In Shutdown the Dissolution I mentioned social services in relation to my own person.
And since I often speak about the Netherlands, which inspires me, I could also name something from a visible fundamental systemic differences between how social services function in Czechia and in the Netherlands.
I am certainly not the only one who can see these systemic differences, nor the only one who has gone through—or is still going through.
The Netherlands:
The state has long relied on a relatively consistent strategy in the field of social care: It rather prefers working with a smaller number of workers who are well prepared, professionally qualified, and systematically supported, rather than employing workers without the required education and experience.
Czechia:
In social services, there is often an effort to quickly fill staffing capacities regardless of the level of preparedness.
The Netherlands:
In this model, the client is not perceived as an “experimental object.” The system is set up to minimize situations where procedures are searched for only during the provision of care.
Czechia:
The system is often set up in such a way that procedures are sought only in the course of providing care.
The Netherlands:
The worker is not exposed to expectations of improvisational adaptation without sufficient support. Responsibility is clearly structured, defined, and enforceable. Social services cannot excuse themselves by citing staff shortages or systemic failures—every actor knows exactly where their role begins and where it ends.
Czechia:
In the Czech environment a man often encounter situations where people without adequate professional preparation enter direct care. Training is usually brief, focused mainly on operational basics, and there is an implicit assumption that the worker will somehow manage.
Responsibility here is often not systematically anchored—it is not clearly set but rather transferred ad hoc onto individuals (even onto individuals without any education or experiences).
The Netherlands:
Emphasis is placed on structure, predictability, and continuity of relationships. Every intervention has a professional rationale, and workers know exactly why they choose specific procedures. The client is not an object of improvisation but the subject of long-term planned care.
Czechia:
Work is often reactive—interventions come only at the moment of escalation (even by workers without any education and experiences) and a large part of decision-making rests on individual intuition and the worker’s momentary assessment rather than on clearly defined structures.
The Netherlands:
In the Netherlands, qualification is not understood as a formal requirement but as a basic tool for protecting the client, the worker, and the system itself. Entry into the profession is gradual and conditioned by specific education, supervised practice, language competence, and mandatory ongoing training. Without meeting clear criteria for education and practice, it is not possible to perform given roles. In other words, without clear education and experience, no one is allowed into direct care.
Czechia:
In the Czech system, requirements for workers in social services are often lower or bypassed for operational reasons. When entering direct care, appropriate education or prior experience is often not required. Workers in social services may have no education or practice at all. They are often thrown in at the deep end and expected to somehow cope. The result is a system that can fill shifts in the short term—often it appears that the primary goal is simply to cover shifts—but in the long term this leads to worker burnout, client insecurity, and above all the absence of clearly defined care approaches. This results in inconsistencies in work methods, crisis resolution, and interventions themselves, weakening both the quality and continuity of the service provided.
The Netherlands:
The Dutch approach seeks to protect all parties involved simultaneously. It protects the client by minimizing the risk of care failure. It protects the worker by providing time, competence, and professional support. It protects the social services through clearly defined rules of operation, and it protects the entire system by limiting the need for constant crisis management in “emergency mode.” This model places higher demands and means a slower entry into the profession, but its result is fewer traumatic situations, fewer failures, and less pressure to rely on improvised solutions.
