CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 320Public Policy and Administration ResearchManagement and Organizational StudiesPublic Administration in Developing Nations

Moving Beyond Discretion and Outcomes: Examining Public Management from the Front Lines of the Welfare System

Sandfort, J. R.·2000·Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024289
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article investigates front-line conditions within two sectors charged with the delivery of social welfare programs public bureaucracies and private contractors. I examine two traditions of public management that operate in these organizations and focus on how each tries to direct front-line action. Drawing upon ethnographic data, I discover a disjuncture between these management frameworks and day-to-day front-line operations. A body of social theory that posits that individuals both create and are constrained by social structures is used to understand these findings. The application of this theory both suggests that there is an ongoing social process not capitalized upon by existing management approaches and offers a new explanation for the persistence of certain management challenges in these sectors. The article concludes with a discussion of research propositions and management techniques that emerge from this inductive analysis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024289

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Practitioners' beliefs and moral values are important factors in street-level decision-making.

    “Practitioner's beliefs and moral values are important factors in regard to how street-level decision-making unfolds [77,83,105].”

    From A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfare (2021) · cites this paper as [105]

    The 'Implications for Public Management Research and Practice' section says front-line staff develop collective beliefs that shape how they interpret events and carry out their work. The copy does not establish practitioners’ moral values as a distinct factor in their decisions; its emphasis is on shared, experience-based beliefs and organizational context. Page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. [3]3. Behn, Robert. 1995a "The Big Questions of PuWk Administration." Public Admin- istration Review 55:4:313-24. 1995b "Creating an Innovative Organi- zation: Ten Hints for Involving Frontline Workers." State and Local Government Review 27:3: 221-34.
  2. [7]7. Dawson, Sandra. 1999 New Public Management-Dead or Alive? Third International Research Symposium on Public Management, Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK.
  3. [8]8. Emerson, Robert; Free, Rachel; and Shaw, Linda. 1995 Writing Ethnographic Field Notes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  4. [10]10. Cclia, and Hannibal, Mike. 1998 Doing Qualitative Research Using QSR Nudist. London: SAGE.
  5. [14]14. Hasenfeld, Yeheskel. 1978 "Client-Organizations Relations: A Systems Perspective." In R. Sari and Y. Hasenfeld, eds. The Management of Human Services. New York: Columbia University Press. 1997 "Organizational Forms As Morality Plays: The Case of Welfare Departments." Depart- ment of Social Welfare, UCLA.
  6. [21]21. Khademian, Anne M. 1997 "Is Silly Putty Manageable? Looking for the Links Between Culture, Management and Con- text" Paper presented at the 4th National Public Management Re- search Conference, Athens, Ga.
  7. [23]23. Langer, Ellen. 1989 Mindfulness. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
  8. [29]29. Lynn, Laurence E.; Heinrich, Carolyn; and Hill, Carolyn. 1999 The Empirical Study of Govern- ance: Theories, Models, and Methods. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
  9. [30]30. Mashaw, Jerry. 1983 "On Living with the Impossi- bility of Rational Adminis- tration." In Jerry Mashaw, Bureaucratic Justice. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
  10. [32]32. Meyer, Daniel R., and Ctncian, Maria. 1998 "Economic Well-Being of Women Following an Exit from AFDC." Journal of Marriage and the Family 60:2:479-92.
  11. [38]38. OTooIe, Lawrence J. Jr. 1997 "Treating Networks Seriously." Public Administration Review 57:45-52.
  12. [52]52. Schwaitzman, Helen. 1993 Ethnography in Organizations. Newbury Part, Calif.: SAGE.
  13. [53]53. Scott, Graham; Ball, Ian; and Dale, Tony. 1997 "New Zealand's Public Sector Management Reform: Implica- tions for the United States." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16:3:357-81.
  14. [58]58. Smith, Steven Rathgeb, and Lipsky, Michael. 1993 Non-Profits for Hire: The Wel- fare State in the Age of Con- tracting. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  15. [59]59. Sosin, Michael. 1986 "Legal Rights and Welfare Change. 1960-1980." In Sheldon Danziger and Daniel Weinberg, eds. Fighting Poverty. Cam- bridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer- sity Press.
  16. [60]60. Strauss, Anselm, and Corbin, Juliet. 1994 "Grounded Theory Methodol- ogy: An Overview." In Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sandfort, J. R.
Affiliations
Syracuse University (US)
Corresponding author
Sandfort, J. R.
ORCID
Sandfort, J. R.
Venue
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2000-10-01
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
729-756
ISSN
  • 1053-1858 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-9803
DOI
10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024289
OpenAlex
W2333218362
Cited by
320
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 12
FWCI
6.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration in Developing Nations
Keywords
public sector management, social welfare programs, frontline workers, state bureaucracy, private contractors, discretion, management framework, social structure, social processes, welfare delivery

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