Client credibility judgment: A source of inequity in street‐level implementation

Abstract Street‐level bureaucrats rely on credibility judgments when navigating interactions with citizen‐clients who are mostly strangers. These credibility judgments are inherently susceptible to prejudice against marginalized social groups, especially among majority bureaucrats who do not represent the marginalized groups in question. This argument was examined through a sequential mixed‐methods design, focusing on the case of police investigations of women's sexual assault accusations. In a mock investigatory case presented through vignettes, results revealed that male investigators were less inclined than their female counterparts to find the accusations credible. Interviewed investigators admitted to often relying on stereotyping cues when assessing the accusations' credibility, and elaborated on how increasing female representation in the workforce could help mitigate this problem. Our study highlights that client credibility judgments act as an inequitable gatekeeper in street‐level implementation. The implications extend beyond policing to other policy domains where program integrity is a salient issue, such as welfare.