Introduction
Social service work is fundamentally centred on the relationship between service users and providers, with trust playing a key role in fostering successful engagement (Smith, Reference Smith2001; Evans et al., 2004s; Behnia, Reference Behnia2008; Rothstein, Reference Rothstein2009; Jessen, Reference Jessen2010; Senghaas et al., Reference Senghaas, Freier and Kupka2019). In the unpredictable and emotionally charged context of social work, relationships that go beyond mere procedural compliance are crucial. Social work is not merely about enforcing rules or relying on standardised responses; it is about understanding the individual needs and experiences of service users – achieved through strong, trust-based relationships between providers and users (Sudbery, Reference Sudbery2002; Ruch, Reference Ruch2005; Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Ruch, Lymbery and Cooper2008; Kam, Reference Kam2019).
When frontline workers trust their clients, they are better equipped to understand individual needs and determine the most appropriate ways to provide support. However, due to the inherent asymmetry in this relationship and the often vulnerable position of social service users, it is user trust in professionals that plays an even more critical role (Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Ruch, Lymbery and Cooper2008; Dubois, Reference Dubois2010; Cossar et al., Reference Cossar, Brandon, Bailey, Belderson, Biggart and Sharpe2013; Kohl et al., Reference Kohl, Amilon and Olsen2022; Kvakic and Wærdahl, Reference Kvakic and Wærdahl2022). When users trust their caseworkers, they are more likely to seek help, share relevant information, and comply with recommended interventions – factors that improve the system’s overall effectiveness. Conversely, distrust can lead to avoidance, non-compliance, and communication breakdowns, ultimately undermining the service’s efficiency and legitimacy (Jessen, Reference Jessen2010).
For vulnerable groups – such as individuals living in poverty, refugees, or people with disabilities – trust in social service providers is particularly crucial due to the additional barriers they face in accessing and understanding complex bureaucratic systems. These groups often have limited resources and information, making navigation through social systems especially challenging. Jessen (Reference Jessen2010) underscores how marginalised individuals rely heavily on the competence and goodwill of professionals to interpret and navigate these systems on their behalf. Social workers play a vital role as intermediaries, bridging the gap between vulnerable individuals and the often opaque social system; they may act as ‘translators’ of complex rules or, for instance, offer valuable assistance in completing paperwork etc. Trust in these professionals encompasses not only confidence in their competence but also faith in their ability to advocate, interpret, and secure the necessary support.
Unlike general trust in institutions and policies of the social service system, user trust is directed toward specific individuals – frontline workers – and stems from the quality of the personal relationships established with them (Kohl et al., Reference Kohl, Amilon and Olsen2022; Kvakic and Wærdahl, Reference Kvakic and Wærdahl2022). The trustworthiness of frontline workers is often associated with their warmth, empathy, respect, and ability to listen (Soukiala and Pietilä, Reference Soukiala and Pietilä2024). Trust emerges when users experience reciprocity, mutual respect, and emotional connection (Behnia, Reference Behnia2008; Beresford et al., Reference Beresford, Croft and Adshead2008; Integrated Report, 2021). These relational qualities are essential for fostering a sense of safety and belonging – crucial for individuals who often feel disempowered by their circumstances or by the power asymmetries inherent in frontline worker-user interactions.
Overall, the literature on user trust (Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Ruch, Lymbery and Cooper2008; Behnia, Reference Behnia2008; Beresford et al., Reference Beresford, Croft and Adshead2008; Cossar et al., Reference Cossar, Brandon, Bailey, Belderson, Biggart and Sharpe2013) highlights the quality of relationships with frontline workers and the perception of their human qualities. However, it tends to place less emphasis on users’ perceptions of and experiences with the formal procedures within which these relational processes unfold and are inevitably shaped. With this paper, we aim to contribute to knowledge on user (dis)trust-building by focusing on the microdynamics of its development, which equally considers citizens’ interactions with frontline workers and institutional procedures. Drawing on empirical research conducted among disadvantaged families seeking support from social services and assistance institutions in the Czech Republic and Serbia, we analyse the narrated experiences and perception-based mechanisms that shape users’ (dis)trust within the dual context of institutional procedures governing access to services, and the relationship with frontline workers. We aim to illuminate how trust is constructed or eroded during these interactions, underscoring the importance of user perceptions.
In what follows, we will first briefly describe key characteristics of Czech and Serbian social welfare systems. We will then present an overview of how trust is approached in social welfare literature, focusing particularly on factors that impact user trust. Next, we will explain our methodology. The core segment of the paper presents an interpretation of our qualitative findings, concentrating on the microdynamics of user trust development in relation to both institutional procedures and interactions with frontline workers. We summarise our findings in the concluding section.
A brief overview of the characteristics of the Czech and Serbian social welfare systems
Our analysis expands on a broader qualitative study examining users’ perceptions of trust and distrust in interactions with frontline workers from social welfare institutions across seven European countries carried out within the EnTrust project (Integrated Report, 2021). The research focused on families with children in need of financial and other assistance, emphasising the critical role of trust in effective service provision. The overall findings revealed a widespread lack of trust or distrust toward frontline workers across the studied countries. Notably, Serbia and the Czech Republic were among the countries with particularly low levels of trust.Footnote 1 This prompted a closer examination of cases involving Czech and Serbian citizens, providing insights into experiences within these two welfare state systems.
The welfare state model of the Czech Republic is usually depicted as a post-communist hybrid that mixes conservative, neoliberal, and social democratic elements (Sirovátka and Ripka, Reference Sirovátka, Ripka, Blum, Kuhlmann and Schubert2020). Like that of other post-socialist countries, its post-1989 transformation included opening to private initiatives, primarily among non-governmental organisations. While the processes of Europeanisation highly impacted institution-building in the Czech Republic, their impact on social policy reform was arguably limited, leading some to observe institutional and behavioural path dependency, with a strong reliance on a Bismarckian, corporatist, welfare state (Potucek, Reference Potucek2004). During the last two decades, the main trend in the Czech welfare system has been to gradually introduce more diversified choices and to place greater stress on the active role of social services users (Ripka and Mareš, Reference Ripka, Mareš, Schubert, Hegelich and Bazant2009; Sirovátka and Ripka, Reference Sirovátka, Ripka, Blum, Kuhlmann and Schubert2020).
To combat poverty and social exclusion, the Czech government launched the National Social Inclusion Strategy (NSIS) in 2008. The NSIS aims to enhance access to education, employment, healthcare, housing, and social services for marginalised communities, including Roma, people with disabilities, and the long-term unemployed. Despite these initiatives, challenges persist in implementing effective measures and ensuring equitable access to resources (Večerník, Reference Večerník2008). One of the most significant challenges is administrative complexity, as it has been observed that the intricate and time-consuming application procedures for social benefits deter eligible individuals from applying, leading to underutilisation of available support (Guzi, Reference Guzi2014). This hinders the effectiveness of social support mechanisms, as the data indicates that only 12 per cent of individuals entitled to benefits and living in social exclusion actually draw them (Fialová and Mysíková, Reference Fialová and Mysíková2009). Czech social policies aimed at families with children in need of financial and other assistance (the group of users we focus on) include long-term non-contributory financial assistance, such as child allowance and housing allowance, and a one-off birth grant.
The Serbian model of social assistance could be characterised as hybrid as well, based on the ‘interaction of the socialist and continental heritage of the welfare state with the changes inspired by neoliberal ideas’ (Vuković, Reference Vuković2017: 303). The latest reform of social assistance in Serbia (2011) introduced the principle of pluralism and defined the legal basis for the participation of multiple providers in the provision of services. Another main legal development is the principle of empowerment and participation of final users, who are promoted to partners instead of remaining subjects of protection. Even though the justification of the idea of final users becoming partners was to progressively empower them, this measure actually marked a clear reorientation from the state responsibility for an individual’s welfare to individual responsibility (Ćeriman and Pavić Zentner, Reference Ćeriman and Pavić Zentner2015).
Serbia’s social welfare system is structured to provide support through social assistance, social insurance, and employment programmes. Social assistance includes both means-tested and categorical benefits (Stanić and Matković, Reference Stanić, Matković and Żakowska2019). Means-tested benefits target individuals and families living in poverty, offering financial social assistance, child allowances, one-off assistance, and energy subsidies. Targeted benefits are provided to specific groups regardless of income, such as parental and maternity allowances. Despite these measures, significant challenges persist, particularly in addressing the needs of the most vulnerable populations (Vuković and Perišić, Reference Vuković and Perišić2011). The main challenges include inadequate benefit levels, complex eligibility criteria, and marginalisation of specific groups. Furthermore, strict requirements related to unemployment status, income, and assets limit access to social assistance, often excluding those in need. Finally, Roma communities and individuals with disabilities face systemic discrimination and barriers in accessing social services, exacerbating their vulnerability (Bašić and Stjelja, Reference Bašić and Stjelja2021).
User trust-building: enabling and challenging factors
We define trust as the willingness to be vulnerable to others, grounded in positive expectations of their intentions and competence (Behnia, Reference Behnia2008). In the context of social welfare, trust acts as a facilitator of action, enabling individuals to navigate fear and uncertainty in situations where vulnerability is necessary to achieve favourable outcomes (Hudson, Reference Hudson2004; Jessen, Reference Jessen2010).
Kohl et al. (Reference Kohl, Amilon and Olsen2022) argue that trust in social services is not a monolithic concept, but rather one that emerges from a complex interplay of individual, relational, situational, and organisational factors. This is reflected in their broad definition of trust, which includes general social trust in the system and interpersonal trust between specific caseworkers and service users. Within the framework of social work, social and interpersonal trust are intricately connected, as service users’ trust depends on both the caseworkers’ dedication and the system’s capacity to provide effective support and assistance. In social work research, user trust is recognised as essential for fostering a sense of safety and support in communications with professionals – an indispensable component of effective social work practice (Smith, Reference Smith2001; Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Ruch, Lymbery and Cooper2008).
User trust, also referred to as client trust, is an interpersonal connection directed towards frontline workers, reflecting the perspective of service users regarding those who deliver social services (Kohl et al., Reference Kohl, Amilon and Olsen2022; Kvakic and Wærdahl, Reference Kvakic and Wærdahl2022). When users trust their caseworkers, they feel empowered and encouraged to engage fully, including disclosing personal information, which facilitates more successful interventions (Cossar et al., Reference Cossar, Brandon, Bailey, Belderson, Biggart and Sharpe2013). Rather than being a stable disposition, user trust is a dynamic relationship that evolves over time. The duration of the relationship between users and frontline workers is particularly critical for fostering feelings of safety and trust (Cooper et al., Reference Cooper, Hetherington and Katz2003; Behnia, Reference Behnia2008; Cossar et al., Reference Cossar, Brandon, Bailey, Belderson, Biggart and Sharpe2013).
Apart from time, another crucial factor shaping user trust is their perception of frontline workers’ qualifications, skills, and personal qualities (van Ryzin, Reference Van Ryzin2011; Cossar et al., Reference Cossar, Brandon, Bailey, Belderson, Biggart and Sharpe2013). Beyond professional competencies, displaying emotional qualities such as warmth, empathy, and understanding helps users feel recognised and accepted, further strengthening trust (Rautio, Reference Rautio2013; Senghaas et al., Reference Senghaas, Freier and Kupka2019). Equally important are the communication and approach strategies adopted by frontline workers. A willingness to ‘bend the rules’ when necessary to ensure fairness also fosters trust (Rautio, Reference Rautio2013; Cossar et al., Reference Cossar, Brandon, Bailey, Belderson, Biggart and Sharpe2013). Conversely, perceptions of disrespect, an unwillingness to listen or engage, and personal detachment can trigger distrust. Providing individualised treatment – rather than treating users as ‘cases’ or numbers – demonstrates a readiness to listen to and believe users, reflecting an engagement in mutual trust. Still, the personalisation of the relationship should be viewed through a critical lens, as it inherently contains elements of ambiguity. While it benefits the user by simplifying their relationship with the institution, it can also reinforce the user’s dependence and strengthen the social worker’s dominant position (Dubois, Reference Dubois2010).
Trust is not only built through interpersonal connections but is also shaped by bureaucratic procedures and other organisational and structural conditions within which these interactions occur. The literature mainly focuses on procedures as obstacles to building a trusting relationship with service providers. Some of the key barriers include service specialisation (Grell et al., Reference Grell, Blom and Ahmadi2019), high turnover rates among caseworkers (Strolin-Goltzman et al., Reference Strolin-Goltzman, Kollar and Trinkle2010), and the inherent tension within public services between providing assistance and exercising control.
Service specialisation and high turnover rates exacerbate fragmentation and disrupt the helping relationships that are critical for effective support. Users are often compelled to form multiple, separate relationships with different social workers, each handling a specific area of responsibility. This fragmentation significantly limits the potential for maintaining continuous, close relationships. Repeated disruptions deepen feelings of resignation and distrust, undermining the effectiveness of support.
The caseworker’s dual responsibility of managing budgets and delivering client-focused services can hinder trust, as service users may perceive that caseworkers are not entirely acting in their best interest (Kohl et al., Reference Kohl, Amilon and Olsen2022). This issue is closely tied to the power asymmetries between frontline workers and users. The relationship between users and frontline workers is inherently shaped by these imbalances (Dubois, Reference Dubois2010). In his analysis of healthcare systems, Grimen (Reference Grimen2009) highlights the role of nonaccountable discretion and the knowledge gap between service providers and users in reinforcing unequal power dynamics. Perceptions of frontline workers as having significant authority over their clients’ lives can foster feelings of dependency, alienation, and distrust.
However, frontline workers’ personal qualities and behavioural strategies can soften and mitigate the negative effects of structural constraints. A warm approach, genuine interest in individual predicaments, and, most importantly, a commitment to reciprocity and mutual trust can transform dependency into an empowering relationship where users do not feel alienated or distrustful (Beresford et al., Reference Beresford, Croft and Adshead2008; Mik-Meyer and Villadsen, Reference Mik-Meyer and Villadsen2013). Additionally, by acting as intermediaries between users and bureaucracies, frontline workers play a vital role in assisting those who struggle to navigate administrative complexities due to limited education or social capital (Kvakic and Wærdahl, Reference Kvakic and Wærdahl2022). Workers who exhibit flexibility by going beyond formal role expectations and making extra efforts on behalf of users are particularly valued. Their willingness to engage beyond standard practices, such as spending extra time explaining the rules and procedures, fosters trust and strengthens the user-worker relationship (Beresford et al., Reference Beresford, Croft and Adshead2008).
The literature highlights that both the quality of the relationship with the caseworker and their personal attributes are fundamental factors in fostering user trust. However, less attention has been paid to the specific processes through which these factors interact with institutional procedures to shape trust-building mechanisms. In this study, we delve into the microdynamics of trust-building, analysing how institutional frameworks and frontline worker interactions collectively influence the development of user trust. By examining the perceptions and experiences of users in the Czech Republic and Serbia, we aim to enhance the understanding of how interpersonal exchanges, along with procedural structures, influence the formation of user trust. We examine how personal experiences and perception-driven factors influence users’ (dis)trust in the context of institutional processes that regulate access to services, as well as in their interactions with frontline workers.
Methodology
Our data was collected in the capital city of Serbia, Belgrade, and Brno, the Czech Republic’s second largest city, in summer and autumn of 2020. We conducted thirty in-depth, semi-structured interviews with citizens utilising various social goods and services for families with dependent children. Our sample represented a diverse group of citizens who accessed different welfare services, including public employment, social and health services, and family or child welfare services: fourteen women and one man (thirty to fifty years of age) from the Czech Republic, and twelve women and three men (thirty to sixty years of age) from Serbia. All interviews were transcribed and anonymised for the purpose of analysis.Footnote 2
Interviewees were required to read and sign an informed consent form prior to the beginning of the interview. They received an incentive for their participation in the form of a voucher. Only minimal demographic data was collected in order to protect their privacy. All interviews were conducted under highly confidential conditions, in a private and safe location chosen by the interviewee, and were audio recorded. Interviewees were treated with respect and dignity, regardless of their living conditions, family situation, or psychological state. The interviews were conducted by trained interviewers, with full awareness of the interviewees’ vulnerability and sensitivity to their personal narratives. Interviewees were assured that their accounts would not be shared with anyone from the institution or their caseworker. Anonymous data was stored and shared only through secure university platforms and was kept separate from the signed consent forms. It is used exclusively for educational and scientific purposes.
The entire data corpus had already been coded and analysed as part of the larger project (see Integrated Report, 2021). For this article, we re-analysed the interviews focusing on the question of how user (dis)trust is shaped within the context of institutional procedures and the relationship with frontline workers. Building on insights from the literature on user trust-building, we analysed the microdynamics of how trust and distrust emerge and evolve, and how these dynamics are rooted in users’ perceptions and personal experiences during direct interactions with frontline workers throughout the social service procurement process. This analysis is based on an interpretivist view of human behaviour, which emphasises the vital role of subjective perspectives in shaping relationships and attitudes. The analytical strategy involved interpreting the connection between interviewees’ responses to questions about, first, the procedure for applying for social assistance services and, second, their contact with the frontline worker(s), in relation to their views on trust and distrust. Accordingly, the findings are organised along two lines of interpretation: the procedures and the relationship with the caseworker. However, these two dimensions are not separate in the user experience, which is why we do not treat them as distinct analytical themes, but rather as a twofold contextualisation of the same process of user (dis)trust-building.
Findings
Navigating through bureaucracy and institutional procedures
Procedures as obstacles
The dominant perception of the social welfare system in both countries is that it is excessively bureaucratic and rigid, to the point of failing to treat its users with the expected dignity and respect, and not genuinely caring for their needs. A multitude of procedural obstacles reinforce perceptions of the system’s unfairness and widen the gap between care providers and care receivers. For instance, in the Czech system, when one office (e.g., the Labour Office at Křenová) increases an applicant’s financial aid – such as unemployment benefits – the financial eligibility threshold may be exceeded, prompting another office (e.g., the poverty assistance office at Polní) to withdraw financial aid. This leaves the individual with fewer resources than the system legally allows. Procedures and forms are often perceived as non-transparent and inscrutable, with time-consuming and stressful paperwork. In these circumstances, frontline workers and the trust placed in them become critically important, as they can assist users in navigating the bureaucratic procedures to access social services and assistance. However, this crucial mediating role is often constrained by procedural settings, as users do not always have the opportunity to form a stable relationship with a single frontline worker.
A significant institutional factor affecting trust-building with frontline workers in both countries is whether a user is assigned one caseworker for the entire duration of social service provision or if caseworkers change throughout that period. In the first scenario (e.g., at Křenová, Brno), users consistently interact with the same person, allowing them to build and maintain a relationship. In such cases, trust-building largely depends on the quality of the relationship with the caseworker (see later discussion). In contrast, the second scenario occurs when users are assigned a new caseworker each time they visit the social welfare institution (e.g., at Polní, Brno) or when they are transferred between caseworkers or centres for unclear reasons, as reported by some Serbian users. In these situations, users have little to no opportunity to build a trusting relationship, as the process is repeatedly disrupted at a fundamental level. Indeed, users in both countries criticise this approach and express frustration with the attitude of frontline workers who are unfamiliar with their cases and handle them on a one-off basis:
But they are constantly changing, so we were led by one, and now we are led by another. Here in Palilula,Footnote 3 we were led by that [name of female frontline worker], then she couldn’t deal with my ex-husband, then we were taken by that [name of male frontline worker], so it was constantly changing, he was the one who had the most stamina. (RS_CIT8)
In both Serbia and Czechia, users – particularly those seeking material assistance – feel that their specific life situations and needs are either unexamined or dismissed, leaving them feeling uncared for (‘they don’t care, nobody cares if we are hungry’ CZ_CIT9). The procedures often appear rigid and inadequate to them, unresponsive and dismissive of users’ needs, while frontline workers are perceived as disinterested in assisting them through the procedures or in exploring their realities more deeply (‘they don’t know what happens within four walls’ RS_CIT2). Some participants expressed inconvenience and distress due to the way they were treated while trying to follow the procedures: ‘as if we had done something wrong’ (RS_CIT5). The caseworkers’ reaction to their (in)ability to understand and follow the procedure is perceived as discouragement:
They are rude, and arrogant, and there was one office worker who yelled at me like I was a little girl, saying that when I’m not able to fill out the form correctly, I shouldn’t come to the office at all. CZ_CIT9
Users reported that they were rarely interviewed during their initial visit to the office when entering the system to apply for services or assistance. Several interviewees mentioned that they were merely handed an application and relevant paperwork by the frontline worker, with no further interaction: ‘They, they just gave us papers and forms and said, “Fill this in”… and I was so confused by it all’ (CZ_CIT8).
But they just, they just, it’s just a procedure, they take you in, you say, they certify you, they file you, they leave you somewhere on a pile of papers and they always tell you where [it] is and how big the pile of papers is, and then they send you on. (RS_CIT8)
Such a fragmented bureaucratic environment, marked by communication gaps, generates uncertainty instead of the desired clarity. Most workers are perceived as overly busy, unavailable, and impersonal ‘counter workers’ or administrators who merely refer to procedures, sort, and classify cases – creating fertile ground for misunderstandings. In both countries, users report distrust and a perception of systemic unfairness as a direct consequence of poor communication with frontline workers. When frontline workers fail in their role as mediators of the complex institutional procedures, it leads to a breakdown of user trust:
I can’t manage to build that relationship of trust, trust is, you know, when I call and when I say ‘I don’t know what to do, I’m asking for help, I’m asking for help, let’s do it together,’ you know, it’s ‘we can’t, we don’t have time,’ that means there is no, that is the end, there is no trust, there is no, I think. (RS_CIT6)
The path to user distrust follows a predictable trajectory: excessive bureaucracy breeds uncertainty, which leads to misunderstanding, ultimately culminating in distrust.
The uncertainty stemming from an overly rationalised system of rigid procedures leads to confusion and errors. In both countries, users frequently report a lack of understanding and knowledge about the process or the responsible person for allocating financial assistance. A few participants in Serbia mentioned that they had made mistakes either when applying for assistance or when attempting to remain enrolled in the social welfare system, due to insufficient explanation or information provided by frontline workers. In one instance, this resulted in a denial of assistance for seven months:
I filled it in incorrectly. Even the lawyer [employed by the centre] did not understand what I did wrong. The next time I went to the lawyer [someone else in the centre], she told me, then it’s clear to me, I have to sit down and have someone explain to me, because I can’t just know some things. (RS_CIT12)
Procedures as justifiable
Several users in both countries, however, justify the rigidity of the procedures when applying for social services and assistance because they understand them as preventing system misuse and fraud. The justification of the bureaucratic system serves as a means of legitimising its procedures and treatment of citizens and is perceived as related to its fairness (as for everyone, so is for me). The bureaucratic nature of the system makes it a level playing field for all. Users indeed understand that many people try their hand at fraud (‘there are all sorts of people out there’ RS_CIT4), which has implications for trust building within the whole network of relations (‘Behaviour of some [users who try to cheat or misuse the system] affects the trust [of frontline workers] in all [applicants]” CZ_CIT7). Thus, the system must impose limitations (‘You have to respect the law, and you have to respect them’ RS_CIT3).
The bureaucracy is also seen by some users as imposing restrictions on frontline workers’ discretion, which is why some users express sympathy for their behaviour. Because the system operates on ‘Excel sheets’, frontline workers cannot do more than they ought to or are allowed to (‘when they were giving something – she gave it to me, when she didn’t have it – she couldn’t give it to me out of her own pocket, that’s how it is’ RS_CIT10). Although users in both countries understand that the power of frontline workers is limited, Czech users perceive that the ultimate power of decision-making lies in the hands of an archetypal ‘supervisor’, ‘the boss’, or ‘the head officer’ who grants agreement or disagreement regarding the decisions made at the frontline worker level.
The office worker takes the filled-in forms and enters the information into the computer. The computer makes the calculations, compares everything and then the office worker prints it all out and gets it to the supervisor to sign it. And he either approves or disapproves. (CZ_CIT12)
Czech users have observed numerous times that the system operates on strictly bureaucratic rules; yet at the same time, they also report their belief that the decisions are made by an unknown person. Despite these contradictory beliefs, users predominantly believe that frontline workers have unrestricted power over how they treat citizens who apply for social services and assistance. Therein lies the crux of trust between frontline workers and users.
The difference we spotted is that some users from the Czech Republic think they should be given the benefit of the doubt by frontline workers until they provide documents and report whatever is requested of them. That is the cornerstone of mutual trust (see later discussion). Conversely, in Serbia, users consider frontline workers’ initial distrust to be justified because trust is something to be earned, not taken for granted (‘she has to build that trust and see who she is dealing with, with whom she can talk freely and with whom to maintain distance’ RS_CIT9).
Building and maintaining the relationship with the (un)caring professional
Frontline workers as mediators
We now turn to cases of successfully established relationships between caseworkers and users, examining how user trust is built in these instances. The managerial approach to the social welfare system often limits the ability of frontline workers to demonstrate interest, care, or agency in providing assistance. However, this limitation can also present an opportunity for workers to compensate for the system’s shortcomings. The complexity of building user trust for a vulnerable citizen navigating an alienating social welfare system is captured in the following quote:
It is important to me who I work with. I think it is important to me because it is about a child. There should be trust, and I would like it for that particular person. I have the feeling that in our society (state, system) everyone is for himself, nothing is a whole… there is no wholeness…. So, you have to have someone to inform you. (RS_CIT12)
Most long-term social service and assistance users in both countries report having a good-quality relationship with their appointed caseworker, provided it is consistently the same person and involves positive direct contact. Furthermore, this relationship is a prerequisite for the development of user trust. In both countries, relational and personal attributes contribute to fostering trust. For Czech users, the competence of frontline workers as mediators and interpreters of the opaque institutional procedures is particularly crucial for building trust. This is especially significant given their explicit distrust in the system (i.e., institutional distrust), which largely stems from a lack of understanding of its procedures and laws.
As I said before, it is all about the person’s character. I get along with everyone, but some people don’t get along with the office workers, because they don’t have everything right in their paperwork and argue with the office workers about what they are entitled to get. But it is all about people, there are nicer office workers who can explain it all nicely. (CZ_CIT10)
Dependency and reciprocity
A positive relationship (getting along) enhances the competence of frontline workers as mediators. However, due to the inherent asymmetry of the relationship, it also influences users’ perception of their own dependency and compliance, as illustrated in the following quote from a user in Serbia:
No, no, I don’t especially like to lie to her, because I almost depend on her. (…) She took my case, and she guides me through everything, and I can’t complain about her. Whatever I needed, she explained everything nicely, how, where I needed it, where I was going, she explained everything nicely. (RS_CIT3)
In circumstances of dependency, users perceive that their compliance with procedures, honesty, and openness about their possessions and needs will result in better treatment, ultimately affecting their status as users and the assistance they receive. Serbian users believe their trust in caseworkers hinges on their own ethical and compliant behaviour. In contrast, Czech users place importance on being granted the benefit of the doubt and maintaining confidentiality, particularly concerning their life situations, family affairs, and private health or financial information.
However, for users in both countries, a trusting relationship also depends on frontline workers’ openness, understanding, and willingness to help. Reciprocity is a key condition of user trust, encapsulated in the sentiment: “When they trust me, I trust them” (RS_CIT13). Users who have close relationships with their caseworkers – characterised by respect, sincere communication, and attentiveness to their needs – report mutual trust.
A caring professional
While caseworker competence is essential for a good professional relationship and user trust, the caseworker’s character also plays a significant role. As noted at the beginning of this section, users desire to be treated with respect and dignity. Consequently, kindness, warmth, and a positive attitude emerge as key personal traits that foster the formation and development of user trust. Users infer these qualities based on the time and patience caseworkers dedicate to them. In contrast, caseworkers described as rude, arrogant, dismissive, or unwilling to provide information are distrusted. Moreover, in the context of users’ understanding of the bureaucratic constraints on frontline workers’ discretion, they highly value caseworkers who go beyond their formal duties – such as lobbying, putting in extra effort, or even bending procedures to provide assistance. This willingness to ‘go out of their way’ was particularly notable among Serbian users as a hallmark of a trustworthy caseworker. Importantly, users did not take this additional effort for granted; instead, they expressed profound appreciation for it:
Warm human beings, they have a soul, they know who to help and who not to help, they know everything. I see that they are kind-hearted, if they could, they would help me, but as the procedure is for everyone, so it is for me. (RS_CIT10)
We might describe this image of a trustworthy caseworker as that of a ‘caring professional’”A caring professional is not only someone who understands the procedures and willingly explains them, facilitating smooth cooperation between citizens in need and social welfare institutions, but also someone who genuinely cares. They are a person of integrity and reliability, who puts kind words into action and fulfills their promises. A trusting relationship between a user and a caring professional is shaped by the provision and receipt of help, as well as the assurance of being treated with dignity and respect. For Czech users, trust is primarily tied to competent guidance through institutional procedures, while for Serbian users, it is closely linked to responsiveness: ‘Trust is providing service to the disadvantaged’ (RS_CIT15); ‘Trust is receiving help’ (RS_CIT7). Trust, therefore, is a relational quality that emerges when a person in need reaches out to a system designed to support them. It involves relying on someone capable of evaluating and understanding their situation, and who can offer support, security, and assistance: ‘They were there when I needed them, to give me advice when it was hardest, to give me 15,000 dinars for my child’ (RS_CIT5).
When this relationship fails, and a caseworker is neither caring nor professional, user distrust emerges. A notable example involves a Serbian female user – a refugee from Bosnia, a single mother with a history of domestic violence – currently navigating institution-mediated custody arrangements. She reports not receiving the material assistance she needed and requested, experiencing mistreatment, and feeling unsupported by both the system and individual frontline workers. Her mistreatment includes being distrusted due to her history of substance abuse, despite being sober for a year, and perceiving unequal treatment compared to her ex-partner, the father of her child. She describes her appointed caseworker as rude, unwilling to help, overly procedural, biased, and arrogant: ‘They do whatever they want’ (RS_CIT2). Her remarks about the caseworker reflect emotional distance; she refers to the caseworker only by their role (‘social worker’) or uses personal and physical descriptors (‘the clever blonde from room twelve’, ‘the nasty one with the short hair’).
In this and similar cases, misunderstandings arise instead of competent institutional mediation – not only regarding the roles and limitations of caseworkers but also concerning the users’ own roles and entitlements. Such a relationship undermines cooperation and the development of trust. This case is not an exception. Poor-quality relationships and user distrust often emerge in cases of mediated custody sharing, particularly within highly polarised, conflict-laden situations between parents, where trust is based more on ‘whose side you are on’ than on the support that the social welfare system can provide. Through repeated experiences of mistreatment and unfairness, frontline workers come to be seen as ‘enemies’.
Conclusion
The literature on user trust-building emphasises the relationship between users and frontline workers, as well as the personal qualities of frontline workers, as the most significant factors (van Ryzin, Reference Van Ryzin2011; Cossar et al., Reference Cossar, Brandon, Bailey, Belderson, Biggart and Sharpe2013; Rautio, Reference Rautio2013; Senghaas et al., Reference Senghaas, Freier and Kupka2019; Kohl et al., Reference Kohl, Amilon and Olsen2022; Kvakic and Wærdahl, Reference Kvakic and Wærdahl2022). Less attention is given to the intricate connection between these factors and the surrounding procedures settings. In our analysis we sought to enhance understanding of user (dis)trust-building by examining the microdynamics of its formation, with equal attention given to citizens’ interactions with frontline workers and institutional procedures. Our findings show how users’ individual experiences and their perceptions of how formal procedures are implemented play a crucial role in shaping their trust in frontline workers.
The research was conducted among disadvantaged families accessing social services and assistance institutions in the Czech Republic and Serbia, two countries where the level of institutional trust is low (Integrated Report, 2021). Users in both countries perceive the procedures as incomprehensible, often non-transparent, time-consuming, and stressful. They complain about the lack of care on the part of frontline workers, and especially the lack of frequent face-to-face contact and direct communication. However, they also perceive how the procedural system is such that it restricts frontline workers from expressing greater interest or initiative.
Nonetheless, opportunities arise for frontline workers to address and mitigate the system’s deficiencies, and it is within these moments that user trust is fostered. Consistent with the literature (Smith, Reference Smith2001; Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Ruch, Lymbery and Cooper2008; Cossar et al., Reference Cossar, Brandon, Bailey, Belderson, Biggart and Sharpe2013; Senghaas et al., Reference Senghaas, Freier and Kupka2019), users tend to build trust in those who demonstrate warmth, genuine concern for their individual circumstances, and, most critically, a commitment to reciprocity and mutual trust. Trust is further reinforced when frontline workers serve as mediators between users and bureaucratic systems, assist those facing challenges with administrative processes, and exceed their formal responsibilities by ‘bending the rules’ and making additional efforts to provide support.
This essential mediating role is frequently hindered by procedural frameworks, as users often lack the opportunity to build a stable relationship with a single frontline worker. Instead, they are forced to establish multiple, disconnected relationships with different social workers. This fragmentation greatly reduces the potential for maintaining consistent and close connections with individuals who could become familiar with and invested in users’ cases. All of this attests to the inseparability of the quality of relationships from the procedural context in which they occur.
As our approach was not explicitly comparative, we cannot fully explore the specificities of the two countries. However, we do observe some notable differences. Both Serbia and the Czech Republic have social welfare systems characterised by a mix of social democratic and neoliberal elements, with an increasing emphasis on the active role of social service users.
In both countries, general trust in social service systems is low, with trust levels in Serbia being somewhat lower (Integrated Report, 2021). Serbian users often believe that their trust in frontline workers depends on their own ethical and compliant behaviour. In contrast, Czech users emphasise the importance of being given the benefit of the doubt and ensuring confidentiality, especially regarding their personal circumstances. For Czech users, trust is primarily tied to receiving competent guidance through institutional procedures, while for Serbian users, it is more closely associated with responsiveness. Nonetheless, for users in both countries, reciprocity emerges as a fundamental condition for fostering trust.
To sum up, in both Serbia and the Czech Republic, when the system is perceived as inscrutable, distant, and alienating, and lacks a caring professional, establishing and maintaining user trust becomes impossible. However, even within such a system, trust can be formed and sustained through the presence of a single supportive individual, particularly for those who are sincere, self-perceived as law-abiding citizens, and in genuine need. Our findings highlight the inseparability of institutional procedures from the formation of relationships with frontline workers, which are crucial for building user (dis)trust (van Ryzin, Reference Van Ryzin2011; Cossar et al., Reference Cossar, Brandon, Bailey, Belderson, Biggart and Sharpe2013). Nevertheless, our results also indicate that for users in both Serbia and Czechia, user trust – being inherently interpersonal – rarely extends to institutional trust.
Acknowledgements
The article was realised within the EnTrust project, with funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 870572.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Open access
