Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program for the 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference Program Overview Panel: The Rule of Law & Public Administration Author(s) Natalja Gončiarova Vytautas Magnus University Kaunas Lithuania Pivoras Saulius, Civinskas Remigijus, Remigijus Civinskas Assoc. Prof. at Public Administration Department, Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania; Saulius Pivoras - Professor at Public Administration Department, Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania. Title The Impact of Service Standardisation on Lithuanian Street-Level Bureaucracy File Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. Presenter Natalja Gončiarova Abstract The main objective of the research is to reveal how the standardization and automation of services’ (client service) processes affect the coping behavior of street-level bureaucrats: the case of three Lithuanian institutions. The purpose of this paper is to present how regulatory level affect the behavior of street-level bureaucrats in their interaction with clients. Three largest Lithuanian institutions, which are under different Ministries of Lithuania have been selected for the research: State Tax Inspectorate; State Social Security Agency and State Employment Agency. State Tax Inspectorate and State Social Security Agency are two largest institutions which are directly faced by majority of Lithuanian population as clients. State Employment Agency faces with smaller part of the population. Two methods for collecting empirical data (interviews and monitoring) were used to analyze how standardization affects street-level bureaucrat’s behavior. The interviews with client service departments’ managers and specialists, who directly serve clients from the seven territorial units of both institutions, were conducted in 2016. However, street-level bureaucrats, in the State Employment Agency (2 territorial units), were interviewed and monitored in 2018. Standardization does not decrease the actual discretion of street-level bureaucrats. The results of empirical data revealed that only some of the actions (greetings, needs’ clarifications, feedback), but not all the content of the communication, is defined in detail in the standards. The application of standards is flexible, especially in atypical situations in these institutions. Standards also do not prevent street-level bureaucrats from making autonomous decisions’ in their interaction with clients. Street-level bureaucrats of State Social Security Agency and State Employment Agency have more freedom in their behavior than those working in State Tax Inspectorate. The street-level bureaucrats of State Tax Inspectorate have become mediators for the servicing of automated systems. The essential difference between the standards of institutions is the fact that State Tax Inspectorate focuses on the elderly by assigning them to a special category of clients. State Social Security Agency and State Employment Agency do not exclude the elderly as a target group. State Security Agency’s standards do not even recommend showing remorse and compassion for the elderly clients. Street-level bureaucrats of State Tax Inspectorate show more attention for the elderly, the clients with disabilities and accordingly, reallocate time resources available for them. In State Employment Agency only clients with disabilities and young clients are served in separate departments. Street-level bureaucrats of State Employment Agency are encouraged to identify and assess the needs of the clients and allocate them enough time to identify the problem, to foresee possible directions and property choose service delivery model. Participants of interviews, when talking about the reasons why violation of standards or rules may appear mentioned these reasons: “necessary flexibility” “attention for the client” “cannot be planned in each case”, “extreme situations”. Service standards define only part of the actions of street-level bureaucrats. Further behavior of street-level bureaucrats (in State Social Security Agency and State Employment Agency) depends on their competence, professional knowledge and the ability to apply flexible standards. At the practical level, specialists of State Social Security Agency and State Employment Agency have a greater actual discretion than specialists of the State Tax Inspectorate, despite the more formal service standard existing in State Social Security Agency.
