Enforcement versus Education: Two Hats – One Mission

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Thomas E. Poulin
September 15, 2025

Elected officials set policy supported by appointed public administrators at the top of their respective agencies. This includes creating codes and regulations. These codes represent the government’s police power to provide for a healthy and safe environment. These officials do not enforce the codes themselves. Instead, inspectors engage with the community on the frontline, enforcing codes in areas including health, fire, construction, refuse, safety and other concerns. Formally, they are expected to enforce regulations, but ideally they should be continually engaged in education, combining reactive and proactive approaches to support the well-being of the community. To do this, they must wear two hats: the Enforcer’s Hat and the Educator’s Hat.

Complementary Forms of Justice

These two hats represent differing forms of justice: retribution and rehabilitation. The goal of retributive justice is to punish the offender in a substantive and visible manner. This sends a message to the individual and to others that obedience is required, with the intent that future compliance will meet minimum standards or official sanctions will follow. This is the Enforcer’s Hat. Rehabilitative justice aims to change attitudes and behaviors, with the intention that the offender will internalize the purpose of the policies and find ways to meet or exceed any formal requirements. This is the Educator’s Hat.

The Enforcer’s Hat

The Enforcer’s Hat reflects the duty to enforce codes in a professional, unbiased manner. The training for inspectors in this area is highly focused on the interpretation and application of technical information. There is often little discussion of the rationale for specific areas of the code. When there is, the material provided imparts a historical or scientific context to justify the code rather than setting the foundation for the discretionary application of established policies.

Some codes prescribe specific actions while others prescribe a specific performance. For example, a building code could specify the type and thickness of drywall, which permits no deviation, or specify a 60-minute fire rating, providing some discretion in how to achieve the performance. The technical training and certification of inspectors will address these as appropriate. However, the formal expectation is that the regulator will enter the site, enforce the code as written, and then apply any appropriate sanctions included in the code in a professional, dispassionate fashion. There is often little, if any, information on educating the public on why code compliance is important.

The Educator’s Hat

The Educator’s Hat reflects a proactive approach to minimizing or eliminating code violations by motivating those subject to the code to embrace the intent of these policies. If done effectively, this should encourage citizens, business owners and contractors to self-regulate their own behavior, identifying and remedying any potential concerns on their own. When wearing this hat, the inspector shall engage professionally but in a more collaborative manner. They will not only enforce the code but explain its intended value, providing insights on how best to comply with it. They become informal coaches. The inspectors shall continue to conduct periodic inspections as required by the code. As Ronald Reagan once said, “(T)rust, but verify.” Ideally, this will contribute to inspectors finding all is well or that any violations are minimal and might easily be remedied.

Street-Level Champions

To support effective code compliance in both a proactive and reactive manner, inspectors must be trained not only on the use of the Enforcer’s Hat but also on the use of the Educator’s Hat. Many will learn how to educate through their own experiences, but agencies should enable and promote these approaches more directly. This can contribute to better code compliance and eliminate the time and costs associated with re-inspections and escalated enforcement. The community is served more effectively and efficiently as it is made healthier and safer.

Inspectors can become street-level champions of their agency if they are trained, motivated and led effectively. However, there is a caveat to providing these inspectors with too great a discretionary power without providing appropriate oversight. In Street-Level Bureaucracy, Michael Lipsky shared that some inspectors might begin to interpret and apply codes based on their personal values. This has the potential to contribute to sub-optimal or negative outcomes. Individual inspectors may not enforce the entire code based on their perceptions of its value, or they might begin to waive some requirements for individuals with whom they have become friends. This might lead to a lower level of health and safety for the community as well as criminal, civil or administrative liabilities for the inspector, their supervisors and their agency. Therefore, while regulatory agencies can become more effective and efficient by learning to wear either the Enforcer’s Hat or the Educator’s Hat, they must also be taught how to choose the headwear most appropriate to their duties and responsibilities at any given moment. Two hats, but one mission: better public service.

---

Author: Thomas E. Poulin, PhD, SHRM-CP is a training and development consultant and part-time public administration faculty at Columbia Southern University. He served in local government and non-profits for more than 30 years and has taught public administration and related topics for over 20. He may be reached at [email protected].

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...