Preventive Social Work (FBSA) is one of the guiding principles in the new Social Services Act. The social services are expected to work more preventively, more structurally, and more colla­boratively to prevent social problems. This article problematizes an increased focus on FBSA by studying 92 consultation responses that discuss FBSA based on frame analysis, through which we identify how FBSA is understood as a solution to inherent current problems and with what arguments this is justified. We find that the consultation bodies consider preventive work rele­vant – they agree with the overarching frame and the shift in perspective, but they call for clearer governance and more resources to carry out the work. We discuss this from the perspective of FBSA as a magical concept that is normatively appealing, translatable across various contexts, has the potential to smooth over inherent conflicts, and is accompanied by a strong positive normative stance. The shift in perspective toward preventive work is not seen as a form of direct state control, but it influences how actors reason about and describe their own organization and practice. Based on the analysed consultation responses, we question whether this can unproble­matically be translated into local FBSA practices. Instead, it risks reinforcing an inherent orga­nizational decoupling, where social services are caught between idealistic and to some extent unattainable demands, without sufficient resources for implementation.

Summary: This study examines social workers? coping strategies for managing tensions in hybrid social work while interacting with clients after the pandemic. Data were gathered through interviews with 26 social workers in social assistance within Swedish social services and analyzed using the theory of street-level bureaucracy and coping. Findings: Four coping strategies emerged: Two cognitive strategies involved modifying mindsets by (1) merging modalities and (2) maintaining distance in client interactions following a digital-material logic. Two behavioral strategies included (3) optimizing work for speed and efficiency and (4) digital rationing by reconfiguring digital tools to protect oneself and limit accessibility. These coping strategies are facilitating flexible and hybrid work, granting social workers greater autonomy, efficiency, and control. Paradoxically, these strategies indicate an increased tendency to avoid client interactions, often resulting in a walk-away approach. Applications: The findings suggest that social workers may become more 'unsocial' compared to traditional working methods. Therefore, navigating hybrid roles requires balancing digital and physical interactions while safeguarding relational practice with vulnerable clients. Organizations should develop clear policies for mandatory in-person meetings, ethical guidelines for channel use, and training that equips social workers to manage blurred boundaries and resist efficiency-driven practices that risk undermining core professional values.

Sociala investeringar lanserades som ett sätt att göra välfärden mer förebyggande, rationell och långsiktigt hållbar. Genom mätbarhet, utvärdering och ekonomiska kalkyler skulle satsningar på människor legitimeras som god politik och god ekonomi. I denna artikel analyseras hur idén om sociala investeringar fick fäste i svenska kommuner–och hur samma logik som bar reformen framåt också bidrog till dess gradvisa och tysta avveckling.

While research on the ramifications of automated decision-making (ADM) for welfare organisations is growing rapidly, less attention has been paid to elucidating the role and experiences of clients in the ADM process. This paper draws attention to how the performance of ADM policy in social assistance organisations working from an activation perspective is not merely a passive way of processing clients within the constraints of a given institution but an active interaction between clients and the organisation’s employees that ultimately constructs and produces the individual client in line with the purposes of the organisation. This article aims to explore how the role of the client is produced in the interaction between employees and clients when applying for social assistance in two Swedish social assistance organisations using ADM. The data consist of 28 qualitative interviews with managers, quality personnel, professionals, and clients. Findings depict the emergence of three client roles—the distant, the capable and trustworthy, and the digitally skilled client—the configurations of which are shaped by the interplay between employees and clients, serving to fulfil specific organisational imperatives.

Among the latest developments in welfare services is the rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs) in the form of chatbots, virtual conversational agents designed to simulate human dialogue and assist with tasks, queries, or decision-making. The integration of LLMs into social work organizations presents both opportunities and risks. They may support social workers in reflecting on dilemmas during client assessments or guide citizens through the process of applying for social assistance. They also pose ethical dilemmas such as transparency in decision-making, algorithmic bias, and concerns around data access and privacy.

However, unlike traditional digital technologies such as documentation systems, LLM use is not confined to formal, organizationally sanctioned implementations. Increasingly, chatbots also enter practice informally, as social workers experiment with freely available platforms such as ChatGPT, Copilot, or Gemini. With private accounts, they may consult legislation, reflect on practice dilemmas, or draft case notes, introducing new complexities for organizational governance and professional accountability. In this sense, AI and LLMs are seeping into social work in ways that circumvent formal strategies, complicating efforts to regulate, evaluate, or support their use within welfare services.

By using social assistance as a case, and introducing concepts such as delegation and domestication, this paper discusses the formal and informal uses of LLMs by social workers in Swedish social services and its significance for professional discretion. We define formal use as organizationally integrated AI solutions, often customized or procured systems, while informal use captures the individual and creative ways social workers employ private AI tools in everyday reasoning and client-related tasks. Whereas formal use tends to rely on explicit knowledge, informal use is grounded in tacit knowledge.

A key issue arising from this formal/informal dichotomy is the participation of social workers in the development, adaptation, and evaluation of technologies. Scholars have long cautioned that without practitioner involvement, digital tools risk aligning primarily with organizational needs, efficiency and managerial control, rather than professional practices rooted in tacit, relational, and client-centered approaches. Absent such involvement, social workers may experience technostress, disempowerment, or resistance, as tools designed to support them instead impose additional burdens. Ensuring alignment with professional practices is therefore essential if LLMs are to strengthen rather than undermine the ethical and relational dimensions of social work.

In relation to the conference theme Social Work and Interdisciplinary Research: researching and facilitating evidence-informed practice and policy, this paper demonstrates how attention to dual modes of LLM use can inform strategies for integrating AI into welfare services. It further highlights how LLMs are already shaping practice on the ground in ways that elude formal governance. We argue that interdisciplinary research bridging technological innovation, organizational policy, and social work practice is critical to the development of chatbot applications that are not only efficient but also ethically robust and relationally sensitive.

Social investment funds (SIFs) have emerged in recent decades to showcase public sector interventions’ impact and social value. This chapter examines the argument, paradoxes, and constitutive effects of SIFs as an evaluation logic within the Swedish public sector. The chapter contends that SIFs align with various social impact measurement methods, drawing on data from a multi-site case study, emphasizing accountability by assessing how investments foster social impact and inform stakeholder decision-making. However, expenditures are often deemed justifiable only if they promise a financial return rather than contributing to the overall quality of life. This evaluation approach reflects a knowledge transfer model that struggles to meet modern expectations for evaluation as an objective and impartial truth-telling process. This result leads to a potential symbolic nature of SIF evaluations.

In recent years, measuring devices and movements, such as the social investment perspective, have gained traction, allowing organisations to show the impact and social value of their work. A common characteristic is the persuasive rhetoric of how evaluation, quantification and measurement can improve human service organisations. The aim of this article is to unfold the argumentation for social investment fund (SIF) evaluation in human service organisations in three Swedish municipalities, exposing the logics according to which such proceedings are justified and legitimised in contemporary Swedish welfare state. The article draws on qualitative data from interviews with managers, evaluators and social investment staff, and evaluation reports from three Swedish municipalities. Using modality theory, according to which argumentation and reason are performed, findings reveal that SIF evaluation is promoted as a scientific construct with the possibility of producing certainty in the form of evidence regarding what works in a linear knowledge transfer model. Also, municipalities are portrayed as morally responsible for conducting SIF evaluations, emphasising that despite methodological challenges, pursuing such evaluations remains worthwhile. In this sense, SIF evaluation promotes an argument centred on two mutually reinforcing themes: scientific legitimacy and societal legitimacy.