Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: Comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates inEngland and theNetherlands

Abstract

Discretion used to be considered a feature of individuals, but growing literature shows that it has collective features as well. To develop an understanding of the individual and cooperative work of inspectors in using discretion and the discretionary room granted to them, we compared two inspectorates: the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in England and the Joint Inspectorate for Youth (JIY) in the Netherlands. Our analysis reveals that inspectors engage with colleagues, managers, and stakeholders to include other perspectives, gain mandate, and broaden their repertoire. At the CQC, inspectors use their discretion collectively; on their own initiative, they involve others in balancing and interpreting rules to reach judgments. At the JIY, teamwork is central and regulatory teams are granted collective discretionary room. We argue that collective work permits both responsiveness and consistency. In studying the judgments of inspectors and other street-level bureaucrats, it is vital to look at collective work and how it combines consistency and responsiveness.

Double Standards in Frontline Decision Making: A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration

“…The evaluations officials make based on double standards have significant consequences as this practice affects the distribution of opportunities and service allocation and thereby reinforces inequalities existing in society. This raises important questions for public management scholars focused on the question of how public organizations are managed to multiple ends such as consistency and responsiveness (e.g., Piore, 2011 ; Rutz et al, 2017 ).…”

“…Trust, as a reciprocal notion, shifts the attention from predetermined rules and procedures to aspects of the interaction ( Stivers, 1994 ; Yang, 2005 ). As such, a tension exists between the organization and the individual street-level bureaucrat; the former encouraging consistency using digital systems and managerial control, the latter opposing this control in the need to be responsive to specific cases ( Rutz, Mathew, Robben, & De Bont, 2017 ). This increased street-level discretion thus constitutes a source of uncertainty not only for managers and citizens but also for street-level officials who experience ambiguities and dilemmas in discretionary decision making ( Raaphorst, 2018 ).…”

Coping with tensions between standardization and individualization in social assistance

“…But an increase may also create contradictions between rules and a need for professional assessments (Evans and Harris 2004). In the area of ICT, computerization is both suggested to relocate discretion to other actors (Bovens and Zouridis 2002), or to be only one among several factors shaping discretion, where both street-level bureaucrats and clients may use ICT as an enabling tool (Buffat 2015), collectively across organizational levels (Rutz et al 2017). Tools of decision-making, such as standardized forms, may similarly impact discretion depending on their theoretical foundation and the room for interpretation (Høybye-Mortensen 2015).…”

Public sector employees in a challenging work environment

“…In addition, challenges are associated with the growing expectation to serve citizens and to act in a responsive way. For example, in the field of inspection services we detect a recently intensified shift from command and control based inspection practices to responsive regulation (Rutz et al ). This trend leads to changed inspector–inspectee relationships in which inspectors do not simply enforce rules and regulations, but are also expected to take into account inspectees’ needs and demands (Vigoda ).…”