Street-Level Bureaucrats and Intersectional Policy Logic: a Case Study of LGBTQ Policy and Implementation Barriers
- PDF / 383,596 Bytes
- 17 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 96 Downloads / 149 Views
Street-Level Bureaucrats and Intersectional Policy Logic: a Case Study of LGBTQ Policy and Implementation Barriers Amy Castro Baker 1 & Amy Hillier 1
& Monique
Perry 2
# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
Abstract Without clear federal mandates protecting the rights of transgender and gender nonconforming people, local governments are drafting their own legislation that either protects or limits these populations’ rights. This leaves street-level bureaucrats situated in between competing auspices, conflicting mandates, and a constrained sense of selfdetermination when they are tasked with applying emerging legislation in a policy gray area. This paper considers the policy logic of an intersectional approach to LGBTQ policy, as well as the implementation barriers street-level bureaucrats may face when operationalizing LGBTQ policy in a politically complex environment. First, we use a piece of local legislation designed by transgender and LGB youth as an implementation case study focused on policy logic and policy triggers. Second, we employ thematic analysis for analyzing open-ended responses to 281 surveys completed by teachers and other school staff after training around implementation of a new district-wide policy anchored in an intersectional approach. Beyond normative, protracted implementation timelines, even when front-line workers were in full support of LGBTQ rights, tension still surfaces around the internalization of bureaucracy, fear of disciplinary sanctions, a perception of competing rights, and ambivalence with mediating between personal, familial, and youth agency. Even when using equity-focused policy approaches, stakeholders can expect to encounter implementation barriers with street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) while trying to influence higher orders of government through local advocacy and action. Altering the discourse on gender identity remains difficult in the current political environment surrounding LGBTQ rights. Keywords Internalization of bureaucracy . Street-level bureaucrats . Single-factor trigger .
LGBTQ . Transgender
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s42972-02000010-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* Amy Hillier [email protected] Extended author information available on the last page of the article
Journal of Policy Practice and Research
In the absence of a federal policy or Supreme Court decision delineating how Title IX protects the gender identity of students, hundreds of local school districts across the USA are developing their own policies outlining the rights of transgender and gender nonconforming (trans/GNC) students (Lewis et al. 2018). States that offer protection on the basis of gender identity do so through general anti-discrimination laws, policies explicitly protecting gender identity within K-12 schools, and written guidance from state departments of education describing how schools should support a student’s gender identity. As of 2020, twenty-one states and
Data Loading...
