Legislative Evaluation of Early Identification
Commissioned by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, Panteia, in collaboration with HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht and Bureau Bartels, conducted an evaluation of ‘vroegsignalering’; the provisions on early identification in the Wet gemeentelijke schuldhulpverlening (Municipal Debt Assistance Act, Wgs). The study focused in particular on the extent to which the early identification component in the Wgs contributes to the effective and efficient achievement of the goals set out in the Act.
The Wgs is a framework law that, since 1 July 2012, ensures that residents with debts can turn to municipalities for, among other things, advice, debt mediation or a debt restructuring loan. As of 1 January 2021, the Wgs was amended. With this amendment, the early identification of debts by municipalities based on signals from specific third parties (utility partners) was anchored in law. Following early identification, municipalities proactively approach residents with payment arrears to offer them assistance, based on signals from health insurers, energy companies, housing providers, and drinking water companies, who are deemed able to predict (impending) problematic debt. By receiving early signals of financial problems, municipalities are able to contact residents in a timely manner and provide appropriate assistance.
According to the researchers, early identification contributes to the prevention and reduction of problematic debts. The instrument enables municipalities to proactively offer support to residents who would otherwise only come into view at a later stage, once debts have become (more) problematic. Early identification can contribute to:
- more people with (impending) problematic debts receiving and accepting appropriate support;
- lower barriers to accessing debt assistance;
- preventing payment problems from worsening and avoiding threatening situations;
- more effective debt assistance.
Furthermore, the costs of early identification are relatively limited, and the expected societal benefits of preventing or reducing (impending) problematic debts are substantial. Both the reach and effectiveness have grown significantly in recent years.
At the same time, the study identifies some undesirable side effects. For example, signals may be inaccurate (such as when an arrear has already been resolved), residents may be confronted with their problems (which is not always experienced as helpful), and there may be concerns around privacy (particularly around when sharing signals is proportionate).
The report also contains recommendations for ministries, municipalities, utility partners, and collaborative networks (such as industry associations, VNG, Divosa and NVVK). A selection of the recommendations:
- Increase standardisation and more consistent application of the obligations regarding debt collection and other agreements on social collection practices for utility partners;
- Respond to more signals by applying more flexible selection criteria by municipalities (for example, regarding threshold amounts);
- Reduce variation in implementation between municipalities, for example by introducing minimum requirements (quality frameworks) for municipalities;
- Enable more information sharing between municipalities and utility partners;
- Improve the registration and evaluation of activities and their effects, making it possible to identify and disseminate proven effective approaches;
- Analyse and optimise signal selection (i.e., when is a signal most useful to send);
- Establish a single central system for submitting signals;
- Strengthen the implementation of early identification, including investment in the skills and competencies of professionals who visit residents, and in the personal forms of contact used;
- Improve the quality of address and contact details in signals;
- Promote uniformity in the registration of signals and feedback (such as ‘successful contact’ and ‘support accepted’).
A potential threat to the structural availability of funding—and therefore the reach of early identification—is that the (societal) benefits accrue elsewhere (inside and outside the municipality) than where the costs are incurred.
The evaluation consisted of a wide range of research activities, including a reconstruction of the policy theory, desk research, interviews with over one hundred stakeholders (municipalities, utility partners, residents, experts by experience, experts, and policymakers), a quantitative analysis of data from Divosa and utility partners, and an extensive legal analysis of the obligations for utility partners and privacy aspects.
In the parliamentary letter through which the report was presented to the Tweede Kamer (House of Representatives), the State Secretary for Participation and Integration provides a response to the report. It is indicated that part of the recommendations will be adopted.
Read the report here and read the parliamentary letter here, both in Dutch.
Would you like to know more about the study? Or are you curious about the possibilities for research in the field of poverty and debt for your organisation? Please contact our experts Paul Vroonhof or Tom Kruis.
