Skip to main content Accessibility help

Discretion on the Frontline: The Street Level Bureaucrat in English Statutory Homelessness Services

  • Sarah Alden (a1)


This article employs Michael Lipsky's street level bureaucrat conceptual framework to explore the exercise of discretion in frontline homelessness service delivery. It is the first to apply Lipsky's model to English homelessness services at the outset, and builds on earlier investigations which have uncovered how the use of illegitimate discretion can potentially lead to detrimental outcomes for service users affected by homelessness. This topic is particularly salient in light of the current politically austere climate, whereby statutory homelessness services have experienced an increase in service users, yet resources, if anything, are declining. Interview findings from twelve local authorities found evidence of unlawful discretion, which was attributed to a complex mesh of individual, intersubjective, organisational and central-led factors. However, the use of negative discretion was chiefly underpinned by higher level pressures around resource scarcity and strict targets.



Hide All
Baldwin, M. (2000) Care Management and Community Care: Social Work Discretion and the Construction of Policy, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bowpitt, G., Dwyer, P., Sundin, E. and Weinstein, M. (2011) The Home Study: Comparing the Priorities of Multiply Excluded Homeless People and Support Agencies, (accessed 13 March 2012).
Brent Homeless Users Group (2009) Mystery Shopper Report, London: Crisis, (accessed 12 November 2011).
Bretherton, J., Hunter, C. and Johnsen, S. (2013) ‘“You can judge them on how they look. . .”: homelessness officers, medical evidence and decision-making in England’, European Journal of Homelessness, 7, 1, 6992.
Burrows, R. (1997) ‘The social distribution of the experiences of homelessness’, in Burrows, R., Pleace, N. and Quilgars, D. (eds.), Homelessness and Social Policy, London: Routledge, pp. 5068.
Chartered Institute of Housing, National Housing Federation and Shelter (2012) The Housing Report: Edition 3, November 2012, London: National Housing Federation, (accessed 20 January 2013).
Cheeseman, M. (2011) ‘Mystery shoppers improve frontline housing and homelessness advice’, The Guardian, 10 October, (accessed 29 January 2012).
Cowan, D., Halliday, S. and Hunter, C. (2006) ‘Adjudicating the Implementation of Homelessness Law: the promise of socio-legal studies’, Housing Studies, 21, 3, 381400.
Cramer, H. (2005), ‘Informal and gendered practices in a homeless persons unit’, Housing Studies, 20, 5, 737–51.
Crisis. (2012) Crisis Policy Briefing: Housing Benefit Cuts, London: Crisis.
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2006) The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, London: DCLG.
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2012) Making Every Contact Count: A Joint Approach to Preventing Homelessness, London: DCLG.
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2014) Homelessness Statistics, (accessed 10 June 2014).
Durose, C. (2009) ‘Front-line workers and “local knowledge”: neighbourhood stories in contemporary UK local governance’, Public Administration, 87, 1, 3549.
Durose, C. (2011) ‘Revisiting Lipsky: front-line work in UK local governance’, Political Studies, 59, 4, 978–95.
Ellis, K. (2007) ‘Direct payments and social work practice: the significance of street-level-bureaucracy in determining eligibility’, British Journal of Social Work, 37, 3, 405–22.
Evans, A. (1999) ‘Rationing device or passport to social housing? The operaton of the homelessness legislation in Britain in the 1990s’, in Hutson, S. and Clapham, D. (eds.), Homelessness: Public Policies and Private Troubles, London: Cassell, pp. 133–54.
Evans, T. (2010) Professional Discretion in Welfare Services, Beyond Street Level Bureaucracy, Farnham: Ashgate.
Evans, T. (2011) ‘Professionals, managers and discretion: critiquing street-level bureaucracy’, British Journal of Social Work, 41, 2, 368–86.
Evans, T. and Harris, J. (2004) ‘Street-Level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion’, British Journal of Social Work, 34, 6, 871–95.
FEANTSA (2012) On the Way Home?, Brussels: FEANTSA.
Fitzpatrick, S., Pawson, H., Bramley, G. and Wilcox, S. (2012) The Homelessness Monitor: England 2012, London: Crisis.
Fletcher, D. R. (2011) ‘Welfare Reform, Jobcentre Plus and the street-level bureaucracy: towards inconsistent and discriminatory welfare for severely disadvantaged groups?’, Social policy and Society, 10, 4, 445–58.
Foster, P. (1983) Access to Welfare: An Introduction to Welfare Rationing, London: The Macmillan Press.
Great Britain (1996) Housing Act 1996, London: The Stationery Office.
Great Britain (2002) Homelessness Act 2002, London: The Stationery Office.
Halliday, S. (2000) ‘Institutional racism in bureaucratic decision making: a case study in the administation of homelessness law’, Journal of Law and Society, 27, 3, 449–71.
Heywood, F., Oldman, C. and Means, R. (2002) Housing and Home in Later Life, Buckingham: Open University Press.
House of Commons (2012) House of Commons Oral Answers to Questions: Homelessness, 17 December, London: Hansard, (accessed 11 January 2013).
Howe, D. (1991) ‘Knowledge, power, and the shape of social work practice’, in Davies, M. (ed.), The Sociology of Social Work, London: Routledge, pp. 202–20.
Hoyle, L. (2014) ‘“I mean, obviously you’re using your discretion”: nurses use of discretion in policy implementation’, Social Policy and Society, 13, 2, 189202.
Hudson, B. (1989) ‘Michael Lipsky and street level bureaucracy: a neglected perspective’, in Barton, L. (ed.), Disability and Dependency, London: Falmer Press, pp. 4254.
Lidstone, P. (1994) ‘Rationing housing to the homeless applicant’, Housing Studies, 9, 4, 459–72.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959) ‘The science of muddling through’, Public Administration Review, 19, 2, 7988.
Lipsky, M. (1971) ‘Street-level bureaucracy and the analysis of urban reform’, Urban Affairs Review, 6, 4, 391409.
Lipsky, M. (1980) Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lipsky, M. (2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, (30th anniversary expanded edition), New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Loveland, I. (1991) ‘Administrative processes, and the housing of homeless persons: a view from the sharp end’, Journal of Social Welfare Law, 13, 1, 426.
Maynard-Moody, S. and Musheno, M. (2000) ‘State agent or citizen agent: two narratives of discretion’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 2, 329–58.
Nevin, B. and Leather, P. (2012) Localism, Welfare Reform and Housing Market Change: Identifying the Issues and Responding to the Challenge, Stoke on Trent: Northern Area Social Housing (NASH) Forum.
Niner, P. (1989) Homelessness in Nine Local Authorities: Case Studies of Policy and Practice, London: HMSO.
Pannell, J. and Palmer, G. (2004) ‘Coming of age: meeting the challenges of older homelessness’, Housing Care and Support, 7, 4, 24–8.
Pawson, H. (2007) ‘Local authority homelessness prevention in England: empowering consumers or denying rights?’, Housing Studies, 22, 6, 867–83.
Pawson, H. and Wilcox, S. (2011) Housing Review 2010/2011, Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing.
Pawson, H. and Wilcox, S. (2012) Housing Review 2011/2012, Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing.
Pawson, H., Netto, G. and Jones, C. (2006) Homelessness Prevention: A Guide to Good Practice, London: DCLG.
Prottas, J. M. (1979) People Processing: The Street-Level Bureaucrat in Public Service Bureaucracies, Lexington Books.
Rashleigh, B. (2005) Keeping the Numbers Down, London: ROOF.
Reeve, K. and Batty, E. (2011) The Hidden Truth about Homelessness: Experiences of Single Homelessness in England, London: Crisis.
Sullivan, M. (2009) ‘Social workers in community care practice: ideologies and interactions with older people’, British Journal of Social Work, 39, 7, 1306–25.
Taylor, I. and Kelly, J. (2006) ‘Professionals, discretion and public sector reform in the UK: re-visiting Lipsky’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19, 7, 629–42.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Social Policy and Society
  • ISSN: 1474-7464
  • EISSN: 1475-3073
  • URL: /core/journals/social-policy-and-society
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed