English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

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