Measures of accountability and delegated discretion in activation work: lessons from the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service

Abstract

Activation work -the complex task of motivating, compelling and assisting marginalized citizens into labour market participation -pinpoints critical issues of discretion and accountability in the welfare state. Investigating accountability measures aimed at ensuring qualified discretionary judgements is therefore important.In this article, I discuss the reformed Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service and the accountability measures aimed at discretionary judgements of frontline workers tasked with motivating, compelling and assisting marginalized citizens into labour market participation.The conclusion is that, because activation tasks in the Norwegian frontline service imply professional discretion more than administrative discretion, structural measures aimed at restricting the discretionary space of frontline workers seem to have only limited impact. This is because the knowledge necessary to perform means-end judgements is insufficient. Rather, there seems to be a need for epistemic measures aimed at improving the knowledge base for professional discretionary reasoning.

ICT-mediated social work practice and innovation: professionals’ experiences in the Norwegian Labour And Welfare Administration

“…Our research findings confirm that ICT in NAV has standardized social work by offering predefined systematic steps for case processing (e.g. Andreassen 2018;Hansen, Lundberg, and Syltevik 2018;Røhnebaek 2013). However, we cannot agree that digitalization and standardization necessarily imply greater control over social workers' professional integrity and flexibility.…”

“…These systems are generators of actionable information that supports practitioners' professional judgement, decision-making, quality control and professional learning (Antonio, José, and Chaime 2018;Berzin and Coulton 2017). Systems also offer the opportunity for organizations, professionals and clients to gain a better overview of all decisions made in case processing, increasing transparency and professional accountability in service (Bradt, Roose, and Devlieghere 2017;Andreassen 2018).…”

“…Although ICT can enable professionals to work more flexibly, in terms of task execution, time and location (Hill and Shaw 2011;Goldkind, Wolf, and Freddolino 2018), excessive computerization with massive data input and system requirements can lead to a fear of digital rigidity (Andreassen 2018;Hansen, Lundberg, and Syltevik 2018). Earlier research on NAV suggests that some ICT systems standardized social work by offering specific regulation and case processing steps, with instructions about responsibilities and channels of communication (e.g.…”

“…Earlier research on NAV suggests that some ICT systems standardized social work by offering specific regulation and case processing steps, with instructions about responsibilities and channels of communication (e.g. Andreassen 2018;Hansen, Lundberg, and Syltevik 2018;Røhnebaek 2013). Standardized ICT-assisted tasks reduce social workers' opportunities for discretion at the local level to provide a tailored service for clients (Barfoed 2019;Røhnebaek 2013;Røysum 2017).…”

How congruent is person-centred practice with labour activation policy? Person-centred approach to vocational interventions on immigrant jobseekers in Norway

“…Alongside the introduction of activation policies, Norwegian social workers have argued for an empowering rather than a coercive approach (Andreassen, 2019;Hansen & Natland, 2017) with a growing interest in person-centred interventions such as developing individual plans for social service users (Breimo, 2016). In vocational follow-up, person-centred supported employment (Bonfils et al, 2017; European Union of Supported Employment, 2010) is offered to some groups of jobseekers, with immigrant jobseekers most recently included as recipients of this type of intervention (Maximova-Mentzoni, 2019).…”