Dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic requires that the State make hard decisions that involve the action of bureaucrats who interact with the population through the implementation of public policy, the street-level bureaucracy (SLB). In this paper, based on a mixed- method exploratory study, we analyze how the daily performance of street-level bureaucrats in different policy areas- health and social care, access to the justice system, public security and education - has changed during the pandemic. We also explore the repercussions of those changes. Based on the analysis of the perceptions of bureaucrats, changes in their work and in their relationship with the public, we identify three categories that illustrate the dynamics of SLB work during the pandemic: the SLB who faces the crisis on the front lines; the SLB who suffers the effects of the pandemic, but whose work does not require her to face it directly; and the SLB who began to work remotely. We conclude that, during the pandemic, SLB suffered in varying degrees an aggravation of structural problems, such as their removal from decision-making processes - now restricted to the highest government level - and the exacerbation of already existing conflicts and ambiguities.

O texto organiza-se, assim, pela exposição da metodologia empregada para levantamento de dados quantitativos e qualitativos, seguida da consolidação dos dados de campo e da descrição do aparato legislativo que estrutura a política do ponto de vista institucional. Assim, a apartir de análise comparativa desses registros, das impressões apontadas sobre a possibilidade e imediatidade das relações das equipes com as usuárias, esse artigo propõe-se a analisar as possibilidades das políticas de acolhimento para gestantes e mães acompanhadas de suas filhas no município de São Paulo.

Resumo Este trabalho sintetiza reflexões desenvolvidas a partir de experiên-cias de atendimento e pesquisa sobre população em situação de rua na capital de São Paulo, numa extensão universitária da Faculdade de Direito da USP, a Clínica de Direitos Humanos Luiz Gama. No ínterim das atividades do grupo, oportunizou-se o contato com relatos e cenas de tensão entre brasileiros e migrantes internacionais, ambos classificados como parte da população de rua. O texto procura indagar acerca das interações entre os dois públicos, nos serviços locais, sobretudo em centros de acolhida especializados, a partir da narrativa de "disputa por vagas", expressão que decorre de fatores como o perfil socioeconômico diferenciado de migrantes internacionais e adução de brasileiros em situação de rua de que as políticas públicas favorecem "estrangeiros". No campo, construído por observação in loco, conversas informais e entrevistas, buscou-se conversar com trabalhadores e gestores de abrigos, que apresentaram, em sua narrativa, migrantes internacionais como "autônomos", em contraposição ao público brasileiro, descrito como "problemático" e "sem foco". AbstrAct This paper gathers reflections developed from experiences of attendance and research about homeless people in the city of São Paulo, carried out by an university extension, the Legal Clinic in Human Rights "Luiz Gama" from Law School of the University of São Paulo. In its activities, the group had the oprtunity to receive reports and witnesses scenes of tension between brazilians and international migrants, both classified as part of the homeless population. The paper seeks to inquire about interactions between them in the local services, mainly in homeless shelters, based on the narrative of "vacancies competition", an expression that comes from factors such as differences in the socioeconomic profile of international migrants and the affirmation of some of the brazilian homeless people that local public policies put international migrants in advantage in comparison to them. The fieldwork was built by in loco observations, informal talks and interviews. We sought to talk to workers of homeless shelters, who presented international migrants as "autonomous" in opposition to the brazilians, who were presented as the "problematic" and "without focus". Then, it was possible to perceive tha polarization between the two groups, by means of a classification that hierarchizes them and creates a discursive game which ends up consolidating the idea that some deserve more protection to their rights than others.