Working Within a System of Administrative Burden: How Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Role Perceptions Shape Access to the Promise of Higher Education

• Date: 01 February 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/00953997211027535
• Published date: 01 February 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211027535

Administration & Society

2022, Vol. 54(2) 167 –211

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997211027535

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Working Within a

System of Administrative

Burden: How Street-

Level Bureaucrats’

Role Perceptions Shape

Access to the Promise

of Higher Education

Elizabeth Bell1 and Kylie Smith2

Abstract

Utilizing a statewide survey and administrative data, we explore how state-

imposed burdens are translated by street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) into

frontline practices that may alleviate or exacerbate onerous experiences

of the administrative state. First, we find that SLBs’ role perceptions

shaped not only uses of discretionary power—as either a force of client

empowerment or disentitlement—but also program access. Second, we

find that the local agencies with the largest proportions of income-eligible

clients often had the least capacity for alleviating administrative burden,

suggesting decentralization may be a mechanism by which administrative

burden perpetuates structural inequality.

Keywords

administrative burden, program access, street-level bureaucracy, role

perceptions, education policy

1Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA

2The University of Oklahoma, Norman, USA

Corresponding Author:

Elizabeth Bell, Department of Political Science, Miami University, 218 Harrison Hall, Oxford,

OH 45056, USA.

Email: ebell@miamioh.edu

1027535AAS0010.1177/00953997211027535Administration & SocietyBell and Smith

research-article2021

168 Administration & Society 54(2)

Emerging public administration scholarship has called attention to the delete-

rious impacts of administrative burden in client–state interactions (Moynihan

et al., 2015). These studies demonstrate that administrative burden negatively

affects program access and client well-being, with disadvantaged clientele

facing the most challenges in overcoming costly encounters with government

(Christensen et al., 2020; Hattke et al., 2020; Heinrich, 2016; Heinrich &

Brill, 2015; Herd et al., 2013; Masood & Nisar, 2021; Moynihan et al., 2015;

Moynihan & Herd, 2010; Nisar, 2017). Many of these studies examine how

changes in state or federal policy impact aggregated measures of client access

to public programs—either at the state or federal level (e.g., Bhargava &

Manoli, 2015; Deshpande & Li, 2019; Gray et al., 2019). By focusing pre-

dominantly on aggregated take-up rates, many of these studies have neglected

the potential for variation across local agencies in the impact of administra-

tive burdens on client access.

In many policy areas where administrative burdens are the most severe—

such as health care, immigration, and education—implementation is decen-

tralized, making local agencies, as well as frontline staff, an essential level of

analysis to consider in the literature (Herd & Moynihan, 2018; Moynihan

et al., 2015). By extending the lens of administrative burden to the front lines

of government, scholars can explore the potential for variation in the effects

of administrative burden on program access across local agencies, where

crucial public–state interactions occur. In addition, exploring variations in

administrative burden and outcomes at the local level is crucial because each

experience of administrative burden is ultimately a function of the interaction

between state and federal policy and the discretionary decisions of street-

level bureaucrats (SLBs)—the empowered citizen-agents on the front lines of

government who translate state and federal policies into tangible distribu-

tions of benefits and burdens (Lipsky, 2010; Maynard-Moody & Musheno,

2003). Given that SLBs vary widely in their values and beliefs and uses of

discretionary power (Brodkin & Majmundar, 2010; Jilke et al., 2018;

Tummers et al., 2015; Watkins-Hayes, 2011), we predict that SLBs play a

role in alleviating or exacerbating administrative burden for clients trying to

access governmental benefits. Experiences interacting with SLBs, in their

varied approaches to applying administrative burden policies, may even have

consequences for program access in the local agency.

In this study, we draw connections across administrative burden and

street-level bureaucracy literature to test the following research questions:

Research Question 1: Within a policy regime of administrative burden,

how do SLBs’ role perceptions shape uses of discretionary power as a

force for client empowerment or a force for disentitlement?

Bell and Smith 169

Research Question 2: Within a policy regime of administrative burden,

how do SLBs’ role perceptions shape program access at the local level?

We take a different approach from previous studies by holding administrative

burden constant, focusing instead on how the variation in SLBs’ values and

beliefs, and specifically role perceptions, affects the implementation of

administrative burden policies and resulting levels of client access across

local agencies. Drawing on street-level bureaucracy research, we formulate a

series of hypotheses regarding the influence of SLBs’ role perceptions in

shaping the use of discretionary power and client access to Oklahoma’s

Promise (OKP)—a state means-tested financial aid program that requires stu-

dents to overcome significant administrative burden in the application pro-

cess. To test these hypotheses, we utilize unique statewide survey data and

administrative data, as well as open-ended survey responses and supplemen-

tary in-depth qualitative interviews with SLBs to descriptively enrich our

quantitative findings and identify potential themes as areas for future research.

Our analysis reveals that SLBs’ role perceptions shape whether they use

discretion to alleviate or exacerbate administrative burden for clients.

Accordingly, we find that role perceptions predict the level of client access in

the local agency. However, in schools situated within highly impoverished

communities, SLBs had no influence on program access, which we expected

given the structural deficiencies, goal misalignment, and lack of resources in

under-resourced schools (Lavee & Strier, 2019; Perna & Thomas, 2009;

Tummers et al., 2015). Therefore, we find that the interaction between SLBs’

role perceptions and organizational capacity moderates the influence of state-

imposed administrative burdens on local levels of client access. Together,

these findings take a step toward better understanding how SLBs’ role per-

ceptions impact street-level discretion and client access in policy regimes of

administrative burden.

This study builds on existing literature by making two main contribu-

tions. First, we shed light on one of the areas that Moynihan et al. (2015)

highlight for future research: the role of frontline workers in influencing the

policy environments of administrative burden. We draw from the large body

of research exploring the importance of SLBs as conduits between clients

and federal/state/local program access, and combine these insights with the

emerging discussions of administrative burden. Leveraging these two litera-

tures, we demonstrate the importance of variation in administrative capacity

and SLBs’ role perceptions for the use of discretionary power and client

outcomes at the local level. Second, we build upon street-level bureaucracy

literature by investigating the interactions between role perceptions and how

these interactions affect a key client outcome—program access. While