Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:47:26.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2015

Stephanie Baker Collins
Stephanie Baker Collins*
Affiliation:
School of Social Work, McMaster University E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

Bureaucratic discretionpolicy implementationOntario Works
Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 221 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker Collins, S. (1998) ‘The challenge of equity in Canadian social welfare policy’, Canadian Review of Social Policy, 42, 1–14.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (1997) ‘Inside the welfare contract: discretion and accountability in state welfare administration’, Social Service Review, 71, 1, 1–33.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (2006) ‘Bureaucracy redux: management reformism and the welfare state’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 1, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (2011a) ‘Putting street-level organizations first: new directions for social policy and management research’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, S2, i199–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (2011b) ‘Policy work: street-level organizations under new managerialism’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, S2, i253–77.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. (2011) ‘Public workaround stories are valuable evaluative indicators: but should they be told?’, American Journal of Evaluation, 32, 3, 408–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, B. W. and Siegel, D. (1999) Service in the Field: The World of Front-Line Public Servants, Quebec City: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario (2011) A Discussion Paper: Issues and Ideas, Toronto: Government of Ontario.Google Scholar
Dubois, V. (2010) The Bureaucrat and the Poor: Encounters in French Welfare Offices, Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Durose, C. (2011) ‘Revisiting Lipsky: front-line work in UK local governance’, Political Studies, 59, 4, 978–95.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (1977) Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, T. and Harris, J. (2004) ‘Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion’, The British Journal of Social Work, 34, 6, 871–95.Google Scholar
Fletcher, D. R. (2011) ‘Welfare reform, Jobcentre Plus and the street-level bureaucracy: towards inconsistent and discriminatory welfare for severely disadvantaged groups?’, Social Policy and Society, 10, 4, 445–58.Google Scholar
Handler, J. F. (1983) ‘Discretion in social welfare: the uneasy position in the rule of law’, The Yale Law Journal, 92, 7, 1270–86.Google Scholar
Handler, J. F. (1986) The Conditions of Discretion: Autonomy, Community, Bureaucracy, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Heinen, E. and Scribner, J. P. (2007) ‘Bureaucratic discretion and alternative teacher certification: understanding programme variation in Missouri’, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
Herd, D. and Mitchell, A. (2003) Discouraged, Diverted and Disentitled: Ontario Works New Service Delivery Model, Toronto: Community Social Planning Council of Toronto.Google Scholar
Hermans, K. and Declercq, A. (2003) ‘Social assistance in Belgium: public centres for social welfare’, in Buck, T. and Smith, R. (eds.), Poor Relief or Poor Deal? The Social Fund, Safety Nets and Social Security, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 23–39.Google Scholar
Hill, M. (1997) ‘Implementation theory: yesterday's issue?’, Policy and Politics 25, 4, 375–85.Google Scholar
Hill, M. and Hupe, P. (2002) Implementing Public Policy, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hogwood, B. W. and Gunn, L. A. (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Howe, D. (1991) ‘Knowledge, power and the shape of social work practice’, in Davies, M. (ed.), The Sociology of Social Work, London: Routledge, pp. 202–20.Google Scholar
Hoyle, L. (2014) ‘“I mean, obviously you’re using your discretion”: nurses’ use of discretion in policy implementation’, Social Policy and Society, 13, 2, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jewell, C. J. and Glaser, B. (2006) ‘Toward a general analytic framework: organizational settings, policy goals, and street-level behavior’, Administration and Society, 38, 3, 335–64.Google Scholar
Keiser, L. R., Mueser, P. R. and Choi, S. (2004) ‘Race, bureaucratic discretion and the implementation of welfare reform’, American Journal of Political Science, 48, 2, 314–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakhani, B. (2003) ‘Achieving policy goals’, in Buck, T. and Smith, R. (eds.), Poor Relief or Poor Deal? The Social Fund, Safety Nets and Social Security, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 168–85.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, 30th anniversary expanded edition, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Matland, R. (1995) ‘Synthesizing the implementation literature: the ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 2, 145–74.Google Scholar
May, P. J. and Winter, S. C. (2009) ‘Politicians, managers and street-level bureaucrats: influences on policy implementation’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 3, 453–76.Google Scholar
Maynard-Moody, S. and Musheno, M. (2003) Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Line of Public Services, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Meyers, M. K. and Vorsanger, S. (2003) ‘Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy’, in Peters, B. Guy and Pierre, J. (eds.), Handbook of Public Administration, London: Sage, pp. 245–55.Google Scholar
Morgen, S. (2001) ‘The agency of welfare workers: negotiating devolution, privatization, and the meaning of self-sufficiency’, American Anthropologist, 103, 3, 747–61.Google Scholar
Mosher, J., Evans, P., Little, M., Morrow, E., Boulding, J. and VanderPlaats, N. (2004) Walking on Eggshells: Abused Women's Experiences of Ontario's Welfare System, Winnipeg: Woman and Abuse Research Project.Google Scholar
Peck, J. (2001) Workfare States, New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Piore, M. J. (2011) ‘Beyond markets: sociology, street-level bureaucracy, and the management of the public sector’, Regulation and Governance, 5, 1, 145–64.Google Scholar
Pires, R. R. (2011) ‘Beyond the fear of discretion: flexibility, performance and accountability in the management of regulatory bureaucracies’, Regulation and Governance, 5, 1, 43–69.Google Scholar
Prottas, J. M. (1979) People Processing: The Street-Level Bureaucrat in Public Service Bureaucracies, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Radey, M. (2008) ‘Frontline welfare work: understanding social work's role’, Families in Society, 89, 2, 184–92.Google Scholar
Rathgeb Smith, S. (2003) ‘Street-level bureaucracy and public policy’, in Peters, B. Guy and Pierre, J. (eds.), Handbook of Public Administration, London: Sage, pp. 354–66.Google Scholar
Riccucci, N. (2002) ‘Implementing welfare reform in Michigan: the role of street-level bureaucrats’, International Journal of Public Administration, 25, 7, 901–21.Google Scholar
Rowe, M. (2002) ‘Discretion and inconsistency: implementing the social fund’, Public Money and Management, 22, 4, 19–24.Google Scholar
Rowe, M. (2003) ‘Decision-making processes’, in Buck, T. and Smith, R. (eds.), Poor Relief or Poor Deal? The Social Fund, Safety Nets and Social Security, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 102–16.Google Scholar
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, 729–56.Google Scholar
Sawyer, A. and Green, D. (2013) ‘Social inclusion and individualised service provision in high risk community care: balancing regulation, judgment and discretion’, Social Policy and Society, 12, 2, 299–308.Google Scholar
Soss, J., Fording, R. and Schram, S. (2011) ‘The organization of discipline: from performance measure to perversity and punishment’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, S2, i203–32.Google Scholar
Sossin, L. (2005) ‘From neutrality to compassion: the place of civil service values and legal norms in the exercise of administrative discretion’, The University of Toronto Law Journal, 55, 3, 427–47.Google Scholar
Stivers, C. (2007) ‘“So poor and so black”: hurricane Katrina, public administration, and the issue of race’, Public Administration Review, 67, S1, 48–56.Google Scholar
Taylor, I. and Kelly, J. (2006) ‘Professionals, discretion and public sector reform in the UK: re-visiting Lipsky’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19, 7, 629–42.Google Scholar
Watkins-Hayes, C. (2011) ‘Race, respect and red tape: inside the black box of racially representative bureaucracies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, S2, i233–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Workfare Watch (1999) Broken Promises: Welfare Reform in Ontario, Toronto: Ontario Social Safety Network and Community Social Planning Council of Toronto.Google Scholar