Accountability in Street-Level Organizations

Abstract The challenge of managing street-level discretion lies at the heart of the search for strategies of administrative oversight and control. How can management promote accountability without deadening responsiveness and undermining the application of professional judgment on which management also depends? This article reconsiders the problem of accountability from a street-level perspective. First, it reviews the literature on implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and new public management in order to raise questions about the limitations of current approaches to accountability, including new public management solutions that rely on performance measurement. Second, it makes the case for a street-level approach to accountability and illustrates how it can be used to reveal critical dimensions of organizational practice that are not captured by other means. Finally, issues of street-level practice are placed in broader perspective, as part of an on-going global search for ways to advance transparency and accountability in social provision. Keywords: accountabilityperformance measurementpublic managementstreet-level bureaucracy The author acknowledges research support from the National Science Foundation (#9730821), the Open Society Institute, and the Ford Foundation. Notes 3. Bardach, E. (1979). The implementation game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bullock, C. S. Derthick, M. (1975). Uncontrollable spending for social services grants. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Murphy, J. (1971). Title I of ESEA: The politics of implementing federal education reform. Harvard Education Review 41, 35–63; Pressman Sabatier, P. A. Van Meter, D. Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Price, D. (1978). Policy making in congressional committees: The impact of 'environmental' factors. American Political Science Review 72, 548–574. 5. Arnold, 1990; Lowi, 1979; Mayhews, 1974; Price, 1978. 6. Lowi, 55. 7. Brodkin, E. Z. (1987–88). Policy politics: If we can't govern, can we manage? Political Science Quarterly 102, 571–587; Brodkin, E. Z. (1990). Implementation as policy politics. In D. Palumbo and D. Calista, eds., Implementation and the Policy Process: Opening Up the Black Box. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 9. Goodsell, C. T., ed. (1981). The public encounter: Where state and citizen meet. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; Hagen, J. (1987). Income maintenance workers: Technicians or service providers? Social Service Review 61(2), 261–271; Handler, J. (1986). The conditions of discretion: Autonomy, community, bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Handler, J. F. Hasenfeld, Y. Ingram, H. (1977). Policy implementation through bargaining: The case of federal grants-in-aid. Public Policy 25, 501–526; Maynard-Moody, S. Miller, G. (1983). Holding clients accountable: The micro-politics of trouble in a work incentive program. Social Problems 31, 139–51; Prottas, J. (1979). People-Processing. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books. Rein, M. Weatherly, R. A. Cutler, T. Fossett, J. W., Goggin, M., Hall, J. S., Johnston, E. (2000). Managing Medicaid managed care: Are states becoming prudent purchasers? Health Affairs 19(4), 36–49; Lawton, A., McKevitt, D., Lynn Jr., L. E., Heinrich, C. J. Romcek Van Slyke, D. M. (2003) The mythology of privatization in contracting for social services. Public Administration Review 63 (3), 296–315. 14. Brodkin, E. Z. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. Social Service Review 71, 1–33; Lawton et al., 2000. Van Slyke, 2003. 15. Lawton et al., 2000. 16. Brodkin, 1987–88, 1997; DeHaven-Smith, L. Dias, J. J. Meyers, M., Glaser, B. Brodkin, 1997; Brodkin, E, Z.; Fuqua, C. New York University Law R. 75 (5), 1121–1220; Dias, J., and Maynard-Moody, S., 2006; Lens, V. Bureaucratic disentitlement after welfare reform: Are fair hearings the cure? Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy 12 (1), 13–54; Meyers et al., 1998; Morgen, S. (2001). The agency of welfare workers: Negotiating devolution, privatization, and the meaning of self-sufficiency. American Anthropologist 103 (3), 747–762; Sandfort, J. (2000). Moving beyond discretion and outcomes: Examining public management from the front lines of the welfare system. Journal of public Administration Research and Theory 10(4), 729–756; Soss, J., Schram, S., Van Slyke, 2003. 22. Van Slyke, 2003. 23. Brodkin, E. Z. (2005). Toward a contractual welfare state? The case of work activation in the U.S. In E. Sol and M. Westerveld, eds., Contractualism in employment services: A new form of welfare state governance. The Hague, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 73–99; Dias, J. and Maynard-Moody, S.; Hasenfeld, Y., Evans, L. (2000). The role of non-profit agencies in the provision of welfare-to-work services. Paper presented at the Annual Research Conference of the Assn. for Public Policy and Management, Seattle, WA; McDonald, C. Dias, J and Maynard-Moody, S., 2006; Marston, G., Herd, D., Mitchell, A. Marston, G., Larsen, J. E. Wright, S. (2003). The street level implementation of unemployment policy. In Millar, J. ed. Understanding social security: Issues for policy and practice. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. 235–253. 30. Campbell, D. T: Hasenfeld, Y., Gjhose, T., Lens, in press. 35. Hasenfeld et al., 2004; Soss, Schram, and Fording, 2006. 36. Burawoy, 1991, 281. 38. Brodkin, E. Z. (2006). Bureaucracy Redux: Management Reformism and the Welfare State. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(1), 1–17; doi:10.1093/jopart/muj019; Dias Romcek Van Slyke, 2003.