People-processing agencies affect clients through the very interaction routines themselves.

Evidence

Street-level bureaucrats organize the context of decision making so that they are able to process clients under circumstances most favorable to controlling their behavior. In this they are not constrained by fear of client retaliation and for the most part can impose on the clients whatever costs are involved. Thus street-level bureaucrats develop routines that prepare people for client status, and their agencies impose standardized ways of processing people to maximize utilization of agency resources (see chapters 7 to 9). In this way disruptive, antagonistic, or uncooperative client behavior is discouraged before it surfaces. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 465 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

There are four basic dimensions to the control exercised by street-level bureaucrats over clients. Each significantly affects some dimension of client “construction.” Briefly, street-level bureaucrats exercise control in: (1) distributing the benefits and sanctions that are supposed to be provided by the agencies; (2) structuring the context of clients’ interactions with them and their agencies; (3) teaching clients how to behave as clients; and (4) allocating psychological rewards and sanctions associated with clients entering into relationships with them. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 460 (#expands, via linked claim)

But agency practices do not always lead to predictability. When they lead to delay, confusion, and uncertainty they assign considerable costs to clients. At times routines established to protect clients are distorted to minimize contact or services. For example, to insure responsiveness housing inspectors may be required to make more than one effort to contact complainants. However, inspectors may become adept at telephoning complainants when they are unlikely to be home or fail to keep appointments punctually. In Boston this practice “enhanced the prospects of no one being home when the inspector arrived-a practice which when repeated thrice, enabled cases to be dropped.” — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 741 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Frontline workers’ discretionary acts, not stated policy, constitute government action — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 69; Anticipation of later review makes workers prejudge and filter clients for other agencies — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 557; Frontline workers control clients by structuring interactions before behavior emerges — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 465 (+4 more)

Broader Connections