Table 4.
Consistencies of Australian environmental health officers’ interview and questionnaire data with Lipsky's theory( 20 )
| Lipsky's theory | Environmental health officers: data consistent with Lipsky | Environmental health officers: data inconsistent with Lipsky |
|---|---|---|
| Workload | ||
| • Heavy workload | • Many and varied duties | |
| • Demand for services sometimes unpredictable | • Unpredictable nature of work | |
| • Direct interaction with clients | • Field officers have high degree of Interaction with clients | |
| Considerable discretion | High degree of discretion | |
| Organizational constraints | ||
| • Resources limited | • Resources often insufficient | |
| • Conflict between client needs and organizational goals | • Need to balance community demands and organization targets | |
| • Manager concerned with organizational goals | • Managers and field officers report different duties | |
| • Ambiguous, vague or conflicting goals | • ‘Shifting goal posts’, ‘legislation difficult’, ‘lack of guidance’ | |
| Tension between capability/objectives | Tension between capability/objectives | |
| Coping mechanisms | ||
| • Short cuts | • Prioritizing/rationing, but by highest health risk (not ‘creaming’) | |
| • Rationing of services: ‘creaming’ | ||
| Street-level bureaucrats develop mechanisms to lessen frustration | Environmental health officers develop mechanisms to lessen frustration | |
| Outcomes | ||
| • Disillusionment | • Positive role perceptions: altruism, ‘watchdogs’ | |
| • Psychological removal from work | ||
| • Dedicated workers quit |