基層官僚擁有可觀的裁量權以有效執行公務，可是如何運用裁量權並藉此發揮官僚代表性卻少有研究。在本文的個案研究之中，承辦公務員運用技術與規範裁量權在審查一般民眾申請社會行政急難救助上，傾向於風險趨避來執行法規與政策指示的方法與態度；原住民族服務員在審查族人申請原住民急難救助上，則傾向於從寬認定與呵護弱勢族人的方法與態度，並基於與原住民同為生命共同體的理解，發展行動策略來協助族人脫困。然而，在制度結構的壓力與組織社會化的影響之下，侷限了他們運用裁量權將消極代表性轉化為積極代表性來發揮實質的影響力。

Scholars agree that street-level bureaucrats possess considerable discretion in carrying out public mandates; however, less is known about how their discretionary actions exert bureaucratic representation. In the case studies examined, the technical and normative discretion exercised by case-handling civil servants inspecting general public applications for social affairs emergency assistance tended to employ methods and reflect risk-averse adherence to statutory and policy directives. By contrast, the discretion exercised by indigenous service officers inspecting applications for indigenous emergency assistance tended to employ lenient assessments that protected disadvantaged indigenous applicants. Guided by a shared-community understanding with indigenous peoples, these officers developed several action strategies to help applicants overcome crises. However, institutional structures and organizational socialization constrain their ability to exercise discretion in ways that would transfer passive representation into active representation capable of exerting substantive influence.