A feedback view of behavioural distortions from perceived public service gaps at ‘street‐level’ policy implementation: The case of unintended outcomes in public schools

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmine Bianchi ◽  
Robinson Salazar Rua
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Street Level

Street-Level Bureaucrats: Discretion and Compliance in Policy Implementation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Evans
Keyword(s):  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Service Provision ◽  
Public Services ◽  
Service Workers ◽  
Frontline Workers ◽  
Street Level ◽  
Conflicting Demands ◽  
Street Level Bureaucrats ◽  
Street Level Bureaucracy

In 1980 Michael Lipsky published “Street-level Bureaucracy,” arguing that public policy is often vague and imprecise, and relies on frontline workers to make sense of it on the ground in delivering public services. At the same time, the book is critical of frontline workers for not complying with policy in their use of discretion. Lipsky’s approach has influenced a great deal of subsequent analysis of public service provision, but continues to contain an unresolved tension at its core. If policy is vague, how can discretion be judged non-compliant against it? The street-level bureaucracy approach has tended to seek to resolve this tension by assuming that all public services are fundamentally the same and that all public service workers should use discretion in a particular way. While street-level bureaucracies—front line public services—are similar in that they are subject to policies, operate under conditions of inadequate resources, and afford frontline workers discretion in their work, there are also significant differences between types of public services in the ways they work with policy and the nature and extent of discretion of staff delivering the service. Different services do different things; the nature of the policy they work with varies, and the logic of provision and priorities vary between services. Policy, for instance, may refer to a precise set of instructions, or to setting out particular concerns or broad-brush commitments. Some services, such as benefits provision, are specified in detailed policy which not only sets out what they can do but also how decisions should be made. Others services, such as policing, are subject to a range of policies and concerns often expressed as conflicting demands that have to be balanced and managed in the particular circumstances of their application. And others, mainly human services, are primarily thought of in terms what the professionals within provide, and assumes a logic of service provision to be located in those providing the service. Policy is sometimes more explicit and discretion narrower; it is sometimes looser and relies more on discretion. It may, in some circumstances, be sufficient to refer to policy to understand what services are supposed to do; in other circumstances, policy alone provides a poor picture of what’s expected. Street-level bureaucracy analysis is too broad-brush and cannot capture the range of ideas of compliance in public services. It tends to equate policy with instruction and judgement with organizational thinking, and to see non-compliance as endemic in the use of discretion. In doing this, it fails to appreciate the variety of relationships between policy and public services; the varied extent of discretion in different settings, and the range of concerns and ethical commitments in different public services. Compliance in policy implementation needs to be sensitive to different types of public services and the subsequent variety of commitments and concerns of street-level bureaucrats in those public services.

A behavioural model of heuristics and biases in frontline policy implementation

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-67
Author(s):  
Alice Moseley ◽  
Eva Thomann
Keyword(s):  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Mitigation Strategies ◽  
Heuristics And Biases ◽  
Allocation Of Resources ◽  
Service Workers ◽  
Frontline Workers ◽  
Street Level

This article theorises how behavioural public administration can help improve our understanding of frontline policy implementation. The human factors that characterise policy implementation remain undertheorised: individual variation in policy implementation is dismissed as mere “noise” that hinders predictability in policy implementation. This article aims to fill this gap. We provide a model for street level decision-making which outlines the role of heuristics and biases in frontline workers’ allocation of resources and sanctions. Based on an analysis of the behavioural and street-level bureaucracy literature, we present 11 testable propositions that point to predictable patterns in the ways that bounded rationality influences policy implementation and outcomes. Heuristics can help hard-pressed frontline public service workers to make decisions but may also produce social inequity or inefficient or ineffective service. Therefore, we need to improve understanding of biases that are common among frontline workers in order to inform the development of appropriate mitigation strategies, such as de-biasing or even ‘re-biasing’ (nudging).

scholarly journals ‘Chatting Shit’ in the Jobcentre: Navigating Workfare Policy at the Street-Level

2021 ◽  
pp. 095001702110241
Author(s):  
Jamie Redman
Keyword(s):  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Young Men ◽  
Survival Strategies ◽  
Street Level ◽  
The Uk

Since the mid-1980s, out-of-work benefit receipt in the UK has been increasingly governed by a ‘workfarist’ mesh of conditionality and activation policies. A wealth of research has found that conditionality and activation policies trigger a range of harmful outcomes for benefit claimants. However, this research largely ignores how claimants may struggle against these policies to eschew harmful outcomes. Drawing on longitudinal interviews with 15 young men, this article demonstrates how claimants can subvert policy implementation to prioritise their own needs and interests. It is concluded that claimant struggles against policy implementation most accurately reflect survival strategies and are predominantly rooted in the ‘material nexus’ of class-based inequalities in capitalist societies.

scholarly journals Pension Reform: An Assessment of Policy Implementation in Kaduna and Niger States Public Service, Nigeria

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Amina Lami Abdullahi ◽  
Ramatu Hyelni Zarma ◽  
Okopi Alexander Momoh ◽  
Hauwa Sani Jandutse ◽  
Hassan Muhammad Abubakar
Keyword(s):  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Pension Reform

scholarly journals Implementasi Kebijakan Online Single Submission pada Pelayanan Perizinan Usaha (Studi Kasus di DPMTSP Kota Bandung & Kabupaten Bandung)

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-92
Author(s):  
Rodlial Ramdhan Tackbir Abubakar
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Qualitative Approach ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Service Business ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

AbstractOnline Single Submission (OSS) is an application that can be used for all business registration and application processes as well as other licensing applications included in the business licensing service. This study aims to examine how the implementation of online single submissions on business licensing services in Bandung city and Bandung Regency. This study used descriptive qualitative approach, with observation, interview, and documentation as its data collection techniques. The research results showed that business licensing services using online single submissions are already good, but these efforts have not been running optimally, there are still obstacles that are often faced by DPMPTSP Bandung City and Bandung Regency, especially regarding supporting facilities and disharmony between central and regional regulations related to the implementation of online single submission.Keywords: Policy Implementation, Online Single Submission, Public Service, Business Licensing Services

The Education of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales Public Schools Since 1788: Part 2

1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 20-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.W. Harris
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Public School ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Aboriginal People ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Aboriginal Children

It is uncertain when the last exclusion of children from a public school, merely for having some Aboriginal ancestry, actually occurred. In 1937, the Commonwealth and States’ conference on Aboriginal matters recommended assimilation as a general policy rather than protection, particularly with regard to the detribalized, part-caste Aboriginal people. In 1938, the New South Wales Public Service Board in its report on the Aborigines Protection Board, recommended the policy of assimilation be implemented in schools. In 1940, the Aborigines Protection Act was amended. The Aborigines Protection Board was renamed the Aborigines Welfare Board and restructured to include Aboriginal members. The complete responsibility for the education of all Aboriginal children was transferred to the New South Wales Department of Education. Almost overnight, the policy of segregation was changed to assimilation.

Evaluating the Effects of Public Policy Implementation on Foods Offered in Mississippi Public Schools

2012 ◽  
Vol 112 (9) ◽  
pp. A80
Author(s):  
C. Snyder ◽  
E.F. Molaison ◽  
J.R. Kolbo ◽  
L. Zhang ◽  
B. Harbaugh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Public Policy Implementation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document