Street-Level Bureaucrats and Intersectional Policy Logic: a Case Study of LGBTQ Policy and Implementation Barriers

Abstract

Without clear federal mandates protecting the rights of transgender and gender nonconforming people, local governments are drafting their own legislation that either protects or limits these populations' rights. This leaves street-level bureaucrats situated in between competing auspices, conflicting mandates, and a constrained sense of selfdetermination when they are tasked with applying emerging legislation in a policy gray area. This paper considers the policy logic of an intersectional approach to LGBTQ policy, as well as the implementation barriers street-level bureaucrats may face when operationalizing LGBTQ policy in a politically complex environment. First, we use a piece of local legislation designed by transgender and LGB youth as an implementation case study focused on policy logic and policy triggers. Second, we employ thematic analysis for analyzing open-ended responses to 281 surveys completed by teachers and other school staff after training around implementation of a new district-wide policy anchored in an intersectional approach. Beyond normative, protracted implementation timelines, even when front-line workers were in full support of LGBTQ rights, tension still surfaces around the internalization of bureaucracy, fear of disciplinary sanctions, a perception of competing rights, and ambivalence with mediating between personal, familial, and youth agency. Even when using equity-focused policy approaches, stakeholders can expect to encounter implementation barriers with street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) while trying to influence higher orders of government through local advocacy and action. Altering the discourse on gender identity remains difficult in the current political environment surrounding LGBTQ rights.

How street-level bureaucrats exercise their discretion to encourage clients’ political participation: A case study of Israeli LGBTQ+ teachers

“…Fourth, the study validates the observation through the case of LGBTQ+ teachers in Israel. In contrast to previous studies that dealt with the LGBTQ+ context from the clients' point of view (Baker et al, 2020), this is the first study, to my knowledge, that focuses on LGBTQ+ street-level bureaucrats themselves. This case study is particularly interesting, as it makes it possible to identify that when street-level bureaucrats have an interest in acting to advance policies that concern them personally (Davidovitz and Cohen, 2022b), it may play a role in their inclination to recruit clients to advance their political agenda.…”

Life in a pandemic: intersectional approach exploring experiences of LGBTQ during COVID-19

“…These measures brought the people worldwide under the same lens and ignored the specific needs and concerns of sexual minorities facing the challenges of social injustice and structural inequality (Bowleg, 2020;Lokot & Avakyan, 2020;Phillips et al, 2020a). The marginalised groups and sexual minorities suffered more during lockdown measures during COVID-19 because of ignorance of intersectionality while devising plans and policies (Baker et al, 2020;Banerjee & Nair, 2020).…”

“…They experienced more stressors because of their multiple and layered identities (Gattamorta et al, 2019;Lokot & Avakyan, 2020). Ignorance of marginalised groups of society aggravated their vulnerabilities and added miseries in their lives (Baker et al, 2020;Salerno, Williams et al, 2020). The LGBTQ+ community is prone to mental health issues and suffers from pre-existing health conditions such as anxiety and depression and social discrimination (Kneale & Bécares, 2020).…”