Can Case-Management Teams Solve the Dilemmas of the Street-Level Bureaucrat? Evidence from a Nonprofit Case Study

Abstract

Street-level bureaucracy (SLB) theory posits bureaucratic demands and resource scarcity are primary drivers of suboptimal SLB-client interactions. As such, mitigating SLBs’ bureaucratic work is considered key to improving client treatment. Yet, little evidence exists that reconfiguring bureaucratic demands enhances SLB client engagement or decision-making. To this end, this study considers a case management team model where lead caseworkers were primarily responsible for client engagement while case assistants managed bureaucratic demands in a large southwest nonprofit’s anti-poverty program. We draw on interviews (N = 38) at two points in time with team members to examine the relationship between bureaucratic delineation, resource allocations, and decision-making. We find that delineating bureaucratic work along with teams’ access to generous client provisions expands the breadth and quality of resource distribution, but this is mitigated by team relational demands such as frequent case meetings. Our findings suggest enhanced resources are not necessarily a panacea for improving SLB-client engagement.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.