Street-Level Bureaucracy: The Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service

9. Controlling Clients and the Work Situation

CHAPTER 9 Controlling Clients and the Work Situation Every social order depends on the general consent ofits members. Even the most coercive of institutions, such as prisons, function only so long as those affected by the institution cooperate in its activities (even if the cooperation is secured ultimately by force). Typically, cooperation is neither actively coerced nor freely given, but, rather, it emerges from the structure ofalternatives . In the previous chapters I discussed ways in which patterns ofstreet-level practice function to ration services. A second general function of street-level practice is not so much to limit services or choose among clients, but to obtain client cooperation with client-processing procedures. The work that clients are expected to cooperate with mayor may not be consistent with agencies' policy declarations. It will, however, be consistent with streetlevel bureaucrats' conceptions of how to process work with minimal risk of disruption to routine practice. Street-level bureaucrats' need to control clients as well as the incomplete nature of that control have been discussed earlier (chapters 5 and 6). Here I consider selected aspects of practice that commonly contribute to routine control of clients. 1. Street-level bureaucrats interact with clients in settings that symbolize, reinforce, and limit their relationship. It is practically a cliche to observe that the severe appointments of a courtroom, dominated by a bench behind which a black-robed judge looks down at other courtroom participants, convey the power of the system oflaws over the individual. Separate entrances 117 PATTERNS OF PRACTICE for judges, commands to stand whenever the judge arrives or departs, and the unintelligibility of the court clerk further contribute to the mysteries of the courtroom. Each service setting functions somewhat differently, but in their different ways each contributes to client compliance. Many offices in which people seek service are structured to separate clearly the workers from the clients by means ofan imposing information desk.1 Clients, when interviewed, are led to "offices" that, lacking partitions, violate privacy by permitting everyone to view (and listen in on) everyone else's work. Fixed rows of desks in schools, all facing the teacher, physically represent the demand for order that teachers and schools require. Like uniforms, settings facilitate the functioning of the bureaucracies by drawing attention to the location of power and cuing the expectations of clients. These messages are not accidental. They are fostered by the agencies and generally consented to by the society. It is interesting to observe in modern courthouses the extent to which the traditional courtroom setting--dark, polished wood, the bench, separate entrances, the flags, epigrams celebrating justice-are retained in otherwise nontraditional architecture. Consider also the tenacity of setting configurations in other public services , and the extent to which departures from tradition appear to be radical. In the public mind a nontraditional school is simply one without fixed desks. Are clients important and valued as people? Provide them with comfortable chairs and sofas on which to sit while they wait, ask them if they are comfortable , and reassure them if they must wait that they have not been forgotten. Are clients of little account? Neglect these considerations and have a small, cramped waiting room with little attention available. It would be mistaken to think ofservice settings as accidental. It is often a matter ofpolicy that public services are able, or consider themselves unable, to plan for client comfort. z. Clients are isolated from one another.2 Public service bureaucracies are organized so that clients have little knowledge ofothers in the same position. Most client processing is shielded from the scrutiny ofother clients. Isolated clients are more likely to think of themselves as responsible for their situations . They are unlikely to see their condition as a reflection of social structure and their treatment as unacceptable. When client processing is done in public, the impression is accurately conveyed that clients are competing with one another for the attention or favor of street-level bureaucrats. As suggested earlier, in the brutal realities oftriage, clients perceive that they gain special treatment or the attention of workers only at the expense of other clients. The bureaucratic defense against special treatment is also germane here: "If I give it to you I would 118 Controlling Clients and the Work Situation have to give it to everyone." In street-level settings in which clients do know each other-in schools, mental hospitals, prisons---client control is fostered by...