Most vulnerable
The Netherlands has an efficient but rigid supply system. An unfathomable swamp, where the most vulnerable residents and government employees are trapped. With a special government organization, we can change this. And no, the system does not need to be overhauled for that. What the most vulnerable need: special treatment from a Special GovernmentTim 'S YOUNGER
Illustrations by Elise Vandeplancke (for The Correspondent)The Netherlands is a country of amenities where we find it important that people in a vulnerable position are doing well. So important, in fact, that the government helps or intervenes when citizens themselves fail — that's where we have the fundamental social rights View the Constitution here.prepared for you. The government makes decisions about this “without regard to the person” and “all [are] treated equally in equal cases”. For example, help is arranged with housing and education or in case of illness and loss of income. In addition, there are numerous regulations and surcharges to keep people out of a vulnerable position. For example, the Netherlands, a country of amenities for many people, works very well. But not for everyone. Because if you have multiple problems, you're not a good fit for the system. And then things go really fast right away. You then have to deal with various regulations that are bureaucratically separate, you have to meet different, difficult to understand criteria, or conditions that regularly completely ignore or contradict each other. For those who do not fit into the system, the system is then no longer a safety net or a guarantee for fundamental social rights such as housing, social security, health care and education. This is a bureaucratic mill. Just the most vulnerable are crushed there. That's why we advocate the introduction of a Special Government. A separate government unit that will do something very special for the most vulnerable among us: personal guidance and customized help. Yes, treating people differently as they differ, with respect to the person. And good news: the system doesn't need to be overhauled for that.
The problem with mono-problem cultureSocial security in the Netherlands is tightly and efficiently regulated. All provisions stem from laws, which are translated into seemingly simple protocols. Next, it's up to the execution desks — increasingly slick digital environments that ignore illiteracy and digibetism This article provides a very good overview of the government's digital maze.— to serve citizens. Each problem has a separate protocol, with separate specialists. For around 80 percent of the population, the “supply system” works well. Someone who needs care, is unemployed or needs domestic help can easily find their way to the right counter. Most facilities are therefore designed for citizens who once have a problem and need a helping hand. But: this mono-problem culture does not relate to multi-problematics.Around 20 percent of the population has complex long-term problems. Think of completely disabled people, people with far-reaching disabilities, people who are caught up in the Participation Act Read this article about that: “This is how the poor in the Netherlands are kept poor”.and families with multiple problems — including problematic debts. They are either completely dependent on multiple facilities or there is no immediate prospect of improvement. In short, they need extra help or support. But that's not what the efficient, straightforward provision system is designed for. These 20 percent receive government letters that you can barely get through without a master's degree and have more than a day job (digitally) managing surcharges, justifications and evidence forms. If they have an intellectual disability or chronic illness, they must prove annually that no miracles have happened yet.Can't they figure it out? Then they can't pay tax advisors, bookkeepers, lawyers and healthcare advisors to help them. They do receive mandatory administrators, curators and reproaches.Also read about that: 'Being evicted from home causes suffering — even if no human rights are violated'The promise of the human touchIn real life, problems rarely stand alone. One problem quickly leads to another. After all, how long can you be homeless without getting sick? How often can you miss school and still make good money later? And how long can you get lost in a bureaucratic maze without being fined? The more you have to deal with the government, the more risk you'll make a mistake. For example, when applying for an allowance (as far as you know how to do it and whether you are entitled to it), reporting a change in the family situation, or algorithmic alarm bells that sound unnecessarily and drag you into an accountability circus (what happened during the benefits scandal).That's not how it was all meant to be, really.The citizen or the user must come first. Who else? Unfortunately, the system does not know the word “mistake” (on the citizen's side, at least, it's different the other way around). Flaw is fraud, and therefore a penalty. And then, in addition to an entire healthcare, assistance and service circuit, an entire supervision, enforcement and repression regime also comes into action.Small fines quickly become long-term payments and chronic stress. Especially when it involves loss of income and uncertainty with some regularity. And poverty and financial stress mean that people are in need of care.NOS.nl: 'Letter of fire to the cabinet: prevent people from getting sick due to poverty'
Within the government, you hear that the human touch offers a solution. The number of customized workshops and living labs can't be counted anymore. The citizen or the user must be at the center of this. Who else? And how do you organize that structurally within governments that have been running on standards, protocols and algorithms for years, and prefer short-term institutional efficiency over joint social returns? Can a rule of law that aims to act “without regard to the person” and a welfare state that is so eager to see “similar cases” still recognize the person behind the protocols at all? The swamp of government logic is not only burdensome for vulnerable citizens who have to fight harder and harder to stay afloat. The civil servant regularly does not know how to understand their own system, and control processes are also very expensive and time-consuming. Not to mention the labor market scarcity, absenteeism and tons of vacancies.A Special Government helps find a way out of the swampThe solution to the problem is to isolate the problem. For that 20 percent, we would do well to design a Special Government: an organization that is focused on preventing worse. Not reactive, but proactief.Dat may sound radical, but it's not that bad. Don't we also have special education, sheltered workplaces and protected forms of living? This is simply because it's part of the welfare state to support people who do not fit into regular trajectories, so that they can participate fully in society. Why shouldn't we do that for people who don't fit into government systems? Because here, too, there is insufficient participation in society. This is not despite the government, but thanks to the government. In our opinion, the Special Government should become a separate government system that works differently from the 80 percent government in attitude, finances, legislation, local regulations and priorities. Three basic principles should prevail within that system:Principle 1: The Inclusive GatekeeperFor each of those 20 percent, one government official who goes out for coffee every six months (not a checklist and the citizen as a technical problem, but the government as a friend on your side). The periods between coffees, the government leaves the citizen alone: no mail, no emails, no changes in digital systems and any contact via the gatekeeper. If changes are necessary (for example: something has changed in the family situation and this change needs to be reported), it is up to the gatekeeper to arrange that in the background.Principle 2: ProfitabilityDuring the biannual coffee season, the gatekeeper identifies needs (mentally retarded daughter turns 23 and so the allowance goes down), detects possible risk factors (poverty is getting even greater) and thinks in terms of profitability (better not to reduce the allowance because protected living costs 80,000 euros per year). A win-win situation for both the government and citizens. The leitmotif here is the what-cost-it-if: what does it cost the government in the long term if we stick to the 80 percent logic? And how many FTes will we have lost?Principle 3: The Primacy of the Special GovernmentThe Special Government is in charge when it comes to its 20 percent. Will there be a conflict, a standstill in a file or are there conflicting interests among implementing organizations such as the UWV, SVB, CAK, DUO, CJIB, but also between healthcare providers, housing associations, and you name it? Then it is the Special Government that takes the plunge. She asks, you run. The Special Government is a contact person and decision maker, putting the social security and health of the 20 percent citizen first. No more endless round table meetings, scrapings or vague cooperation agreements, but decisiveness and decision-making power on the part of the Special Government for its 20 percent.
Does it take a lot to set up a Special Government?There are district team members, youth teams and FACT teams in almost every municipality Read more about this on the GGZ website.busy visiting people 'behind the front door'. The same goes for many healthcare providers. They are those professionals who can look people in the eye and ask what is needed. If they are equipped with the legal and financial mandate that social services, government institutions, health insurers and municipalities have, they can act on the spot. Then they can do what they think is best, regardless of the systems they run into and endlessly frustrate them. As a Special Government for people with multiple problems. We should no longer try to cram people into the system, but build the system around them. For the 80 percent citizen, the government can then continue to develop as a service provider, freed from “complex cases”. So the system does not need to be overhauled. And no, the Special Government is no more bureaucracy, it is a different bureaucracy. Where “without regard to the person” and “treat equal cases equally” no longer stand in our way bureaucratically. No longer trying to cram people into the system, but building the system around them. The discussion that now rages in the public administration every day about the question “whether there should be customization for everyone” (and which has hampered solving problems for thirty years) can therefore be settled. Because no, that's not necessary for everyone. And isn't that random? Not as long as we take fundamental social rights, the associated effort obligation (as formulated in the constitution) and the principles of good governance govern as frameworks for the Special Government. “Happy families look alike; unhappy families are unhappy in their own way,” Tolstoy wrote as early as 1877. That's how he opened 'Anna Karenina'.Let's organize things differently for them. In doing so, we save ourselves a lot of care, talk, consultation, calls, hassles, money, staff, and, above all, human suffering.
.avif)