“…The authors suggest that, rather than as a fixed model, Lipsky's work should be approached as a tentative analytical framework to examine contexts, circumstances and statuses of practitioners in order to understand how these different factors shape specific forms of street‐level behaviour. Östberg () discusses factors that influence decision making in frontline child welfare in Sweden, showing that high work pressure increases the focus on gatekeeping activities in deciding eligibility for scarce services. In this context, demands of protection and welfare issues are handled by individualising difficult social conditions and by using consensual ideology.…”
Nothdurfter U., Hermans K. Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street-level research in public management, social policy and social work This literature review analyses the adoption and development of a street-level perspective in public management, social policy and social work. The last years have seen a prominent revival of a perspective based on Michael Lipsky's streetlevel bureaucracy approach in the debates conducted within all three disciplinary fields. Based on 71 key publications in public management, social policy and social work, the review analyses the adoption of the street-level bureaucracy approach during the period 2005-2015, pointing out the main themes of the debate within, as well as overlaps and differences between, the three disciplines. The findings show the potential of better integrating the different perspectives and taking stock of the articulated debate. Lastly, the review discerns a common viewpoint for further street-level research, emphasising its importance for the critical analysis and understanding of street-level work as a vital dimension of responsive and accountable institutions and as a decisive moment to shape positive policy outcomes on the ground. Key Practitioner Message: • The use of discretion by frontline practitioners and their role as policy actors on the ground has become an important focus of research; • This literature review shows that the debate has gone far beyond discussing discretion as an all-or-nothing issue, pointing out both positive and negative aspects of discretion and developing comprehensive frameworks to explain the use of discretion at the street-level; • However, street-level research has traditionally rather neglected the notion of professionalism. The social work literature brings in the perspective of professionalism; more research efforts are needed to better explore and explain how professionalism matters in relation to challenges and dilemmas of different policy and practice fields.Although public management, social policy and social work are closely interrelated, their debates have been characterised by different perspectives as well as different theoretical and methodological approaches. Especially in relation to social policy and social work, it has been pointed out that, despite their mutual dependence, their relations are an underexposed matter and their perspectives and debates barely ever converge However, the prominent revival of Michael Lipsky's (1980/2010) street-level bureaucracy approach during the last 15 years has done much to identify a common feature of the debates in public management, social policy and social work. Lipsky's approach addresses the dilemmas faced by the individuals at the frontline of public services. An important contribution of Lipsky's approach is that he has highlighted how the use of discretion by street-level bureaucrats, the routines they establish, the devices Int J Soc Welfare 2018: 27: 294-304
“…The authors suggest that, rather than as a fixed model, Lipsky's work should be approached as a tentative analytical framework to examine contexts, circumstances and statuses of practitioners in order to understand how these different factors shape specific forms of street‐level behaviour. Östberg () discusses factors that influence decision making in frontline child welfare in Sweden, showing that high work pressure increases the focus on gatekeeping activities in deciding eligibility for scarce services. In this context, demands of protection and welfare issues are handled by individualising difficult social conditions and by using consensual ideology.…”
Nothdurfter U., Hermans K. Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street-level research in public management, social policy and social work This literature review analyses the adoption and development of a street-level perspective in public management, social policy and social work. The last years have seen a prominent revival of a perspective based on Michael Lipsky's streetlevel bureaucracy approach in the debates conducted within all three disciplinary fields. Based on 71 key publications in public management, social policy and social work, the review analyses the adoption of the street-level bureaucracy approach during the period 2005-2015, pointing out the main themes of the debate within, as well as overlaps and differences between, the three disciplines. The findings show the potential of better integrating the different perspectives and taking stock of the articulated debate. Lastly, the review discerns a common viewpoint for further street-level research, emphasising its importance for the critical analysis and understanding of street-level work as a vital dimension of responsive and accountable institutions and as a decisive moment to shape positive policy outcomes on the ground. Key Practitioner Message: • The use of discretion by frontline practitioners and their role as policy actors on the ground has become an important focus of research; • This literature review shows that the debate has gone far beyond discussing discretion as an all-or-nothing issue, pointing out both positive and negative aspects of discretion and developing comprehensive frameworks to explain the use of discretion at the street-level; • However, street-level research has traditionally rather neglected the notion of professionalism. The social work literature brings in the perspective of professionalism; more research efforts are needed to better explore and explain how professionalism matters in relation to challenges and dilemmas of different policy and practice fields.Although public management, social policy and social work are closely interrelated, their debates have been characterised by different perspectives as well as different theoretical and methodological approaches. Especially in relation to social policy and social work, it has been pointed out that, despite their mutual dependence, their relations are an underexposed matter and their perspectives and debates barely ever converge However, the prominent revival of Michael Lipsky's (1980/2010) street-level bureaucracy approach during the last 15 years has done much to identify a common feature of the debates in public management, social policy and social work. Lipsky's approach addresses the dilemmas faced by the individuals at the frontline of public services. An important contribution of Lipsky's approach is that he has highlighted how the use of discretion by street-level bureaucrats, the routines they establish, the devices Int J Soc Welfare 2018: 27: 294-304
“…Other arguments for acting according to the recommendations were absence of other options and financial limitations (cf. Östberg ): […] if we didn't do so [follow the recommendations], it would have been a waste of money. (Caseworker A, interview)…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If the necessary protection cannot be provided voluntarily, the social services council may ask the administrative court, per the Compulsory Care Act, to make a decision. The process of decision‐making, involving both professionals and political laypersons, is complex, as economic considerations and political decisions need to be taken into account (Östberg ; Forkby et al . ).…”
Section: Swedish Child Welfarementioning
confidence: 99%
“…). In Swedish research, caseworkers are found to be concerned about risks and costs of interventions (Östberg ). When considering young people, a psychological perspective on the risk factors is often requested by the caseworkers (Ponnert ).…”
A B S T R AC TThis paper examines caseworkers' efforts to plan and find appropriate interventions for troublesome young people. Strauss's concept of trajectory is applied to analyse how Swedish caseworkers shape and manage the evolving care trajectories using assessments for young people in secure accommodation, i.e. institutional youth assessments. The empirical material consists of surveys to 82 caseworkers concerning 85 institutional youth assessments and interviews with 16 of these caseworkers. The findings reveal ongoing care trajectories that are out of control where the assessments are seen as an opportunity of change for the youths. Diagnoses, confirmations and plans for action are provided through the assessments and used by the caseworkers in negotiations for resources. Three orientations of contributions to the caseworkers' management of care trajectories were found, all reflecting the many uncertainties of child welfare work: child centred, professional and discharge of liability. In conclusion, the caseworkers searched for the right measures to manage change and achieve youth compliance, but it was also a matter of managing professional and organizational contingencies and passing on responsibility.
I N T R O D U C T I O NWhen child welfare needs to intervene for young people's safety, outcomes are unclear and uncertain. Gambrill (2008) and Munro (1996) state that decision-making in child welfare is an uncertain business because of incomplete, ambiguous or unreliable information about clients. However, it is also about the embedded uncertainty about how the social problem will proceed and how young people will respond to the interventions. Although established norms, regulations and routines provide caseworkers with a course of action, the effects of the interventions are indeterminate (Hasenfeld 2010). This indeterminacy is explained by the implications of people work, i.e. work performed by, over and through people, and of organizational restraints (Strauss et al. 1997;Hasenfeld 2010). In child welfare, work is performed by caseworkers but is dependent on clients' compliance and on access to needed resources. We argue that managing contingencies of social problems and of client's compliance is at the heart of work in child welfare, and how they are managed by caseworkers and the organization has consequences for how interventions will proceed. According to Hasenfeld, '[T]he ability of the clients to respond and the need of the staff to react to these very responses are captured in the concept of service trajectory' (Hasenfeld 2010, p. 19; cf. Strauss et al. 1997). Using the concept of care trajectory (Strauss et al. 1997; Hasenfeld 2010) we will explore, in the context of Swedish child welfare, caseworkers' need for external assessments and experts when managing protection and change for young people. Specifically, this paper examines caseworkers' motives and use of assessments conducted by psychological and pedagogical expertise at the secure accommodation where the youths are placed. bs_bs_banner
“…When meeting a child in “immediate danger,” the social worker has to assess the child's situation under time pressures: In emergency situations, a judgement has to be made quickly regarding whether to proceed with an emergency removal or whether there are other ways to help the child and family. Time constraints can impact upon the quality of assessments and decision making as there are fewer opportunities to get extensive information about the child, to weigh up different options, and to examine thoroughly whether the threshold for a removal intervention has been met (Berrick, Dickens, Pösö, & Skivenes, ; Helm, ; Östberg, ; Platt & Turney, ). The tension between the demand to make a quick decision and the time it takes to gather and revise the information is likely to constrain analytic reasoning (Helm, ; Saltiel, ; van de Luitgaarden, ).…”
This paper presents a qualitative analysis of front-line practices regarding emergency removals in Finnish and Irish child protection. It examines how the responses to children's immediate danger are framed by legislation and how front-line practitioners assess the child's situation and make emergency placement decisions. The data consist of interviews with 16 Irish and 33 Finnish social workers. These child welfare protection systems respond differently to a task that appears to be similar. The Irish team-based practice rests on the social workers' shared assessment of the child's needs, and the formal decision is made by the courts (or police officers at nighttime); and the Finnish practice involves only one single social worker who makes both the assessment and the removal decision. The Irish system is tightly time regulated, whereas the Finnish system provides a more flexible time frame. Both approaches put a lot of stress on social workers' practice, which also includes creative workarounds (e.g., "planned emergency removals" in Finland). Future research will need to explore these features from the point of view of a child's right to protection.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
