Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:54:03.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Mutatio Sub Pressura’: An Exploration of the Youth Policy Response to the Syrian Refugee Crisis in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

FLORIAN SICHLING Open the ORCID record for FLORIAN SICHLING [Opens in a new window]
FLORIAN SICHLING*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri – St. Louis, School of Social Work, 1 University Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63121, email: sichlingf@umsl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the response of the child welfare system in Germany to the recent refugee crisis. Drawing on administrative data and qualitative interviews with administrators, front-line workers and refugee youth in Nuremberg, the article provides a contextualized account of how the crisis led to the collapse of established bureaucratic procedures, new forms of interagency collaboration and a flexible distribution of responsibilities and tasks. Combining a street-level bureaucracy (SLB) perspective with insights from the literature on crisis and policy change, the analysis shows how the responses of front-line workers effectively altered the content of services, introduced new actors and expanded the professional capacity of the local child welfare system. On a broader level, the findings indicate that front-line practice is not merely guided by policy mandates, but also responds to situational and institutional circumstances. For the child welfare system in Nuremberg, the findings raise important questions about the extent to which aspects of the crisis response will remain a part of the service delivery process moving forward, and whether the recent experience will better prepare them for future crises.

Keywords

youth policyrefugeespolicy implementationcrisis
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 2021 , pp. 706 - 724
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. 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.)

References

Aflaki, I.N. and Freise, M. (2019), ‘Challenging the welfare system and forcing policy innovation? unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Sweden and Germany’, Journal of Refugee Studies.Google Scholar
Alink, F., Boin, A. and t’Hart, P. (2001), ‘Institutional crises and reforms in policy sectors: the case of asylum policy in Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8, 2, 286–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, R. and Flint, J. (2001), ‘Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: snowball research strategies’, Social Research Update, 33, 1, 1–4.Google Scholar
Blaxland, M. (2013), Street-level interpellation: how government addresses mothers claiming income support, Journal of Social Policy, 42, 4, 783–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breit, E., Andreassen, T. A. and Salomon, R. H. (2016), ‘Modification of public policies by street-level organisations: an institutional work perspective’, Journal of Social Policy, 45, 4, 709–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) (2017a), ‘Das Bundesamt in Zahlen 2016: Asyl’, Nürnberg: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge.Google Scholar
BAMF (2017b), ‘Aktuelle Zahlen zu Asyl. April 2017’, Nürnberg: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge.Google Scholar
Bayerisches Landesjugendamt (2009), ‘Empfehlungen zur Inobhutnahme von Kindern und Jugendlichen gemäß § 42 SGB’, München: Bayerisches Landesjugendamt, https://www.blja.bayern.de/service/bibliothek/fachlicheempfehlungen/inobhutnahme.php [accessed 21.08.2018].Google Scholar
Bundesfachverband unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge (BUMF) (2016), ‘Mehr Inobhutnahmen von unbegleiteten minderjährigen Flüchtlingen. Aber Unklarheit über deren Versorgungssituation’, Berlin: Bundesfachverband unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge, https://b-umf.de/src/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Mehr-Inobhutnahmen-von-unbegleitetenminderj%C3%A4hrigen-Fl%C3%BCchtlingen.-Aber-Unklarheit-%C3%BCberderen-Versorgungssituation.pdf [accessed 21.08.2018].Google Scholar
Bach, T. (2010), ‘Policy and management autonomy of federal agencies in Germany’, in Lægreid, P. and Verhoest, K. (eds.), Governance of Public Sector Organizations: Proliferation, Autonomy and Performance, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (1993), Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benz, A. and Goetz, K. H. (1996), ‘The German public sector: national priorities and the international reform agenda’, in Benz, A. and Goetz, K. H. (eds.), A new German public sector?: Reform, adaptation and stability, Abington-on-Thames: Routledge, 1–26.Google Scholar
van Berkel, R., Caswell, D., Kupka, P. and Larsen, F. (2017), Frontline delivery of welfare-to-work policies in Europe: Activating the unemployed, Milton Park: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkland, T. A. (1997), After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Birkland, T. A. (2006), Lessons of disaster: Policy change after catastrophic events, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Boin, A. and t’Hart, P. (2003), ‘Public leadership in times of crisis: Mission impossible?’, Public Administration Review, 63, 5, 544–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boin, A., t’Hart, P. and McConnell, A. (2009), ‘Crisis exploitation: political and policy impacts of framing contests’, Journal of European Public Policy, 16, 1, 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boin, A., Stern, E. and Sundelius, B. (2005), The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, M., t’Hart, P. and Gray, P. (1996), ‘Understanding policy fiascos’, Public Administration-Abingdon, 74, 3, 552–552.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (1990), ‘Implementation as policy politics’, in Calista, D. J. and Palumbo, D. (eds.) Implementation and the policy process: Opening up the black box, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 107–118.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (2012), ‘Reflections on street-level bureaucracy: past, present, and future’, Public Administration Review, 72, 6, 940–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. and Marston, G. (2013), Work and the welfare state: Street-level organizations and workfare politics, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Çelikaksoy, A. and Wadensjö, E. (2017), Policies, practices and prospects: the unaccompanied minors in Sweden. Social Work & Society, 15, 1.Google Scholar
Cortell, A. P. and Peterson, S. (1999), ‘Altered states: Explaining domestic institutional change’, British Journal of Political Science, 29, 1, 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, S. and Hansén, D. (2004), ‘Learning under pressure: The effects of politicization on organizational learning in public bureaucracies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 2, 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, M. (2001), The politics of misinformation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, R. F. (1979), ‘Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy Decisions’, Political Science Quarterly, 94, 4, 601–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frechon, I. and Marquet, L. (2017), ‘Unaccompanied minors in France and inequalities in care provision under the child protection system’, Social Work & Society, 15, 2.Google Scholar
George, A. L. (1980), Presidential decisionmaking in foreign policy: The effective use of information and advice, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Gimeno-Monterde, C. and Gutiérrez-Sánchez, J.D. (2019), ‘Fostering unaccompanied migrating minors. A cross-border comparison’, Children and Youth Services Review, 99, 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (2017), Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative Research, Abington-on-Thames: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldmann, K. (1988), Change and stability in foreign policy: The problems and possibilities of Détente, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, P. A. (1993), ‘Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain’, Comparative politics, 25, 3, 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, J. J. and Ellwein, T. (2012), Das Regierungssystem der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, K. (2000), ‘Elephants on the move. Patterns of public pension reform in OECD Countries’, European Review, 8, 3, 353–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horgan, D. and Ní Raghallaigh, M. (2019), ‘The social care needs of unaccompanied minors: the Irish experience’, European Journal of Social Work, 22, 1, 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Høybye-Mortensen, M. (2013), ‘Decision-making tools and their influence on caseworkers’ room for discretion’, The British Journal of Social Work, 45, 2, 600–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, E. D. (1990), ‘Child maltreatment: Can it be defined?’ Social Service Review, 64, 1, 60–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, H. and Sabatier, P. A. (1993), ‘The Dynamics of Policy-Oriented Learning’, in Sabatier, P. A. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (eds.), Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview Press, 41–56.Google Scholar
Jessen, J.T. and Tufte, P.A. (2014), ‘Discretionary decision-making in a changing context of activation policies and welfare reforms’, Journal of Social Policy, 43, 2, 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeler, J. T. S. (1993), ‘Opening the window for reform: Mandates, crises, and extraordinary policy-making’, Comparative Political Studies, 25, 4, 433–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kersbergen, K. (2003), ‘The declining resistance of welfare states to change?’, in Kuhnle, S. and van Deth, J. (eds.), The survival of the European welfare state, Abington-on-Thames: Routledge, 37–54.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. W. (1995), Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980), Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Mason, C., Spinks, A., Hajkowicz, S. and Hobman, L. (2014), ‘Exploring the contribution of frontline welfare service delivery to capability development in Australia’, Journal of Social Policy, 43, 3, 635–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matland, R. E. (1995), ‘Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 2, 145–174.Google Scholar
May, P. J., Sapotichne, J. and Workman, S. (2009), ‘Widespread policy disruption: Terrorism, public risks, and homeland security’, Policy Studies Journal, 37, 2, 171–194.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, 10, 2, 329–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ní Raghallaigh, M. and Thornton, L. (2017), ‘Vulnerable childhood, vulnerable adulthood: Direct provision as aftercare for aged-out separated children seeking asylum in Ireland’, Critical Social Policy, 37, 3, 386–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nohrstedt, D. (2008), The politics of crisis policymaking: Chernobyl and Swedish nuclear energy policy, Policy Studies Journal, 36, 2, 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nohrstedt, D. and Weible, C. M. (2010), ‘The logic of policy change after crisis: Proximity and subsystem interaction’, Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 1, 2, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, J. P. (1992), Analyzing institutional dynamics, Nuffield College, Oxford, 247–271.Google Scholar
Parton, N. (1998), ‘Risk, advanced liberalism and child welfare: The need to rediscover uncertainty and ambiguity’, The British Journal of Social Work, 28, 1, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000), ‘Not just what, but when: Timing and sequence in political processes’, Studies in American Political Development, 14, 1, 72–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, N. W. (1984), Political Innovation in America, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pralle, S. (2006), ‘The “mouse that roared”: Agenda setting in Canadian pesticides politics’, Policy Studies Journal, 34, 2, 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressman, J. L. and Wildavsky, A. (1984), Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; Or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, U. and Kouzmin, A. (1997), ‘Crises and crisis management: Toward comprehensive government decision making’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 2, 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999), ‘The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment’, in Sabatier, P. A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, Colorado: Westview Press, 117–166.Google Scholar
Seidel, F. A. and James, S. (2019), ‘Unaccompanied refugee minors in Sweden: Challenges in residential care and the role of professional social work’, Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 36, 2, 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schram, S. F., Soss, J., Fording, R. C. and Houser, L. (2009), ‘Deciding to discipline: Race, choice, and punishment at the frontlines of welfare reform’, American Sociological Review, 74, 3, 398–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. D. and Donovan, S. E. F. (2003), ‘Child welfare practice in organizational and institutional context’, Social Service Review, 77, 4, 541–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, E. (1997), ‘Crisis and learning: A conceptual balance sheet’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 5, 2, 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tummers, L.G., Bekkers, V., Vink, E. and Musheno, M. (2015), ‘Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 4, 1099–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werdermann, D. (2017), ‘Gesetzliche Grundlage’, in Hartwig, L., Mennen, G. and Schrapper, C. (eds.), Handbuch Soziale Arbeit mit geflüchteten Kindern und Familien, Weinheim: Juventa, 176–184.Google Scholar
Wollmann, H. (2000), ‘Local government modernization in Germany: Between incrementalism and reform waves’, Public Administration, 78, 4, 915–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar