Contracted flexibility: Normative tensions at the frontlines of social investment programs targeting homelessness

Social investment programs targeting homelessness aim to combine social returns—helping citizens achieve stable housing and improving their wellbeing—with financial returns such as increased self-reliance and reduced public support costs. Research on the practical implementation of social investment programs remains limited, and the perspectives of frontline professionals are largely absent. To address this gap, our article presents a study of two social investment programs with outcome-based repayment schemes in Denmark. Our findings suggest that, in line with their objectives, the programs enhance frontline discretion, enabling professionals to develop dynamic, cross-sectoral responses to the complex needs of citizens in/at risk of homelessness. At the same time, the formalization embedded in contracts risks stifling innovation and constraining flexibility, producing a paradox we term contracted flexibility. The case studies show how the programs generate new normative tensions between efficiency, respect, fairness, and responsiveness, which frontline professionals manage through coping responses ranging from successfully advocating contract modifications to emotionally distancing themselves from repayment goals. The study ultimately seeks to advance a bottom-up normative theorization of social investment programs. Drawing on Zacka, we propose beginning policy deliberations with the question of how we want the state to interact with citizens. If frontline professionals are to remain sensitive to competing normative considerations in a sustainable way, programs must be implemented in ways that protect their moral integrity. Including the voices of frontline professionals in considerations of how, whether and when public services should be delivered as social investments is therefore essential.