Advice on the Apeldoorn Social Support Regulation 2026

Administrative secretariat
PO Box 9033
7300 ES Apeldoorn

T: 06 2831 4935
E: adviesraadsociaaldomein@apeldoorn.nl

Date: 26 January 2026
Our reference: ASDA 2026-01

To: The Municipal Executive of Apeldoorn

CC: Heleen Dekker

Subject: Advice on the Apeldoorn Social Support Regulation 2026

Dear Council,

We have received your request for advice regarding the Apeldoorn Social Support Regulation 2026. Your staff have involved us in a most pleasant manner in the proposed amendments, on the basis of which we have reached a positive recommendation, accompanied by the following comments and advice.

General comments:

The regulation devotes considerable attention to the limits of the support measures available to members of the public. Whilst we have every respect for the advisers, in practice it appears that the specific implementation or approval of a requested support measure depends in part on the assessment made by the adviser concerned. During the informal consultation, the adviser assesses the client’s situation, on the basis of which a decision is made.

It is recommended that attention be paid to the “human dimension” and that, for example, case discussions be used to ensure that the consultants’ assessments are more closely aligned.

The regulation is (rightly) based on the principle that citizens should help one another. The question that arose is whether citizens are aware that they are expected to help one another in such situations.

It is recommended that (even) more attention be paid to community spirit.

The articles of the by-law are of a legal nature. For the sake of clarity, residents may refer to the information published on the Apeldoorn municipal website. However, there appears to be a discrepancy between the information on the Apeldoorn municipal website and the information and definitions set out in the by-law.

It is recommended that the information on the website be brought into line with the terms and content of the regulation.

In practice, it appears that citizens seeking care do not always possess digital skills, or may have low literacy levels, or – due to their age – find it more difficult to keep up with the latest developments. Of course, there is the Apeldoorn-055 helpline, but even that proves inaccessible to some vulnerable citizens. This raises the question of whether these very vulnerable citizens are aware that they could potentially make use of such a service.

It is recommended that, in communications relating to the WMO, particular attention be paid to vulnerable citizens.

We understand that, once adopted, this regulation will be further elaborated in the (existing) policy guidelines.

If this is not already the case, we advise you to review the policy guidelines periodically to assess how they are implemented in the consultants’ day-to-day work.

Finally, it is recommended that a general provision be included regarding the indexation of the amounts mentioned, and that a transitional provision be included for the benefits currently granted.

Comments on individual articles

Article 3.1 has a text that is difficult to fathom.

It is recommended that the text be revised to improve readability.

In Article 3.2 The term “usual assistance” is used, which leaves considerable scope for personal interpretation. We understand that this concept will be further elaborated in the policy guidelines. We would like to be involved in this process.

The article explicitly states that, in the case of “long-term assistance”, various specified situations and circumstances are taken into account. In the case of short-term assistance, no consideration is given to possible aggravating circumstances, even though these may also apply.

Furthermore, whilst this article discusses (impending) overwork, it does not address how overwork (and all its social consequences) can be prevented.

When elaborating further on the concepts mentioned, please also give consideration to the ”human dimension”.

In Article 4.2 It is stated that the representative must not be a family member or a person living in the same household as the PGB applicant; however, in the case of an administrator, mentor or guardian, this is often a family member or a person living in the same household.

It is recommended that this article be amended accordingly.

In Article 7.1.2 It states that an assessment must take place every six months. This can be a burden for the person concerned and any informal carer, and is not always necessary.

It is recommended that the text should state that, when a PGB is awarded, a six-monthly review may be agreed.

We would be happy to provide further clarification on the advice should you request it.

Kind regards,

Ewoud Remmelts

Chair of the Apeldoorn Social Services Advisory Board

Kind regards,

Ewoud Remmelts
Chair of the Apeldoorn Social Services Advisory Board