Legal Compliance in Street‐Level Bureaucracy: A Study of UK Housing Officers

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12049
• Published date: 01 January 2016
• Author: Sarah Johnsen,Caroline Hunter,Simon Halliday,Joanne Bretherton
• Date: 01 January 2016

Legal Compliance in Street-Level Bureaucracy:

A Study of UK Housing Officers

CAROLINE HUNTER, JOANNE BRETHERTON, SIMON HALLIDAY, and

SARAH JOHNSEN

Street-level bureaucratic theory is now at a fairly mature stage. The focus on street-level

bureaucrats as ultimate policymakers is now as familiar as it is important. Likewise, the parallel

sociolegal study of the implementation of public law in public organizations has demonstrated the

inevitable gap between law-in-the-books and law-in-action. Yet, the success of these advances

comes at the potential cost of us losing sight of the importance of law itself. This article analyzes

some empirical data on the decision making about one legal concept—vulnerability in UK

homelessness law. Our analysis offers two main contributions. First, we argue that, when it comes

to the implementation of law, the legal abilities and propensities of the bureaucrats must be taken

into account. Bureaucrats’ abilities to understand legal materials make a difference to the

likelihood of legal compliance. Second, we must also pay attention to the character of the legal

provisions. Where a provision is simple, it is more likely to facilitate legal knowledge and

demands nothing of bureaucrats in terms of legal competence. Where the provision is also

inoffensive and liveable, it is less likely to act as an impediment to legal conscientiousness.

INTRODUCTION

Street-level bureaucracy has long been an important focus for scholars of public policy

and public administration. Foundational work by Prottas (1979), Brown (1981) and,

perhaps most significantly, Lipsky (1980) has led to a burgeoning field of inquiry within

the political sciences (Maynard-Moody and Portillo 2010). Such research has revealed the

significance of the structure of street-level work to the nature of the policies that are

delivered on the frontlines of public services. Thus, researchers have revealed the signifi-

cance to policy administration of organizational culture (e.g., Riccucci 2005a), organiza-

tional settings (e.g., Jewell and Glaser 2006), limited resources and excessive demand (e.g.,

Lipsky 1980; Prottas 1979), and the emotional demands of direct client contact (e.g., Guy,

Newman, and Mastracci 2008). These conditions trigger various coping mechanisms that

structure routine day-to-day work (Tummers et al. 2015; Nielson 2006). The inevitable

discretion of frontline work (Riccucci 2005b; Maynard-Moody and Musheno 2000) also

creates a space into which wider cultural morality flows (Hasenfeld 2000). Perceptions of

deserving and undeserving citizens/clients can channel street-level work (Maynard-Moody

and Musheno 2003). Studies have also shown that the gender (e.g., Wenger and Wilkins

2009; Wilkins and Keiser 2005), ethnicity (e.g., Schoenholtz, Schrag, and Ramji-Nogales

2014), and social status (e.g., Portillo 2012) of street-level bureaucrats and clients can

This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (Grant No. RES-RES-000-22-4461).

The authors also wish to acknowledge the time given by the staff of the local authorities involved.

Address correspondence to: Caroline Hunter, University of York—York Law School, Heslington, York,

YO10 5DD, United Kingdom. Telephone: 01904325806; E-mail: caroline.hunter@york.ac.uk.

LAW & POLICY, Vol. ••, No ••, •• 2015 ISSN 0265–8240

© 2015 The Authors

Law & Policy © 2015 The University of Denver/Colorado Seminary

doi: 10.1111/lapo.12049

LAW & POLICY, Vol. 38, No. 1, January 2016 ISSN 0265–8240

V

C2015 The Author

Law & Policy V

C2015 The University of Denver/Colorado Seminary

doi: 10.1111/lapo.12049