User:Addisonrivers/sandbox

Problems with street-level bureaucracy
Lipsky identified several problems with street-level bureaucracy, including "the problem of limited resources, the continuous negotiation that is necessary in order to make it seem like one is meeting targets, and the relations with (nonvoluntary) clients". However, some commentators have challenged Lipsky's model. Tony Evans and John Harris." argue that "the proliferation of rules and regulations should not automatically be equated with greater control over professional discretion; paradoxically, more rules may create more discretion." They also argue that the exercise of professional discretion by street-level bureaucrats is not inherently "bad", but can be seen as an important professional attribute.

A 2003 American study, conducted by Steven Maynard Moody of the University of Kansas and Michael Musheno, then of Arizona State University, reiterated the significance of street-level bureaucrats in the political process, asserting that street-level workers "actually make policy choices rather than simply implement the decisions of elected officials." They also claim, based on a study of 48 street-level state employees in two states, that "workers' beliefs about the people they interact with continually rub against policies and rules" and that the prejudices of the street-level bureaucrats influence their treatment of citizens.

In 2007, Emil Mackey confirmed that even the Resident Assistants in campus housing exercise their discretion to change policy at the implementation level. Furthermore, these policy implementation changes reflected the individual values of each street-level bureaucrat rather than the will of policymakers. Therefore, this research not only confirmed previous street-level bureaucrat research and literature, but also expanded it to include the Higher Education policy environment.

STREET-LEVEL BUREAUCRACY
Section Two: Detailed outline of proposed revisions

STREET LEVEL BUREAUCRACY- We will keep the current definition and possibly add to it.

STREET LEVEL BUREAUCRATS- Define different classifications of street-level bureaucrats depending on what field they are in. Categorize officials into groups (EX: Public Health, Emergency Services, Education, Social Services, etc.)

HISTORY & ORIGINS
The concept of street-level bureaucracy was first coined by Michael Lipsky in 1977, who argued that "policy implementation in the end comes down to the people who actually implement it".[1] However, the process of street-level bureaucracy has been around for a much longer period of time. As stated in Scott A. Cook and William Earle Klay's article on Precedents of George Washington "A government will be better accepted if its administrators reflect the origins of its people" which embodies what Street-level bureaucracy in America. Some of the first street level bureaucrats in the nation were post office officials. The presidency of Woodrow Wilson helped to spur a large growth in Public Administration and government policy which in turn transmitted to larger sized street-level bureaucracies.(Citation required) However it was not until the 1950's with the baby boom that "Street level bureaucracy" as Michael Lipsky stated became as strong as a presence in society as it today.

Lipsky describes street level bureaucrats as the face of policy, since these individuals interact directly with citizens.The history of Street-level bureaucracy follows the history of policy development and the scope of government in America, with areas with larger populations and more government policies employing more individuals such as Chicago which employs "26,680 teachers".

Due to in-depth interactions, day to day discretion, and policy interpretation Lipsky claims that "in a sense the street-level bureaucrats implicitly mediate aspects of the constitutional relationship of citizens to the state. In short, they hold the keys to a dimension of citizenship." The interpretation of the duties, scope, and responsibilities of street-level bureaucrats are still debated today, with ongoing discussion on discretion, corruption, accountability, lack of resources, and technology.

PROBLEMS
Here we will identify the many problems associated with street-level bureaucracy.

•	Corruption and Accountability
Corruption in street-level bureaucracy is a violation of any of the ethical codes of conduct that have been established by the U.S. Government and its agencies. There are many such agencies specifically designed to define and interpreter what is acceptable ethical behavior and what is not. Violation of these rules or ethical codes of conduct have repercussions that effect not only the person or agency involved, but also the general public that these street-level bureaucracies serve. Neutrality and impartiality in following policies and procedures is what is expected and most remain separate from person feelings. Here is a link to a social work case that let personal feelings override there ethical responsibility. Accountability is the means by which these codes are upheld and to ensure moral and ethical practices within these bureaucratic agencies. There is much debate over the methodology of how exactly these agencies should be held accountable. Two major accountability processes are compliance based and performance based. "Traditionally, accountability has involved defining rules and procedures and then employing various means to ensure compliance with these expectations" Performance based practices rely on standardized processes that measure performance in terms of output and results. Yet compliance based, and performance based accountability has limitations for measuring the efficiency, effectiveness, equity, and economy of the bureaucracy. Furthermore accountability stems from a multidimensional perspective, which includes the general public the bureaucracy serves, peers and co-workers, office managers,public administrators, and elected officials.

•	Discretion
Discretion can be defined as a component in the decision making process that determines an individual’s action or non-action. Carrington divides discretion into two major components as the freedom the decision maker has to choose between different actions; and the decision to act or not act through the rules and judgment of the decision maker. Michael Lipsky states street level bureaucrats have discretion because human judgment is in the nature of service work that machines could not replace. Street level bureaucrats are responsible for making appropriate decisions that are appropriate for clients and their situations. Lipsky states all street level bureaucrats will confront situations in which they need to depart from service ideals in order to cope with both expectations from their jobs and the public ideal. According to Michael Lipsky the exercise of discretion among street level bureaucrats is critical in how public workers interact with citizens on a daily basis. He claims to understand these acts of discretion once must analyze the outcome of agency performance the public experiences as a combined result of agency rules and street level bureaucrats responses to unsanctioned work. Lipsky said the use of discretion by street level bureaucrats can’t be removed from everyday practice due to the complexity and uncertainty of human service work. Carrington identifies the fear of power abuse as a major reason for the opposition of discretion in the arena of street level bureaucrats and its citizens. In order to control problems in discretionary action there has been a demand for control by understanding the social situations in which discretion varies. Marissa Kelly also examines the use of discretion among street level bureaucrats to assert that discretion can either enhance or inhibit street level bureaucrats’ implementation of justice. She asserts that whether discretion is appropriate or not justice theories need to be further examined.

•	Lack of Resources
Lipsky concludes the lack of resources street level bureaucrats encounter causes them to develop simplified routines within their environment that influence their everyday tasks and therefore public policy. One argument is that Street Level bureaucrats are taught revised implementation skills instead of learning specific implementation resources and knowledge to implement policies effectively. Hill identifies several implementation resources street level bureaucrats often lack such as; literary resources, appropriate resources on how to shape specific policies at the street level, and access to expertise and skill training to better their decision making and awareness in specific situations at the street level.

DEMAND FOR STREET LEVEL BUREAUCRATS
Street-level bureaucrats are the individuals that act as liaisons between policy-makers and citizens. They are the implementors of policy that interact and communicate with the general public. Where there are growths in population, there are growths in demand for these occupations as well. The demand for these occupations will vary by region but generally, the job outlook in these careers is on the rise due to an increase in population.

Education
In the United States' education sector there is a notable demand for teachers in numerous regions across the country. There are currently fifty-one hot spots with a demand for educators in these regions. Amongst these fifty-one hot spots, five of the regions are with an incredible need for educators in both the primary and secondary education sector. The areas of desperate need include: Las Vegas, Nevada; the Northern region of Oklahoma; Kansas City, Missouri; the Central region of Arkansas; and the Western region of Mississippi.

Police Force
The demand for police officers is another occupation that will experience growth within its career sector over the next ten years. It is important to note that because urbanized and metropolitan regions are amongst the fastest growing in the United States, that is generally where the demand for these individuals will be.

Firefighters
Firefighters are another case in protective services in which we are able to expect an increase in demand over the next decade. A seven percent increase in career outlook is to be expected by the year 2022.

Social Workers
The demand for social workers is one that is above the average rate in the United States. With a general population increase social workers are needed in all areas of the career field. The demand for social workers is extremely high. The national average for growth in all careers stands at eleven percent, while a projected nineteen percent increase in social work is needed to fulfill the sectors responsibility to the general public.

TECHNOLOGY AND STREET LEVEL BUREAUCRACY
Concerning increasing technological advances and its relationship with street-level bureaucracy, there are two major theories: Curtailment theory, and Enablement Theory. Curtailment theory holds that increasing technological advances hinders street-level bureaucrats and their ability to perform effectively; especially concerning their ability of discretion. Enablement theory holds that increasing technological advances, at best, empowers the existing abilities of the street-level bureaucrat and better informs the citizen. At worst, its effects are ambiguous.

Curtailment Theory:
It was first argued by Snellen that increasing technological advances (ITA) “deeply challenges [the street-level bureaucrat’s] ability to manipulate information.” Snellen believed it was the ability to manipulate information that gave the SLB’s their power. He further argued that as more decisions are made by computers or other automated machines, SLB’s will lose their discretionary powers and it will shift to other actors. However, there are four problems with this thesis. First, it is 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 source of power is too narrow and does not take into account other sources of discretion. Third, this thesis only pertains to particular public organizations and does not apply to more common types 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 affect their performance.

Enablement Theory:
In contrast to the Curtailment Theory, a 2007 study by Jorna and Wagenaar showed that ITA was able to increase 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 study by Vitalis and Duhaut highlighted the ambiguous nature of ITA. It was shown that the internet or other forms of technology were utilized for simpler tasks, and more elaborate and complex matters were dealt with face to face with workers and citizens. Vitalis and Duhaut come to the conclusion that a SLB has their discretionary power enhanced by ITA, and citizens benefit 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 anyway by ITA and will continue 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.

ARTICLE EVALUATION (NOT THE ROUGH DRAFT)
Section One: Evaluation of existing article quality

Summary: Street-level bureaucrats enforce laws and public policies, however their roles vary in how widely and effectively policy is implemented. Street-level bureaucrats are considered experts in their given field (including state level workers) and interact with citizens by implementing policy and following laws. Lipsky describes the major problems of street level bureaucracy as limited resources and relations with non-voluntary clients, however some scholars such as Evans and Harris have different views. Evaluation of existing article quality: Start: mid importance

Strengths: -	The leading section is clear and gives a concise explanation of what street-level bureaucracy is and attributes credit to Michael Lipsky’s book for creating the term “Street- Level Bureaucrats”.

-	All of the sources seem to be highly credible, and I don’t sense any bias in previous editor’s content.

-	Because this article is at the “start” stage there are a few strong main ideas we can build upon, with the inclusion of more sources.

Weaknesses

-	The overall structure of the article needs work. The “examples” of street level bureaucrats should be more extensive to include more public employees (teachers, nurses (and other health workers), etc.) with links to those wiki pages included.

-	In the section titled “Problems”, I would divide the problems already discussed, and include new information into those categories.

-	Some “Problems” categories would include “Accountability”, “Street-Level Discretion”, “Corruption”, “Lack of Resources”, “Effectiveness”

-	There should be examples in each of our problem categories.

-	Sources already in place under problems need to be sorted properly into the new categories (possibly in the discretion category) -	There are additional sections that need to be added into the page with sources to follow

-	Sections that need to be added: “Technology”, “History & Origins”, “International Variations of Street-level Bureaucracy”, and “Careers” – Tentative


 * Of course I will write much more on this before presenting my table for job demands.

Also, Addison, I feel like you might really find this article useful on resources!!

http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/265.full.pdf'''

Article Evaluation/Peer Review by Liftingmermaid22
Most of my suggested revisions are minor details that make up a big issue. It really can be the small things that get you in the end. Hopefully these are helpful criticism.

First, be sure to hyperlink any individual or topic that has its own Wikipedia page. Ex: George Washington, What if I had no idea who he was? By hyper linking his name, it allows the reader to click, redirect to his page, and learn about George Washington.

Second, there seems to be a lot of notes written down instead of actual information. Such as with the very beginning before even getting into the article, there are notes about what needs to be revised. Also, in the International example section, there are no actual examples or information there.

Third, there are many bullet points left untouched and unrevised. Such as: Corruption and Accountability. The paragraph for Discretion takes up the amount that should be used for the previous two problems.

Fourth, under the Impact on Society section, you ask the question of “Where are there more bureaucrats needed and where as a career should this be pursued.” Although it appears a question, it is difficult to see since it is put as a statement.


 * I understand this may seem like nit-picking but a great article has reviews to catch the minor details such as these.

The article brings up a valid point about who the street-level bureaucrats are but, it doesn't quite go in depth into the important topics or include much on that point. Take care of the little details, then, go into describing how many of those street-level bureaucrats there are on an average basis. Maybe even under the corruption, list the amount of corruption cases there has been.

You have a ton of reference material, and it is good. But you need to use one of two more articles to help provide body to what you’re trying to get to. Ensure the readability matches the subject. There were a few times the little details proved to diminish from the credibility of the article. You did great in the beginning on telling me what the basic definition of street-level bureaucracy is, but the rest of the article doesn’t seem to have as much substance, credibility, or readability.
 * Tip: be clear, concise, proofread, and create something you would read on your downtime.

'''--LiftingMermaid22 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2015 Ariel Sten Street-Level Bureaucracy Peer Review April 24, 2015

Peer Evaluation: There should be examples in the first paragraph of who the street level bureaucrats are that the article later defines (e.g.. police, firefighters, social workers and teachers). Key points are clear and understandable of who and what is street level bureaucracy. There should be links to any individual mentioned as a reference so that a reader can search them as well. Article clearly focuses solely on the topic, be sure to include resources for the countries in International Variations. I would suggest comparing only countries that are economically similar to the US (western Europe, UK and Australia ) for better comparison. The use of Bureau of Labor Statistics is a great reference for credibility. Possibly search for more reference other than the three repeated used, and maybe find independent study that supports Bureau of Labor Stats. Article does a very good job of being balanced, neutral and unbiased. There are well structured paragraphs and proper use of grammar. For improvements, I would suggest going into further detail about how each of the different types of street level bureaucrats can effectively influence society. Give examples of techniques and policies used if available.