Benjamin Ewert

Hybride Organisationen im Bereich sozialer Dienste. Ein Konzept, sein Hintergrund und seine Implikationen

Welche Bedeutung hat das Wort hybrid? Zunachst einmal zielt die Bezeichnung ›hybrid‹ auf eine simple Feststellung ab: Elemente, die ursprunglich mit einer je unterschiedlichen Sphare assoziiert wurden, verbinden sich miteinander, und zwar innerhalb einer Organisationsform. Verschiedene Autoren haben in den letzten Jahren den Begriff hybrid in den sozialwissenschaftlichen Diskurs, speziell in die Diskussion uber Organisationen im Dritten Sektor und uber die Gestalt von sozialen Dienstleistungsorganisationen eingefuhrt (vgl. Evers/Laville 2004; Brandsen et al. 2005). Im Vordergrund steht dabei die Beschreibung von Organisationen, die in unterschiedlicher Art und Weise Charaktermerkmale kombinieren, die normalerweise trennscharf dem Staat, dem Markt oder Organisationen des Dritten Sektors zugeschrieben werden. Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, zunachst Hintergrundkonzepte und Vorstellungen des Dritten Sektors als einer intermediaren Sphare zu skizzieren. Der Dritte Sektor, verstanden als intermediarer Bereich, weist Uberschneidungen mit dem Konzept hybrider Organisationen auf und bildet einen wichtigen Argumentationshintergrund.

Building a taxonomy of integrated palliative care initiatives: results from a focus group

Background Empirical evidence suggests that integrated palliative care (IPC) increases the quality of care for palliative patients and supports professional caregivers. Existing IPC initiatives in Europe vary in their design and are hardly comparable. InSuP-C, a European Union research project, aimed to build a taxonomy of IPC initiatives applicable across diseases, healthcare sectors and systems. Methods The taxonomy of IPC initiatives was developed in cooperation with an international and multidisciplinary focus group of 18 experts. Subsequently, a consensus meeting of 10 experts revised a preliminary taxonomy and adopted the final classification system. Results Consisting of eight categories, with two to four items each, the taxonomy covers the process and structure of IPC initiatives. If two items in at least one category apply to an initiative, a minimum level of integration is assumed to have been reached. Categories range from the type of initiative (items: pathway, model or guideline) to patients’ key contact (items: non-pc specialist, pc specialist, general practitioner). Experts recommended the inclusion of two new categories: level of care (items: primary, secondary or tertiary) indicating at which stage palliative care is integrated and primary focus of intervention describing IPC givers’ different roles (items: treating function, advising/consulting or training) in the care process. Conclusions Empirical studies are required to investigate how the taxonomy is used in practice and whether it covers the reality of patients in need of palliative care. The InSuP-C project will test this taxonomy empirically in selected initiatives using IPC.

Blueprints for the Future of Welfare Provision? Shared Features of Service Innovations across Europe

This article discusses localised forms of social innovation in social services in relation to social policy and welfare issues. It draws upon research findings from the EU project ‘Welfare Innovations at the local Level in favour of Cohesion’ (WILCO), which takes in social innovations in twenty European cities. First, we argue why there is currently a significant gap between the debate on social innovation and the debate on social welfare reforms. Second, we present attempts that have been made to identify and interpret recurring approaches and instruments in the social innovations studied in relation to various dimensions of the debate on social welfare and services, such as the search for new ways of addressing users and citizens; the emphasis on new risks and related approaches to the issues of rights and responsibilities; and finally the concern with issues of governance. We argue that the features of the local innovations we identified may be significant for welfare systems at large, going beyond the introduction of special new items in special fields. However, the degree to which this will come about in reality will depend on building more bridges of shared understanding between concerns with social innovation on the one hand and welfare reforms on the other hand.

Social Innovation for Social Cohesion

In light of the major challenges facing societies and political and social systems in Europe, there is an increasing focus on micro-scale social innovations. But what can such innovations contribute? How can they best be understood? And how can a positive interaction between these forms of social innovation and public policies for reform be ensured? The EU-funded international research project, ‘Welfare Innovations at the Local Level in Favour of Cohesion’ (WILCO) aimed to explore how social innovations can help political actors as well as organisations and movements from civil society in finding better coping strategies with respect to social inclusion. The project analysed both specific social innovations and the ways in which they are taken up by established local welfare systems. This remit implied studying both sides of the social innovation phenomenon: first the projects that represent social innovation; second, the developments that have been set in train within established welfare systems as a consequence.

Berlin: Kreuzberg Acts—Entrepreneurship in the District

The innovation of “Kreuzberg Acts—entrepreneurship in the district” results in the intertwining of two issues that are usually separated: On one hand, individual consultancy for (future) entrepreneurs and, on the other hand, a kind of concern with community development and urban planning addressing different local groups. Thereby, “Kreuzberg Acts” bridges economic and social concerns. For instance, those interested in founding a start-up are coached by local mentors on how to apply for public subsidies and how to launch an effective marketing campaign. On the other hand, the project is striving for street credibility by building bridges to the local economy. Moreover, project leaders develop strategies together with participants about how locals may benefit from the districts’ booming economic sectors such as healthcare or tourism. Respective inventions are thought of in a neighbourhood-friendly way, for example, by devising small-scale business ideas that fit the local social ecology.