%

422

19%

19%

Gender***Age***
31%

31%

14%

14%

32%
18%

32%
18%

Labour-market status*

30%

30%

12%

12%

31%

31%

Household income*
22%

22%

Political party if elections were tomorrow***

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.

141

Table xii.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
ensuring that all students at the age of secondary school level are
guaranteed a place in school?
Neither
Very great

Rathergreat nor

Rathereffortgreat effort

little effort

little effort or no effort w eighting w eighting

8%

17%

29%

22%

23%

801

815

Male

9%

18%

31%

21%

21%

406

Female

8%

16%

28%

22%

26%

395

18–29 y ears

8%

24%

33%

17%

18%

153

110

30–44 y ears

10%

12%

28%

22%

28%

218

218

21%

21%

45–59 y ears

8%

19%

28%

24%

21%

210

244

27%

27%

Age 60 and older
Residency

7%

16%

30%

22%

25%

221

243

23%

23%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

9%

19%

27%

23%

23%

518

538

28%

28%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status

7%

14%

35%

19%

25%

283

277

21%

21%

Single

7%

20%

22%

21%

31%

129

94

27%

27%

Cohabiting

12%

14%

33%

22%

20%

162

158

26%

26%

Married/registered cohabitation

7%

17%

33%

22%

21%

383

432

24%

24%

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home

8%

20%

23%

21%

28%

95

100

28%

28%

No children in the home

8%

19%

28%

21%

24%

455

456

27%

27%

Children in the home
Education

8%

14%

32%

22%

24%

322

334

22%

22%

Primary school education

7%

15%

35%

21%

22%

285

101

22%

22%

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

8%

15%

25%

29%

23%

140

153

22%

22%

Academic education at secondary school lev el

8%

20%

27%

21%

24%

134

127

28%

28%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market*

8%

22%

27%

18%

24%

201

393

31%

31%

Salaried employ ment

8%

16%

29%

24%

23%

429

472

24%

24%

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

8%

14%

30%

28%

20%

75

88

22%

22%

6%

32%

35%

9%

18%

72

51

Other

9%

16%

29%

20%

26%

200

181

Managers and ex perts

8%

19%

32%

19%

22%

164

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

6%

15%

30%

24%

24%

113

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

10%

15%

31%

26%

19%

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual

3%

12%

23%

31%

Less than ISK 200 thousand

11%

25%

28%

ISK 201–300 thousand

6%

19%

27%

ISK 301–400 thousand

8%

15%

ISK 401–600 thousand

7%

More than ISK 600 thousand

Total

Very little

No. after No. before
Very or rather great effort

25%

25%

426

27%

27%

389

24%

24%

Gender

Age
32%

38%

32%

38%

25%

25%

264

26%

26%

122

22%

22%

118

98

25%

25%

31%

79

45

21%

15%

122

78

21%

27%

138

118

25%

25%

26%

25%

27%

134

127

23%

23%

18%

29%

25%

22%

138

180

24%

24%

10%

16%

32%

23%

18%

138

178

27%

27%

Less than ISK 300 thousand

5%

26%

19%

22%

27%

138

92

32%

32%

ISK 301–500 thousand

7%

13%

30%

24%

26%

179

162

20%

20%

ISK 501–700 thousand

8%

18%

33%

23%

19%

118

129

26%

26%

ISK 701–900 thousand

8%

21%

27%

23%

20%

89

112

29%

29%

More than ISK 900 thousand

10%

16%

33%

23%

17%

128

170

27%

27%

Bright Future

5%

15%

23%

34%

22%

81

84

20%

20%

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

6%

22%

39%

20%

13%

83

81

28%

28%

5%

21%

42%

20%

12%

129

141

26%

26%

Alliance Party

11%

20%

25%

20%

24%

94

121

31%

31%

Left-Green Alliance

8%

11%

18%

16%

48%

82

93

19%

19%

Other political party or candidate

6%

13%

25%

26%

30%

83

80

19%

19%

Labour-market status

14%

14%
35%

35%

Household income

Political party if elections were tomorrow***

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.

142

Table xiii.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on offeringsummer jobs for young people?
Neither
Very great

Rathergreat nor

Rathereffortgreat effort

little effort

little effort or no effort w eighting w eighting

6%

13%

26%

26%

28%

797

808

19%

19%

Male

6%

12%

30%

25%

27%

397

413

18%

18%

Female

7%

13%

22%

28%

30%

400

395

20%

20%

18–29 y ears

7%

23%

20%

33%

17%

153

110

30–44 y ears

9%

9%

23%

30%

29%

217

218

17%

17%

45–59 y ears

3%

11%

33%

21%

32%

213

246

14%

14%

Age 60 and older
Residency*

6%

11%

27%

23%

33%

213

234

17%

17%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

7%

12%

22%

27%

30%

518

534

20%

20%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status*

4%

13%

33%

24%

25%

279

274

18%

18%

Single

4%

15%

18%

31%

31%

133

96

19%

19%

Cohabiting

12%

16%

23%

27%

23%

162

157

Married/registered cohabitation

6%

10%

29%

26%

28%

381

429

16%

16%

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home

5%

13%

28%

20%

35%

91

96

17%

17%

No children in the home

8%

13%

25%

23%

30%

448

444

21%

21%

Children in the home
Education*

5%

12%

26%

31%

27%

325

338

16%

16%

Primary school education

9%

12%

27%

27%

25%

278

98

22%

22%

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

6%

4%

27%

26%

37%

147

161

Academic education at secondary school lev el

4%

18%

22%

28%

28%

131

124

22%

22%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market***

4%

16%

27%

26%

27%

197

382

20%

20%

Salaried employ ment

6%

11%

26%

29%

28%

421

460

17%

17%

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

3%

7%

35%

24%

31%

75

88

10%

10%

2%

27%

22%

31%

19%

78

55

28%

28%

Other

12%

12%

24%

21%

31%

200

183

23%

23%

Managers and ex perts

5%

11%

31%

25%

28%

161

258

15%

15%

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

2%

8%

28%

27%

35%

108

115

10%

10%

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

8%

16%

17%

34%

25%

119

98

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual*

1%

6%

33%

31%

28%

75

43

Less than ISK 200 thousand

10%

15%

26%

25%

24%

132

89

25%

25%

ISK 201–300 thousand

9%

16%

20%

32%

23%

139

120

25%

25%

ISK 301–400 thousand

4%

12%

25%

28%

31%

128

124

16%

16%

ISK 401–600 thousand

2%

8%

30%

29%

31%

140

181

10%

10%

More than ISK 600 thousand

8%

8%

30%

26%

28%

132

168

15%

15%

Less than ISK 300 thousand

6%

14%

20%

32%

28%

146

100

20%

20%

ISK 301–500 thousand

4%

10%

27%

26%

32%

176

161

15%

15%

ISK 501–700 thousand

9%

11%

30%

26%

23%

118

130

20%

20%

ISK 701–900 thousand

6%

10%

24%

29%

31%

86

108

16%

16%

More than ISK 900 thousand

5%

11%

29%

30%

25%

127

167

16%

16%

Bright Future

3%

15%

21%

34%

27%

84

88

18%

18%

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

7%

15%

35%

23%

20%

84

80

22%

22%

6%

8%

37%

22%

26%

128

142

Alliance Party

6%

17%

30%

25%

22%

88

112

Left-Green Alliance

5%

8%

17%

24%

47%

83

94

13%

13%

Other political party or candidate

9%

3%

27%

26%

35%

79

76

13%

13%

Total

Very little

No. after No. before
Very or rather great effort

Gender

Age***
31%

28%

31%

28%

10%

10%

Labour-market status*

24%

24%
8%

8%

Household income

Political party if elections were tomorrow**

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

14%
23%

14%
23%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.

143

Table xiv.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort onstrengthening vocational rehabilitation for people seeking employment?
Neither
Very great

Rathergreat nor

Rathereffortgreat effort

little effort

little effort or no effort w eighting w eighting

9%

20%

25%

25%

21%

775

792

Male

8%

23%

24%

27%

19%

385

Female

9%

17%

26%

24%

24%

389

18–29 y ears

8%

24%

31%

18%

18%

138

30–44 y ears

12%

14%

24%

24%

26%

220

45–59 y ears

5%

24%

30%

25%

17%

202

Age 60 and older
Residency

9%

19%

16%

32%

24%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

10%

19%

23%

28%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status

6%

21%

27%

21%

Single

6%

24%

19%

Cohabiting

11%

18%

26%

Married/registered cohabitation

9%

20%

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home

8%

No children in the homeChildren in the home
Education

Total

Very little

No. after No. before
Very or rather great effort

28%

28%

408

31%

31%

384

26%

26%

99

32%

32%

222

26%

26%

237

29%

29%

215

234

28%

28%

20%

495

517

29%

29%

24%

280

275

27%

27%

27%

24%

119

90

30%

30%

25%

21%

161

157

29%

29%

27%

26%

18%

374

420

29%

29%

20%

21%

22%

29%

90

95

29%

29%

9%

21%

23%

26%

21%

440

443

30%

30%

8%

19%

27%

25%

21%

312

324

27%

27%

Primary school education

10%

20%

23%

26%

20%

270

96

31%

31%

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

5%

14%

28%

28%

25%

145

158

19%

19%

Academic education at secondary school lev el

7%

19%

28%

25%

21%

121

116

26%

26%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market

9%

26%

24%

22%

19%

194

378

35%

35%

Salaried employ ment

8%

20%

26%

26%

20%

411

454

28%

28%

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

6%

23%

29%

29%

13%

74

86

29%

29%

6%

23%

32%

20%

20%

67

48

29%

29%

Other

12%

19%

19%

24%

26%

201

182

31%

31%

Managers and ex perts

7%

27%

26%

22%

18%

159

253

34%

34%

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

3%

18%

27%

28%

24%

112

118

21%

21%

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

14%

14%

25%

33%

14%

114

93

27%

27%

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual*

3%

17%

34%

26%

21%

69

42

Less than ISK 200 thousand

13%

22%

17%

28%

20%

119

79

ISK 201–300 thousand

9%

14%

22%

31%

23%

141

120

23%

23%

ISK 301–400 thousand

7%

21%

29%

17%

25%

120

117

29%

29%

ISK 401–600 thousand

8%

14%

25%

35%

18%

136

177

22%

22%

More than ISK 600 thousand

8%

25%

28%

21%

17%

131

169

Less than ISK 300 thousand

5%

22%

14%

31%

28%

136

ISK 301–500 thousand

8%

17%

26%

25%

24%

167

ISK 501–700 thousand

10%

18%

31%

27%

14%

114

ISK 701–900 thousand

7%

22%

19%

28%

24%

More than ISK 900 thousand

11%

19%

33%

24%

Bright Future

5%

27%

23%

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

10%

25%

28%

6%

29%

Alliance Party

12%

Left-Green Alliance
Other political party or candidate

Gender

Age***

Labour-market status*

19%
35%

19%
35%

33%

33%

93

27%

27%

154

25%

25%

125

28%

28%

85

108

29%

29%

14%

126

167

29%

29%

26%

19%

81

84

32%

32%

23%

14%

83

78

34%

34%

26%

27%

13%

121

138

34%

34%

20%

21%

28%

20%

90

117

32%

32%

9%

15%

20%

23%

33%

78

86

24%

24%

5%

12%

26%

28%

30%

83

79

16%

16%

Household income*

Political party if elections were tomorrow*

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.

144

Table xv.

Do you feel that the government has spent great, little or no effort on
involving parents when streamlining measures are applied in schools?
Neither
Very great

Rathergreat nor

Rathereffortgreat effort

little effort

little effort or no effort w eighting w eighting

4%

10%

27%

29%

30%

710

714

Male

4%

11%

29%

28%

28%

365

Female

4%

10%

25%

29%

33%

345

18–29 y ears

3%

13%

28%

37%

18%

125

30–44 y ears

6%

4%

29%

28%

33%

209

45–59 y ears

2%

12%

30%

21%

34%

192

Age 60 and older
Residency*

4%

13%

22%

31%

30%

Greater Rey kjav ik area

5%

9%

24%

32%

Outside Rey kjav ík area
Marital status

3%

12%

33%

23%

Single

4%

7%

23%

Cohabiting

4%

11%

29%

Married/registered cohabitation

5%

10%

Div orced or w idow /w idow edChildren in the home*

4%

No children in the homeChildren in the home
Education

Total

Very little

No. after No. before
Very or rather great effort

14%

14%

377

15%

15%

337

14%

14%

87

17%

17%

209

10%

10%

219

14%

14%

185

199

17%

17%

30%

455

470

14%

14%

30%

255

244

15%

15%

37%

29%

108

79

11%

11%

32%

25%

148

143

15%

15%

28%

26%

31%

348

381

15%

15%

14%

27%

21%

33%

79

83

18%

18%

4%

13%

28%

26%

28%

373

372

17%

17%

4%

6%

26%

31%

32%

314

317

11%

11%

Primary school education

5%

13%

24%

31%

28%

258

91

17%

17%

Vocational education at secondary school lev el

5%

8%

20%

31%

36%

126

137

13%

13%

Academic education at secondary school lev el

3%

9%

36%

27%

24%

112

107

12%

12%

Univ ersity education
Position on labour market*

3%

9%

32%

23%

33%

175

339

12%

12%

Salaried employ ment

3%

10%

27%

28%

32%

389

419

13%

13%

Self-employ ed/employ er
Study ing

6%

5%

29%

26%

34%

67

78

10%

10%

0%

12%

36%

38%

13%

61

42

12%

12%

Other

7%

12%

24%

25%

32%

171

154

Managers and ex perts

2%

9%

30%

29%

30%

146

234

11%

11%

Industrial w orkers, technicians and specially trained employ ees

2%

9%

21%

23%

44%

103

109

12%

12%

Office and sales and serv ices personnel

6%

11%

28%

35%

20%

108

84

17%

17%

Famers, fishermen, machinists and labourers
Income of individual inv (**)

1%

5%

26%

24%

44%

69

39

Less than ISK 200 thousand

2%

13%

25%

40%

20%

101

64

16%

16%

ISK 201–300 thousand

6%

11%

20%

33%

30%

126

104

17%

17%

ISK 301–400 thousand

2%

10%

35%

17%

36%

113

111

12%

12%

ISK 401–600 thousand

3%

6%

23%

36%

32%

120

155

9%

9%

More than ISK 600 thousand

4%

9%

36%

22%

28%

129

162

13%

13%

Less than ISK 300 thousand

1%

10%

19%

45%

25%

108

69

11%

11%

ISK 301–500 thousand

4%

8%

31%

21%

35%

161

145

12%

12%

ISK 501–700 thousand

6%

11%

28%

28%

28%

103

113

16%

16%

ISK 701–900 thousand

3%

8%

25%

30%

34%

80

103

11%

11%

4%

11%

32%

26%

27%

117

151

15%

15%

Bright Future

4%

5%

22%

34%

36%

70

70

9%

Progressiv e Party
Independence Party

8%

9%

38%

26%

19%

76

70

5%

13%

34%

25%

23%

112

Alliance Party

4%

9%

28%

31%

29%

83

Left-Green Alliance

1%

5%

24%

29%

41%

Other political party or candidate

3%

7%

30%

23%

37%

Gender

Age**

19%

19%

Labour-market status inv (*)

7%

7%

Household income*More than ISK 900 thousand
Political party if elections were tomorrow

inv

(*)
9%

17%

17%

123

18%

18%

107

12%

12%

72

81

6%

6%

71

69

10%

10%

There is a significant difference in the group; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01,

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

inv means that the data did not meet the criteria for significance testing.
The categories Very great effort and Rather great effort w ere merged during statistical processing and significance indicated in parentheses.

145