Existing research finds that increases in administrative burden reduce client access, political efficacy, and equity. However, extant literature has yet to investigate how administrative burden policies are interpreted by street-level bureaucrats (SLB), whose values and beliefs structure uses of discretion and client experiences of programs. In this article, we utilize quantitative and qualitative data to examine SLB policy preferences regarding administrative burden in Oklahoma's Promise-a means-tested college access program. Our findings demonstrate that SLB in our sample interpret administrative burden policies through the lens of political ideology. Conservative SLB express significantly more support for administrative burden policies, arguing that these policies prevent fraud and demonstrate client deservingness. In contrast, predominantly liberal SLB justify opposition to administrative burden by arguing that the requirements undermine social equity. Together, our findings reveal that SLB political ideology shapes interpretations of administrative burden and perceptions of client deservingness in Oklahoma's Promise.

No abstract

No abstract

Utilizing a statewide survey and administrative data, we explore how state-imposed burdens are translated by street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) into frontline practices that may alleviate or exacerbate onerous experiences of the administrative state. First, we find that SLBs’ role perceptions shaped not only uses of discretionary power—as either a force of client empowerment or disentitlement—but also program access. Second, we find that the local agencies with the largest proportions of income-eligible clients often had the least capacity for alleviating administrative burden, suggesting decentralization may be a mechanism by which administrative burden perpetuates structural inequality.

The social construction of target populations has emerged as an influential framework for understanding the public policy process. In particular, target populations have been shown to shape the allocation of benefits and burdens by political elites. However, existing studies focus on the elite level, which overlooks whether public preferences are aligned with the allocation of policy benefits and burdens by political elites. Moreover, many studies treat social constructions as homogenous, which this paper calls into question. Using a nationwide survey experiment, I investigate variation in public support for affirmative action policies with randomly assigned target populations. The findings indicate that the public formulates policy preferences on the basis of perceived deservingness of target groups similar to political elites. In addition, the findings uncover heterogeneity in the effect of targeting on public opinion based on ideology and racial/ethnic group identity.