Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorAcker, Elizabeth van
dc.contributor.authorHondros, James Constantineen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-01-23T02:19:35Z
dc.date.available2018-01-23T02:19:35Z
dc.date.issued2014en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.25904/1912/2738
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/365545
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this thesis is to interpret the use of discretion to deliver public service in public interest. The research question to guide this purpose is, what do street-level bureaucrats use discretion for to implement disability service standards in Australia? Lipsky (1976) proposed that given their discretionary power, people on the front-line representing government (termed ‘street-level bureaucrats’) through daily people processing action on the front-line significantly affect policy outcomes. To implement social policy, a qualitative based method has been used to emphasize both intended and unintended consequences to front-line discretion. As a case, the street-level bureaucrats in disability employment services participated in semi-structured interviews and assisted this thesis design and provide the grounds to interpreting what it means to implement social policy in public interest today. By asking the question what is discretion used for, it is with the intention to uncover the meaning of public benefit, deep-rooted in service delivery. It is argued a street-level bureaucrat determines the meaning for citizen-consumer experience from standards in the legislation, and in so doing this, will highlight the ambiguity experienced in service delivery between state-agent or citizen-agent understanding surrounding ‘public interest’ and ‘public service’. The foundation on which the nature, amount and quality of benefits and sanctions, to assist people with a disability into sustainable employment, still rests with new street-level bureaucrats rather than the state initiative. Outcomes of service delivery rest on, in part, the use of discretion by street-level bureaucrats. This thesis disagrees with the state-agent ideal whereby particular outcomes that are unintended or unanticipated by those responsible for setting policy objectives (government) can be explained by the discretion of street-level bureaucrats.en_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.publisherGriffith Universityen_US
dc.publisher.placeBrisbaneen_US
dc.rights.copyrightThe author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise.en_US
dc.subject.keywordsPublic service in public interesten_US
dc.subject.keywordsNational disability service standardsen_US
dc.subject.keywordsEmployment servicesen_US
dc.titleImplementing National Disability Service Standards: What Street Level Bureaucrats Exercise Discretion for in the Provision of Employment Servicesen_US
dc.typeGriffith thesisen_US
gro.facultyGriffith Business Schoolen_US
gro.rights.copyrightThe author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
dc.contributor.otheradvisorHoward, Cosmo
dc.rights.accessRightsPublicen_US
gro.identifier.gurtIDgu1423797880411en_US
gro.source.ADTshelfnoADT0en_US
gro.source.GURTshelfnoGURTen_US
gro.thesis.degreelevelThesis (Masters)en_US
gro.thesis.degreeprogramMaster of Philosophy (MPhil)en_US
gro.departmentGriffith Business Schoolen_US
gro.griffith.authorHondros, James Constantine


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record