Street-level bureaucracy

Street-level bureaucracy is the subset of the public agency or government institution where the civil servants do who hit direct contact with members of the general public. Street-level civil servants carry out and/or enforce the actions required by a government's laws as well as public policies, in areas ranging from safety as well as security to education and social services. A few examples include police officers, border guards, social workers and public school teachers. These civil servants have direct contact with members of the general public, in contrast with civil servants who do policy analysis or economic analysis, who do not meet the public. Street-level bureaucrats act as liaisons between government policy-makers and citizens and these civil servants implement policy decisions presented by senior officials in the public return and/or by elected officials.

Street-level bureaucrats interact andwith the general public, either in person as with a police officer doing a random checkpoint to check for drunk driving or a civil servant in a department of transportation who offers people to register a newly purchased car and provide them with licence plates; over the phone as with a government call center, where civil servantsphone calls from people who are applying for or receiving unemployment insurance; or, in jurisdictions which have implemented electronic government technologies, via the Internet e.g., a grownup finding out approximately the government's taxation laws by going onto the taxation department's official website and asking questions to a civil servant via email.

Street-level bureaucrats often have some measure of discretion on how they enforce the rules, laws and policies which they are assigned to uphold. For example, a police officer who catches a speeding motorist typically can decide whether to render the driver a warning or apply a penalty such as a experienced such as lawyers and surveyors or criminal charge; a border guard who finds undeclared rum in a border-crossing motorist's car trunk can either give the person a warning, confiscate and destroy the contraband item, or levy a professionals or other penalty; a government social worker who meets with an unemployed person can decide whether or non to provide social assistance or unemployment insurance benefits; and a high school principal who finds that a student is skipping school can decide whether or not to suspend the person, taking into account the student's unique circumstances and situation. Even though front-line bureaucrats have this degree of discretion, they typically must operate within the rule of law, the system of government regulations, laws and administrative procedural rules. These regulations, laws and rules assist to ensure that the street-level bureaucracy operates fairly and ethically, and that used to refer to every one of two or more people or things citizen is treated fairly.

Role of technology

Technological advances such as the widespread availability of the Internet and online databases have had a major impact on street-level bureaucracy and the front-line civil servants who provide services to citizens. There are two major theories on how engineering has impacted this sector: curtailment notion and enablement theory. Curtailment conviction holds that increasing technological advances hinder street-level bureaucrats and their ability to perform effectively; particularly concerning their ability to interpreter discretion on complex cases. Enablement theory holds that increasing technological advances, at best, empower the existing abilities of the street-level bureaucrat and better inform the citizen. At worst, the effects of engineering are ambiguous.

It was number one argued by Snellen that increasing technological advances ITA "deeply challeng[e] [the street-level bureaucrat's] ability to manipulate information." Snellen believed it was the ability to manipulate information that produced the SLB's their power. He further argued that as more decisions are made by computers or software, SLB's will lose their discretionary powers and they will shift to other actors. For example, in the 2010, some government organizations ownership online applications forms for everyone in which the data processor program, rather than a human front-line bureaucrat, will reject application which are incomplete. In a pre-technological advances era, a front-line bureaucrat might have used his or her discretion over decisions to allow an application in which some of the information requests are not completed e.g., due to urgent need on the part of the citizen or the existence of an emergency situation. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, if a social worker received a hand-written, pen-and-paper application from a homeless person for social assistance, the bureaucrat might approve the application even if the applicant did not have a street address or the required identification documents, to ensure that the applicant remained housed and safe.

However, there are four problems with this thesis. First, this is the implied, but never proven, that with the arrival of more technology, discretion at the frontline will diminish or become non-existent. Second, Snellen's definition of the SLB's character of power to direct or determining to direct or establishment is too narrow and does not take into account other control of discretion. Third, this thesis only pertains to specific public organizations and does not apply to more common shape of street-level bureaucracies such as police departments, schools, or social welfare departments. Lastly, this theory does not take into account how SLB's and other caseworkers actually utilize this new technology and how that might impact their performance.

In contrast to the curtailment theory, a 2007 discussing by Jorna and Wagenaar showed that ITA was able to put the amount of work done while cutting down on inconsistencies. However, the meaning and content of this work was not able to be captured and understood by ITA. A 2004 discussing by Vitalis and Duhaut highlighted the ambiguous kind of ITA. It was shown that the Internet or other forms of technology were utilized for simpler tasks, and more elaborate and complex things were dealt with face-to-face with citizens. Vitalis and Duhaut come to the conclusion that a SLB has their discretionary power enhanced by ITA, and citizens expediency from ITA by being better informed of their rights when dealing with SLBs and their institutions. This theory maintains that discretion by the SLB is not hindered in all way by ITA and will remain to do their jobs effectively. This theory also focuses more on how ITA is utilized by both citizens and state agents which puts more emphasis on the ability of ITA to further help and empower SLBs and citizens.