No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Conditionality of Trusting Caseworkers in the Social Services Sector – Insights from Germany and Denmark
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2025
Abstract
Citizen trust is a prerequisite for the success of service provision. However, working relations are typically shaped by power asymmetries and one-sided dependencies, contributing to cautiousness towards or distrust of caseworkers (Dumbrill, 2006; de Boer and Coady, 2007). This article sheds light on the conditions and mechanisms that lead (some) citizens nevertheless to trust their caseworker. Based on thematic coding of semi-structured interviews with twenty-five German and sixteen Danish welfare users, our findings elucidate how shared problem perceptions and positive experiences in direct working relationships with committed, citizens-oriented caseworkers mitigate structural asymmetries and allow trust-building. In particular, they underscore the importance of personal bonding and positive emotions, including feelings of sympathy, or even friendship, and of being seen, understood and respected. Our article strengthens the interpersonal, micro-level perspective on trust-building in welfare service provision and provides new empirical insights into the role of personal relations in trust-adverse institutionalised contexts.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Aamann, I. and Dybbroe, B. (2018) ‘So under “cause for concern” I‘ll write that … Class, parenting and risk prevention in public health practices in schools’, Health, Risk & Society, 20, 5–6, 259–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baghramian, M., Petherbridge, D. and Stout, R. (2020) ‘Vulnerability and trust: an introduction’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 28, 5, 575–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker-Lenz, R. (2014) ‘Vertrauen in professionellen Arbeitsbündnissen’ in S. Bartman, M. Fabel-Lamla, N. Pfaff and N. Welter (eds.), Vertrauen in der erziehungswissenschaftlichen Forschung, Opladen: Barbara Budrich, 355–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behnia, B. (2008) ‘Trust development: a discussion of three approaches and a proposed alternative’, The British Journal of Social Work, 38, 7, 1425–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrend, O. (2013) ‘Zu aktivierenden Gefühlspraktiken und -semantiken von MitarbeiterInnen deutscher Arbeitsämter’, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 38, 2, 149–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betkó, J., Spierings, N., Gesthuizen, M. and Scheepers, P. (2022) ‘How welfare policies can change trust’, Basic Income Studies, 17, 2, 155–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogedan, C. (2006) ‘Aktivierung und Flexicurity: Neue Wege in der Sozial- und Arbeitsmarktpolitik Dänemarks’ in Rehberg, K.-S. (ed.), Soziale Ungleichheit, Kulturelle Unterschiede: Verhandlungen des 32. DGS-Kongresses München 2004, Teil 1–2, Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2650–9.Google Scholar
Böllert, K. (2012) ‘Von der sozialdisziplinierenden Intervention zur partizipativen Dienstleistung’ in Thole, W., (ed.), Grundriss Soziale Arbeit: Ein einführendes Handbuch, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 625–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. (2011) ‘Policy work: street-level organizations under new managerialism’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, J-PART, 21, 2, 253–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Calnan, M. (2013) ‘Trust as a means of bridging the management of risk and the meeting of need’, Social Policy and Administration, 47, 3, 242–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brus, A. (2021) ‘Trust is the cornerstone in the work of social assistance and families with vulnerable children but … – insights from Denmark’ in EnTrust, Integrated Report on Trust and Distrust at the Street-level of Public Policy, 35–78, https://entrust-project.eu/files/2021/11/EnTrust_Trust-and-Distrust-at-the-Street-level-of-Public-Policy_Integrated-Report.pdf [accessed 29.02.2024].Google Scholar
Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (2007) ‘Grounded theory research: methods and practices’ in Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, London: SAGE, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, H., Carr, N. and Whelan, S. (2011) ‘Like walking on eggshells’: service user views and expectations of the child protection system’, Child & Family Social Work, 16, 1, 101–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, D., Kupka, P., Larsen, F. and Van Berkel, R. (2017) ‘The frontline delivery of welfare-to-work in context’ 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, 1–11.Google Scholar
Caswell, D. and Larsen, L. (2017) ‘Frontline work in the delivery of Danish activation policies’ 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, 163–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cossar, J., Brandon, M. and Jordan, P. (2016) ‘You’ve got to trust her and she’s got to trust you: children’s views on participation in the child protection system’, Child & Family Social Work, 21, 1, 103–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boer, C. and Coady, N. (2007) ‘Good helping relationships in child welfare: learning from stories of success’, Child and Family Social Work, 12, 1, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
di Luzio, G. (2006) ‘A sociological concept of client trust’, Current Sociology, 54, 4, 549–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumbrill, G. C. (2006) ‘Parental experience of child protection intervention: a qualitative study’, Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 1, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EnTrust (2021) Integrated Report on Trust and Distrust at the Street-level of Public Policy, https://entrust-project.eu/files/2021/11/EnTrust_Trust-and-Distrust-at-the-Street-level-of-Public-Policy_Integrated-Report.pdf [accessed 29.02.2024].Google Scholar
European Values Study (EVS) (2022) European Values Study 2017: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017), ZA7500, Köln: GESIS.Google Scholar
Fabel-Lamla, M., Tiefel, S. and Zeller, M. (2012) ‘Vertrauen und profession. Eine erziehungswissenschaftliche Perspektive auf theoretische Ansätze und empirische Analysen’, Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 58, 6, 799–811.Google Scholar
Fersch, B. (2016) ‘Welfare service professionals, migrants, and the question of trust. A Danish case’, Professions and Professionalism, 6, 2, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, M. (2020) ‘The shame and shaming of parents in the child protection process’, Families, Relationships and Societies, 9, 2, 217–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, B. (2002) ‘Emotional labour and befriending in family support and child protection in Tower Hamlets’, Child & Family Social Work, 7, 1, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, B. (2016) ‘Denmark: still a Nordic welfare state after the changes of recent years?’ in K. Schubert, P. de Villota and J. Kuhlmann (eds.), Challenges to European Welfare Systems, Cham: Springer, 159–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, R. (2005) ‘Learning from difference: comparing child welfare systems’ in Freymond, N. and Cameron, G. (eds.), Towards Positive Systems of Child and Family Welfare, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewell, C. J. (2007) Agents of the Welfare State. How Caseworkers Respond to Need in the United States, Germany, and Sweden, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Klatetzki, T. (2019) Narrative Praktiken: Die Bearbeitung sozialer Probleme in den Organisationen der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe, Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar
Kumlin, S. and Rothstein, B. (2005) ‘Making and breaking social capital: the impact of welfare-state institutions’, Comparative Political Studies, 38, 4, 339–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahusen, C. (2020) Enlightened Trust: A Conceptual Framework of Analysis for the Examination of Trust and Distrust in Governance, https://entrust-project.eu/files/2020/06/D1.2-First-Manuscript-on-Trust-and-Distrust-in-Governance.pdf [accessed 29.02.2024].Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (2010) Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (2014): Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität, Konstanz/München: UVK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundahl, B., McDonald, C. and Vanderloo, M. (2020) ‘Service users’ perspectives of child welfare services: a systematic review using the practice model as a guide’, Journal of Public Child Welfare, 14, 2, 174–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard-Moody, S. and Musheno, M. (2000) ‘State agent or citizen agent: two narratives of discretion’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, J-PART, 10, 2, 329–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mik-Meyer, N. and Haugaard, M. (2021) ‘Performance of agency in real-life encounters: turning unequal power and structural constraint into collaboration’, Symbolic Interaction, 44, 3, 504–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. (2007) ‘The double dynamics of activation: institutions, citizens and the remaking of welfare governance’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27, 9/10, 364–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolova, N., Möllering, G. and Reihlen, M. (2015) ‘Trusting as a “Leap of Faith”: trust-building practices in client–consultant relationships’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31, 2, 232–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissen, M. A. (2023) ‘Emotional practices of care and expectations of cost-effectiveness in social work with children and families in Denmark’, European Journal of Social Work, 27, 3, 452–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, O. (2018) ‘Linking trust to trustworthiness’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 26, 2, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penz, O., Sauer, B., Gaitsch, M., Hofbauer, J. and Glinsner, B. (2017) ‘Post-bureaucratic encounters: affective labour in public employment services’, Critical Social Policy, 37, 4, 540–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pösö, T., Skivenes, M. and Hestbæk, A. D. (2014) ‘Child protection systems within the Danish, Finnish and Norwegian welfare states’, European Journal of Social Work, 17, 4, 475–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rautio, S. (2013) ‘Parents’ experiences of early support’, Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 27, 927–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ribner, D. S. and Knei-Paz, C. (2002) ‘Client’s view of a successful helping relationship’, Social Work, 47, 4, 379–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothstein, B. and Stolle, D. (2008) ‘The state and social capital: an institutional theory of generalized trust’, Comparative Politics, 40, 4, 441–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rüegger, C., Gautschi, J., Becker-Lenz, R. and Rotzetter, F. (2021) ‘Bedeutung und Aufbau von Vertrauen in der Sozialpädagogischen Familienbegleitung’, Gesellschaft–Individuum–Sozialisation Zeitschrift für Sozialisationsforschung, 2, 2, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, S. and Zschache, U. (2021) ‘Professionally trusting by default? Notions of trust in the German system of welfare support for families’ in EnTrust, Integrated Report on Trust and Distrust at the Street-level of Public policy, 79–118, https://entrust-project.eu/files/2021/11/EnTrust_Trust-and-Distrust-at-the-Street-level-of-Public-Policy_Integrated-Report.pdf [accessed 29.02.2024].Google Scholar
Schweer, M. (2008) ‘Vertrauen und sozialesHandeln’ in Jammal, E. (ed.), Vertrauen im interkulturellen Kontext, Wiesbaden: VS, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senghaas, M., Freier, C. and Kupka, P. (2019) ‘Practices of activation in frontline interactions: coercion, persuasion, and the role of trust in activation policies in Germany’, Social Policy Administration, 53, 5, 613–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Six, F. E. (2007) ‘Building interpersonal trust within organizations: a relational signalling perspective’, Journal of Management and Governance, 11, 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stensöta, H. O. and Bendz, A. (2020) ‘Public response to welfare policy retrenchment: the importance of trust in implementing agencies. The case of early retirement in Sweden 1999–2010’, Social Policy Administration, 54, 1, 102–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Wallace, A. (2009) ‘Public values and public trust: responses to welfare state reform in the UK’, Journal of Social Policy, 38, 3, 401–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thrana, H. M. and Fauske, H. (2014) ‘The emotional encounter with child welfare services: the importance of incorporating the emotional perspective in parents’ encounters with child welfare workers’, European Journal of Social Work, 17, 2, 221–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiefel, S. and Zeller, M. (2014) ‘Differenzierung des Vertrauensbegriffs – empirische Analysen aus der Perspektive von Adressat/innen der Sozialen Arbeit’ in Bartmann, S., Fabel-Lamla, M., Pfaff, N. and Welter, N. (eds.), Vertrauen in der erziehungswissenschaftlichen Forschung, Opladen: Barbara Budrich, 335–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Berkel, R., Caswell, D., Kupka, P. and Larsen, F. (2017) Frontline Delivery of Welfare-to-Work Policies in Europe Activating the Unemployed, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Walle, S. and Lahat, L. (2017) ‘Do public officials trust citizens? A welfare state perspective’, Social Policy & Administration, 51, 7, 1450–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Walle, S. and Migchelbrink, K. (2022) ‘Institutional quality, corruption, and impartiality: the role of process and outcome for citizen trust in public administration in 173 European regions’, Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 25, 1, 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011) ‘Outcomes, process, and trust of civil servants’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 4, 745–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, R., Biesel, K. and Heinitz, S. (2011) ‘Child protection in an age of uncertainty: Germany’s response’ in N. Gilbert, N. Parton and M. Skivenes (eds.), Child Protection Systems: International Trends and Orientations, New York: Oxford University Press, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zacka, B. (2017) When the State Meets the Street: Public Service and Moral Agency, Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar