Background
Compared to people who can earn their own income, welfare benefit recipients have a higher prevalence of physical and mental health problems, addiction, debt, and homelessness [
1,
2]. Indeed, a recent systematic review in high-income countries found that health inequalities exist between welfare benefit recipients and non-recipients and that the health of benefit recipients cannot be maintained by financial aid alone [
3]. Health problems can be the cause or the consequence of unemployment, and (re)employment appears to have a positive impact on health [
4,
5]. Therefore, it is important that welfare benefit recipients are supported in finding a paid job.
Many OECD countries have implemented strategies to ‘activate’ welfare benefit recipients, i.e. to support and encourage individuals in their job market search, with the ultimate goal of (re)employment. Activation strategies encompass measures such as job-search assistance, training, and re-employment programmes, which people are expected to participate in in return for their benefits [
6]. In the Netherlands, welfare benefit recipients who are unemployed but able to work are provided with ‘welfare-to-work’ services. A case worker employed by the municipality, that also determines eligibility for welfare benefits, oversees these services and decides which trajectory is most suitable for the client. Thereby, he or she plays an important role in the direction of the services provided and thus in the overall experience of the welfare benefit recipient.
Welfare benefits who participated in a Swedish study mentioned experiencing a loss of independence due to not being able to earn their own income [
7]. Moreover, they expressed feeling ashamed about living off of welfare benefits [
7]. Dutch welfare benefit recipients have also been found to experience stigma for being dependent on benefits and have indicated that the need for individualized services is not always met [
8]. In addition, studies have shown that benefit recipients can feel disrespected by their welfare professionals and feel disempowered [
7,
9]. These feelings of disempowerment were mainly found to occur in situations in which welfare benefit recipients had to do voluntary work as part of their activation strategy, but felt that their personal situation (personal problems, emotions) was ignored by their case worker [
10]. One Australian study even found that some people felt belittled and bullied by their employment specialist, which in turn had a negative impact on their motivation and self-esteem [
11].
The negative experiences found in these studies are not likely to positively contribute to the chances of finding paid employment. Yet while the above-mentioned studies described the experiences of benefit recipients, they did not investigate what benefit recipients actually need from welfare-to-work services and from their case workers. Therefore, the present study aims to explore the experiences and needs of people who receive(d) welfare benefits with respect to their welfare-to-work services and case worker in order to formulate recommendations to improve welfare-to-work services and make them more successful.
Discussion
This study explored the experiences and needs of people who receive(d) welfare benefits in a large municipality in the Netherlands with regard to the welfare-to-work services they receive(d) and their case worker. Quantitative data showed that most participants who found a job were reasonably satisfied with the welfare-to-work services they received but that there is room for improvement. The qualitative data gave further insight into the experiences and needs of people receiving welfare benefits, which could be used to improve the welfare-to-work services: first, regarding the interaction between benefit recipient and case workers positive experiences (such as case workers who really listened to their clients) but also negative experiences (such as a lack of empathy from the case worker) were found. Second, clients mentioned the need for welfare-to-work services to be tailored to the individual (i.e., the case worker should take personal circumstances, interests, motivation, talents, and abilities into account). Third, it became apparent that the system the case workers operate within seems to complicate their ability to meet the needs of clients. Finally, it was discussed that unwanted differences between case workers regarding the way they enforce the law and interact with their clients exist. Based on these findings, we formulated recommendations that reflect the needs of clients and could thereby contribute to improving the welfare-to-work services, which in turn can lead to an increase in work participation amongst people who receive these services. These recommendations are related the themes we found in the group interviews; (1) case workers should have good social and communication skills, (2) welfare-to-work services should be tailored to the individual, (3) the system should be more supportive and less demanding, and (4) case workers should work systematically and treat all clients in the same way.
In the interviews, positive as well as negative experiences regarding the interaction between recipients and case workers were described. These experiences corresponded with the quantitative results, which showed that the majority (76%) of the participants agreed that their case worker was kind and felt that they were treated kindly during the entire welfare-to-work trajectory (69%), but the need for tailored services was not always being met. For example, only 47% of clients agreed that their case worker tried to find a job that suited them, which was also often mentioned as a negative experience in the interviews. The remaining themes from the interviews, i.e., the impact of the system the case worker operates in and the differences between case workers, were not addressed in the satisfaction survey. It is interesting to note that the survey showed that it is not always clear for clients what to expect from the municipality and what their rights and obligations are during the welfare-to-work trajectory or when starting a job, yet this was rarely mentioned in the interviews. Although it was not explicitly mentioned in the interviews, a lack of clarity regarding the system and the role that case workers and benefit recipients themselves play in the system, might have led to negative experiences. For example, the negative experience of being pushed by a case worker can be due to lack of clarity regarding the system, or having expectations about voluntary work that are not realistic might lead to a negative experience. Whether an increase in (clarity of) information can improve this should be further explored in future research.
As in our study, previous Dutch studies that examined the experiences of welfare-to-work clients who were asked to do voluntary work by their activation workers (‘workfare volunteering’) also found that clients expressed the need for appreciation and mentioned the importance of taking the clients’ skills, interests, and experiences into account when looking for a (voluntary) job [
9,
10,
15]. In contrast to our study, however, most of those clients indicated that they wanted to find a paid job after volunteering for a limited period of time, whereas in our study some participants mentioned that they preferred to participate in voluntary work instead of a paid job. The most important reason that some participants in the present study did not want paid employment seemed to be experience of some form of pressure in a regular paid job (for example regarding absence) that they do not experience in voluntary work. While the population in these studies were comparable to ours, the difference in results could perhaps be explained by the fact that this wish for voluntary work was mainly expressed by women with the care for young children, of whom multiple were present in one of the group interviews in our study.
We also compared the results of or study with previous literature on Supported Employment (SE) specialists, since some tasks of a case worker are comparable to those of Supported Employment (SE) specialists, who indeed also support their clients in finding a job. We found that our results regarding the importance of a good and trusting relationship and factors such as empathy, respect, listening, and being non-judgmental being important in this relationship were in line with results from qualitative studies among SE specialists and their clients [
16‐
20]. In contrast to our findings, however, these studies did not describe experiences of clients who felt being pushed towards a specific job or experiences of a hierarchic relationship. These differences may be explained by the differences in the role of the case workers in the present study compared to that of SE specialists; case workers are employed by the organization that also decides whether clients are eligible to receive welfare benefits, whereas SE specialists work independently from organizations in charge of the provision of benefits and therefore the preferences of clients can always be the first priority. In that regard, the role of the case worker in the municipality may be more comparable to that of the healthcare worker in the worker’s compensation system (i.e., the occupational or insurance physician) who are not only responsible for healthcare but also play a role in the justification for receiving sickness benefits. Indeed, similar to the participants in our study, literature shows that injured workers sometimes feel pressured by their health care providers, and health care providers who support and respect the injured worker and their individual needs are positively appreciated [
21,
22]. From these comparisons, it can be concluded that the context and the system in which the professional who oversees the work trajectory operates in has an important impact on the relationship between the professional and the client and therefore on the success of the trajectory.
Strengths and limitations
This study had several strengths and limitations. The first strength is that we used a combination of qualitative and quantitative data to obtain a broad overview and deeper understanding of the experiences and needs of people who receive welfare-to-work services. Second, we not only explored the experiences of welfare benefit recipients but also addressed what they feel they need from the services and their case workers to improve these experiences.
A limitation of the present study is that selection bias has likely occurred in the survey, since it was sent only to participants who had found a job. It is likely that those who did not find a job had different (and perhaps less positive) experiences. In addition the response rate of the survey was low, however, it is not clear how this may have affected the results. In general, older individuals responded to the survey, which may have led to more positive experiences since older adults in general have more difficulty finding employment. At the same time, it could be that clients with more negative experiences had more of a need to share them by responding to the survey. To compensate, we made sure that in the interviews both perspectives (i.e., of those who had already started a (voluntary) job or training and those who had not) were represented, and we included both older and younger participants. Still, some of the participants in the interviews were invited by their case worker, and it is likely that participants with more positive experiences and a good relationship with their case worker were invited and/or agreed to participate. In general, we have found that this population is extremely hard to reach for participation in research. We do, however, believe that the results of the survey in combination with the group interviews are a good step in exploring the satisfaction of different elements of welfare-to-work services and in identifying elements that need improvement. A final limitation of this study is the limited number of participants in the group interviews: as mentioned before, it also was very difficult to recruit participants for the group interviews and therefore the original plan of six participants per focus group was not carried out. However, in analysing the data no new themes came up in the last two interviews and, therefore, we still feel that data saturation was reached.
Implications for practice and research
Several implications for practice can be deduced from the results of this study. First, participants expressed the need for a case worker who has good social and communication skills. Even though many case workers already have these competences, selecting and coaching or training case workers on these skills to improve their relationships could be beneficial. Participants also expressed needs which are linked to the behaviour of the case workers (e.g., a case worker should get to know the client, give compliments, be sensitive to clients’ cultural backgrounds, and take the personal situation and interests of the client into account). It could be argued that case workers should be coached and trained in this behaviour, but the context in which the case workers operate does not always allow the case workers to meet all of the needs that were expressed in the interviews. For example, considering the interests of the client may not be possible when the client specifically wants to do voluntary work instead of a paid job but the system requires that case workers support and coach welfare benefit recipients to find a paid job whenever possible. Therefore, it seems of utmost importance that clients are provided with clear information about their rights and duties and the role, possibilities, and limitations of the case worker and the municipality. It is likely that clarity about what to expect might increase their satisfaction with the welfare-to-work services and case workers, regardless of the rules that are set by the system.
Further research should examine whether the provision of clear information about rights and duties and the role of the case worker can indeed contribute to more realistic expectations among clients and increase their satisfaction. In addition, future research should also examine whether the relationship between case workers and welfare service recipients can be improved by changing the behaviour of the case worker and thereby the interaction between the case worker and welfare service recipient; whether changes in the welfare-to-work system are necessary; or whether both aspects should be addressed since they are intertwined. Additionally, it is recommended that further research on the satisfaction with welfare-to-work services amongst a broader group of participants (i.e., clients who still receive welfare benefits and have not started a (paid) job and clients in different municipalities) is performed. A broader group of stakeholders, such as case workers and their managers, as well as participants in different phases of their welfare-to-work trajectory, should be interviewed to further discuss possible solutions for the aforementioned dilemmas.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.