ROTATING SPECIALISTS
Superior technical expertise, rotating caseworkers.
Having to re-explain one's situation at every change, filling out the same forms again.
SOCIAL PROGRAMS · DEPARTMENT CASE: REDESIGNING THE WELFARE-TO-WORK PATHWAY
How can a welfare-to-work pathway be redesigned toward stronger contractual commitments without increasing non-take-up among the most vulnerable recipients?
For the administration, it is a pathway. For the recipient, it is a relationship on which their ability to stay within the system depends.
The framework has been set by the legislature: 15 to 20 hours of weekly activity, a formal engagement contract, possible sanctions. What remains is designing the departmental pathway that maximizes effective labor-market insertion without pushing vulnerable groups out of the system.
- DECISION
- Redesign a welfare-to-work support pathway
- POPULATION
- 340,000 recipient households
- HORIZON
- 36 months of trajectories
- STAKES
- Contractualization · non-take-up · labor-market insertion
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
15 to 20 hours of weekly activity
SCENARIOS
8 contractualization configurations
SUPPORT
12 combined programs
A NATIONAL POLICY MANDATE
340,000 recipient households.
14 profiles.
8 scenarios to arbitrate.
The principle of contractualization has already been decided. The 8 scenarios tested are defined by crossing four parameters: flexibility of the contract, sanctions regime, mode of support, and caseworker organization.
The project team's known risk was to reproduce earlier local pilots in which non-take-up had jumped from 12% to 34% after tightening the rules, or to keep take-up unchanged without demonstrating any improvement in insertion trajectories.
- flexible or rigid contract
- graduated or immediate sanctions
- in-person or blended support
- single or shared caseworker
FIRST FINDING
Rigidity does not produce
engagement.
It produces non-take-up.
— rigid contract: 12% → 34%· · · flexible pathway: anchoring preserved3 most vulnerable profiles
- 01MISSED APPOINTMENT
- 02UNOPENED LETTER
- 03IGNORED FOLLOW-UP
- 04ADMINISTRATIVE TERMINATION
- 05EXIT FROM THE SYSTEM
Withdrawal is active: it is not declared, it is observed in missed appointments and unanswered follow-ups. Without institutional anchoring, there is no insertion trajectory — there is an exit from the program with no return.
« The program could shed beneficiaries without increasing labor-market insertion. »
SECOND FINDING
It is not the principle
that is being rejected.
SINGLE CASEWORKER OVER 12 MONTHS
+34 pts of engagement
Even when less technically experienced, this caseworker achieves higher engagement. Relational stability outweighs expertise.
« For vulnerable groups, not having to recount one's life story again and again is a feature of the program. »
68% of recipients consider contractualization legitimate in principle.
THIRD FINDING
A fair sanction fosters
accountability.
An illegitimate sanction
drives people away.
IMMEDIATE SANCTION
Full suspension at the first breach.
Cognitive withdrawal, and −8 pts in return to employment at 24 months compared with the graduated regime.
GRADUATED SANCTION
Written warning, then a 30% partial suspension, then full suspension.
The written warning is received, read, and triggers a 62% rebound in engagement.
SEVERITYEFFECTIVENESS
MECHANISM
Two opposite vulnerabilities
within the same population.
100% IN-PERSON
Excludes more heavily:
isolated rural residents with limited mobility, single parents with young children.
100% REMOTE
Excludes more heavily:
people with limited digital access, and situations of psychological distress requiring a strong relational framework.
The best systemthe uniform system.
Blended modular support — a mandatory in-person core with flexible frequency, complemented by an accessible remote option — covers opposite vulnerabilities with the same program.
TRAJECTORIES
Same program.
Different speeds.
6 PROFILES
45% to 62% return to employment at 24 months
5 PROFILES
22% to 34% at 36 months
3 MOST VULNERABLE PROFILES
12% to 18% at 36 months, non-linear trajectories
A program calibrated on median profiles fails the most vulnerable. A program calibrated on the most vulnerable slows median trajectories. The goal is the appropriate trajectory, not the median norm.
THE HIDDEN COST
Non-take-up does not eliminate
the cost. It shifts it.
RECIPIENT IN NON-TAKE-UP
- €4,800 in downstream cost over 24 months
- emergency housing
- food assistance
- enhanced child protection
- unscheduled care
RECIPIENT WITHIN THE WELFARE PROGRAM
- €3,200 over the same period
- institutional anchoring preserved
« Non-take-up does not eliminate the cost. It shifts it toward more expensive systems. »
340,000 households.
14 profiles built
on six dimensions.
SIMULATED POPULATION
The synthetic population was calibrated on public data and on proprietary data from the department's social services. No identifiable individual data was entered into the system.
4,200 synthetic recipients, distributed proportionally across the 14 profiles, were run through the 8 scenarios combined with 12 support programs, with follow-ups on the tipping points: perception of the contract, sense of recognition, capacity to engage, and degree of preserved institutional anchoring.
- age and family structure
- time enrolled in the program
- level of qualification
- residential and geographic situation
- documented physical and mental health
- relationship to institutions
ISOLATED RURAL RESIDENTS WITH LIMITED MOBILITY
structural travel constraint, excluded by 100% in-person support
SINGLE PARENTS WITH CHILDREN UNDER 3
availability constrained by childcare, low tolerance for imposed appointments
RECIPIENTS WITH DOCUMENTED PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS
need for a strong relational framework, rapid withdrawal in case of tightened rules
YOUNG ADULTS AGING OUT OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
relationship to institutions marked by prior ruptures
RECIPIENTS IN PROFESSIONAL TRANSITION
short trajectory, 45 to 62% return to employment at 24 months
YOUNG WORKERS RECENTLY OUT OF EMPLOYMENT
recent institutional anchoring, rapid mobilization
TWO-PARENT FAMILIES WITH AN INSERTION PROJECT
capacity to engage shared within the household
LONG-TERM RECIPIENTS
long trajectory, 22 to 34% return to employment at 36 months
OLDER WORKERS AND CAREER CHANGERS
continuous support needed throughout the projected period
- PUBLIC DATA
- INSEE, CNAF, department open data
- PROPRIETARY DATA
- Internal profiles, benefit durations, case histories
- CONFIDENTIALITY
- No identifiable individual data entered into the system
These profiles make visible part of the population's heterogeneity. The simulation covers synthetic individuals, not a handful of representative personas.
THE PARAMETERS TESTED
One legal framework.
Eight ways to implement
it.
The scenarios were run against the same population in order to isolate the effect of contract flexibility, the sanctions regime, the mode of support, and caseworker organization.
- 01RIGID CONTRACTCaseworker discretion strictly constrained: non-take-up rises from 12% to 34% across the 3 most vulnerable profiles.
- 02FLEXIBLE CONTRACTCaseworker discretion left broad: institutional anchoring of vulnerable groups is preserved.
- 03IMMEDIATE SANCTIONSFull suspension at the first breach: cognitive withdrawal and −8 pts in return to employment at 24 months.
- 04GRADUATED SANCTIONSWritten warning, then a 30% partial suspension, then full suspension: 62% rebound in engagement after the warning.
- 05100% IN-PERSON SUPPORTHuman contact maximized, but the mobility requirement excludes isolated rural residents and single parents with young children.
- 06BLENDED MODULAR SUPPORTMandatory in-person core with flexible frequency, complemented by an accessible remote option.
- 07SHARED CASEWORKERRotation among specialists as needed: superior technical expertise, lower engagement.
- 08SINGLE CASEWORKER OVER 12 MONTHSRelational stability: +34 pts of engagement compared with the rotating-specialists program.
METHOD
Before recommending,
we tested reactions.
- 340,000 RECIPIENT HOUSEHOLDS
- 14 PROFILES
- 8 SCENARIOS
- 12 SUPPORT PROGRAMS
- 4,200 RECIPIENTS SURVEYED
- 112 TRAJECTORIES PER SCENARIO
- 36 MONTHS OF PROJECTION
- 01
RIGID CONTRACTUALIZATION AMPLIFIES NON-TAKE-UP BY +22 PTS
Across the 3 most vulnerable profiles, non-take-up rises from 12% under the current program to 34% with a rigid contract, through active withdrawal: missed appointments, unopened letters, no response to follow-ups, eventual administrative termination.
- 02
A SINGLE CASEWORKER BEATS A SHARED CASEWORKER BY +34 PTS OF ENGAGEMENT
68% of recipients consider contractualization legitimate in principle. What is rejected is the perceived inhumanity of the program: having to re-explain one's situation with every caseworker change.
- 03
GRADUATED SANCTIONS ARE PERCEIVED AS FAIR, IMMEDIATE SANCTIONS ARE REJECTED AS ILLEGITIMATE
The written warning triggers a rebound in engagement in 62% of cases. Immediate full suspension lowers the return-to-employment rate measured at 24 months by 8 pts compared with the graduated regime.
Imagine All The People does not ask a model to imagine what a recipient might think of an engagement contract. Eight scenarios are run against a coherent, heterogeneous synthetic population, with modeling of the interactions between the welfare program and downstream social programs, before the decision is made.
DOMINANT STRATEGY
Raise contractual requirements
without further tightening
the rules.
- 01flexible contract
- 02single caseworker over 12 months
- 03graduated sanctions
- 04blended modular support
- 05dedicated arrangements for the 3 most vulnerable profiles
SIMULATED DIFFERENTIAL
+22 pts of non-take-up avoided
+11 pts of return to employment
ROLLOUT
€4.2M / year in additional budget
340 caseworkers trained, 8 months after the decision
- partner daycare centers and occasional at-home support for single parents
- support at local town halls and occasional transport solutions for isolated rural residents
- partnerships with community mental health centers and occupational health services for psychological distress
THEN REALITY ARRIVED
24 months after full
rollout.
- NON-TAKE-UP AMONG VULNERABLE GROUPS AT 24 MONTHS
- 12%vs. 34% in the rigid scenario
- RETURN TO EMPLOYMENT AT 24 MONTHS
- 38%vs. 34% projected
- CASEWORKER SATISFACTION
- 71%+14 pts vs. pre-redesign period
- CONSOLIDATED DOWNSTREAM COST AVOIDED
- €8M / yearemergency housing, food assistance, unscheduled care
- ADMINISTRATIVE TERMINATIONS
- ÷2.4vs. rigid scenario
- SIMULATION-TO-DOWNSTREAM-SAVINGS RATIO
- 1:46over the reference year
SIMULATION
+22 pts of non-take-up avoided and +11 pts of return to employment at 24 months compared with the alternatives tested.
OBSERVATION
Non-take-up among vulnerable groups held at 12%, return to employment at 38%, administrative terminations divided by 2.4, €8M in downstream costs avoided over the reference year.
LESSON LEARNED
“Raising contractual
requirements did not require
further tightening the rules.”
“The condition for successful insertion was not, first and foremost, constraint. It was keeping the person in a usable institutional relationship for long enough.”
- 01Non-take-up is not an apparent saving: it is a transfer toward more costly programs.
- 02Relational stability outweighs technical expertise for vulnerable groups.
- 03A uniform program fails on opposite vulnerabilities.
- 04The same program does not produce the same trajectory speed across profiles.
- 05Imagine All The People makes it possible to test a social reform on those who leave the system, not only on those who remain in it.
A real case.
A confidential organization.
This case is drawn from a simulation that was actually carried out. The organization and the territory are not named where confidentiality requires it. The decision, the scenarios tested and the lessons learned are presented without revealing information that would identify the client.
