Getting ‘new Amsterdammers’ to work:
A street level perspective of refugee
activation policy
Student: Banoe Abdullah - 10571833 Supervisor: Dr. Benno Netelenbos Second reader: Robin Pistorius 22 June 2018
Master thesis Political Science: Public Policy and Governance University of Amsterdam Word count: 20.681
Refugee
activation
Policy
Street-level bureaucrats“The power of Amsterdam is freedom. To be able to make choices every day and to chase your dreams. That freedom is only worth something if everyone can participate, whatever
your birthplace is”
Table of content
Chapter 1: Introduction………..4
1.1 Research question………7
1.2 Reading guide………8
Chapter 2: The theory behind refugee activation………...9
2.1 Policy context………..9
2.1.1 The labour market position of refugees………..9
2.1.2 The refugee gap……….11
2.1.3 Immigrant integration: a salient issue in Dutch politics………12
2.1.4 ‘The self-reliant citizen’………...13
2.1.5 Activation workers and case management in the Netherlands………...14
2.2 The street-level bureaucrat and the role of discretion……….15
2.2.1 Who is the street-level bureaucrat? ………16
2.2.2 Discretion in the context of activation………...17
2.2.3 Coping during public service deliver………...18
2.3 An analytical framework………...21
Chapter 3: Research design……….22
3.1 Methodology………..22
3.2 Casus selection………..23
3.3 Casus description……….25
3.4 Selection and description of respondents………..26
3.5 Data collection and analysis……….28
3.6 Historical and contextual background: ‘Integration takes place locally’………30
3.7 Policy analysis: the Amsterdam Approach to asylum status holders ………30
Chapter 4: Findings……….32
• Introductory note………...33
Chapter 5: Exploring challenges on the frontline of welfare to work services for status holders……….35
5.2 Gender-based challenges……….36
5.3 Individual background challenges……….37
5.4 Communication challenges………39
5.5 Organizational challenges……….40
5.6 Subconclusion………41
Chapter 6: Dealing with the dilemmas of activation………...42
6.1 Introduction………...42
6.2 The caregiver approach………..43
6.3 The reciprocity approach………...45
6.4 The culturally sensitive approach………..46
6.5 The formal, professional approach………47
6.6 The creativity approach………..49
6.7 Subconclusion………50
Chapter 7: Towards an explanation………...51
7.1 The caseworker–client interaction from a micro-institutionalist perspective…...……51
7.1.1 The role of the caseworker……….51
7.1.2 The role of the client………..53
7.2 The caseworker-client interaction in an organizational context……….54
7.2.1 Organizational politics……….55
7.2.2 Organizational economy……….56
7.2.3 Organizational culture……….57
Chapter 8: Concluding chapter……….58
Chapter 9: Appendixes………...63
Chapter 1: Introduction
The year 2015 will certainly go down in history as the year of asylum migration.
According to the Dutch General Statistical Bureau (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek), in that year more than 54,000 people were admitted to a COA reception center in the Netherlands. At first, the Dutch government was faced with administrative and logistic challenges regarding the reception of this group. When it became clear, however, that almost 70 percent of the first asylum applications in 20151 were granted a residence permit and a great extent of this group would most likely stay permanently, the
government was faced with another complex issue: their integration and participation in society. Especially as this happens in the context of a highly-politicized national
immigration discourse that has been leaning more towards the restriction of immigration over the past years and the neoliberal turn of the Dutch welfare state, endorsing ‘active citizenship’ as the ‘ethical a priori’ of social policymaking (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013: 415).
Central to understanding the current political context of integration policy is the
evolution of the Dutch migration regime. Whereas the Dutch approach to integration in the 1980s, the ‘multicultural model’, was driven by the idea that the integration of immigrant minorities into Dutch society can be ensured by their cultural emancipation, this approach came under growing pressure at the turn of the millennium (Duyvendak & Scholten, 2012: 267). The persistence of social-cultural pluralism was now considered a hindrance to the integration of newcomers, and policy that specifically focused on migrant groups was cut back (Dagevos & Odé, 2016: 14). Integration policy was
supposed to be ‘generic’ and ‘neutral’, in order to prevent the idea of favoritism (Ham & van der Meer, 2012: 15). The assimilationist turn towards the integration of migrant minorities has also influenced labour market opportunities for asylum migrants since the dominant view became that migrants were responsible for their own integration
process, the so-called ‘citizen approach’, rather than the state (Poppelaars & Scholten, 2008; Entzinger, 2014). A vulnerable group that is already greatly distanced from the labour market, due to specific factors that hinder their labour market participation, also referred to the ‘refugee entry effect’ (Bakker, Dagevos & Engbersen, 2017). Employment statistics of the most recent asylum refugees, indeed, give rise to concerns. According to a report by the Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics CBS (2018), 4 percent of the refugees was employed one and a half years after obtaining a residence permit in 2014, and a year later this number had risen to 11 percent.
Contrastingly “to the race-, ethnicity-, and religion-blind citizenship approach of central government”, local policy implementation is characterized by a ‘tailor-made approach’, driven by a ‘pragmatic problem coping’ (Poppelaars & Scholten, 2008: 343). This is explained by the fact that local problem framing, in contrast to national policy framing, is generally much closer to the actual implementation of integration policy. Within this context, frontline workers, play an important role in delivering welfare services to asylum migrants. By applying their discretionary power, that is a certain degree of autonomy, they “tend to develop strategies and activities to cope with the daily practice of immigrant integration policies rather than to engage in high politics that characterizes national problem framing” (Poppelaars & Scholten, 2008: 348). The front-line workers that deliver activation policies in Dutch local governments are a typical example of what Lipsky (1980) called the ‘street-level bureaucrat’, since their discretion has increased significantly due to the decentralization and deregulation of welfare-to-work policy (van Berkel & Knies, 2016). These radical governance reforms, consequently, have increased the room for welfare agencies to apply tailor made services. Moreover, case
management has become a widely executed technique in welfare-to-work policy,
offering activation workers the possibility to assess on a case-by-case basis how policy is shaped and delivered to the local level (Nothdurfter, 2016). In essence, this means that policy is made ‘on the ground’ and adjusted to each individual situation, transforming activation workers as key figures in local policymaking- and implementation.
However, front line workers are also confronted with the ambiguities of policies,
conflicting problem definitions and the negotiation of solutions, requiring them to ‘act as policy mediators in often highly contested fields’ (Nothdurfter, 2016: 421). This is the case
especially for refugee activation workers in local governments, as they are situated in a field that demands a great deal from them, and this is because of three main reasons. Firstly, in the Netherlands, the retrench of the welfare state increasingly demands that citizens take care of themselves and their communities, driven by the idea that citizens should be active and responsible for their own ‘employability, health and finances’ (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013: 415). According to van der Haar, this new “benchmark” frames the way frontline workers deal with citizens and shapes their interventions, therefore potentially limiting their discretionary space that enables them to challenge such “dominant discourses” (van der Haar, 2015: 266-267). Secondly, normative political discourses on nation-state citizenship influence the way front line workers categorize service recipients and this shapes their interventions. This normative dimension comes forth explicitly in welfare-to-work interventions with recipients from immigrant
backgrounds, as argued by van der Haar (van der Haar, 2015: 268):
“social workers would acknowledge the immigrant’s precarious position but
simultaneously adhere to the dominant political and/or organizational viewpoint that frames immigrants as “others””
Finally, refugee activation workers deliver services to clients that have to deal with many complex issues that hinder their activation, which stem from their individual backgrounds and refugee stories. Moreover, they constitute a highly diverse group, in terms of their culture, age, sex and educational backgrounds, which can lead to tensions within the caseworker-client relation.On top of that, they often do not sufficiently master the Dutch language and are not always familiar with the Dutch law and
regulations, forming an obstacle to the practitioner-client communication. Overall, these demands demonstrate that refugee activation workers deliver welfare services in an environment with different dynamics and dilemmas. It is therefore interesting to see how they ‘cope’ with these demands and which factors influence and form their coping choices.
The notion of coping during public service delivery has been studied by many scholars, and several ways of coping have been identified (Evans, 2013; Throwler, 1997; Dubois, 2010).However, the problems with these notions of ‘coping’ is that they all refer to the
same phenomenon and do not consider the context in which the phenomenon of ‘coping’ unfolds. Especially, in this case, the context must be taken into account considering the changing, and highly politicized context of the Dutch migration regime. Moreover, public service professions differ substantially from each other in terms of their job descriptions and practitioner-client relationships, which cannot simply be summarized within an existing classification of ‘coping’ mechanisms, such as the one offered by Tummers et al. (Tummers et al., 2015). Understanding how refugee activation workers deliver tailor-made services to a group that risks a difficult position in the Dutch labour market,
requires more in depth, and contextual research. Especially, considering the broad range of individual problems refugees face, which cannot simply be solved with the help of manuals or instructions, and where tailor-made policy is determinant for the overall result. This research will therefore concentrate on how this task is experienced by activation workers themselves, as they are the ones that define what is best for their clients and turn this into action. Overall, thisresearch will therefore be an addition to existing literature on the delivery of activation policy within the framework of
immigration and integration dilemmas.
1.1 Research question
The question that guides this research is:
How do local case managers cope with refugee-background challenges in
activating status holders, and what explains their choice between different coping mechanisms?
To answer this question, I have conducted 11 semi-structured interviews with refugee case managers from the municipality of Amsterdam. Specifically, I have chosen for Team Activation, the team that is responsible for caseloads that include status holders that are still dependent on welfare services after a period of six months since their first arrival in the municipality as ‘new Amsterdammers’. This offered me the opportunity to find out what hinders the labour market participation of a group that needs more time and effort and is placed under a team that has more resources, time and discretion at its disposal relative to the Entry Team, which is responsible for the initial phase (the first six
months) of the municipal program. Moreover, Amsterdam was selected as the case study for this research, because is it widely regarded as a city that has an independent
trajectory in its migrant integration policy which has, compared to national policy, “remained more explicit in terms of trying to promote diversity in the city in a positive sense” (Scholten, 2013: 229).
1.2 Reading guide
After having introduced the topic, this research is structured in the following way. Chapter two starts with an exploration of the difficult labour market position of asylum migrants, and what is already known so far in the literature. Thereafter, the focus is on what the explaining factors are for their position. The chapter proceeds with the Dutch approach to integration policy, against the background of the Dutch welfare state
transformations. Here, the increased importance of street-level bureaucracy and coping mechanisms is highlighted, as this influences the delivery of activation policies ‘on the ground’. The chapter then continues with a brief discussion about the role of discretion and professionalization of street-level bureaucrats. From then on, it discusses critically the existing literature on ‘coping mechanisms’, as it argues that the literature is too abstract and thus requires to be contextualized against the background of the Dutch welfare- and migration state. Moreover, it introduces an analytical framework that, in contrast, considers the contextual dimension and offers a well suited analytical tool to answer the research question. In chapter three, the research design and method are discussed, and this is followed by chapter four, which offers the contextual and historical framework of the selected case. Chapter five, six and seven, introduce the analytical chapters that make an attempt to answer the research question. Chapter five presents the challenges in activating status holders, as experienced and interpreted by the case managers. Thereafter, chapter six presents the strategies adapted by de case managers to cope with the challenges and demands they are faced with. Lastly, chapter seven implements the analytical framework by Deborah Rice to explain activation workers’ choices between different coping mechanisms. Finally, the conclusion draws the most important lessons from the analytical chapters and offers a brief reflection on the research goal.
Chapter 2: The theory behind refugee activation
Chapter two presents the theoretical foundation of this research project. The first section provides an overview of the problematic labour market position of refugees in the Netherlands, and what explain this position. In the second section, the Dutch local dimension of integration policy and the role of activation workers against the
background of Dutch migration regime and welfare state reforms, is presented. The third section offers a review of the literature on street-level bureaucracy, the role of discretion and the notion of ‘coping’. The final section presents an analytical framework to analyze the various aspects that influence front line behavior in the delivery of
activation policies.
2.1 Policy context
2.1.1 The labour market position of refugees
In the Netherlands, the consequences of the recent refugee crisis in 2014 continue to become more visible. From that year on, the country has faced an increase in the
number of asylum seekers, mainly from Syria and Eritrea (CBS, 2018). According to the Dutch General Statistical Bureau (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek), the peak of the asylum flow is in 2015: in that year more than 54,000 people were admitted to a COA reception center. Meanwhile, the total asylum influx has fallen to 31,642 in 2016, which is almost the same as 2017: 31,327 people (IND)2. In a recent cohort report, the CBS has found that of all the status holders aged between 18 to 65 who were granted their residence permit in 2014, only 11 percent was employed two and a half years later, indicating that a large part of this group still depends on social welfare benefits. During the same period, indeed, 86 percent of all the status holders was in receipt of a social welfare benefit (CBS, 2018). Moreover, the small number of status holders that were employed, was still dependent on supplementary benefits for their income (CBS, 2018).
Moreover, the jobs that they have are often part-time or temporary jobs, generally in the catering and trade industry (Odé & Dagevos, 2017).
It should be noted that this group has been in the Netherlands for a relatively short period of time and is still in the beginning stage of integration in society. However, research on the labour market position of status holders that have been living in the Netherlands for a longer time also shows little prospect for improvement. The result demonstrate that the socio-economic position of refugees is exceptionally vulnerable and usually worse off than other migrant groups, such as people from a Turkish and Moroccan background (Odé & Dagevos, 2017: 450). Moreover, people work
predominantly at the lower end of the labor market, in temporary jobs and,
characteristic of the position of status holders, below their level of education (Odé & Dagevos, 2017: 450).
Figure 1. Proportion of people in work among 18 to 64-year-olds who were granted an asylum residence permit in 2014, by number of months after receiving the permit (CBS, 2018)
What is more striking about the statistics on the labour market position of status holders, is the intergroup differences. Comparing all backgrounds, Afghans fare noticeably better in terms of labour participation than the other groups: after 30 months, 30 percent of this group is employed and ‘only’ 65 percent receives social welfare benefits (CBS, 2018). For the Eritreans, in contrast, this is respectively 6 percent and 89 percent. Overall, the results indicate that the social-economic position of status holders is predominantly vulnerable: the share of working people is low; the assistance dependency is alarmingly high; and a substantial part has an income below the poverty line (Dagevos & Ode, 2016).
2.1.2 The refugee gap
According to Klaver and Odé, status holders constitute a group that is particularly vulnerable in the Dutch labour market and this can be attributed to the so-called
‘refugee entry effect’: specific factors that hinder refugees’ entry to the labour market (Ode & Dagevos, 2017). They provide several explanations for the labour market position of status holders, which can be clustered into three main explaining factors: firstly, the individual characteristics of the group which are mainly about the ethnic background, sex and social-economic background; secondly, the societal context in which status holders integrate; and lastly, the integration policy in the host country (Ode & Dagevos, 2017: 448). With regard to the individual characteristics of the group, in the Netherlands, specifically, some characteristics prove to be especially determinant for status holders labour market position. Findings demonstrate that the qualifications and skills obtained in the Netherlands, such as passing the civic integration course,
combined with the level of Dutch language skills, are of great importance (Ode & Dagevos, 2017: 451). Specifically, with regard to gender, women particularly face barriers towards work (Bakker et al., 2017: 1778). In a recent report, the Platform Integration and Society (Kennisplatform Integratie & Samenleving) has found that local activation policies predominantly focus on the male status holders and, as a result, women are lagging behind in the labour market3. According to Bakker et al., this is explained by practical reasons, such as the care role of women, or to traditional beliefs about gender roles (Bakker et al., 2017: 1778).
2.1.3 Immigrant integration: a salient issue in Dutch politics
Central to understanding the current political context of integration policy is the evolution of the Dutch migration regime and the neoliberal turn of the Dutch welfare state, endorsing ‘active citizenship’ as the ‘ethical a priori’ of social policymaking (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013: 415). I will discuss both trends briefly in the following paragraphs.
The ‘multicultural model’, for a long time considered an ideal-typical case of successful multiculturalist policies, was driven by the idea that the integration of immigrant
minorities into Dutch society can be ensured by their cultural emancipation (Duyvendak & Scholten, 2012: 267). Yet, the last couple of decades, this model is rather widely
rejected by political parties and large parts of the population, as demonstrated by the more assimilative direction of integration policy. The dominant view now became that migrants were responsible for their own integration process rather than the state (Entzinger, 2014: 699). Moreover, “persisting social-cultural differences were now considered a hindrance to immigrant integration”, and “integration policy was increasingly linked (…) to the preservation of national identity and social cohesion in Dutch society” (Duyvendak & Scholten, 2012: 274). The focus of integration was shifted to an ‘individualistic approach towards ‘cultural adaption’, ‘identification’, the
‘endorsement of Dutch values and norms’, also referred to the ‘citizen approach’
(Poppelaars, 2008: 336). As a result of the focus on ‘self-responsibility’ for the migrant, and the decentralization of policy to local governments, the national integration policy was gradually restricted to civic integration. Moreover, integration policy was stripped of its specific character and was supposed to be ‘generic’, for everyone in need (Ham & van der Meer, 2012: 15). Successive Integration ministries preferred to get rid of the ethnic target group policy and introduced neutral terms to address problems, in order to prevent the idea of favoritism (Ham & Van der Meer, 2012: 15).
This policy paradigm was reinforced by events such as terrorist attacks in France, and mass sexual assaults in Germany, which have shaped anti-immigrant sentiments, giving rise to populist political parties such as Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) and
national discussions about reception centers. According to a report in 2016 by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau), 65% of the Dutch population was anxious about problems rising from immigration and integration4. The current government’s integration agenda5 continues the assimilative route as it still includes plans, for example, to tighten the language requirements, to introduce a waiting period of two years for entitlement to public benefits, and to extradite those who
culpably fail their civic integration. However, the accord also states that successful integration requires a society that offers everyone the opportunity to develop their talents, and “even though the state has been shifting towards general policies that aim to move away from singling out ethnicity and culture as a basis for policy making”,
municipalities are offered the space to experiment with activation policies for status
holders (van der Haar, 2015: 276). I will cover this point more extensively in paragraph 2.2 and demonstrate why this is relevant for this research.
2.1.4 ‘The self-reliant citizen’
The assimilative turn of the Dutch migration regime has gone hand in hand with a neoliberal turn of the Dutch welfare state, promoting ‘active citizenship’ and ‘individual responsibility’ as core values (Newman & Tonkens, 2011). Firstly, activation strategies have been introduced that emphasize the notion of the active citizen “who shall be both responsible for and able to perform economic self-reliance and societal integration, first and foremost through gainful employment on the labour market” (Nothdurfter, 2016: 421). Secondly, citizens are also expected to take responsibility for maintaining social cohesion, safety and ‘livability’ of their own communities, effectively emphasizing a ‘communitarian idea of citizenship’ (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013: 415). This
transformation of the Dutch welfare state is reflected in the Social Support Act (Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning), implemented in 2015. The Act combines social goals with administrative goals such as “coherent policy-making, efficiency, custom-made services, increasing the influence of citizens on SSA policy-making at the local level, and freedom of choice” (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013: 419). The SSA is followed by radical changes in the architecture of ‘social security administration and service provision systems’, influenced by trends such as ‘individualization, decentralization and
marketisation’ (Van Berkel et al., 2010: 448). These trends have also influenced civic integration policies, which is demonstrated by the Civic Integration Law (Wet
Inburgering) and its subsequent amendments. For example, the Amendment in 2013 places the (financial) responsibility for the civic integration process with the migrant himself instead of the municipality. Furthermore, it shortens the exam period from 3,5 to 3 years, it introduces sanctions in the form of fines (1250 euro), and it maintains the system of commercial language providers (taalaanbieders)6. In January 2017, it was reported that since the implementation of the 2013 Amendment, the number of people passing the civic integration exam was halved, and the incentive to take an exam at a higher language level had almost disappeared7.
2.1.5 Activation workers and case management in the Netherlands
Traditionally, local welfare organizations were centrally and hierarchically structured, and coordination tools such as procedures were vital for the daily delivery of social welfare services (Van Berkel et al., 2010: 456). This was driven by the idea that this structure was fitting for “then the core assignment of local welfare agencies: to evaluate in a rightful way whether or not social assistance claims were legitimate” (Van Berkel et al, 2010: 456). However, over the past decades, welfare state reforms have had
considerable consequences for public agencies involved in service provision, as well as for the management and roles of frontline workers, and this is for two main reasons.
First, decentralization processes have further implied changes to the role of
caseworkers in public social service organizations, “with caseworkers now assuming a variety of tasks such as participating in the formulation of their organization’s policy goals, developing new instruments for client treatment, building policy networks with public and private organizations as well as societal stakeholders, and autonomously managing budgets for client processing” (Rice, 2012: 1039). In the Netherlands, for example, local activation workers are responsible for carrying out the local activation policy, the Participation Act (Participatiewet). Their core task is to coordinate the (re-)integration process of citizens who receive social welfare benefits, in this case the status holders.
Besides decentralization, a second and closely related trend has transformed the role of local welfare case workers, which is the increased popularity of the activation policy agenda (Rice, 2012: 1039). This has resulted in a broad-based implementation of activation policies in areas such as social care and employment, driven by the idea that generous welfare services nourish benefit recipient’s dependency on state support. Because the practical part of this mind shift requires tailor-made services that are adjusted to the needs and abilities of individual clients, caseworkers’ role has become essential “in deciding what activation means in practice, and for whom” (Rice, 2012: 1040). In fact, “case management has become a key technology in governing
responsibilities between unemployed people and the state are articulated primarily in the relationship between the case manager and his or her client” (Nothdurfter, 2016: 423). 2.2 The street-level bureaucrat and the role of discretion
The activation workers in the Dutch local governments are a typical example of what Lipsky calls the ‘street-level bureaucrat’, which he defines as: ‘public service workers who interact directly with citizens in the course of their jobs, who have substantial discretion in the execution of their work’ (Lipsky, 1980: 3). The literature on street-level bureaucracy forms the basic foundation of this research, as it provides the framework for
understanding how and why activation workers shape and form policy on the ground. In the following section, Lipsky’s (1980) perspective on the street-level bureaucracy is briefly explored. This is followed by a debate on the role of street level bureaucrats in the delivery of policy and the use of discretion. Lastly, an analytical framework is presented and, later in this research, applied to the Dutch case of refugee activation workers.
2.2.1 Who is the street-level bureaucrat?
In his seminal Street-Level Bureaucracy (1980), Michael Lipsky lays the foundation for the street-level policy approach. His core argument is that it is the street-level
bureaucrat, such as the caseworker, teacher, or the police officer, that should be acknowledged ‘as the last link in the policy-making chain’ because it is through their interaction with citizens ‘that formal social policy comes to life’ (Rice, 2012: 1039). According to Lipsky, street-level bureaucrats are a dominant factor in political controversies over public services because these debates are essentially about the “scope and function of these public employees” (Lipsky, 2010: 4). Moreover, street-level bureaucrats influence peoples’ lives as they “socialize citizens to expectations of
government services and a place in the political community”, “determine the eligibility of citizens for government benefits and sanctions”, and oversee these programs (Lipsky, 2010: 4). A central notion in the delivery of policy by street-level bureaucrats is
‘discretion’, a certain degree of autonomy the public employer has in performing his or her job.
Additionally, according to Lipsky, certain characteristics of the jobs of street-level bureaucrats inevitably require discretion. He provides three reasons for this. First, street-level bureaucrats often work in situations that are too complicated to consult guidelines, instructions or, in his words, ‘programmatic formats’. Second, they work in situations that require ‘responses to the human dimension of situations’ and call for ‘sensitive observation and judgment’, because society not only expects them to be impartial, but also compassionate in ‘special circumstances’, and flexible in dealing with these situations (Lipsky, 2010: 15). Finally, discretion is crucial in the interaction of street-level bureaucrats between citizens, because it promotes workers’ own self-regard and encourages citizens to believe that these workers are important for their well-being (Lipsky, 2010: 15). Tummers and Bakkers argue, in a similar vein as Lipsky, that
discretion can increase the meaningfulness of a policy for clients and increase the willingness of street-level bureaucrats to implement the policy (Tummer & Bakker, 528). Other scholars, however, point to the risks of discretion. Several studies
demonstrate that discretion is used in different ways, thus leading to diversity in how clients are served and treated by street-level bureaucrats (Berkel & Knies, 2017: 2). Therefore, the risk is that frontline delivery of services “becomes a rather individualized and potentially even arbitrary process” (Berkel & Knies, 2017: 2). Thus, some scholars argue in favor of a (re-)professionalization of activation work to ensure the
transparency in the use of discretion (Eikenaar et al., 2015).
2.2.2 Discretion in the context of activation
This brings me to the debate about discretion in the context of activation and how the role of the street-level bureaucrat should be perceived. On the one hand, it is argued that street-level bureaucracy increasingly requires the ability to evaluate individual
behavior, therefore discretion is now more important than when policy-making is merely an administrative process (van Berkel, 2011; Aan Berkel & van der Aa; Jewell, 2007). On the other hand, it is argued that, especially in the context of active welfare state reforms, professionalization of the profession should be ensured, and this is
because of the following two reasons. First, activation ‘tends to be less rule-driven, therefore lacking the standardizing influence provided by a detailed legal framework’ (Jewell, 2007: 187). Second, since activation case management is ‘a relatively new
profession’, it lacks the ‘institutionalization of traditional profession’ and a clear scientific fundament (Berkel et al., 2010: 452). More recently, and essentially in contradiction to this, some scholars have argued that discretion is limited because it is subject to ‘stricter regulations and standardizations of activation programs and social assistance schemes’, and to ‘greater individualized pressure to deliver certain outcome targets, while the time available for direct contact with clients or service users is decreasing’ (Nothdurfter, 2016: 422). However, this is also contested by Evans and Harris as they have shown that “the proliferation of rules and regulations does not automatically mean the disappearance of professional discretion” (Nothdurfter, 2016: 422). In sum, these debates show that there is no consensus whether discretion, in the context of activation, is limited or not,
whether it should be viewed as a problem or rather a solution to welfare reforms and how the role of the street-level bureaucrat ought to be perceived in this new context.
2.2.3 Coping during public service delivery
According to Lipsky, street-level bureaucrats often operate in an environment where they experience the following three difficulties (Lipsky, 1980): resource problems, absence of goals and performance measures, and thirdly, the relation with non-voluntary clients. First, street-level bureaucrats work in situations in which resources are chronically inadequate relative to the tasks workers are asked to perform, and the supply of services almost never meets the demand. Second, they deal with considerable uncertainties, resulting from ambiguous, vague or conflicting goals, and the difficulty of measuring their job performance toward goal achievement. Third, their clients are typically nonvoluntary and have no other income alternatives. This means that street-level bureaucrats cannot be disciplined by those clients, (…) and usually have nothing to lose by failing those clients, which gives rise to their discretion, as they decide which services to supply for their clients (Lipsky, 2010: 55). Several other authors point to,
somewhat similar, conditions that have to do with conflicting demands from ‘policy rules, their client’s needs, their professional codes, and own personal values’ (Tummers et al., 2015: 1099). In general, it can be stated that street-level bureaucrats work in a complicated environment that requires them to deal with multiple uncertainties in delivering public services to citizens.
In doing this, they develop strategies, also referred to ‘coping mechanisms’ (Lipsky, 1980). Tummers et al. define ‘coping’ as “behavioral efforts frontline workers employ when interacting with clients, in order to master, tolerate, or reduce external and internal demands and conflicts they face on an everyday basis” (Tummers et al., 2015: 1100). The notion of coping during public service delivery has been studied by many scholars, and several ways of coping have been identified, including bending or breaking rules for clients (Evans 2013), routinizing public service delivery (not taking into account personal circumstances of clients) (Trowler, 1997), and using personal resources to help clients (such as giving personal resources to struggling clients) (Dubois, 2010) (Tummers et al., 2015: 1100). According to Tummers et al., a comprehensive view of coping is lacking and what it entails exactly, because of the following two reasons (Tummers et al., 2015). First, the phenomenon ‘coping’ has been used in different terms, while, according to Tummers et al., authors refer to the same phenomenon. Second, they argue that ‘scholars operationalize the concept very differently and sometimes inconsistently’ (Tummers et al., 2015: 1100). For this reason, they have developed a classification of families and ways of coping, based on a systematic review of the literature, which can be applied to four professions: social workers, teachers, healthcare professionals, and police officers (Tummers et al., 2015).
Source: (Tummers et al., 2015)
The point that they ignore, however, is that these professions differ substantially from each other and all involve highly heterogonous job descriptions that cannot simply be summarized into a single table as shown above. Most importantly, the model does not take into account the context in which the professionals carry out their daily tasks. This is the case especially for refugee activation workers in local governments, as they are situated in a field that demands much from them. As became clear from chapter 2.1.5, trends such as decentralization and the activation policy agenda have altered the role of the activation worker, framing the way activation workers deal with citizens and
shaping their interventions. Moreover, local refugee activation workers operate in a normative political environment that influences the way they categorize recipients of social welfare benefits and this shapes their interventions (van der Haar, 2015).
Furthermore, the professions that are described in the model by Tummers et al., involve client relations that differ substantially from each other, for example: a teacher has to deal with problems that arise in a school class, while a police officer has to deal with delinquencies. Therefore, these relations involve a myriad of daily routines and human activities, that cannot be represented in their classification. In this case, refugee
activation workers deliver services to clients that are particularly vulnerable. As became clear in chapter 2.1.2, refugees have to deal with many complex issues that hinder their activation, and these mainly stem from their individual backgrounds and refugee stories. In addition, they constitute a highly diverse group, in terms of their culture, age, sex and educational backgrounds, which can lead to tensions within the caseworker-client relation.On top of that, they often do not sufficiently master the Dutch language and are not always familiar with the Dutch law and regulations, forming an obstacle to the practitioner-client communication.
Therefore, understanding how refugee activation workers deliver tailor-made services to a group that risks a difficult position in the Dutch labour market, requires more in depth, and contextual research that takes into account the casemanager-client relation. For this reason, I will analyze how case managers themselves experience the specific challenges in activating status holders, and how they cope with this. In chapter 6, I will thus make an attempt to answer the first part of my research question: How do local case managers cope with refugee-background challenges in activating status holders? For the second part of my research question, namely: what explains their choice between different coping mechanisms, the analytical framework by Deborah Rice will be applied, which I will now turn to.
In her micro institutional framework, Rice combines Lipsky’s approach with elements from the institutionalist theory and sociological institutionalism. The result of this combination is a “micro-institutionalist model of policy implementation that conceptually embeds individual caseworker actions in a wider web of economic, political, cultural, and social structures” (Rice, 2012: 1040). The theoretical foundation of her framework is the bridge she builds between the micro-level of the caseworker-client-foundation, the meso-level of the implementing organization, and the macro-level of the wide societal context. For the sake of the limited scope of this research, I will confine my research to the micro and meso-level of her analytical framework.
The choice to use Rice’s analytical framework is supported by three fundamental
reasons. Firstly, the micro institutional framework is appropriate for the purpose of this research, because the framework takes into account the political and organizational context in which the phenomena occurs. This is an important factor to consider in this research, because the normative dimension of refugee activation has proven to be relevant for how front-line workers shape their interventions (van der Haar, 2015). Secondly, the framework takes into account the case worker-client relation, which can have great implications for case managers’ choices to adapt specific coping mechanisms, as policy is delivered on the basis of tailor-made case management. Finally, as this research tries to analyze human behavior within the context of refugee activation, Rice’s model provides to be especially fitting, because micro-institutionalism is based on the notion that the welfare state is a product of human behavior rather than an institution that is primarily enacted in rules and regulations. Chapter 7 explains this notion more in detail and demonstrates why this is relevant for the purpose of this research.
3. Research design
3.1 MethodologyTo solve the puzzle of this research, I performed a qualitative single-case study
consisting of semi-structured interviews with 11 case managers that work in the field of activation policy targeted at status holders, for the municipality of Amsterdam. As
became clear from chapter 2.1.3 (The labour market position of refugees), status holders experience multiple and complex problems that hinder them in finding a stable job that matches their profile. Additionally, it became clear that because of decentralization and activation developments, activation workers enjoy a great part of discretion in
delivering welfare-to-work services. However, activation workers are also confronted with the ambiguities of policies, conflicting problem definitions and the negotiation of solutions, requiring them to act as policy mediators in often highly contested fields (Nothdurfter, 2016: 421). This is the case especially for refugee activation workers in local governments, as they are situated in a field that demands a great deal from them. It is therefore interesting to see how the case managers cope with the specific challenges of a group that has been staying for a relatively short time in the Netherlands, and to research what influences their choices and actions.
Following from the previous chapters and the research question a qualitative, single-case study is considered the most appropriate method and this is because of several reasons. Firstly, a qualitative analysis is considered appropriate, because unlike objects of the natural sciences, people attribute meaning to events and their environment. Face-to-face interaction is thus required in order to ‘participate in the mind of another human being’ (…) and ‘to acquire social knowledge’ about the phenomenon I aim to research (Lofland and Lofland, 1995: 16). Furthermore, the notion of ‘coping’ is not an absolute, clear-cut phenomena, as it comes into being in coherence with contextual factors. Bryman argues that behaviour must be understood in context as “we cannot understand the behaviour of members of a social group other than in terms of the specific environment in which they operate” (Bryman, 2012: 401). Qualitative research, however, has also been criticized for being “too impressionistic and subjective”, because it relies too much on what the researcher deems significant and important (Bryman, 2012: 405). This is indeed a point that has often led me to uncertainty regarding my objectivity during different stages of this research.
Secondly, it is believed that a single case study provides the in-depth information that is necessary to answer the research question, as the aim is not to compare, but rather to maximize the utility of information from a small sample. The single case study allows me to “close in on real-life situations” and research the views of the case managers in
relation to their coping strategies, “as they unfold in practice” (Flyvjberg, 2006: 235). Moreover, it allows me to enter the field and experience what a day in the life of a case manager looks like. For example, one case manager offered to show me the system they work with, and what a personal action plan looks like exactly. In this way, I could place myself within the context being studied and understand the viewpoint, and the
behaviour of social actors.
As such, it is possible to generate descriptions of social activities when one is able to participate in it, because “it involves “mutual knowledge”, shared by the observer and participants whose action constitutes and reconstitutes the social world” (Giddens, 1982: 15). It should be noticed, however, that this research is context dependent as it focuses on refugee case managers and how they cope with refugee-background challenge, within the context of the municipality of Amsterdam. Therefore, it does not aim to make any statements or generalizations about case workers in other contexts. However, according to Flyjberg, a descriptive single case study can nevertheless be of great value, as it is capable of accumulating knowledge, and has proven to be successful in scientific innovation (Flyvbjerg, 2006: 227).
3.2 Casus selection
The city Amsterdam is selected as the case study for this research, due to its exceptional approach toward immigrant integration. According to Scholten, the city is often
distinguished “as an exemplary case for the so-called ‘Dutch multicultural model’”
(Scholten, 226). In contrast to the “tough on integration” discourse of national policies, a targeted approach at the local level seems more driven by “efficiency, pragmatics, or, in sum, an instrumental rationality” (Poppelaars & Scholten, 348-349). Targeted projects, indeed, seem very resilient when it comes to immigrant integration policies in
Amsterdam, as noted by a former director of the immigrant integration coordination agency in Amsterdam: “The answer to the question whether we should specifically accommodate those populations should not be driven by ideological concerns, but rather by considerations in terms of their effectiveness” (Poppelaars & Scholten, 348). This framework of thinking is also identified in the Amsterdam Approach to Asylum Status holders (2016).
On the 1st of July 2016, the city introduced its own approach toward the
integration of asylum status holders which, on the one hand, emerged from a vision of a more efficient and effective support for asylum status holders. On the other hand, the large influx of refugees at the end of 2015 played an important role in the reforms (Larsen & Lubbe, 2017). The approach is exceptional compared to the national
integration policy framework, in the sense that it offers target-group oriented support by including specialized case managers, instruments, and extended time for “a focused, specific, customized” support for each status holder (Amsterdam Approach to Asylum Status Holders). The city of Amsterdam is thus chosen as an exemplifying case, as the objective of this research is to ‘to capture the circumstances and conditions of an everyday or commonplace situation’ in a particular research site (Bryman, 2012: 70). According to Bryman, the exemplifying case is suited for a research that seeks access to an
organization that it is known to have implemented a new technology and the research aims to examine the implications of this new technology (Bryman, 2012: 70).
The case itself is thus not an extreme or unique case, in the sense that several other municipalities have also introduced their own approaches to the integration of status holders (Razenberg & De Gruijter, 2017). However, the new Amsterdam
Approach to Asylum Status Holders provides a suitable context for my research question to be answered, because as a research site, it offers me the opportunity to examine a key social process: the notion of ‘coping’ and how it is practiced by refugee case managers. Moreover, it provides me the capacity to illuminate the link between target-group oriented support and how case managers deliver this support to status holders
(Bryman, 2012: 70). Finally, Amsterdam is considered due to pragmatic considerations, such as an existing network within the municipality, which I have been able to build as result of an internship at the public health service of Amsterdam (GGD).
3.3 Case description
Since the begin of 2016 (until the 1st of April 2017), a total of 2.662 new status holders have arrived in Amsterdam. The status holders mainly come from Syria (57%), followed by Eritrea/Ethiopia (20%). The group mainly consists of single people between the age of 18 and 34. Men are in the majority, 70% of the new status holders are male, however,
it is expected that the share of female status holders and children will increase as a result of family reunification.
Figure 2. New status holders in Amsterdam according to their sex and household, 2016-April 2017 (percent)
single <18 single >18 family
women
men
total
Source: Vluchtelingenmonitor 2017
The new influx in Amsterdam shows that the proportion of women differs per months in the inflow and ranges from 10% in July 2016 to 41% in March 2017. The share of
women is thus expected to increase in the coming period, due to family reunifications (Vluchtelingenmonitor 2017). Moreover, numbers demonstrate that women status holders relatively more often live in a family unit (60%) than male status holders (22%).
In terms of their labour market participation, from the 5.708 status holders (age 18 till 64), by the end of 2016, 24% of the group had a paid job. In comparison, from all the citizens of Amsterdam within this age group, 60% had a paid job. For women, the picture is bleaker: women are less often employed (17%) than men (27%). Moreover, the status holders who are employed, generally have part-time jobs (less than 12 hours a week), even if they have been in the Netherlands for more than 10 years. To illustrate, only 29% of the employed status holders is fulltime (35 hours or more) employed. Finally, in term of welfare benefits dependency, from the status holders that were living in Amsterdam by the end of March 2017, 68% had welfare benefits. In comparison, for the citizens of Amsterdam this number was 7% (Vluchtelingenmonitor 2017).
Figure 3. Share of (former) status holders Amsterdam between the age of 18-64 with work in paid employment according to year of arrival in the Netherlands and mean Amsterdam, December 2016 (percent)
% 12 hours or plus <12 per week no work
Source: Vluchtelingenmonitor 2017
3.4 Selection and description of respondents
In the beginning, I was not certain which case managers would be most appropriate for my research goals, since the municipality has many (re-)integration case managers from different teams. At first, I considered the case managers from the Entry team, as this is the team that provides support during the initial activation trajectory of the status holder, which takes up to a period of 6 months. However, after some consideration and research, I realized that the group supported by this team generally consists of young, educated status holders, and few families. This group therefore is faced with less obstacles than the group that is transferred to the Team Activation. Moreover, the support period is only six months, which is relatively much shorter than the 3 years support period that Team Activation has at its disposal. This offered me the opportunity to obtain more in-depth information, since the casemanager-client relation has had more time to get its shape.
In order to reach out to the case managers, I have initially sent an email to the manager of Team Activation, Han ter Braake. He was so generous to provide me a list of the case managers from his team, and their contact information. Thereafter, I emailed them one by one, and 11 people from the 15 on the list agreed to an interview:
total Amsterdam total status-
holders
Table 1. List of respondents Team Activation status holders
Number Respondent City district
1 Irene Huisenga New-West
2 Erik de Graaff New-West
3 Sjaké Arakel New-West
4 Maureen Roije South-East
5 Nouzha Spall-Eshrir South-East
6 Tineke Hulleman East
7 Jacqueline Naafs East
8 Nanda Dijksta East
9 Jelmer Nicolai West
10 Baharan Andishmand North
11 Faisa Moalim North
The selection of respondents is diverse in terms of gender, age, years of experience and cultural background. Whereas some have been doing this profession for a short period of time, other are in this field for almost 20 years, and are relatively more experienced in working the target-group. This offered me the opportunity to compare the ‘new’ case managers with the ones that already know the ropes. Moreover, some case managers (3, 5, 10 & 11) share the same (cultural) background as their clients, and sometimes speak the mother language of their clients, offering them more communication opportunities.
Bias respondents
As with any other study that involves interviews, this research has also its pitfalls. First of all, it should be noted that the findings of the interviews cannot be generalized for case managers from other (re-)integration teams, as they might experience their work and their relations with their clients differently than the Activation Team. Secondly, as I have been able to come into contact with the respondents through their own manager
(Han ter Braake), this might have influenced the case managers’ freedom of expression. During the interviews, however, this was generally not the case as some case managers did not hesitate to show their sometimes-critical opinion regarding municipal affairs, their organizational environment, and even their colleagues. On the other hand, I have not clearly stated in the introduction mail to the respondents that my aim is to research specific challenges and opinions regarding asylum policy, leading to interviews that involved unexpected questions for the respondents. This may have led to case managers sharing information that they would otherwise not share to people outside of their working environment. In one instance, the case manager even shared sensitive
information with me after the interview (and recording), because she did not want me to include it in the research (which I obeyed). Finally, it should be noticed that I have a refugee background myself as my parents are Kurdish asylum seekers, who fled the Iraqi government in the 90s, and this may have caused me to structure the interviews based on my own experience. However, I have tried my best to prevent this by applying a neutral position during the interviews, and frequently ask questions when a comment was unclear to me.
3.5 Data-collection and analysis
To answer the research question, I have conducted semi-structured interviews and a document analysis. As for the document analysis, I have analyzed municipal policy documents, and national documents such as the current coalition accord. This information offered me an insight into the national and local framework of asylum policy, and how they sometimes diverge (as discussed in chapter 2). Furthermore, semi-structured interviews of around 45 minutes with the case managers from team
Activation offered me an insight into the experiences and strategies adapted by the case managers when confronted with dilemmas.
At first, my strategy for the interviews involved a long list with specific questions, which were not always relevant for my research. The main reason for this was that I was not certain about the route I wanted to follow with my research. As soon as I got used to asking questions, however, I refrained from asking specific question and simply used a topic list (see appendix). This made it easier for me to focus on what the respondent actually answered and how I strategically could frame my answers to obtain the
necessary information. This also offered the room to discuss topics that were not included on my topic list, but nevertheless proved to be important for my research.
The interviews certainly have their strengths and weaknesses. Weaknesses are most pronounced in the fact that I often did not know how to steer the conversation, leading to a shortage of the available time, and subsequently answers. Only after my 4th interview, I knew what to specifically ask, and how to introduce sensitive topics, without suggesting any preconceptions about the status holders. In terms of its strengths, at a certain moment I also started to share my own experiences with refugees, in order to create a common understanding, and this proved to be very effective as the case managers sensed that I understood their views and experiences regarding asylum dilemmas.
In terms of data analysis, things went less smoothly for me. The transcription of the interviews took much time, and this is mainly because I did not consider
distinguishing between core issues and side issues. Furthermore, labeling the behaviour of the case managers has proved to be an uncertain territory for me. However, when I obtained more data it was easier for me to recognize behaviour and to label it as a certain challenge or approach. Especially, after a couple of interviews, when the case managers started to give similar answers, I realized that their behaviour showed similar patterns and that saturation was achieved.
3.6 Historical contextual background: ‘Integration takes place locally’ For a long time, municipalities have not been able, or were unwilling to offer
supplementary policy for refugees and maintained their general policy. Effectively, these policies have not taken into account the specific complexities refugees face during their activation procedures (Ode & Dagevos, 2016). This lack of attention cannot be seen
separate from the way the current civic integration process is organised and the political sensitivity surrounding this topic. Current civic integration policies, namely, “have been designed to stimulate labour-market participation and to free migrants from welfare dependence by ‘responsibilising’ them” (Suvarierol, 2015: 707). As a result, municipalities have removed their special integration budgets and restricted the financing of specific projects (Dagevos et. al, 2013; Scholten, 2015). In light of these developments, one would assume that municipalities have been reluctant to come up with plans for the integration of asylum seekers. However, the contrary is the case as some municipalities have become more active in developing special programs to guide asylum seekers towards work (Ode & Dagevos, 460). Several authors, indeed, argue that the discrepancy between what is aimed by the central government and what is being implemented at the local level, has led to a divergence between national and local immigration integration policies (Duyvendak & Scholten, 2012; Poppelaars & Scholten, 2008; De Zwart & Poppelaars, 2007). In the city of Amsterdam, for instance, case
managers and job hunters are specifically appointed to work with asylum seekers. With these recent policy developments policy aimed at activating status holders as a target group, vis a vis the national policy framework, has gained influence in cities such as Amsterdam.
3.7 Policy analysis: the Amsterdam Approach to asylum status holders
On the 1st of July 2016, the city Amsterdam introduced its own approach toward the integration of asylum status holders. Central within this approach is the fast-track towards integration and participation through an integral approach to work, education and care and social welfare. The municipality aims to get the process towards work or education underway as soon as the status holder is allocated to the city, and this is done in a combined effort between the city and its city districts (Vluchtelingenmonitor 2017). Case managers support the status holders as early as possible through this trajectory towards work, education and entrepreneurship. If the status holder is not (yet) capable of following this trajectory, he or she will receive the necessary support towards care or other forms of participation. The case managers - specifically responsible for this group – havevarious, targeted, instruments available to support their clients (Odé & Dagevos, 2017: 462). The case managers within Team Activation are described as ‘specialist case
managers’, who work with a ‘neighborhood focus’ and sometimes operate from
community centers. According to a brochure the case managers from Team Activation carry out policy in the following way (Amsterdam Approach to Asylum Status holders):
“They work to promote active participation, preferably and where possible in the
asylum statusholder’s own surroundings, and here too with the goal of helping the client to obtain work and/or education. Here the casemanagers also make use of existing low-threshold facilities in the local city district. If care also needs to be provided, the
casemanager cooperates with the care network in the neighbourhood. This can involve bodies such as Samen DOEN, neighbourhood care or the social services. The Team
Activering manager usually provides support for the asylum status holder for a maximum of three years.”
Until now, preliminary figures demonstrate that the extra attention for status holders is already paying off: the expected benefits are twice as high as the expenses8. According to
recent results, in May 2017, 3.069 out of the 3.438 status holders are still involved in the program. In the first four months of 2017, 369 status holders have started with a
trajectory towards work or education, 208 have started with an education, 105 are following a participation trajectory, and 104 are part-time employed. Within the same period, 68 status holders have come out of welfare benefit assistance and 76 status holders have been transferred to healthcare assistance (Vluchtelingenmonitor, 2017).
Chapter 4: Findings
As became clear from chapter one, decentralization of the Dutch welfare state and the policy agenda of activation have been altering the role of welfare caseworkers in public social service organizations, transforming activation workers as key figures in local policymaking- and implementation. However, activation workers are also confronted with the ambiguities of policies, conflicting problem definitions and the negotiation of solutions, requiring them to act as policy mediators in highly contested fields. This is
especially the case for refugee activation workers, because they work in (and for) a society that assumes self-reliancy (zelfredzaamheid) from its citizens, and thus
influences activation workers’ social welfare interventions. Secondly, normative political discourses on nation-state citizenship influence and shape activation workers’
interventions in dealing with recipients from immigrant backgrounds. Lastly, refugee activation workers deliver services to clients, who are already greatly distanced from the labour market, and who have to deal with many complex refugee issues that hinder their activation.
In the following three chapters, an analysis of eleven interviews is presented. In each analytical chapter, the main findings are presented and supported with comments from the case managers, policy documents and literature. Chapter five presents the main problems in activating status holders, as experienced and interpreted by the case managers of Team Activation (Team Activering) of the municipality of Amsterdam. Thereafter, chapter six maps the different strategies adapted by the activation workers to cope with the daily dilemmas they encounter in delivering services to their clients. Lastly, chapter seven implements the micro-institutionalist analytical framework by Deborah Rice to explain activation workers’ choices between different coping
mechanisms
4.1 Introductory note
Before proceeding to the analysis of the dilemmas experienced by the case manager, it is important to stress two main points. The first point is that the group of status holders at hand has already been assisted by the Entry Team (Team Entree). The Entry Team provides support during the first six months of the activation process of all status holders above the age of 18. If a status holder does not move to work or education during the initial support period by the Entry Team, and is aged between 27 to 65 years,
then Team Activation takes over the support process. This means that Team Activation deals with a group that, in general, takes more time to move on to work or education, since the group has not been ‘activated’ during the initial phase with the Entry Team and is still dependent on welfare benefits. To give an impression of the number of clients that are transferred to Team Activation: from the new influx of status holders, at the beginning of 2017 up until four months later, 537 status holders have started with the general program Amsterdam Approach to Status holders, of which 485 have been transferred to the Entry team, 22 to the Activation team and 30 to the Young People’s Support Point (for clients up to the age of 27).The second point is that the case managers have approximately fifty asylum status holders in their caseloads. By
comparison, a regular case worker has around 250 clients in his or her caseload (MKBA, 2017). As a result, this new approach offers the case managers more opportunities and time to provide intensive support for their clients.
Activation, in the broad sense, indicates that social policies are aimed at increasing employment. In a narrower sense it refers to programs of training and education with a strong emphasis on bringing people into work (Hagelund & Kavli, 260: 2009). During the activation trajectory, the case manager draws up an individual action plan (or
continues with the individual action plan that is already drawn up by team Entry), which indicates the objectives that should be achieved through the support trajectory. Central to the case manager’s approach “what are the wishes and the talents of the client: who are you? What do you want? And what is needed to get there?” (MKBA, 3). According to the case managers, however, the individual action plans are usually standardized forms that offer little room for one’s own interpretation. The action plans are supposed to be checked occasionally by the management to see that everything goes according to plan, and to have proper insight in the status holders’ civic integration development and financial situation. One case manager (6) even offered me to take a look on her computer and see the action plan for myself, which I accepted. And indeed, the individual action plans looked less exiting than what I had in mind (perhaps a more personalized
individual action plan). Moreover, the case manager has additional access to a range of instruments, such as job application training courses, and various specialists are
combined within one team: case managers, job hunters, coaches and income counsellors (Amsterdam Approach to Status holders). Lastly, the case managers have access to the
new (internal and external) target group-oriented programs (the case managers call them ‘subsidy partners’), which are subsidized by the municipality of Amsterdam and provide supplementary support and collaboration. For example, an external partner that is named often is Netwerkpro, a social enterprise that focuses on improving the
professional position of women9.
5. Exploring challenges on the frontline of welfare to work services for
status holders
According to Ode and Dagevos, the labour market position of status holders can be explained by three main factors: individual characteristics of the group, the societal context in which the status holders integrate, and the integration policy in the host countries (Ode & Dagevos, 2017). The aim of this chapter is to map the daily challenges faced by status holders in their activation process, based on the experiences and
interpretations from the case managers. By looking at it from the case managers’
