Project Motivation
In 2013, Dutch politicians longed for more rigorous actions against fraudulent applications for financial support. They were all done with residents taking advantage of the system and decided to adopt an all-or-nothing approach. Child support applications would be assessed thoroughly and mercilessly. Consequently, that would also mean that the good can suffer from the bad, as stated by the state secretary of finance Frans Weekers (Frederik, 2021).

In the years that followed, about 30,000 parents were wrongly labeled as fraudsters by the tax authorities. These parents had to repay their allowance in full at the slightest mistake. In some cases, a single missing receipt was enough to make parents pay back tens of thousands of euros. To this day, some parents are experiencing the financial, mental, and physical consequences of the fraud hunt. We now label this the Toeslagenaffaire (Eng: The Child Welfare Fraud Scandal). Within public organizations, every effort is made to prevent these kinds of debacles in
the future.

The Toeslagenaffaire shows that the government sometimes imposes unrealistic demands on residents. Policymakers assumed that residents understood the rules for applying for benefits and had sufficient capacity to submit applications fully and correctly. However, not all parents can submit monthly forms and indicate changes in their wages in practice. Sometimes they are not even aware of the conditions. Here we see a difference between the policymakers’ expectations (the rationalistic perspective) and the capacities of the resident (the realistic perspective). Adopting a realistic policymaking perspective makes public services accessible to more residents, reducing process costs and stimulating residents’ self-sufficiency (NL: redzaamheid).

Within a realistic policymaking perspective, civil servants create realistic assumptions about the mental capacity of residents. This mental capacity consists of two components: the ability to understand the process (NL: denkvermogen) and the ability to act accordingly (NL: doenvermogen). When the procedures of implemented policies match these abilities, the resident will be able to follow the process. If the cognitive load of the policy exceeds the denkvermogen and doenvermogen, the resident faces more difficulties. They might require a customized process, which is costly and inefficient. Assessing the cognitive load of the context and the residents’ mental capacity supports policymakers in creating realistic assumptions about residents.

De ‘Erkenningsmethode’ (Eng: Acknowledgment Method) supports policymakers in creating this realistic assumption. Through empathy exercises and context assessments, stakeholders realize the different mental capacities of residents and consider the challenges they face in the policy process. Some residents might not be able to enter the process or get stuck along the way. When participants experience the challenges of certain residents, they can make an informed decisions for the innovation approach.

First, participants can choose to let the current process’s cognitive load and the residents’ capacity remain the same. This might be the case when resources are scarce, or not all profiles receive the same prioritization. Alternatively, the next phase can increase the mental capacity (stimulating residents) or make the process easier (less complexity and more support). Whatever option is chosen, the stakeholders should all be aware of the prioritized approach, acknowledging the consequences for the self-determination profiles.

This way, a more diverse image of residents can be considered when innovating public services. Understanding these residents and acknowledging their problems is the first step in creating more realistic assumptions about the mental capacity of residents.