Conference Agenda

Street-level action in public service delivery combines bureaucratic and professional logics: street-level professionals are part of bureaucratic regimes, as well as of occupational or professional fields, such as judicial, safety, educational, medical, welfare or social fields. When delivering public services to individual clients, street level professionals often have certain amounts of discretion, as policies and rules aimed to serve individual clients are often vague and/or contradictory. Consequently, street level workers use professional logics when applying discretionary powers. This has many advantages when it comes to treating cases and clients and adding societal value, but it also comes with risks of unequal treatment and (indirect) discrimination, even for professionals who try to ‘do good’. For instance, street level workers may use discretionary powers differently for those they deem ‘deserving’, unaware of how their own perceptions can be skewed by bias. Consequently, the concept of ‘professionalism’ can inadvertently cloak discriminatory practices. Based upon a pilot study of street-level work in three Dutch street-level services in three fields – Customs, Education, the municipality of Arnhem – we have analyzed how institutional and individual risks of discrimination and racism can be mitigated. The research question we pose is: How can street-level professionals be stimulated to detect and deal with risks of discrimination and racism in their daily practices? The scholarly State Commission against Discrimination and Racism – which we represent – has developed a method to make these risks visible and ‘discussable’. We show how this method works and works out, how it affects street-level practices, and how it can be adapted and adopted elsewhere. More specifically, we show how professionals can act as less-biased boundary spanners, working in-between ‘state’ and ‘streets.’ The method we developed helps them, not only in balancing distance and engagement, but also routinized and reflexive action. At the end we draw conclusions and sketch implications, also for the study of delivering street-level services in societally resilient ways.

This article investigates the professional role identities of caseworkers in the German public employment service. We re-evaluate the typology of caseworkers as salespersons, social workers, clerks, and service providers, each representing distinct strategies of action (Eberwein and Tholen, 1987, 1988; Sell, 1999). Grounded in street-level bureaucracy theory (Lipsky 1980, 2010), the study examines the stability of these identities and the constructs shaping the role perceptions.

Using survey data from 393 caseworkers in Germany, a mixed-method approach combines quantitative text analysis (Multiple Correspondence Analysis) and qualitative methods.

Findings indicate that caseworkers still align with different professional identities, with an increasing share identifying as service providers. However, the distinctions between role identities are becoming less pronounced, suggesting substantial overlap in role perceptions. This research contributes to understanding caseworkers’ evolving identities and their attitudes towards their work.

By zooming in to micro-level interactions of public service encounters, this study examines the processes and conditions leading to potential value co-destruction in public service ecosystems (PSEs). As illustrated in previous public service research, in PSEs varying institutional, organizational, and individual conditions can conflict, furthering value co-destruction (Cui and Osborne 2023; Rossi, Tuurnas, and Stenvall 2024). For example, value co-destruction can occur due to communicational or responsibility allocation issues (Engen et al. 2021), misuse of resources (Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres 2010), or a mismatch between administrative regulations and the complex problems dealt with on the service frontline (Gyllenhammar, Eriksson, and Löfgren 2023).

With a focus on public service encounters between professionals and service users, we utilize conflicts as an analytical tool (Rossi and Skarli, forthcoming) that provides a way to increase understanding on why the encounters can result in dynamic processes of value co-creation as well as co-destruction. Importantly, conflicts pinpoint the phases where varying conditions trigger actors’ contradictory lines of actions (Rossi and Tuurnas 2021; Skålén, Engen, and Jenhaug 2024). Especially in wellbeing services, the consequences of value destruction can result in deficient outcomes, lower wellbeing, and even undermining the resilience of the service system (Hardyman, Daunt, and Kitchener 2015).

To better understand public service professionals’ reasoning in decision-making processes, and the conditions that might lead to value co-destruction in service encounters, this study poses the question: How do professionals perceive the reasons for value co-destruction in public service encounters? Empirically this study derives from Finnish welfare services context, with data collected from public service professionals working either for the Social Insurance Institution of Finland (Kela), or for a Wellbeing Services County (WSC). The data consists of 36 thematic interviews and eDelphi-panel data from 33 public service experts. With inductive content analysis and utilizing conflicts as an analytical tool, the results focus on public service professionals’ perceptions of why value co-destruction happens in public service encounters.

The findings zoom in specifically on micro-level interactions to formulate an understanding on how professionals engage with institutional, organizational, and individual conditions as they interpret the reasons for value co-destruction. To conclude, much remains to be done at institutional, organizational as well as individual spheres to enhance professionals’ resilience in public service encounters. Illustratively, even if the institution fails to cooperate to ensure seamless service provision, professionals can influence whether value for the service user is destructed or salvaged (Maijala et al. 2024).