Yes, it’s challenging, but policymakers and front-line bureaucrats must work together

The author argues that layering more rules on front-line public workers can be counterproductive, burdening them with more paperwork, reporting requirements and other bureaucratic tasks that take time away from working directly with families. Photo illustration by Getty Images.

I got to thinking about Michael Lipsky recently. 

Lipsky is a political scientist best known for his book “Street Level Bureaucracy,” published in 1980. It is a seminal text of public administration now numbering 13 editions. (H/t to Prof. Lelan McLemore, who assigned us this book at my small liberal arts college in 1981.)

In Lipsky’s terminology “street level bureaucrats” are the front-line government employees who interact directly with the public, such as police officers, public school teachers and social workers. Lipsky ascribes power to these people — even labeling it political power — derived  from their ability to shape policy by how they use their discretion at the point of service delivery.

While Lipsky acknowledges this discretion is needed to address case-specific situations, he also worries the actions of front-line staff can undermine the intent of policymakers. While this could be for nefarious reasons, Lipsky focuses more on how factors such as understaffing and lack of training can lead to uneven or inequitable service. 

What got me thinking about Lipsky are recent laws in some states aimed at banning certain books. In Lipsky’s framework, the school librarians are the street level bureaucrats whose discretion is being reigned in by state policymakers. 

I’ll grant that there are more important issues to consider with book banning policies than school librarians losing some discretion. My mom was a school librarian, and I can guarantee you that if she were alive that’s not what she’d be angry about. 

But if you’ve spent a lot of time in the policymaking environment, the tension between policy makers and front-line staff is common and, at times, contentious. 

Front-line staff usually prefer fewer rules and more flexibility in their day-to-day work and generally advocate for more resources — adequate staffing, smaller classrooms, lower caseloads, more training, etc. 

Policymakers, on the other hand, are often focused on ensuring consistency in the treatment of citizens, and accountability and transparency regarding how front-line discretion is used.  

Finding the right balance between policy prescription and front-line discretion can be tricky; each service needs to be considered independently. 

For example, in my field of human services, eligibility for programs like cash assistance, food assistance and Medical Assistance is entirely based on a set of objective policies that should be applied consistently for all applicants. To that end, these programs have been subject to federal standards for quality control for decades to ensure consistency in case administration. Most of these eligibility decisions are now automated. 

On the flip side, as I argued in my commentary about Minnesota’s child protection system in February, child protection is a service that is heavily dependent on the expertise of social workers. The complex family situations need individualized, case-by-case consideration. 

To be clear, the child protection system also needs strong oversight and accountability based on metrics of performance. But layering more rules can be counterproductive, burdening front-line staff with more paperwork, reporting requirements and other bureaucratic tasks that take time away from working directly with families. 

Perhaps nothing in our current cultural context highlights the policy/front-line tension like policing, particularly officers’ use of force. The problems are highly visible, often shocking. But it is difficult to regulate use of force by laws alone. Critical factors like training, strong internal policies and supervision are critical, but are controlled by local agencies, mostly outside of the direct control of policymakers. 

The dilemma for policymakers is that achieving the intended policy outcome is dependent on all these other actors. They need to trust both the individual staff and the organizations those staff work for. 

The tendency for policymakers is to exercise the one tool they have — add more policies. 

Caught in the middle of all of this are the street level bureaucrats themselves. The vast majority are trying to deliver the best service they can while also complying with the increasing volume of rules. 

But, as Lipsky argued over 40 years ago, they often don’t have the resources — time, training, support — to do everything, so they come up with routines or shortcuts. And often those routines or shortcuts reduce time spent with the clients to ensure they have enough time to complete mandatory tasks such as reporting and documentation requirements.

Services and program outcomes can be compromised as a result. 

There is no single solution to this problem, but like most such problems, it can be fixed by improving the policy process. 

Too often, policymakers and front-line staff butt heads over a policy change. Policymakers view resistance from front-line staff as an effort to avoid accountability, when it may represent a legitimate concern about reducing time with clients. And front-line staff do sometimes resist new rules that are necessary to improve accountability and transparency. 

There needs to be more joint ownership over policymaking and service delivery.

Policymakers need to be informed and educated on the realities of front-line service and — here’s where the rubber meets the road — be open to providing more money to maintain essential client engagement. 

Just as policymakers need to be more familiar with the on-the-ground work, front-line staff should be brought into the policymaking process, helping design policies that enhance accountability while minimizing the impact on time with clients.  

Also, maybe we should think about subtracting some rules. The layering of policies over time rarely gets examined or rebalanced. 

Joint ownership could help in that process as well. 

As for book banning, subtraction sounds like a great place to start.