LAUSR

accepting that the basic values and beliefs of their organisation erode or change due to influence of the political requirements. Because these experts are experienced in fundraising and lobbying, they insist on maintaining their ideational base. They are not in favour of a wholesale. They need to convince policy makers of the importance of their interventions – however not at any price. What impact does social lobbyism entail? In the third part, Dähnrich points to ‘missing links’. For example, he mentions a lack of training with respect to communication with stakeholders, which in turn implies that ordinary staff are not capable of to give efficient information to local and regional partners. This said, he suggests workshop modules aimed at staff to develop public relations. These modules may focus on the legal framework of youth work, social rights, how to deal with power, etc. Such foci appear as highly relevant as long as welfare organisations have to explain their work and the outcomes of that work. Eventually, the fourth part resumes the findings of the dissertation. Among other things, Dähnrich points to his probably most important finding: that social lobbyism still lacks professionalism and transparency and functions more like a defence rather than a way of informing the public about good outcomes of social and pedagogical efforts in the everyday life of young migrants. The dissertation is worthwhile studying and reflecting on. Social work and social pedagogy are subject to economisation and political requirements – the latter not always based on evidence of research. To the reviewer the message roughly sounds: welfare organisations and welfare provision must avoid that the public are only ‘entertained’ by means of snapshots of professional mistakes, scandals in care, etc. The professionals have to conquer new land and become important as well as an outstanding voice in public debate on welfare. A voice you cannot just dismiss. Social work and social pedagogy have an impact – for instance related to the context (how services are shaped and developed), the systems (how services and infrastructures need better coordination), the outcomes (in particular with respect to professional training, community work and quality) and perhaps even on socio-political strategies (how services are made comprehensive, how policy is developed). Although the readership might not agree with every part of Dähnrich’s analysis, I would welcome further discussion.