Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Broader secondary outcome measures are examined in order to qualify the primary outcomes obtained by means of a survey. This will provide deeper insight into how participants experience and use local service delivery, shed more light on the determinants of non- take-up (NTU) of local social services and benefits and subsidies and explain how the pilot programme affects the intervention group compared to TAU on several categories of outcomes: well-being, social support, trust in institutions and living conditions including housing situation, activity (employment) status in the household, household financial and material situation and finally use of childcare services.
Wellbeing is measured by letting the main respondent (usually the mother) complete a wellbeing questionnaire containing questions of the Personal and Social Wellbeing module of European Social Survey (Round 6), measuring 6 different dimensions of wellbeing which are accounting for measuring both positive feelings and positive functionings of wellbeing: evaluative, emotional, functioning, vitality, supportive relations and community wellbeing are measured. Social support is assessed in the survey gauging for emotional, instrumental, financial and informational support the main respondent is receiving. Trust in institutions is evaluated in the survey by using a 10-point scale for trust assessing several institutions such as the police, politicians, the local employment offices, the Flemish agency for Child and Family Welfare (‘Kind en Gezin’, K&G hereafter), trade unions, etc. Outcomes related to the housing situation are assessed by having information on type of housing, satisfaction, costs and application to subsidies and benefits regarding housing as provided in the survey. Activity status contains the current state of activity by respondent (and partner if applicable) (employee, independent, student, unemployed, housewife/men, invalidity, etc.) as well as the work intensity of the household in the past 12 months as reported in the survey. Household financial and material situation constitutes survey information on monthly household net income, material deprivation, household debt and assistance with debt management/counselling. Outcomes regarding childcare services are assessed on amount paid per day and wether or not the household makes use of the services and reasons reported why household is making use or not of these services. When comparing outcomes regarding professional assistance, survey questions on quantity of professional assistance and it’s nature are used, as well as the reported satisfaction of the respondent measured through general judgment of professional assistance organization used as well as respondent’s judgment on the harmonization of assistance, and the quality/availability of support of professional assistance in general. Some of these secondary outcomes are expected on the mid-or long term, whereas measurement is done first of all in the shorter term (6 months after the baseline). Ideally after 1 year and if possible 2 years after the intervention employment and all outcomes should be measured again to evaluate the mid-term impact of the intervention.
Furthermore, as said above, the study wants to understand better the mechanism behind non-take up and therefore the survey contains questions on both self-reported reasons of non-take up of services and benefits/subsidies, as well as information on possible determinants. To grasp how the intervention possibly affects take-up of local services and benefits/subsidies determinants will be examined pre-and post intervention together with outcomes determinants. The following possible determinants are included in the survey: trigger events, knowledge and information related costs, perception of eligibility, need, attitudinal barriers against social benefits, perception of utility of benefit/services, process costs (difficulty application procedure, filling in forms, etc.,), psychological and social costs: stigma (personal, social, claims), personal values (regarding giving personal information, dependency on government, requirements unrealistic or unacceptable to fulfil eligibility requirements), (mis)perception of risks, number of people using benefits/subsidies in respondent network and information context (sources of information, information seeking behaviour, advice to take up, perception on availability and quality of benefit related information, etc.)
The information gathered in the survey will allows us to control for basic characteristics between control and intervention group such as household composition, age, migration background and socio-economic situation.