Cited by 336Public Policy and Administration ResearchSocial Work Education and PracticePolicing Practices and Perceptions

Which Clients are Deserving of Help? A Theoretical Model and Experimental Test

Open access
Jilke, Sebastian, Tummers, Lars·2018·Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Abstract

Street-level bureaucrats have to cope with high workloads, role conflicts, and limited resources. An important way in which they cope with this is by prioritizing some clients, while disregarding others. When deciding on whom to prioritize, street-level bureaucrats often assess whether a client is deserving of help. However, to date the notion of the deserving client is in a black box as it is largely unclear which client attributes activate the prevailing social/professional category of deservingness. This article, therefore, proposes a theoretical model of three deservingness cues that street-level bureaucrats employ to determine whom to help: earned deservingness (i.e., the client is deserving because (s)he earned it: “the hardworking client”), needed deservingness (i.e., the client is deserving because (s)he needs help: “the needy client”), and resource deservingness (i.e., the client is deserving as (s)he is probably successful according to bureaucratic success criteria: “the successful client”). We test the effectiveness of these deservingness cues via an experimental conjoint design among a nationwide sample of US teachers. Our results suggest that needed deservingness is the most effective cue in determining which students to help, as teachers especially intend to prioritize students with low academic performance and members of minority groups. Earned deservingness was also an effective cue, but to a lesser extent. Resource deservingness, in contrast, did not affect t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jopart/muy002

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Low executive functioning (poor planning, lack of initiative, missed deadlines) can frustrate state actors, who may confuse such behaviors with lack of motivation or laziness, leading them to categorize citizens as undeserving.

    “low executive functioning (poor planning, lack of initiative, missed deadlines, etc.) can prove frustrating to state actors who may easily confuse such behaviors with lack of motivation or laziness, which may, in turn, lead them to categorize citizens as undeserving (Aarøe and Petersen 2014; Hansen 2018; Jilke and Tummers 2018).”
  • Street-level bureaucrats and other state actors are often motivated to help disadvantaged citizens compensate for their challenges in life.

    “Street‐level bureaucrats and other state actors are often motivated to help disadvantaged citizens compensate for their challenges in life (Jilke and Tummers 2018; Tummers et al. 2015).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jilke, S., & Tummers, L.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Tummers, Lars
Venue
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Published
2018-01-29
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
226-238
ISSN
  • 1053-1858 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-9803
OpenAlex
W2790560043
Cited by
336
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5
FWCI
50.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
NWO (VENI-451-14-004)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
Keywords
deservingness, street-level bureaucracy, teacher decision-making, academic performance, minority students, state-citizen relations, role conflict

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review