Public caseworkers' strategies coping with accountability demands

• Published date: 01 November 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1669
• Author: Kwangseon Hwang,Yousueng Han
• Date: 01 November 2017

ACADEMIC PAPER

Public caseworkers'strategies coping with

accountability demands

Kwangseon Hwang

1

|Yousueng Han

2

1

Public administration & Policy, Korea

Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning

(KISTEP), Seoul, Korea

2

School of Public and Environmental Affairs

(SPEA), Indiana University at Bloomington,

Bloomington, Indiana, USA

Correspondence

Yousueng Han, Indiana University,

Bloomington, IN, USA

Email: youshan@indiana.edu

Public employees are required to manage multiple accountability requirements by investing in the

relationship with those who demand accountability, making a commitment to the given tasks and

anticipating what might happen. The purpose of the study is to explore how social caseworkers

manage multiple accountability requirements compared to public managers. The analysis from

child welfare caseworkers' interview data highlights a number of ways on how social caseworkers

respond to multiple accountabilities. Although most of acts from caseworkers are exposed within

the public managers' strategies, talking or discussing with coworkers and supervisors seems the

caseworkers' contextual and endemic response. Discussions followed.

1|INTRODUCTION

Coping with accountability has been well developed from the social

psychological perspective (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Tetlock, 1998;

Tetlock, Skitka, & Boettger, 1989). Tetlock and his colleagues have

found cognitive, emotional, and behavioral strategies of coping with

accountability. For example, conformity, preemptive self‐criticism (to

think in more self‐critical, integratively complex ways in which they

consider multiple perspectives on the issue and try to anticipate the

objections that reasonable), and self‐justification are feasible strategies

(Tetlock et al., 1989). Facing contradictory demands, people respond to

those by decision‐evasion tactics, by plunging into controversy and

aligning oneself with one or another constituency or by mediating

the dispute between the conflicting constituencies (Tetlock, 1998).

Recently, how public managers manage the diverse accountability

requirements has been disclosed (Schillemans, 2015). Schillemans's

(2015) study focused on executive managers of different areas of pub-

lic sector in the Netherlands, and their strategies managing multiple

accountabilities were identified. Active investment in the relationship

with accountability forums, an authentic commitment to the mission,

and anticipating what might happen, to name a few, seem to be

their responses. The purpose of the present study is to explore

how street‐level bureaucrats manage multiple accountability require-

ments and compare them with the public managers' responses.

Multiple accountability requirements are identified in the child wel-

fare service context (Hwang, 2016). Caseworkers acknowledge the

importance of coping with diverse accountability requirements,

which come into conflict with one another in their daily practice

with some variations. So how do child welfare caseworkers manage

or cope with these conflicting accountability requirements? Although

little research has been done regarding the strategies of public offi-

cials on managing accountability, this article adds understanding of

how the street‐level public service workers respond to conflicting

accountability demands.

Our focus is public child welfare caseworkers in the state of Virginia,

which are relevant to personnel in the areas of adoption, child protec-

tive services (CPS), family preservation, and foster care. Child welfare

systems are often managed through a steadily expanding regulatory

framework that sets forth procedures, timeframes, documentation

requirements, and review processes. These management practices

encourage caseworkers to look for other careers, and they are contrary

to a culture of responsibility and professional growth. Correspondingly,

there has been a movement to balance compliance with a regulatory

framework and an emphasis on professional commitment (Casey‐

Family‐Programs, 2011). Examining accountability in street‐level orga-

nizations is appropriate because discretion, which has a significant

correlation with managing accountability, is assumed in theory, and

possibly indispensable in practice.

The empirical evidence comes primarily from interviews with 28

child welfare caseworkers in the United States. The respondents repre-

sent a diverse mix of child welfare services, some of which include

CPS, foster care, and mixed services. The respondents are also diverse

in terms of their service regions and child welfare work experience.

1

The interview questionnaire was “How do you cope with any conflicts

between accountability requirements? Please be as specific as possible

in describing your personal strategies for coping with these conflicts.”

1

Service Region (Virginia): Northern 5, Piedmont 6, Central 6, Western 6, Eastern

5; Work Period in Child Welfare Services: from 3 months to 38 years

Received: 19 February 2017 Accepted: 16 July 2017

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1669

J Public Affairs. 2017;17:e1669.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1669

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of8