The Space in the Rules: Bureaucratic Discretion in the Administration of Ontario Works

Abstract

One of the central lessons taken from the work of Michael Lipsky on street level bureaucracies is that street level bureaucrats make policy. Two resulting broad public policy concerns are the impact of street level decision making on public policy and the impact on citizens’ access to public services. This article reports on a study of the views of Ontario Works’ case managers on the nature of bureaucratic discretion in the setting of a highly rule bound provincial income assistance programme in Canada. The focus of this article is on case managers’ interaction with contradictory and complex policy directives. An argument is developed that in such a restrictive policy setting, meeting the goals of unswerving policy implementation and citizen access to public services may work at cross purposes.

Inside Asylum Bureaucracy: Organizing Refugee Status Determination in Austria

“…The study thus relates to a small strand of research that applies social theory to the context of front line work. Street-level bureaucracy research traditionally focuses on contradictions as a characteristic of bureaucratic working conditions Taylor and Kelly 2006;Collins 2016); administrators' key dilemmas were identified in the standard works of and Lipsky ( [1980). In particular, scholars have investigated issues of discretion in the process of decision making (Brodkin 1997;Hupe 2013;Buffat 2015); agents' behaviors, identities, narratives, and strategies (Maynard-Moody and Musheno 2000; Dubois 2010; Durose 2011; Piore 2011); the role of agents role in law enforcement (Loyens 2015) and implementing -or making -policy Meyers and Lehmann Nielsen 2012); and the responsiveness of street-level bureaucracies (Jewell 2007;.…”

Practices of activation in frontline interactions: Coercion, persuasion, and the role of trust in activation policies in Germany

“…In particular, research into the tradition of the street‐level bureaucracy approach brought forward by Michael Lipsky ( [1980]) has drawn attention to the key role of street‐level organizations and frontline workers for the delivery of activation. Studies have examined the influence of organizational and managerial characteristics on frontline work (e.g., Brodkin & Marston, ), and in particular have looked at the nature of frontline workers' discretionary decision‐making within the context of activation policies and NPM reforms (Baker Collins, ; Brodkin, ; Evans & Harris, ; Jessen & Tufte, ). Moreover, research has stressed the moral dimension of street‐level bureaucracy, focusing on frontline workers' judgements and the social construction and categorization of clients (Maynard‐Moody & Musheno, ; Sainsbury, ; Tabin & Perriard, ).…”

“…Studies have examined the influence of organizational and managerial characteristics on frontline work (e.g., Brodkin & Marston, 2013), and in particular have looked at the nature of frontline workers' discretionary decision-making within the context of activation policies and NPM reforms (Baker Collins, 2016;Brodkin, 2011;Evans & Harris, 2004;Jessen & Tufte, 2014). Moreover, research has stressed the moral dimension of street-level bureaucracy, focusing on frontline workers' judgements and the social construction and categorization of clients (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2012;Sainsbury, 2008;Tabin & Perriard, 2016).…”

Workfare under Ontario Works: Making Sense of Jobless Work

“…Herd et al . ) and a recent study examined the role of bureaucratic discretion among OW case managers (Baker Collins ). This study includes interviews with OW staff including not only frontline case managers, but also supervisors and administrators, and explores specifically how they see the functioning of workfare in the overall administration of social assistance.…”