UWV RIV assessment of the reintegration report

The RIV-toets UWV re-integratieverslag means UWV checks whether employer and employee have made sufficient and timely reintegration efforts during sick leave. UWV reviews the full reintegration report (RIV) submitted with the WIA application. If UWV identifies shortcomings, it may impose a wage sanction, requiring continued wage payment and additional reintegration actions. This article explains what UWV assesses, which documents matter most, and how “spoor 2” is evaluated.

What exactly does UWV assess in the RIV assessment?

The RIV-toets UWV re-integratieverslag focuses on one question: were the reintegration efforts “sufficient” under the Wet verbetering poortwachter (Improved Gatekeeper Act). UWV does not only look at whether activities happened, but whether they were timely, logical and suitable given the employee’s functional capacity. Just as important: decisions must be properly substantiated and documented.

RIV-toets UWV re-integratieverslag covers both spoor 1 (return to work with the current employer) and, when return is not feasible, spoor 2: guidance towards work with another employer. UWV expects spoor 2 to start as soon as it becomes clear that sustainable return in the current role or organisation is unrealistic, not as a last-minute action.

UWV typically assesses:

• Did employer and employee follow the mandatory gatekeeper steps, including evaluations and adjustments?
• Is there a logical build-up: serious spoor 1 exploration first, then spoor 2 when needed?
• Are occupational physician recommendations clearly translated into actions and agreements?
• Was there a demonstrable search for suitable work with realistic options and well-founded rejections?
• Is the file complete, consistent and submitted on time?

Which parts of the reintegration report carry the most weight?

RIV-toets UWV re-integratieverslag is document-driven: what is not recorded often does not count in practice. UWV assesses the RIV as a coherent whole, including standard elements such as the problem analysis, action plan, evaluations and final evaluation. The occupational physician’s (or arbodienst’s) updated opinion and the overview of reintegration activities are also crucial.

In spoor 2, the “red thread” must be easy to follow: why spoor 2 started, what the objective was, which actions were taken and what outcomes they produced. A standalone list of applications without context is usually not enough. Many organisations use a structured approach for drafting a reintegration report aligned with UWV’s expectations.

Consistency between documents matters. For example, if the occupational physician advises reduced hours, UWV expects the action plan and spoor 2 job profile to reflect that. An additional labour expert rationale can strengthen the file, especially where internal options are not suitable. In that case, an labour expert assessment often supports the reasoning UWV wants to see.

• Problem analysis and updated opinion: clear about limitations and opportunities, without medical details in HR documents.
• Action plan and adjustments: specific, measurable and with clear responsibilities.
• First-year evaluation and follow-up: a visible moment where the course is sharpened.
• Spoor 2 activities: targeted guidance, a realistic job profile and demonstrable effort.
• Final evaluation: an honest reflection on what worked, what did not, and why.

How to demonstrate “sufficient” spoor 2 efforts

RIV-toets UWV re-integratieverslag in spoor 2 often depends on timing and substantiation. “Sufficient effort” does not mean a job must be found, but it does mean the search is demonstrably planned, active and suitable. UWV wants to see which direction was chosen, why it is realistic, and which steps were taken to get there.

Make spoor 2 concrete. Describe the job profile (target roles, working hours, capacity, travel distance), the labour market exploration and matching. Also document how rejections are handled: was a vacancy truly unsuitable, or could an adjustment have made it workable? This belongs in a coherent file, which is why it helps to systematically focus on building a reintegration dossier rather than collecting documents at the end.

A practical scenario: an employee cannot return to a logistics role due to physical limitations. Spoor 1 explored adjusted work but no sustainable internal option exists. Spoor 2 then starts with a realistic profile, such as administrative support or planning, with gradual hour build-up. You document: intake and capacity, the rationale for target roles, interventions (e.g., application coaching), specific vacancies approached, interviews, and why a trial placement did or did not fit. UWV can then follow the logic of effort and decision-making.

• Start spoor 2 based on a clear decision moment (e.g., after an evaluation or labour expert advice).
• Use a concrete job profile aligned with capacity and realistic market opportunities.
• Record contacts, vacancies, responses and feedback with dates and context.
• Substantiate why interventions are appropriate (coaching, training, work experience) and what effect they had.
• Show active cooperation by both employer and employee, including compliance with agreements.

Common reasons for a wage sanction after the RIV assessment

RIV-toets UWV re-integratieverslag may lead to a wage sanction if UWV concludes that, without a valid reason, too little was done. A wage sanction generally means the employer must continue paying wages for longer and must perform additional reintegration efforts. UWV also checks whether there was a “deugdelijke grond”: a well-documented, legitimate reason why an action was not possible or not meaningful.

A typical spoor 2 pitfall is starting too late or searching too narrowly. If the file shows that return in spoor 1 was not feasible, but spoor 2 only began late, UWV may decide opportunities were missed. Missing evaluations, unclear responsibilities, or weak follow-up also increases risk. A strict process aligned with the Wet verbetering poortwachter step-by-step approach helps prevent gaps.

If UWV identifies shortcomings, it may also look at whether they can be repaired with additional actions. Sometimes that is possible, but only with fast and demonstrable corrective steps. It is therefore useful to understand how UWV assesses sanctions and which file issues often trigger an UWV wage sanction.

• Spoor 2 started too late while spoor 1 had clearly stalled.
• No clear translation of occupational physician advice into concrete actions.
• Insufficient or unsuitable interventions (e.g., only “orientation” without matching or applications).
• Incomplete or inconsistent file: missing evaluations, unclear choices, lack of substantiation.
• Limited cooperation by either party without documented agreements and follow-up.

The key takeaway: organise spoor 2 so UWV can see targeted work within the employee’s capacity. That can be supported through a professional second-track reintegration programme, provided the approach is timely, well-substantiated and visibly connected to the overall reintegration plan.