This study investigates the role of frontline workers, such as the Barangay Health Emergency Response Teams (BHERTs) in the Philippines, as street‐level bureaucrats (SLBs) in implementing COVID‐19 community quarantine policies. Drawing from SLB theory and deliberative policy analysis (DPA), I explore how SLBs adapted to rapidly changing conditions by exercising discretion in interpreting and adapting the implementation of nationally formulated pandemic management policies to meet local realities. I argue that SLBs functioned as deliberative practitioners, mediating between national policies and local realities while engaging in deliberative practices with their clients. Using the experience of BHERTs in Palompon, Leyte in the Philippines as an illustrative case, I identified the policy mandates (policy‐as‐written) of the BHERTs; the challenges and constraints they faced in implementing community quarantine policies; and the discretion they exercised in implementing community quarantine policies (policy‐as‐practiced). The findings reveal that, to meet their policy mandates and address the challenges they faced, they engaged in deliberative practices and collaborated with citizens in implementing context‐specific and creative strategies. Insights from this study highlight the adaptive and deliberative potential of SLBs in crisis situations and the value of a DPA in understanding SLB theory and research. By examining SLBs’ experiences during the pandemic, this study contributes to the SLB literature and offers practical lessons to policy practitioners in facilitating deliberation and developing context‐specific solutions in times of crisis.Points for practitioners
The COVID‐19 pandemic and the subsequent government response in the Philippines have increased the challenges faced by street‐level bureaucrats (SLBs), including resource scarcity, organisational and political pressure, public resistance, and the risk of exposure to the virus.
SLBs have shown their capacity to apply discretion and collaborate with their clients to resolve their own and the client's challenges and limitations through negotiation, mediation, conflict management, and active listening. This cooperative approach empowers them to resolve common issues and together formulate effective strategies that are beneficial to all parties involved.
Relationships outside of SLBs’ duties as state agents (i.e. socio‐cultural relationships) can be a viable pathway for SLBs to implement alternative policy strategies to meet their policy mandates and address the challenges they face as they implement their mandates.
Competing value systems, knowledge claims, and emotional narratives, compounded by a governance crisis, define the complex and informal nature of the policy process in the context of a crisis like the pandemic.
Although SLBs demonstrate their capacity to creatively solve the challenges they encounter through deliberative practices, this should not serve as a justification for the government's lack of action in prioritising, safeguarding, and preserving their welfare.
