Implementing DACA: Discretion and policy in higher education during a time of crisis

• In Event: Higher Education Policy at the Intersection of Immigration, Funding, and Lifelong Learning

Proposal

Background and Purpose
Early studies on the pandemic's effects suggest that socially vulnerable populations, including migrants, have been disproportionately impacted by factors such as fear of legal repercussions, limited access to social services and healthcare, and poverty. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, established by executive order in 2012, has faced numerous legal and political challenges, including a federal attempt to rescind it in 2015 and a recent court order halting new applications. Drawing on Lipsky’s (2010) theory of street-level bureaucracy, this study explores how higher education institutions—operating as public service providers—have navigated these evolving federal, state, and institutional policies regarding DACA recipients, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to Lipsky (2010), street-level bureaucrats, such as university administrators, financial aid officers, and student services personnel, play a crucial role in interpreting and implementing policies. Their discretionary actions, especially in environments shaped by resource constraints, influence how policies like DACA are enacted in practice. This research examines how these frontline workers within higher education institutions have adapted policies, practices, and resources in response to shifting political and legal landscapes, revealing how their discretion either facilitates or hinders the educational paths of DACA recipients. By understanding these dynamics, the study sheds light on the broader implications of street-level discretion for vulnerable populations during times of crisis.

Methods
This study employs a qualitative methodology through a case study approach (Yin, 2014). Case studies offer the flexibility and rigor needed to explore issues that have not been deeply examined, allowing for an in-depth understanding of complex phenomena by investigating their various dimensions. Additionally, case studies are particularly well-suited for integrating diverse theoretical perspectives, which enhances their potential to both generate and test concepts and theories (George & Bennett, 2005).

The research utilizes two primary data collection methods: archival research and interviews. Archival research encompasses a broad range of publicly available documents from multiple levels of analysis, including official government and organizational policies, as well as news articles. Interviews target key informants at the organizational level, specifically within higher education institutions. A total of ten semi-structured interviews are conducted with administrators from three U.S. higher education institutions. Interviewees are selected based on their in-depth knowledge of the issue and their ability to provide diverse and potentially contrasting perspectives. Selection criteria ensure the inclusion of participants who offer meaningful insights while keeping the sample size focused (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

Both archival and interview data are analyzed through multiple rounds of coding using qualitative data analysis software. The first round of coding follows a deductive approach, applying concept coding based on the study’s theoretical framework. A second round of coding employs an inductive approach to capture key themes that extend beyond the theoretical framework. To ensure the trustworthiness of the coding process and the validity of emerging themes, coder reliability checks are conducted at various stages of analysis.

Theoretical framework
This study draws on Michael Lipsky’s (2010) theory of street-level bureaucracy to analyze how higher education institutions, as public service providers, have navigated the evolving federal, state, and institutional policies regarding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Street-level bureaucracy theory offers a useful lens to understand the role of front-line workers and administrators in interpreting and implementing policies within complex and resource-constrained environments.

According to Lipsky (2010), street-level bureaucrats—those who interact directly with the public and exercise significant discretion—are critical actors in shaping how policies are enacted in practice. In the context of higher education, university administrators, financial aid officers, and student services personnel serve as the street-level bureaucrats who directly engage with DACA recipients. These individuals make decisions regarding access to resources such as financial aid, student support services, and legal guidance, especially as the political and legal landscape around DACA continues to shift. As a result, their discretionary actions can either facilitate or hinder DACA recipients’ educational trajectories.

By applying Lipsky's (2010) framework, this research aims to uncover how discretion, resource constraints, and institutional responses intersect to shape the educational experiences of DACA recipients, offering insights into the broader implications for socially vulnerable populations in times of crisis.

Findings
The findings align with the street-level bureaucracy theoretical framework, illustrating how administrators exercise discretion in providing resources—such as scholarships and financial aid—to DACA recipients and undocumented students, even though these students are often ineligible for federal, and sometimes state, financial aid. These discretionary actions are critical in encouraging enrollment and retention in higher education. Higher education institutions, frequently caught between fluctuating federal mandates and varying state laws, have had to adjust their policies and procedures for DACA recipients, a challenge that street-level bureaucracy theory helps contextualize. For instance, during the pandemic, institutions faced the difficult task of balancing limited resources, legal uncertainties, and the needs of vulnerable student populations. The theory illuminates how institutional responses—ranging from flexible enrollment options to enhanced legal support—reflect the discretionary decisions of key actors working under significant external pressures.

The study also reveals a reliance on individual knowledge rather than institutional systems, to administer support for DACA recipients. This poses challenges to the sustainability of these practices as key staff members with specific expertise depart. Additionally, the research underscores how institutions have created legal support networks by forming partnerships with external legal counsels and community organizations, which help navigate the complex legal and policy landscape surrounding DACA.

Moreover, street-level bureaucracy theory highlights the coping mechanisms that front-line workers develop to manage their workloads and the resource constraints they encounter (Lipsky, 2010). In the higher education context, these coping mechanisms are evident in how institutions navigate the patchwork of state and federal policies governing DACA. Institutions have developed informal practices to address policy gaps and resource shortages, further illustrating the discretionary nature of their responses.

Authors

• Dante J Salto, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

• Rivka Comrov, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee