Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the behavioural determinants of work-related benefits claimants’ training behaviours and to suggest ways to improve claimants’ compliance with training referrals.

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 Jobcentre Plus staff and training providers, and 60 claimants. Claimants were sampled based on whether or not they had been mandated to training and whether or not they subsequently participated. Along with general findings, differences between these groups are highlighted.

Claimants’ behaviours are affected by their capabilities, opportunities, and motivations in interrelated ways. Training programmes should appreciate this to better ensure claimants’ completion of training programmes.

Whilst past papers have largely examined a limited number of factors that affect claimants’ training behaviours, this report offers a synchronised evaluation of all the behavioural factors that affect claimants’ training behaviours.

The article examines how street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) manage the digital bureaucratic relationship in dealing with customer needs and the technological innovations introduced into organisations (digital tools). The topic of technological transformations from a street-level perspective has garnered limited interest so far, especially in Italy. The research question underlying the article is as follows: how does the discretion of SLBs change with the introduction of digital tools within the public administration? We expect that the characteristics of clients on the one hand, and the degree of institutionalisation of the digital tool in question on the other, will change the way in which SLBs exercise their discretion.

The data were collected from two separate research projects in which the authors were involved: (1) the first was a doctoral research project concerning labour inspectors tasked with investigating labour irregularities reported by workers; (2) the second was a research project regarding the relationship between the elderly and public service caseworkers. Information gathered through a series of semi-structured interviews was analysed, with a focus on the digitalisation process. The interviewees included 15 labour inspectors, and 12 long-term care caseworkers. With regard to the interviews conducted with labour inspectors, we examined the online request for action submitted by workers reporting irregularities in their employment relationships. As regards the interviews with caseworkers involved in services for the elderly, the discussion revolved around the option introduced during the pandemic period in 2020, to request access to the services in question through submission of an online form rather than requesting such services in person.

What emerges is that while the introduction of digitalised policies allows SLBs to obtain more information with which to assess the situation of individuals, the discretionary power exercised by front-line workers only results in the partial use of the digital tool, whilst favouring the traditional relationship between bureaucrats and their clients.

We introduce the concepts of “digital discretion” and “analogic discretion” in an attempt to understand how SLBs use their decision-making powers, which may prove to be useful analytical tools for studying the ways in which the discretion of SLBs is realised through new digital practices.