Human service interactions have long been explored through a focus on what happens in these interactions: who participates, what is said and done, and the outcomes that emerge. However, recent political, environmental, and socio-economic shifts highlight the ways a focus on the mere facts of an interaction may not be adequate in understanding what occurs in human service interactions and why, especially if the goal is to improve these interactions. In order to create more resilience in human service interactions and to account for how recent crises impact interactions, there is an opportunity for public and nonprofit institutions to focus in on individuals’ experience of human service interactions, as well as to consider how that experience shapes outcomes. This paper draws on multidisciplinary research to explore felt experience, as shaped by individuals’ autonomic nervous system, as a significant factor and potential determinant of human service interactions.
AjiloreO., & ThamesA. D. (2020). The fire this time: The stress of racism, inflammation and COVID-19. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 88, 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2020.06.003.
2.
BaileyR., DanaD., BaileyE., & DavisF. (2020). The Application of the Polyvagal Theory to High Conflict Co-Parenting Cases. Family Court Review, 58(2), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12485.
3.
BartelsK. P. R. (2015). Communicative Capacity: Public Encounters in Participatory Theory and Practice.Policy Press.
BrodkinE. Z. (2013). Street-Level organizations and the welfare state. In BrodkinE. Z. & MarstonG. (Eds.), Work and the Welfare State: Street-level Organizations and Workfare Politics (pp. 17–34). Georgetown University Press.
6.
BusuiocE. M., & LodgeM. (2016). The Reputational Basis of Public Accountability. Governance, 29(2), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12161.
7.
CampbellA. L. (2011). How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State. In How Policies Make Citizens.Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400841318.
8.
CardenasS., & Ramírez de la CruzE. E. (2016). Controlling Administrative Discretion Promotes Social Equity? Evidence from a Natural Experiment. Public Administration Review, n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12590.
DanaD. (2020). Polyvagal Exercises for Safety and Connection: 50 Client-Centered Practices (Unabridged edition). Tantor and Blackstone Publishing.
11.
DanaD., & PorgesS. W. (2018). The Polyvagal Theory in Therapy: Engaging the Rhythm of Regulation (Illustrated edition). W. W. Norton & Company.
12.
de BoerN. (2021). The (un)intended effects of street-level bureaucrats' enforcement style: Do citizens shame or obey bureaucrats?Public Policy and Administration, 36(4), 452–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076720905005.
13.
DomboE. A., & SabatinoC. A. (2019). Trauma Care in Schools: Creating Safe Environments for Students with Adverse Childhood Experiences. American Educator, 43(2), 18–21.
14.
DuboisV. (2010). The bureaucrat and the poor: Encounters in French welfare offices.Ashgate.
EdlinsM., & DolamoreS. (2018). Ready to Serve the Public? The Role of Empathy in Public Service Education Programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24(4).
17.
EppC. R., Maynard-MoodyS., & Haider-MarkelD. P. (2014). Pulled Over: How Police Stops Define Race and Citizenship.University of Chicago Press.
18.
FarmbryK. (2009). Administration and the Other: Explorations of Diversity and Marginalization in the Political Administrative State.Lexington Books.
19.
GaynorT. S. (2018). Social Construction and the Criminalization of Identity: State-Sanctioned Oppression and an Unethical Administration. Public Integrity, 20(4), 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2017.1416881.
20.
GotlibI. H., & AsarnowR. F. (1979). Interpersonal and impersonal problem-solving skills in mildly and clinically depressed university students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.47.1.86.
21.
HalpernJ. (2003). What is Clinical Empathy?Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(8), 670–674.
22.
HasenfeldY., & SteinmetzD. (1981). Client-Official Encounters in Social Service Agencies. In GoodsellC. T. (Ed.), The Public Encounter: Where State and Citizen Meet.Indiana University Press.
23.
HillisS. D., BlenkinsopA., VillavecesA., AnnorF. B., LiburdL., MassettiG. M., DemissieZ., MercyJ. A., NelsonC. A.III, CluverL., FlaxmanS., SherrL., DonnellyC. A., RatmannO., & UnwinH. J. T. (2021). COVID-19–Associated Orphanhood and Caregiver Death in the United States. Pediatrics, 148(6), e2021053760. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-053760.
HudsonB. (1989). Michael Lipsky and Street-Level Bureaucracy: A Neglected Perspective. In BartonL. (Ed.), Disability and Dependency (pp. 41–52). Routledge.
26.
HummelR. (1991). Stories managers tell: Why they are as valid as science. Public Administration Review, 51(1), 31–41.
27.
HvidmanU. (2019). Citizens' Evaluations of the Public Sector: Evidence From Two Large-Scale Experiments. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 29(2), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy064.
28.
IsmailW., AriffinR., & CheokC. K. (2014). Human trafficking in Malaysia: Bureaucratic challenges in policy implementation. Administration & Society, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399714532271.
29.
LipskyM. (1980a). Streel-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services.Russell Sage Foundation.
30.
LipskyM. (1980b). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (UMBC Library Stacks HV41 .L53). New York: Russell Sage Foundation, c1980.
31.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy, 30th Anniversary Edition: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service.Russell Sage Foundation.
32.
MaorM., GiladS., & BloomP. B.-N. (2013). Organizational Reputation, Regulatory Talk, and Strategic Silence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 23(3), 581–608.
33.
Maynard-MoodyS., & MushenoM. C. (2003). Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service.University of Michigan Press.
34.
McCandlessS., & BlessettB. (2022). Dismantling racism and white supremacy in public service institutions and society: Contextualizing the discussion and introducing the symposium. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 0(0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2022.2043071.
MenakemR. (2017). My Grandmother's Hands: Racialized Trauma and the Pathway to Mending Our Hearts and Bodies.Central Recovery Press.
37.
MeyersM., & VorsangerS. (2007). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy. In PetersB. G. & PierreJ. (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration: Concise Paperback Edition (pp. 153–164). Sage.
38.
NothdurfterU., & HermansK. (2018). Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street-level research in public management, social policy and social work. Internationa/Journal of Social Welfare, 27(3), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12308.
PanditaS., MishraH. G., & ChibS. (2021). Psychological impact of covid-19 crises on students through the lens of Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) model. Children and Youth Services Review, 120, 105783.
41.
PorgesS. W. (1995). Orienting in a Defensive World—Mammalian Modifications of Our Evolutionary Heritage—A Polyvagal Theory. PSYCHO PHYSIO LOGY, 32(4), 301–318.
42.
PorgesS. W. (2004). NEUROCEPTION: A Subconscious System for Detecting Threats and Safety. Zero to Three, 24(5), 19–24.
PorgesS. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-regulation (1st edition). W. W. Norton & Company.
ProttasJ. M. (1979). People Processing: The street-level bureaucrat in public service bureaucracies.Lexington Books.
47.
ShumavonD.H., & HibbelnH. K. (1986). Administrative discretion and public policy implementation.Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
48.
SossJ. (1999). Lessons of Welfare: Policy Design, Political Learning, and Political Action. The American Political Science Review, 93(2), 363–380.
49.
StanleyB. L., ZaninA. C., AvalosB. L., TracyS. J., & TownS. (2021). Collective Emotion During Collective Trauma: A Metaphor Analysis of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Qualitative Health Research, 31(10), 1890–1903. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323211011589.
50.
TaylorS. R. (2021). The Body Is Not an Apology, Second Edition: The Power of Radical Self-Love (2nd edition). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
51.
TeodoroM. P. & AnSeung-Ho. (2018). Citizen-Based Brand Equity: A Model and Experimental Evaluation. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 28 (3), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux044.
52.
TummersL., & BekkersV. (2012). Discretion and its effects: Analyzing the experiences of street-level bureaucrats during policy implementation.http://repub.eur.nl/pub/34726/.
53.
TummersL., & BekkersV. (2014). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(1), 527–547.
54.
TzadikiT., & Weiss-GalI. (2020). Team Managers in Local Social Service Departments in Israel as Bottom-Up Social Policy-Makers. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 43(3), 324–345.
55.
van der KolkB. (2015). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma (Reprint edition). Penguin Publishing Group.
56.
WaeraasA., & ByrkjeflotH. (2012). Public Sector Organizations and Reputation Management: Five Problems. International Public Management Journal, 15(2), 186–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2012.702590.
WengS. S., BarrerasJ. L., NguyenS., & NourazariS. (2022). “We All had to Respond to the Pandemic and our Patient Needs”: Social Workers' Perspectives of Integrated Healthcare Agencies' Response to COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 45(2), 97–117.
59.
World Health Organization. (2022). WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard.World Health Organization. https://covidl9.who.int.
60.
ZanettiL. A. (2011). Cultivating and sustaining empathy as a normative value in public administration. In KingC. S. (Ed.), Government is Us 2.0.M.E. Sharpe.
61.
ZavattaroS. M., & McCandlessS. A. (2020). Editor's introduction: Our public service manifesto during pandemic. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(2), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2020.1752593.
62.
ZhaiX., WangM., & GhaniU. (2020). The SOR (stimulus-organism-response) paradigm in online learning: An empirical study of students' knowledge hiding perceptions. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(5), 586–601.
