Caseworkers on the digital streets
Discretion in the digital decision-making process
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31265/jcsw.v19i1.624Keywords:
Digital government, discretion, street-level bureaucracy, social media, child welfare servicesAbstract
It is an intrinsic feature of many public agencies that they are dependent on street-level bureaucrats making important decisions regarding their clients. While some have claimed that such decisions are in danger of being corrupted by the bureaucrats’ discretionary powers, Lipsky argued that this discretion was necessary for the proper implication of social policy. However, the digitalization of government has altered the way in which many public servants reach their decisions. For instance, Bovens and Zouridis have argued that digitalization limits or removes bureaucrats’ processional discretion when making decisions, which can have a negative effect on public services. While decisions are singular events, the process of reaching them is complex and drawn out over time. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to explore the process of decision-making in a public service context, and how digitalization has impacted caseworker discretion. The context of this study is the Norwegian child welfare service, where we have conducted focus group interviews with 26 caseworkers. Our analyses of the decision-making process uncovered several points in which digitalization has increased the need for caseworker discretion, i.e., an increased availability of caseworkers, information gathering and the admissibility of private information online. Our study demonstrates how even though digital technology such as social media presents new opportunities for information gathering, it also poses a danger for the creation of discriminatory practices toward citizens that could negatively affect the quality of service provision. Furthermore, conceptually deconstructing the decision-making process was beneficial to understanding how digitalization impacts different aspects of the case-handling process.
References
Alam, S. L. (2021). Many hands make light work: towards a framework of digital co-production to co-creation on social platforms. Information Technology & People, 34(3), 1087-1118. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-05-2019-0231
Andersen, K. N., Medaglia, R. & Henriksen, H. Z. (2012). Social media in public health care: Impact domain propositions. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 462-469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.07.004
Bastien, J. (2009). Goal ambiguity and informal discretion in the implementation of public policies: the case of Spanish immigration policy. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(4), 665-685. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852309351472
Bing, J. (1994). Breaking new ground: The work of the Norwegian research centre for computers and law. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 8(1), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2014.951156
Bovens, M. & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street‐level to system‐level bureaucracies: how information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: a practical guide. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsqmip.2022.1.33.46
Breyette, S. K. & Hill, K. (2015). The impact of electronic communication and social media on child welfare practice. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 33(4), 283-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2015.1101408
Brodkin, E. Z. & Majmundar, M. (2010). Administrative exclusion: Organizations and the hidden costs of welfare claiming. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 827-848. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup046
Buffat, A. (2015). Street-level bureaucracy and e-government. Public Management Review, 17(1), 149-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.771699
Brodkin E. Z. (2012). Reflections on Street-Level Bureaucracy: Past, Present, and Future. Public Administration Review. 72(6), 940-949. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02657.x
Busch, P. A., Henriksen, H. Z. & Sæbø, Ø. (2018). Opportunities and challenges of digitized discretionary practices: a public service worker perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), 547-556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.003
Busch, P. A. & Henriksen, H. Z. (2018). Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion. Information Polity, 23(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170050
Byrne, J., Kirwan, G. & Mc Guckin, C. (2019). Social Media Surveillance in Social Work: Practice Realities and Ethical Implications. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 37(2-3), 142-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2019.1584598
Cooner, T. S., Beddoe, L., Ferguson, H. & Joy, E. (2020). The use of Facebook in social work practice with children and families: exploring complexity in an emerging practice. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 38(2), 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2019.1680335
Dekker, R., van den Brink, P. & Meijer, A. (2020). Social media adoption in the police: Barriers and strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 37(2), 101441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101441
Hansen, H. T., Lundberg, K. & Syltevik, L. J. (2018). Digitalization, street‐level bureaucracy and welfare users' experiences. Social policy & administration, 52(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12283
Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221– 236. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2015.07.001
Jorna, F. & Wagenaar, P. (2007). The ‘iron cage’ strengthened? Discretion and digital discipline. Public administration, 85(1), 189-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00640.x
Kvakic, M. & Wærdahl, R. (2022). Trust and Power in the Space Between Visibility and Invisibility. Exploring Digital and Social Media Practices in Norwegian Child Welfare Services. European Journal of Social Work, 27(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2022.2099350
Lee, J., Kim, B. J., Park, S., Park, S. & Oh, K. (2018). Proposing a value-based digital government model: Toward broadening sustainability and public participation. Sustainability, 10(9), 3078. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093078
Lember, V., Brandsen, T. & Tõnurist, P. (2019). The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1665-1686. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619807
Lindgren, I., Madsen, C. Ø., Hofmann, S. & Melin, U. (2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 427-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). The decision making process. National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 27(4). http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Lunenburg,%20Fred%20C.%20The%20Decision%20Making%20Process%20NFEASJ%20V27%20N4%202010.pdf
Madsen, C. Ø. & Kræmmergaard, P. (2016). Warm experts in the age of mandatory e-government: Interaction among Danish single parents regarding online application for public benefits. Electronic Journal of E-government, 14(1), 87-98. http://www.ejeg.com/issue/download.html?idArticle=447
Madsen, C. Ø., Lindgren, I. & Melin, U. (2021). The accidental caseworker–How digital self-service influences citizens' administrative burden. Government Information Quarterly, 101653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101653
Margetts, H. & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1987), 20120382. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382
Molander, A. (2016). Discretion in the welfare state : social rights and professional judgment. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315450483
O'Sullivan, T. (2010). Decision making in social work: Macmillan International Higher Education.
Peeters, R. & Widlak, A. (2018). The digital cage: Administrative exclusion through information architecture–The case of the Dutch civil registry's master data management system. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 175-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.02.003
Ranerup, A. & Henriksen, H. Z. (2022). Digital discretion: Unpacking human and technological agency in automated decision making in Sweden’s social services. Social Science Computer Review, 40(2), 445-461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320980434
Reddick, C. G. (2005). Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers? Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 38-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2004.10.003
Røhnebæk, M. (2016). Fra bakkebyråkrati til skjermbyråkrati. Tidsskrift for velferdsforskning, 19(04), 288-304. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2464-3076-2016-04-01
Schartum, D. W. (1994). Dirt in the Machinery of Government-Legal Challenges Connected to Computerized Case Processing in Public Administration. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 2(3), 327–354. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/2.3.327
Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decision. Harper & Brothers. https://doi.org/10.1037/13978-000
Simon, H. A. (1965). Administrative decision making. Public Administration Review, 31-37. https://iiif.library.cmu.edu/file/Simon_box00065_fld04956_bdl0001_doc0001/Simon_box00065_fld04956_bdl0001_doc0001.pdf
Simpson, J. (2017). Staying in touch in the digital era: New social work practice. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 35(1), 86-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2017.1277908
Smart, A. (2018). The unbearable discretion of street-level bureaucrats: corruption and collusion in Hong Kong. Current Anthropology, 59(S18), S37-S47. https://doi.org/10.1086/695694
Spilsbury, J. C., Hernandez, E., Kiley, K., Gillerlane Hinkes, E., Prasanna, S., Shafiabadi, N., Rao, P. & Sahoo, S. S. (2022). Social Service Workers' Use of Social Media to Obtain Client Information: Current Practices and Perspectives on a Potential Informatics Platform. Journal of Social Service Research, 48(6), 739–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2022.2148037
The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Y. a. F. A. (2016). Utredning av et nasjonalt kvalitetssystem og samordnet digital forvaltning i barnevernet. [Investigation of a national quality system and coordinated digital management in child protection]. https://bufdir.no/Bibliotek/Dokumentside/?docId=BUF00004470
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument: Cambridge university press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005
Wang, C., Medaglia, R. & Zheng, L. (2018). Towards a typology of adaptive governance in the digital government context: The role of decision-making and accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 306-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.08.00
Warren, K. F. (2003). Administrative discretion. In E. Berman (Ed), Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy (pp. 35-38). Routledge.
Weber, M. (2019). Economy and society: A new translation. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674240827
Widlak, A. & Peeters, R. (2020). Administrative errors and the burden of correction and consequence: how information technology exacerbates the consequences of bureaucratic mistakes for citizens. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 12(1), 40-56. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2020.106998
Wihlborg, E., Larsson, H. & Hedström, K. (2016, January 5-9). The Computer Says No!: A Case Study on Automated Decision-making in Public Authorities [Conference presenstation]. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.364
Zacka, B. (2017). When the state meets the street: Public service and moral agency. Harvard university press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674981423
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Minela Kvakic, Karl Kristian Larsson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.