“There for the safety net, not the dreams”: local decision-makers’ perceptions on scarcity, trade-offs, and caregiving responsibilities in social care resource allocation in the Netherlands
Clicks: 2
ID: 324770
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
2 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #80 of 155 articles by views in the gerontologist
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 155 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the Netherlands, municipalities are responsible for providing social care to enable older individuals to age in place. Resources are largely allocated by local decision-makers who translate policy into individual-level decisions, yet little is known about how they interpret and weigh relevant considerations in practice. This study examines how local decision-makers perceive the scarcity of social care resources, trade-offs they make, and challenges they encounter in everyday decision-making. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted interviews with 27 local decision-makers, structured around perceptions of scarcity, trade-offs, and challenges. The analysis was guided by analytic questions focusing on interpretations of the Social Support Act, perceptions of scarcity, trade-offs, challenges in decision-making practice, and views on caregiving responsibility. RESULTS: Local decision-makers varied in how they perceived scarcity and interpreted the statutory principles of the Social Support Act, resulting in different approaches to prioritization. Participants described a paradox between local discretion and a narrowing ability to target resources for particular priorities due to case law. Another identified challenge concerns the mismatch between policy expectations and societal views on caregiving responsibilities. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Local decision-makers' challenges with conflicting aspects of the Social Support Act is reflected in different and sometimes incompatible prioritization approaches. Paradoxically, the Act's broad, open formulation results in increasingly restricted ability to allocate resources effectively in view of local needs. Better alignment between national legislation and local realities is required to allow scope for meaningful local discretion, alongside national debate to clarify priorities to support transparent and equitable allocation of social care resources.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7202245122
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Philipa Mos, Vivian Reckers-droog |
| Journal | the gerontologist |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/geront/gnag193
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.