Suchergebnisse

The provision of services in the contractual welfare state is conditional. If one wants to receive a service, one has to comply with the demands of the provider. If one fails to do so, the organisation threatens to terminate its services, and indeed often does so. There are, however, people who breach their contracts time after time, falling back into the same dire situation that prompted them to ask for help in the first place. Social workers must then visit these people to help them re-enter the contract. This article draws on an in-depth analysis of such 'behind the front door' policies, focussing on single mothers on welfare. It argues that for many single mothers on welfare, social security fails to provide emotional and relational security, which undermines their ability to fulfil the terms of the contract. So long as the welfare state is based on the idea of (material) social security, 'behind the front door' workers remain urgently needed.

Vele chronisch psychiatrische patiënten en mensen met een verstandelijke beperking zijn de afgelopen jaren vanuit een inrichting in de bossen en de duinen naar woonwijken in de stad verhuisd. Dit is het gevolg van een ingrijpende omslag in het denken over de zorg voor deze groep mensen. Waar vroeger het idee was dat zij gedijden in inrichtingen in de natuur, groepsgewijs en met dag en nacht toezicht, is nu de dominante opvatting dat het juist heilzaam is om zo zelfstandig mogelijk in een eigen huis in een 'normale' stadsbuurt te wonen.Onder de mensen? Over het zelfstandig wonen van psychiatris

In many countries in north‐western Europe, the welfare state is changing, and governments expect a great deal of informal care. In the Netherlands, citizens are also increasingly expected to rely on informal instead of professional care. In this study, we aim to determine to what extent Dutch care‐dependent people want to rely on social network members and what reasons they raise for accepting or refusing informal care. To answer this question, we observed 65 so‐called 'kitchen table talks', in which social workers assess citizens' care needs and examine to what extent relatives, friends and/or neighbours can provide help and care. We also interviewed 50 professionals and 30 people in need of care. Our findings show that a great deal of informal care is already given (in 46 out of 65 cases), especially between people who have a close emotional bond. For this reason, people in need of care often find it difficult to ask their family members, friends or neighbours for extra assistance. People are afraid to overburden their family members, friends or neighbours. Another reason people in need of care raise against informal care is that they feel ashamed of becoming dependent. Although the government wants to change the meaning of autonomy by emphasising that people are autonomous when they rely on social network members, people who grew up in the heyday of the welfare state feel embarrassed and ashamed when they are not able to reciprocate. Our findings imply that policymakers and social professionals need to reconsider the idea that resources of informal care are inexhaustible and that citizens can look after each other much more than they already do. It is important that social policymakers approach the codes and norms underlying social relations more cautiously because pressure on these relations can have negative effects.