the expense of engaging with course, inductions, new friends and new opportunities. Whether these respondents were referring to us, SFE or both it highlighted the extent to which access barriers were as important as the long term support for many students; these processes and experiences were things we had the power to change. The respondents’ experiences of delegated public policy in action echoed much of what Lipksy observed 30 years ago in the common features of street level bureaucracy (1980). Lipksy’s research reported administrative policies designed for the convenience of bureaucrats rather than clients, complex and timely processes that intentionally or inadvertently dissuaded clients from progressing or complaining, limited client power or influence, the need for clients to adopt identities and behaviours, the pressure to be compliant, low transparency and accountability. Similarly, some of the positive features of street level bureaucracies were also evident in respondent’s positive feedback; there were descriptions of flexibility, individualised responses, and empowering interactions. Lipsky (1980) suggests transparency, flexibility, increased client (student) agency, and service accountability are key to making improvements to services; the students in our research concluded the same. Lipsky suggested that local discretion creates a vacuum which can generate positive or negative manifestation of bureaucratic behaviour; particularly when client and institutional priorities are in conflict (1980). Lipsky’s bureaucracies sounded too familiar to disregard and so the opportunity was created to ask what of the good and bad practice he expounds did we embody? Were we guilty of letting our discretion, autonomy and power needlessly disadvantage students? Could our service make changes, within the parameters of what we could control, to address issues of service access describe by students. In the past themes of student and ‘independence’ had frequently permeated discussions on service approach and ‘graduateness’ service delivery. Previous managers had been concerned that we did not to students.’ There was a recurrent argument that the process, ‘pander although burdensome for students, was a valid vehicle for fostering independence. With the framing of the DSA changes as a direct instruction to Universities to effectively revisit and enhance their activities in support of meeting their Equality Act duties; the purpose of the service could be reimagined. Rather than justifying the student burden as a growth opportunity the Service encouraged acknowledgment that everything about the process of accessing support is a disadvantage and a distraction to the disabled student; additional
the expense of engaging with course, inductions, new friends and new opportunities. Whether these respondents were referring to us, SFE or both it highlighted the extent to which access barriers were as important as the long term support for many students; these processes and experiences were things we had the power to change. The respondents’ experiences of delegated public policy in action echoed much of what Lipksy observed 30 years ago in the common features of street level bureaucracy (1980). Lipksy’s research reported administrative policies designed for the convenience of bureaucrats rather than clients, complex and timely processes that intentionally or inadvertently dissuaded clients from progressing or complaining, limited client power or influence, the need for clients to adopt identities and behaviours, the pressure to be compliant, low transparency and accountability. Similarly, some of the positive features of street level bureaucracies were also evident in respondent’s positive feedback; there were descriptions of flexibility, individualised responses, and empowering interactions. Lipsky (1980) suggests transparency, flexibility, increased client (student) agency, and service accountability are key to making improvements to services; the students in our research concluded the same. Lipsky suggested that local discretion creates a vacuum which can generate positive or negative manifestation of bureaucratic behaviour; particularly when client and institutional priorities are in conflict (1980). Lipsky’s bureaucracies sounded too familiar to disregard and so the opportunity was created to ask what of the good and bad practice he expounds did we embody? Were we guilty of letting our discretion, autonomy and power needlessly disadvantage students? Could our service make changes, within the parameters of what we could control, to address issues of service access describe by students. In the past themes of student ‘independence’ and ‘graduateness’ had frequently permeated discussions on service approach and service delivery. Previous managers had been concerned that we did not ‘pander to students.’ There was a recurrent argument that the process, although burdensome for students, was a valid vehicle for fostering independence. With the framing of the DSA changes as a direct instruction to Universities to effectively revisit and enhance their activities in support of meeting their Equality Act duties; the purpose of the service could be reimagined. Rather than justifying the student burden as a growth opportunity the Service encouraged acknowledgment that everything about the process of accessing support is a disadvantage and a distraction to the disabled student; additional