Can Case-Management Teams Solve the Dilemmas of the Street-Level Bureaucrat? Evidence from a Nonprofit Case Study

ABSTRACT Street-level bureaucracy (SLB) theory posits bureaucratic demands and resource scarcity are primary drivers of suboptimal SLB-client interactions. As such, mitigating SLBs’ bureaucratic work is considered key to improving client treatment. Yet, little evidence exists that reconfiguring bureaucratic demands enhances SLB client engagement or decision-making. To this end, this study considers a case management team model where lead caseworkers were primarily responsible for client engagement while case assistants managed bureaucratic demands in a large southwest nonprofit’s anti-poverty program. We draw on interviews (N = 38) at two points in time with team members to examine the relationship between bureaucratic delineation, resource allocations, and decision-making. We find that delineating bureaucratic work along with teams’ access to generous client provisions expands the breadth and quality of resource distribution, but this is mitigated by team relational demands such as frequent case meetings. Our findings suggest enhanced resources are not necessarily a panacea for improving SLB-client engagement. Practical Points To help case management teams, or frontline staff more generally, develop and maintain amenable organizational relationships, we recommend the use of team-building trainings, workshops, and activities. While we find that discretionary decision-making was enhanced by case management teams, disagreements or a lack of clarity were not eliminated. We recommend organizations assist frontline staff with equitable discretionary decision-making through clear guidelines on resource allocations, available provisions, and in some instances, decision-trees that can assist with complex decision-making. To support frontline staff cohesion and job satisfaction, we recommend organizations implement worker learning communities. Worker learning communities regularly meet as a workshop, often led by internal organization staff, to learn new content, methods, and/or service delivery techniques, discuss complicated cases, or brainstorm new ideas to enhance equitable programming and services. While creative staffing plans like case teams are meant to build staff capacity, few social workers and other clinically trained service providers are supported in building management skills. We recommend explicit attention to the development of management and peer-leadership skills so team cohesion and decision-making can be actively cultivated within ambitious program development.