Part III Review
In the third part of his book, Lipsky (2010) argues that the imposed inconsistency between the theory of policy as introduced by the government and its practical implementation on the street level (by public service delivering agents) leads to specific patterns in practice that cause significant bias in public services. Due to the limited resources and the overall bureaucratic structure behind the public service provision put constraints on the possibilities of such front-line workers as teachers, police officers, or social workers. In order to both fulfill their professional duties and comply with the conditions imposed by the authorities, street bureaucrats need to adjust their practice by rationing services and controlling clients (Lipsky, 2010). In such a manner, public service implementers transfer the costs of services onto clients to minimize the demand and ‘filter’ the served population according to those who can be responsible for the costs. Also, they choose the most favorable clients to serve to apply stereotyping and screening to serve those who are the most likely to succeed and demonstrate the effectiveness of the services. As a result, marginalized populations remain under-served and suffer from discrimination and inequality.
Part IV Review
The final part of Lipsky’s (2010) book focuses on the future the author anticipates for the street-level bureaucratic system. The currently applied power of discretion allows front-line workers to remain unaccountable for their service provision to the population and diminishes the opportunities for their management.
Street-level bureaucrats must provide equal services for all the individuals within the served population. Currently, they cannot do that due to the limitations imposed by the inconsistency between theory and practice of policy implementation. However, Lipsky (2010) suggests that it is possible to focus the work of front-line workers on mediating the clients, minimizing their discretion, and increasing the level of their accountability by requiring their compliance with the legislative purpose of the work they do.
Relationship to Opioid and Veterans Research
When applied to the topic of the opioid crisis in veterans, Lipsky’s (2010) theory explains why the designated population remains underserved despite the fact that US veterans disproportionately die of an opiate overdose in comparison to average Americans. The ambitious high-level goals national-level policies are aimed at are often unrealistic in terms of their practical implementation. Funding, staffing, and procedural decisions impose social workers’ creaming and rationing when addressing the needs of veterans. Moreover, since this population is challenging and imposes psychological difficulties in managing and treatment of SUDs, social workers might be less likely to choose veterans as their target population. Therefore, this population remains under-served due to the bureaucratic structure of US public services.
Relationship to Policy Analysis Project
As for the policy level, Lipsky’s (2010) argument concerning the biased practical implementation of the interventions designed by the government applies to the policies for reducing the opioid crisis in veterans. Despite several years of extensive policy implementation in this area, the level of mortality and opioid misuse among veterans remains stable. This implies that although the policies and improved and revised on the level of theorizing, they fail to be adequately implemented at the ‘street level’ due to the forces of front-line workers’ discretion and limited accountability, within which they intensify inequality and discrimination in the treatment of SUDs in veterans.
Reference
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.