This article focuses on citizens’ experiences of enablers of- and barriers to obtaining digital citizenship. E-applications for social assistance are used as an exemplar. In Sweden, as in many countries, there is political pressure on welfare services to become more digitalized, and to offer different kinds of self-service technology such as e-applications. Even if the goals of implementing these technologies are to increase efficiency and transparency and offer faster services to citizens, there is a risk of expanding the ‘digital divide’. and making it more difficult to obtain one’s digital citizenship and gain access to social rights. This article draws on a qualitative interview study. and explores citizens’ experiences using e-applications in two Swedish municipal social assistance agencies. Results show that most citizens had positive experiences applying for social assistance online, but there were some potential barriers. There were also differences in experiences in the two municipal social assistance agencies. We discuss how the increased digitalization of welfare services seems to push towards a blend of digital and social rights. In this process, social workers play an important role in countering new types of inequalities that emerge in evolving social assistance organizations. The article identifies several areas that merit further research.

The relationship between stability and change is a central paradox of administration that pervades all forms of organizing. Evaluation is not unfamiliar with paradoxical objectives and roles, which can result in tensions for evaluators and stakeholders. In this article, paradoxes between stability and change in the implementation of evaluation, and responses to them, are investigated through the case of social investment funds in Swedish local government. From interviews with staff, managers, and evaluators, findings show how responses to four main paradoxes give priority to top-down summative evaluation that produces instrumental knowledge on outcomes and costs for decision makers. The responses show that the concept of social investment fund evaluation is elastic to contain paradoxes and address different audiences. Also, paradoxes within the structure of the organization develop into paradoxes concerning the roles and goals of evaluation, raising the question of whether individual actors can deal with paradoxes.

In the last decade, digitalized automated decision-making (ADM) has been implemented in many Swedish municipal social services to achieve values such as legal security, client empowerment and time efficiency. The paper aims to understand how ADM policy is legitimized and performed through time efficiency, by a comparison of ADM policy in two Swedish municipalities’ social assistance agencies. It builds on 17 interviews with managers and professionals in two Swedish municipalities’ social assistance units. Findings show ADM is legitimized through arguments of activation and relationships, and performed by handling more applications or increasing time spent with clients, rather than being perceived as increasing the quality of social assistance services. This highlights the significance of organizational goals regarding how street-level bureaucrats perform tasks within their discretionary powers.

Summary: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically changed the possibilities for people to interact and communicate. This article examines Swedish social workers’ experiences of the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the use of digital tools in their work, and whether this use has affected the social worker–client relationship and their stress levels. The article draws on a web survey (N  =  541) via a quantitative analysis of responses and a qualitative analysis of answers to an open-ended question.

Findings: Most respondents agreed on experiencing increased use of digital tools in the relationship with the clients, increased skills in using digital tools, and a more positive view of digital tools in the social worker–client relationship. However, experiences on whether stress levels had increased and the relationship with the clients worsened, were divided. Age correlates positively with increased stress levels, and social workers working with social assistance, as well as women, are more likely to agree on that the relationship with the clients has worsened. Responses from open-ended questions highlight a rapid shift where social workers have gained a more positive view of digital tools, that video meetings can increase efficiency and flexibility, but also work environment problems.

Applications: This article contributes with useful insights into how the use of digital tools during the COVID-19 pandemic has changed and affected stress and the social worker–client relationship. It can support discussions on the future implementation of digital tools in social work after the pandemic.

Today’s ambition to adapt and individualize welfare delivery poses a challenge to human service organizations at the same time seeking to standardize clients, with consequences for street-level bureaucrats. In this article, the implementation of an instrument for standardized assessment of income support (IA) in Swedish social services is used to investigate what strategies street-level bureaucrats use to cope with tensions between standardization and individualization. Results from six focus groups in two organizations show how job coaches cope by individualizing their practice towards the client, while caseworkers equally often cope through standardization, which could work towards or against the client, in order to keep their discretion and handle organizational demands. Results point to a loose coupling between IA as an organizational tool for legitimacy, and as a pragmatically used questionnaire. Conflicts and contradictions are left to street-level bureaucrats to deal with.

The increasing fragmentation and the rising number of organizations in society create major challenges when implementing knowledge structures. In this article, we propose that the concept of metagovernance is useful when addressing these challenges. The enhancement of knowledge structures in the Swedish social services is our study object. Networks at national, regional and local levels have been organized and facilitated by national resources and agreements since 2003. The shifting of participants, switching assignments and ambiguity about the networks’ purposes created difficult conditions for successful implementation. In this paper, we argue that fragile top-down government and shifting local network organization provide limited opportunities to ensure that new knowledge structures will have an impact on social work practice. Research is based upon monitoring a national program that started in 2003, affecting five universities and their surrounding regions and municipalities. The article is also based upon observations and interviews among national and regional actors. Results show that national agencies are hands-off, but still in control by setting up legal and discursive frameworks for those networks. It is argued that this creates new challenges for participating organizations and professionals in social work.

The social worker-client relationship is described as essential to social work but is a broad and multi-layered concept. Today, the relationship is strengthened and challenged by digitalisation. The aim of this configurative literature review is to understand how research on social work from 2015 to 2020 describes and analyses digitalisation’s significance for the social worker-client relationship. Three themes depict the benefits and disadvantages of digitalisation, how digitalisation generates new ethical questions and dilemmas, and the different theoretical perspectives used. Future research should go beyond the pros and cons of digitalisation and should use various theoretical approaches to challenge data, illuminate client perspectives, and pose additional questions.

The aim of this special issue is to invite scholars in public administration to address issues of power in relation to evaluation practices in the public sector. Power is one of those big, difficult, and inherently nebulous concepts that both scholars and practitioners appear to consciously or unconsciously avoid. Our ambition in this introduction is not to present a comprehensive conceptual review of power, let alone to present the many different aspects of evaluation. Rather, this is a humble attempt to foster a more explicit discussion of the relationship between power and evaluation. The aim of this introduction is, firstly, to introduce a few basic distinctions and conceptualisations of the relationship between power and evaluation. Secondly, we would like to highlight three themes where power may be an especially fruitful lens when analysing, or just trying to make sense of, evaluation procedures. These are themes found in evaluation research, but where power is not always acknowledged or accounted for. We call them (1) Evaluation and instrumental power, (2) Evaluation and contextual power, and (3) Evaluation and performative power.