Street-Level Workers’ Discretion in the Changing Welfare

A crisis and deep re-organisation of European welfare systems started in the 1970s. Both the demand for and supply of welfare intervention are involved in relevant transformations, and the street-level workers are placed right at the crucial point where which they meet. They have to accomplish their complex mandate in a changing context and cope with multiple pressures. In order to carry out this task, they manage a certain degree of discretion (Lipsky 1980) that is shaped by the legal, organisational, cultural, social and economic context in which they are embedded. These conditions’ change tends to modify the “spaces” and the use of discretion. Usually, the street-level perspective studies the effects of discretion on policy implementation, services and users. This article focuses on how discretion produces feedback on the same street-level workers, modifying their role, work conditions and risks

When the law is not enough. Caseworkers' ideas of justice in practices

Drawing from Lipsky\u2019s (1980) concept of street-level bureaucracy and the theories of justice (Rawls, 1971; Mashaw, 1983; Elster, 1992), this paper is focused on the dilemmas that social welfare services\u2019 caseworkers face in their daily work. The field research is based on the collection and comparison of caseworkers\u2019 narratives about complex cases. It was conducted within services located in the North and South of Europe: Bologna in Central Italy and Copenhagen in Denmark. Social work practices are analysed through caseworkers\u2019 narratives to understand how their ideas influence the services. This study is intended to answer the following research questions: What challenges do caseworkers have to cope with? How do they manage their discretion to shape \u2018fair\u2019 decisions? What conditions and limits contribute to shaping the services\u2019 final decisions? What principles of justice regulate the processing of cases, and thus what concrete ideas of social justice underpin the services

Le politiche socio-assistenziali in Italia, tra discrezionalitŕ istituzionale e discrezionalitŕ operativa

La riorganizzazione del welfare ha visto una redistribuzione di funzioni, compiti e spazi di autonomia decisionale tra livelli istituzionali, organizzazioni ed attori. In Italia, questi processi hanno interessato sia il versante della programmazione delle politiche, sia quello della loro effettiva realizzazione. La combinazione tra le indicazioni normative e le specificità regionali e locali hanno dato vita ad un sistema di welfare territorialmente diversificato. L’assunzione del principio di sussidiarietà e di una prospettiva di governance porta con sé dilemmi irrisolti, che definiscono esiti differenziati, anche potenzialmente divergenti. Sono numerosi ed interessanti gli interrogativi che sorgono intorno alla possibilità di bilanciare i principi di autonomia ed equità e di contenere gli “spazi” di una discrezionalità che si potrebbe definire “istituzionale”. Il rischio è di sancire dal punto di vista istituzionale squilibri sub-nazionali e diseguaglianze fra i cittadini. Nell’area delle politiche sociali, dove l’esigibilità dei diritti appare, per molti versi, ridotta, si combina una spesso rilevante discrezionalità ”operativa”, affidata agli attori preposti alla complessa fase dell’implementazione. In un quadro normativo dai tratti incerti ed indefiniti, sostenuto da risorse spesso contenute, si intrecciano competenze, organizzazioni e professionalità, nell’affrontare bisogni complessi ed in rapida trasformazione. In un mutevole bilanciamento tra specificità ed equità delle prestazioni, flessibilità e garanzia dei servizi, diritti, eccezioni ed emergenze

I mediatori interculturali nel lavoro con richiedenti asilo e rifugiati in Italia

Intercultural Mediators play a key role within the reception system for refugees and asylum seekers. Although they are required to deal with a well-known humanitarian emergency, their status is still weak and not yet fully formalized. This article is based on the results of a study conducted within the Erasmus + Project ReCULM - Upskilling Cultural Mediators. The contribution starts by presenting the most salient points of the theoretical debate on intercultural mediation in Italy, and then focusses on mediators who work with refugees and asylum seekers. The aim is to analyse the mediators’ role, their identity and their views about the problems and challenges they face in their daily work, and how they facilitate the processes of inclusion of forced migrants. In the conclusions we discuss whether, how and to what extent issues raised in the theoretical debate on mediation can be better specified and addressed by looking at everyday mediation practices