Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-6kn8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-01T14:11:07.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Street-Level Organisation in-between Employer Needs and Client Needs: Creaming Users by Motivation in the Norwegian Employment and Welfare Service (NAV)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2021

HEIDI MOEN GJERSØE Open the ORCID record for HEIDI MOEN GJERSØE [Opens in a new window]  and
ANNE HEGE STRAND
HEIDI MOEN GJERSØE*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Social Studies, VID Specialized University, Faculty of Social Sciences, OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University, address: VID Specialized University, Mailbox 184 Vinderen, NO-0319 Oslo, Norway
ANNE HEGE STRAND
Affiliation:
Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research email: anne.hege.strand@fafo.no
*
email: heidi.gjersoe@vid.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Employer engagement is increasingly emphasised in the context of efforts to bring more disadvantaged people into work. A new approach in the Norwegian Employment and Welfare Service (NAV) combines demand-side and supply-side measures in a ‘combined workplace-oriented approach’. Through qualitative interviews with frontline staff – including job coaches following the Supported Employment (SE) method – the paper examines the intermediary role of the street-level organisation (SLO) through the targeted use of SE methods directed at young users and employers. The findings suggest that young users are ‘creamed by motivation’ into the SE programme, which can be explained by the importance the SLO places: on maintaining inter-organisational relationships with employers, on job coaches’ performance goals and the need to uphold an organisational structure in the SLO that seemingly works efficient to shift caseloads of young unemployed into work. Hence, creaming is not specific to outsourcing but can also occur when insourcing employer engagement services into a public SLO. Although relational work directed at both employers and young clients is seen as the benefit of a combined workplace-oriented approach, it appears a rather flimsy foundation for successful ALMPs unless supported by more structural demand-side measures.

Keywords

CreamingEmployer engagementInsourcingStreet-level organisationsSupported EmploymentPublic Employment Service

Information

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , July 2023 , pp. 682 - 699
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aksnes, S. Y. (2019), ‘Engaging employers in vocational rehabilitation: Understanding the new significance of knowledge brokers’, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 50, 1, 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakkeli, V., Frøyland, K., Spjelkavik, Ø., Berg, H., Undem, B. and Vestøl, G. M. (2020), Kvalitetsarbeid i Supported Employment tjenester, Report 2020/04, Oslo: The Work Research Institute.Google Scholar
Berg, H., Hauge, K. E., Markussen, S. and Zhang, T. (2021), Supported Employment eller “vanlig” oppfølging? Resultater fra et stort randomisert forsøk i NAV. Rapport 2/2021, Oslo: Frischsenteret.Google Scholar
Bond, G. R. (2004), ‘Supported Employment: Evidence for an Evidence-Based Practice’, Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 27, 4, 345–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, G. R., Drake, R. E. and Becker, D. R. (2008), ‘An Update on Randomized Controlled Trials of Evidence-Based Supported Employment’, Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 31, 4, 280–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonet, R., Cappelli, P. and Hamori, M. (2013), ‘Labor market intermediaries and the new paradigm for human resources’, The Academy of Management Annals, 7, 1, 341–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonfils, I. S., Hansen, H., Dalum, H. S. and Eplov, L. F. (2017), ‘Implementation of the individual placement and support approach –facilitators and barriers’, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 19, 4, 318–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, A. W. and Jensen, P. H. (2010), ‘Dialogue-based activation - a new “dispositif”?’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30, 5/6, 326–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breit, E., Fossestøl, K. and Pedersen, E. (2018), ‘A knowledge hierarchy in labour and welfare services? Evidence-based and practice-based knowledge in frontline service innovation’, International Social Security Review, 71, 4, 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinchmann, B., Widding-Havneraas, T., Modini, M., Rinaldi, M., Moe, C. F., McDaid, D., … Mykletun, A. (2020), ‘A meta-regression of the impact of policy on the efficacy of individual placement and support’, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 141, 3, 206–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brodkin, E. Z. (2013), ‘Street-Level Organizations and the Welfare State’, in Brodkin, E. Z. and Marston, G. (eds.), Work and the Welfare State: Street-Level Organizations and Workfare Politics, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 17–34.Google Scholar
Carter, E. and Whitworth, A. (2015), ‘Creaming and parking in quasi-marketised welfare-to-work schemes: designed out of or designed in to the UK work programme?’, Journal of Social Policy, 44, 2, 277–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, T. and Lægreid, P. (2011), ‘Complexity and hybrid public administration – Theoretical and empirical challenges’, Public organization review, 11, 4, 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Considine, M. (2001), Enterprising states: The public management of welfare-to-work, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cronert, A. (2019), ‘Varieties of Employment Subsidy Design: Theory and Evidence from Across Europe’, Journal of Social Policy, 48, 4, 839–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006), ‘Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research’, Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 2, 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fossestøl, K., Breit, E., Andreassen, T. A. and Klemsdal, L. (2015), ‘Managing institutional complexity in public sector reform: hybridization in front-line service organizations.’ Public Administration, 93, 4, 290–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fossestøl, K., Breit, E. and Borg, E. (2014), NAV-reformen 2014. En oppfølgingsstudie av lokalkontorenes organisering etter innholdsreformen, Report 13/2014, Oslo: The Work Research Institute.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, D. E. and VanderWeele, T. J. (2019), ‘Supported employment: Meta-analysis and review of randomized controlled trials of individual placement and support’, PLoS ONE 14,2: e0212208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frøyland, K., Andreassen, T. A. and Innvær, S. (2018), ‘Contrasting supply-side, demand-side and combined approaches to labour market integration’, Journal of Social Policy, 48, 2, 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gjersøe, H. M. (2021), ‘Frontline provision of integrated welfare and employment services: Organising for activation competency’, International Journal of Social Welfare, 30, 3, 280–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gofen, A., Sella, S. and Gassner, D. (2019), Levels of analysis in street-level bureaucracy research, in Hupe, P. (ed.), Research Handbook on Street-Level Bureaucracy. The Ground Floor of Government in Context, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 336–350.Google Scholar
Greer, I., Breidahl, K. N., Knuth, M. and Larsen, F. (2017), The Marketization of Employment Services: The Dilemmas of Europe’s Work-first Welfare States, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagelund, A. (2016), ‘The activating profession: Coaching and coercing in the welfare services’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29, 7, 725–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, J. (2018), ‘Employer engagement in active labour market programmes: the role of boundary spanners’, Public Administration, 96, 4, 707–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, J. and Stuart, M. (2015), ‘The demand-side of active labour market policies: a regional study of employer engagement in the Work Programme’, Journal of Social Policy, 44, 3, 443–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, J. and Valizade, D. (2017), ‘Employers’ recruitment of disadvantaged groups: exploring the effect of active labour market programme agencies as labour market intermediaries’, Human Resource Management Journal, 27, 4, 530–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kekez, A. (2019), Qualitative data analysis in implementation and street-level bureaucracy, in Hupe, P. (ed.), Research Handbook on Street-Level Bureaucracy. The Ground Floor of Government in Context, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 304–316.Google Scholar
Larsen, C. A. and Vesan, P. (2012), ‘Why public employment services always fail. Double-sided asymmetric information and the placement of low-skill workers in six European countries’, Public Administration, 90, 2, 466–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liechti, F. (2020), ‘Connecting Employers and Workers: Can Recommendations from the Public Employment Service Act as a Substitute for Social Contacts?’, Work, Employment and Society, 34, 4, 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, M. (2010), Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. (30th anniversary expanded ed.), New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Mandal, R., Ofte, H. J., Jensen, C. and Ose, S. O. (2015), Hvordan fungerer arbeidsavklaringspenger som ytelse og ordning? Forskningsrapport. Trondheim: Sintef.Google Scholar
Maynard-Moody, S. and Musheno, M. (2003), Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service, University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2016), Prop. 1 S (2016–2017) Proposisjon til Stortinget (forslag til stortingsvedtak), For budsjettåret 2017.Google Scholar
Office of the Auditor General (2014), Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse av NAVs arbeidsrettede oppfølging av personer med nedsatt arbeidsevne. Dokument 3:10 (2013–2014), Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
Official Expert Report (2020), NOU 2020:13 Private aktører i velferdsstaten. Velferdstjenesteutvalgets delutredning I og II om offentlig finansierte velferdstjenester, Oslo: Ministry of Trade, Industry and FisheriesGoogle Scholar
Orton, M., Green, A., Atfield, G. and Barnes, S. A. (2019), ‘Employer participation in active labour market policy: from reactive gatekeepers to proactive strategic partners’, Journal of Social Policy, 48, 3, 511–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proba (2011), Arbeidsevnevurdering i NAV. Evalueringsrapport. Rapport 2011–06, Oslo: Proba samfunnsanalyse.Google Scholar
Proba (2012), Evaluering av arbeidsevnevurdering i NAV. Oppfølgingsundersøkelse 2012, Rapport 2012–10, Oslo: Proba samfunnsanalyse.Google Scholar
Raspanti, D. and Saruis, T. (2021), ‘Trapped in Reverse Asymmetry: Public Employment Services Dealing with Employers’, Journal of Social Policy, 1–18.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, R. (2017), ‘Activation in the UK: The frontline and the ‘black box’ of employment service provision’, in van Berkel, R., Caswell, D., Kupka, P. and Larsen, F. (eds.), Frontline delivery of welfare-to-work policies in Europe: Activating the unemployed, New York: Routledge, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strand, A. H., Bråthen, M., & Grønningsæter, A. B. (2015), NAV-kontorenes oppfølging av unge brukere. Fafo report 2015:41.Google Scholar
Strand, A. H., Grønningsæter, A. B., Nielsen, R. A., & Holte, J. H. (2020), Tid for aktivering. Evaluering av forsterket ungdomsinnsats i NAV. Fafo report 2020:19.Google Scholar
Sveinsdottir, V., Bull, H. C., Evensen, S., Reme, S. E., Knutzen, T. and Lystad, J. U. (2020a),’ A short history of individual placement and support in Norway’, Psychiatr Rehabill J., 43, 1, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sveinsdottir, V., Lie, S. A., Bond, G. R., Eriksen, H. R., Tveito, T. H., Grasdal, A. L. and Reme, S. E. (2020b), ‘Individual placement and support for young adults at risk of early work disability (the SEED trial), A randomized controlled trial’, Scand J Work Environ Health, 46, 1, 50–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vågeng, Committee. (2015), Et NAV med muligheter. Bedre brukermøter, større handlingsrom og tettere på arbeidsmarkedet. Gjennomgang av NAV. Sluttrapport fra Ekspertgruppen, april 2015, Oslo: Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
van Berkel, R. (2020), ‘Employer Engagement in Promoting the Labour-Market Participation of Jobseekers with Disabilities. An Employer Perspective’, Social Policy and Society, 1–15.Google Scholar
van Berkel, R., Ingold, J., McGurk, P., Boselie, P. and Bredgaard, T. (2017), ‘Editorial introduction: An introduction to employer engagement in the field of HRM. Blending social policy and HRM research in promoting vulnerable groups’ labour market participation’, Human Resource Management Journal, 27, 4, 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Aa, P. and van Berkel, R. (2014), ‘Innovating job activation by involving employers’, International Social Security Review, 67, 2, 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehman, P. (2012), ‘Introduction to special issue, Supported Employment: What is it?’, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 37, 139–142.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (2011), ‘Steering with sticks, rowing for rewards: the new governance of activation in the UK’, in van Berkel, R., de Graaf, W. and Sirovátka, T. (eds.), The governance of active welfare states in Europe, Hampshire: Springer, 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar