Street-level bureaucrats are controversial because their policy is immediate and personal, unlike remote programs

Evidence

I have argued that street-level bureaucrats engender controversy because they must be dealt with if policy is to change. A second reason street-level bureaucrats tend to be the focus of public controversy is the immediacy of their interactions with citizens and their impact on peoples’ lives. The policy delivered by street-level bureaucrats is most often immediate and personal. They usually make decisions on the spot (although sometimes they try not to) and their determinations are focused entirely on the individual. In contrast, an urban renewal program might destroy a neighborhood and replace and substitute new housing and different people, but the policy was prolonged, had many different stages, and was usually played out in arenas far removed from the daily life of neighborhood residents. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 105

Categorization

• XREF: Contrasts with remote/high-level policy delivery — relevant to comparing which administrative tier routinizes stereotypes faster; connects to reader’s discretion-vs-culture speed question. — connects to: Street-level policy is immediate and personal while large programs operate at distance; Street-level bureaucrats are defined by direct citizen contact plus discretion — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 71; Street-level bureaucrats are frontline workers exercising substantial job discretion

Broader Connections

• Street-level policy is immediate and personal while large programs operate at distance #corroborates (1.00)
• Street-level bureaucrats are defined by direct citizen contact plus discretion #expands (0.80) — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 71
• Street-level bureaucrats are frontline workers exercising substantial job discretion #expands (0.75)