Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:48:39.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Displacement as Regulation: New Regulatory Technologies and Front-Line Decision-Making in Ontario Works

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2017

Jennifer Raso
Jennifer Raso*
Affiliation:
SJD Candidate, University of Toronto Faculty of Law Junior Fellow, Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores how new regulatory technologies and front-line decision-makers reshape one another. Drawing on a recent qualitative study of caseworker decision-making in the Ontario Works program, it demonstrates the dialectical relationship between new case management software and caseworkers. While new technologies may attempt to deskill and decentre front-line decision-makers, transforming them into data entry clerks, caseworkers learn how to expertly translate and input client data to produce decisions that more closely match their interpretation of clients’ needs and welfare laws. The ways in which workers “manipulate the system” to produce a particular decision, though common knowledge among their colleagues, are black boxed to program managers, auditors, and benefits recipients.

Résumé

Cet article examine les façons par lesquelles les nouvelles technologies de réglementation et les décideurs de première ligne se remodèlent mutuellement. En se fondant sur une récente étude qualitative du processus de prise de décision de travailleurs sociaux du programme Ontario au travail, l’on expose la relation dialectique entre le nouveau logiciel de gestion de cas et les travailleurs sociaux. Alors que les nouvelles technologies visent à réduire le rôle et l’importance des décideurs de première ligne, transformant ceux-ci en simples commis de saisie de données, les travailleurs sociaux apprennent à traduire et à entrer les données des clients de façon à produire les décisions qui correspondent à leur perception des besoins des clients et des lois sur l’assistance sociale. La capacité des travailleurs sociaux à « manipuler le système » pour obtenir une décision donnée est bien connue d’eux-mêmes mais soigneusement cachée des gestionnaires de programmes, des vérificateurs et des bénéficiaires de prestations.

Keywords

discretionstreet-level bureaucratsregulatory technologynew public managementwelfarediscrétionbureaucrates de première lignetechnologie de réglementationnouvelle gestion publiqueassistance sociale
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , April 2017 , pp. 75 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2017 

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

References

AG Ontario (Office of the Auditor General of Ontario). 2015. 2015 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General, Chapter 3, Section 3.12—SAMS—Social Assistance Management System. Toronto: Queen’s Printer.Google Scholar
AG Ontario (Office of the Auditor General of Ontario). 2011. 2011 Annual Report of the Auditor General of Ontario, Chapter 4, Section 4.11—Ontario Works Program. Toronto: Queen’s Printer.Google Scholar
AG Ontario (Office of the Auditor General of Ontario). 2009. 2009 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General, Chapter 3, Section 3.11—Ontario Works Program. Toronto: Queen’s Printer.Google Scholar
Austin, Lisa M. 2012. Getting Past Privacy? Surveillance, the Charter, and the Rule of Law. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 27 (3): 381–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, Robert, and Hawkins, Keith. 1984. Discretionary Justice: Davis Reconsidered. Public Law Winter: 570–99.Google Scholar
Ballucci, Dale. 2012. Subverting and Negotiating Risk Assessment: A Case Study of the LSI in a Canadian Youth Custody Facility. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice 54: 203–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardach, Eugene, and Kagan, Robert. 1982. Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Mary P. 1992. The Myth of Discretion. In The Uses of Discretion, ed. Hawkins, Keith, 129–62. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bevan, Gwyn, and Hood, Christopher. 2006. What’s Missing is What Matters: Targets and Gaming in the English Public Health Care System. Public Administration 84 (3): 517–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, John. 2002. Rules and Principles: A Theory of Legal Certainty. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 27: 47–82.Google Scholar
Brennan, Richard J. 2014. Scrap welfare software until glitches fixed, union urges. Toronto Star, December 18, A6.Google Scholar
Brodkin, Evelyn Z. 1997. Inside the Welfare Contract: Discretion and Accountability in State Welfare Administration. Social Service Review 71 (1): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, Evelyn Z. 2008. Accountability in Street-Level Organizations. International Journal of Public Administration 31: 317–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CCPA (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives). 2016. Ontario’s Social Assistance Poverty Gap. Ottawa: CCPA.Google Scholar
Commission RSAO (Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario). 2012. Brighter Prospects: Transforming Social Assistance in Ontario. Toronto: Queen’s Printer.Google Scholar
Davis, Kenneth Culp. 1969. Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Diller, Matthew. 2000. The Revolution in Welfare Administration: Rules, Discretion and Entrepreneurial Government. New York University Law Review 75 (5): 1121–1220.Google Scholar
Endicott, Timothy. 2002. Vagueness in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gavigan, Shelley AM, and Chunn, Dorothy. 2010. Women, the State and Welfare Law: The Canadian Experience. In The Legal Tender of Gender: Welfare, Law and the Regulation of Women’s Poverty, ed. Gavigan, Shelley A. M. and Chunn, Dorothy, 47–74. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Gilliom, John. 2001. Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, resistance, and the limits of privacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gustafson, Kaaryn. 2011. Cheating Welfare: Public assistance and the criminalization of poverty. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Simon. 2004. Judicial Review and Compliance with Administrative Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Handler, Joel, and Jane Hollingsworth, Ellen. 1971. The “Deserving Poor”: A Study of Welfare Administration. New York: Markham.Google Scholar
Hannah-Moffat, Kelly, Maurutto, Paula, and Turnbull, Sarah. 2009. Negotiated Risk: Actuarial Illusions and Discretion in Probation. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 24 (3): 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Keith. 1992. “The Uses of Discretion: Perspectives from Law and Social Science.” In The Uses of Discretion, ed. Hawkins, Keith, 11–46. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Herd, Dean, and Mitchell, Andrew. 2002. Discouraged, Diverted and Disentitled: Ontario Works New Service Delivery Model. Toronto: Community Social Planning Council of Toronto.Google Scholar
Herd, Dean, Mitchell, Andrew, and Lightman, Ernie. 2005. Rituals of Degradation: Administration as Policy in the Ontario Works Program. Social Policy & Administration 39 (1): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IBM Corporation. 2012. IBM Cúram Social Program Management Platform. http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/social-program-management-platform (accessed August 10, 2016).Google Scholar
Jowell, Jeffrey L. 1975. Law and Bureaucracy: Administrative Discretion and the Limits of Legal Action. Port Washington: Dunellen.Google Scholar
Lascoumes, Pierre, and Le Galès, Patrick. 2007. Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments—From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation. Governance 20 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lens, Vicki. 2005. Bureaucratic Disentitlement After Welfare Reform: Are Fair Hearings the Cure? Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy 12 (1): 13–54.Google Scholar
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. 1983. Bureaucratic Justice: managing social security disability claims. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
MCSS (Ministry of Community and Social Services). 2008. Ontario Works Policy Directive 3.3—Co-Residency. Toronto: Queen’s Printer.Google Scholar
Mosher, Janet. 2010. Intimate Intrusions: Welfare Regulation and Women’s Personal Lives. In The Legal Tender of Gender: Welfare, Law and the Regulation of Women’s Poverty, ed. Gavigan, Shelley A. M. and Chunn, Dorothy, 165–88. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Mosher, Janet, and Hermer, Joe. 2005. Welfare Fraud: the constitution of social assistance as crime. Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada.Google Scholar
Nadasen, Premilla. 2005. Welfare Warriors: the welfare rights movement in the United States. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oberfield, Zachary W. 2014. Becoming Bureaucrats: socialization at the front lines of government service. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ontario. 1968. Royal Commission Inquiry Into Civil Rights, vol. 1, by James Chalmers McRuer, Hon.. Toronto: Queen’s Printer.Google Scholar
Pires, Roberto R. C. 2011. Beyond the Fear of Discretion: Flexibility, performance, and accountability in the management of regulatory bureaucracies. Regulation & Governance 5: 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piven, Frances Fox, and Cloward, Richard. 1993. Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Pricewaterhouse Coopers. 2015. Ministry of Community and Social Services: SAMS Transition Review. http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/social/pwc_final_report.aspx (accessed August 10, 2016).Google Scholar
Prottas, Jeffrey Manditch. 1979. People Processing: The Street-Level Bureaucrat in Public Service Bureaucracies. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, Roy. 1992. Administrative Justice: Discretion and Procedure in Social Security Decision-Making. In The Uses of Discretion, ed. Hawkins, Keith, 295–330. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Soss, Joe, Fording, Richard C., and Schram, Sanford F.. 2011a. Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soss, Joe, Fording, Richard C., and Schram, Sanford F.. 2011b. The Organization of Discipline: From Performance Management to Perversity and Punishment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (Suppl 2): i203–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sossin, Lorne. 2004a. Boldly Going Where No Law Has Gone Before: Call Centres, Intake Scripts, Database Fields, and Discretionary Justice in Social Assistance. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 42 (3): 363–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sossin, Lorne. 2004b. The Politics of Soft Law: How Judicial Decisions Influence Bureaucratic Discretion in Canada. In Judicial Review and Bureaucratic Impact: International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Hertogh, Marc and Halliday, Simon, 129–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tani, Karen M. 2016. States of Dependency: Welfare, Rights, and American Governance, 1935–1972. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
US Dept HHS (Department of Health and Human Services). 2000. Welfare reform information technology: a study of issues in implementing information systems for the temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) program. Washington: US Dept HHS.Google Scholar
Wacquant, Loïc. 2009. Punishing the Poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
OReg 134/98—General Regulation.Google Scholar
Ontario Works Act, 1997 , SO 1997, c25, Sched A.Google Scholar
OReg 134/98—General Regulation.Google Scholar
Ontario Works Act, 1997 , SO 1997, c25, Sched A.Google Scholar