There already is the 'voedselbank', which does roughly the same thing without the life coach. People can choose what will help them best.

Not really sure why the fact that other services exist make this service less patronizing.

Basic assumption is, we know you need coaching, you probably won't take it, so we will bribe you with basic necessities.

It might work or might not, but it's patronizing for sure.

I think the basic assumption is "you need help, and we are willing to help you".

I guess it all comes down to what "life coaching" means in this context. If we are talking about some sort of social assistants that will understand what ails the people in need and help them find a way around their issues (e.g.: navigate state bureaucracy, acquiring some basic qualification, find help with rehabilitation, etc) I see no downside.

Instead of seeing this as patronizing, I actually see it as quite humane.

It's presumptive that any problem you might have could possibly be solved by a state paid "life coach." I'm sure there's a segment of the population that could use this, but likewise, I'm sure there's a segment of the population that's facing unique enough circumstances that a "life coach" would come off as a slap in the face.