Sociation Today®
ISSN 1542-6300
The Official Journal of the
North Carolina Sociological
Association
A Peer-Reviewed
Refereed Web-Based
Publication
Fall/Winter 2013
Volume 11, Issue 2
Identity and Ideology:
Welfare Managers' Understanding of
"Self-Sufficiency" in North Carolina by Jackuelyn Towne-Roese and Kent State
University
Introduction
In 1996, President
William Clinton signed into law the
Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA),
establishing Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF). TANF replaced the
"entitlement program" Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC), placing
stringent requirements on time limits for
benefits, family caps, state freedom to
control the administration of the block
TANF grant, and work requirements to
receive assistance (Gilens 1999;
Rogers-Dillon 2001). The intent of this
program was to make individuals less
reliant on government assistance by
increasing employment among recipients and
collecting child support payments that
would reduce the number of individuals
receiving cash assistance benefits
(Watkins-Hayes 2009). These new
requirements were largely a reaction to
the stereotypical view that clients lack
personal responsibility and reinforce the
view that individuals receiving benefits
are to blame for their own impoverished
state (Seale, Buck and Parrotta 2012).
This individualist ideological focus on self-sufficiency stems from neoliberal ideology, which claims that economic dependency upon other individuals and organizations, is a flaw of character (Nelson 2002). "American" culture celebrates individual achievement and "surveys of public attitudes show that Americans are firmly committed to the belief that people are responsible for their own well-being" (Gilens 1999: 34). The emphasis on individual achievement is the catalyst for TANF's requirement that individuals work for benefits. Many scholars argue the goal of the current US welfare state is to reduce dependency on the state by having clients gain any kind of paid employment to move off the rolls (Rogers-Dillon and Skrentny 1999; Daughtery and Barber 2001; Rogers-Dillon 2001; Lens 2002; Nelson 2002; Haney and Rogers-Dillon 2005; Rogers-Dillon and Haney 2005). This current mismatch between the stated ideological goals of administrators and policy makers (self-sufficiency) with bureaucratic goals (efficiency and neutrality) create conflict for workers trying to implement services (e.g. Lipsky 1980). Welfare policy is administered at the county level but under the supervision of individual state governments in compliance with federal guidelines. This devolution creates layers of bureaucratic organizations that are administering welfare-to-work services to the poor and creates a monitoring structure in which higher levels of government oversee the lower levels. The most common way that monitoring occurs is through the use of participation rates and declines in caseloads (Ridzi 2004). If states fail to meet the rates imposed by the federal government, then states face heavy penalties and have their block grants diminished because they are not deemed effective with welfare recipients (Ridzi 2004). Brodkin (2008; 2011) argues that the criteria through which policy is deemed effective is problematic. Policy makers and practitioners are not looking enough at the factors that are moving individuals off the welfare rolls but failing to make these individuals self-sufficient; including getting low-paying work, discouragement from cash assistance, and sanctions due to noncompliance with agency standards (Hays 2003). Building on Blau and Meyer ([1956] 1971), Watkins-Hayes (2009) and Taylor and Seale (2013), as well as theories of bureaucracy, this research examines manager identities and their perceptions of the welfare-to-work program in North Carolina. Using qualitative data collected from telephone interviews with welfare-to-work program managers in North Carolina (N=100), we specifically examine similarities and differences in manager identities and their perception of challenges and barriers to clients reaching self-sufficiency. Additionally we examine managers' responses about how they would design a new program to serve the poor. Literature
Review
Bureaucracy
Bureaucratic goals are
usually designed to achieve the daily
tasks of the bureaucratic structure
through efficiency and neutrality (Blau
and Meyer [1956] 1971). Perrow (1961)
indicates that there are two types of
goals in a bureaucratic organization:
organizational and operational goals.
Organizational goals are usually vague
goals that are used for administrative
purposes within the organization while
operational goals are tied to group
interests within the organization. Merton
(1940) argues that organizational goals
should be the primary focus of
bureaucracies because they discipline the
staff while being rational and
efficient. Goals are difficult to
research because they are often complex
with different groups within the
organization having different perceptions
of the goals that are in place, making it
difficult for organizations to achieve
goal congruence among the staff (Meyers,
Riccucci and Laurie 2001).
Blau and Meyer ([1956] 1971) examine approaches to bureaucracy throughout history and the rational, neutral nature that is considered the basic premise of bureaucratization. Particularly, in public spheres, such as the welfare state, government officials are in charge of the implementation of services (Perrow 1961: Brodkin 2008; Watkins-Hayes 2009; Brodkin and Majmundar 2010; Brodkin 2011). These organizations are particularly vulnerable to the political climate of a society (Perrow 1961; Gilens 1999). If the political climate is consistently changing, the efficiency and effectiveness of organizational and operational goals can also consistently change, causing both goal and role ambiguity with the implementation of services. The political climate for implementing services is unpredictable and deficient of information for managers implementing services as the climate shifts, giving mixed messages to managers (Pandey and Wright 2001). Worker Identity, Caseworkers, and Program Managers
Watkins-Hayes (2009)
builds on Blau (1960), Lipsky (1980), and
Ridzi (2004) by examining the role
conflict that aids in the creation of
worker identities instead of looking only
at the effect of tenure and social support
on caseworker efficiency (Blau 1960), the
discretionary power that is given to
caseworkers in street-level bureaucracies
(Lipsky 1980) and the performance reviews
of the caseworkers in the implementation
of services (Ridzi 2004). Watkins-Hayes
(2009) stresses that these workers must
respond to the public debate about the
implementation of services to the
impoverished and that because of this
debate, caseworkers create identities to
aid the client while using their own
perceptions of the organizational goal of
being efficient and detecting fraud to
address client needs. Watkins-Hayes (2009)
establishes a typology of caseworkers that
work in the welfare system, consisting
mainly of two different types of workers:
efficiency engineers and social workers.
TANF Funding and
Self-Sufficiency in the Welfare StateEfficiency engineers want to focus on the rules and regulations of the bureaucracy instead of getting to know their clients, becoming more like Merton's (1940) bureaucratic personality. Social workers, on the other hand, have a more holistic approach to casework where they want to intervene with their clients and have more resources available to aid their client (Dias and Maynard-Moody 2006). Additionally, both Blau (1960) and Watkins-Hayes (2009) mention an intermediate third category of caseworker. Watkins-Hayes (2009) names these workers "bureaucratic survivalists" because they invest little of themselves in the bureaucracy and in their work toward clients. However, little is known about the third party category except that these individuals do not invest in the bureaucratic structure like the efficiency engineers and social workers. Taylor and Seale (2013) use the term "conflicted" for their analysis of the intermediate worker category. Conflicted managers recognize that challenges and barriers to self-sufficiency, such as economic conditions and lack of resources, make it difficult for clients to achieve the self-sufficiency goal. However, they also believe that individuals are responsible for their own self-sufficiency, and thus are to blame if they are receiving resources from the government. While much of the literature focuses on caseworkers' responses to goal and role conflict and ambiguity, managers are special bureaucratic entities. Managers affect and are more affected by the bureaucratic structure and must supervise caseworkers (Riccucci et al. 2004; Riccucci 2005). The services that are offered by welfare agencies are shaped by the managers and they also dictate which caseworkers get to use their discretionary power (Riccucci 2005). The variation among bureaucratic structures impacts the ways in which managers implement services, giving the managers discretionary power (Riccucci et al. 2004). These managers not only deal with the administrative processes of implementing welfare-to-work services and shaping caseworker behavior, but they also have to make sure that their county is able to continue to get funding. The goals that are currently in place with TANF have created a hierarchy for funding and penalties (Ridzi 2004) which is why more managers are likely to follow bureaucratic guidelines (Dias and Maynard-Moody 2006). Riccucci (2005) argues the unique position of managers within the bureaucracy results in more ambiguity in their jobs.
Since the
implementation of TANF in 1996, welfare
rolls have been declining. Does this mean
former recipients are now self-sufficient?
Daughtery and Barber (2001) explain that
self-sufficiency does not equate to
economic independence in the welfare
state. Self-sufficiency is equated
with making more money than before, but
that does not mean that individuals are
escaping poverty (Daughtery and Barber
2001; Hagen and Owens-Manley 2002; Handler
and Hasenfeld 2007). The structure
of TANF focuses on recipients obtaining
employment, any employment, not to become
self-sufficient (Lens 2002; Hagen and
Owens-Manley 2002).
The program does not focus on job training or education so that recipients can obtain better jobs, but focuses on the recipients' work ethic, making education less important than low wages (Lens 2002). Further, Haney and Rogers-Dillon (2005) argue that just because recipients are not dependent on the federal government does not mean that they are independent of other types of aid. These recipients are now dependent on the regulated labor markets and also on social and familial networks for aid (Haney and Rogers-Dillon 2005). Given the organizational goal of making clients "self-sufficient" and the debate about this as a goal of welfare, our research asks: how do program managers make sense of the goal of self-sufficiency? Specifically, how do managers perceive the challenges and program barriers to client self-sufficiency? Finally, if they were able to design a program to address these challenges, what would the program look like? The Site: North
Carolina
Based on 2008 Bureau of
Labor Statistics data, North Carolina had
a higher unemployment rate than the
national average, 6.3% compared to 5.8%.
The populations of North Carolina's
counties (102,331), according to the 2008
American Community Survey (US Census
Bureau), are comparable to the average
county populations in the United States
(101,117). The US Census Bureau reports
the 2008 mean poverty rate in North
Carolina was 17% compared to the national
mean poverty rate of 13.2%. On average
caseworkers in North Carolina are
responsible for 45 cases and program
managers supervise, on average, 14
employees.
Since the passing of PRWORA, states are able to implement their own policies for the welfare-to-work program. North Carolina recognizes the federal maximum lifetime benefit for recipients of 60 months, but only allows clients to receive benefits for up to 24 consecutive months (Taylor and Seale 2013). After receiving benefits for 24 consecutive months, clients are ineligible for benefits for 36 months (Rowe and Murphy 2009). Clients are required to participate in a work activities program in order to receive benefits from the state of North Carolina. A family of three can only receive a maximum benefit of $272 a month (the average maximum benefit in the United States was $442), but are required to participate in work related activities for 35 hours per week (Rowe and Murphy 2009). If the clients fail to meet the requirements of the welfare-to-work program, they are sanctioned by the state. This results in a loss of cash assistance for 30 days and client reapplication for benefits (Rowe and Murphy 2009). The federal guidelines mandate that clients unable to meet the requirements be sanctioned or the state can lose between one and five percent of their TANF block grant (Rowe and Murphy 2009). Methods
For this project, we
used qualitative data from semi-structured
telephone interviews conducted between the
spring of 2008 to the summer of 2009.
Using a contact list of personnel whose
titles indicated that they were managers,
the researchers were able to achieve a
100% response rate, interviewing one
manager in each of North Carolina's
counties (N=100). The interviews were
approximately one hour on average and
contained both open and closed-ended
questions that were collected for both
qualitative and quantitative analyses.
Program managers in North Carolina have
many duties to implement the TANF program,
including matching clients to services
that they need, assisting clients in
finding a Work Experience Program site,
making sure that the requirements for the
Work First program are being met, and
coordinating with other service providers.
Because these managers have a number of
responsibilities, the interviews contained
a number of questions about service
provisions, the barriers that were faced
by the agency and the clients, and
questions about policy implementation.
We used a semi-inductive and what has been termed " modified grounded theory" approach to code the data (Charmaz 2001; 2006). Using a semi-inductive coding approach allowed us to examine the ways in which managers talked about the program and then relate themes emerging from those codes back to relevant literature. Similarly, modified grounded theory is a method where the researcher starts with individual cases, and develops more abstract categories to aid in the identification of patterns across data (Charmaz 2001: 2006). Because the data had already been collected, it was impossible to do a true grounded theory application. However, the modified grounded theory approach allowed us to see patterns across data, create specific codes over time, and write memos while having an idea of the issues and themes that might be present according to relevant literature (Charmaz 2001: 2006). Using Charmaz (2001: 2006) as a guide, we began our qualitative analysis with line-by-line open coding of the data. After we open coded all 100 interviews, we began focus coding, which allowed us to further examine re-emerging themes within the data. Focus coding not only allowed us to examine the themes across manager types, but also allowed us to examine the themes across all 100 individuals in the sample. Throughout the coding process we wrote analytic memos to assist in our understanding of the data which laid the ground-work for the following results section. The Watkins-Hayes typology, discussed in the literature review, was previously coded with this data (with 90% intercoder reliability rate- discrepancies were resolved easily). We found that eighteen program managers met the "efficiency engineer" category; fifty eight managers qualified for the "social work" category; and twenty four managers qualified for the "conflicted" category. While Watkins-Hayes (2009) called the intermediate group "bureaucratic survivalists", we use the term "conflicted" to refer to those managers who had characteristics of both efficiency engineers and social workers. For this analysis, we focus on three questions from the interviews: "What are the challenges in helping people become self-sufficient?"; "What do you see as your program's main barrier in reaching this self-sufficiency goal?" and "If you could design a completely new program to serve the poor, what would it look like?" While the questions we focused on were used when researchers coded manager identity, these were only three of more than fifty questions that were asked during the interview. Our focus on these three questions is not to attempt to show causality, rather, we seek to better understand how manager identity is related to how the managers understand the challenges and barriers to self-sufficiency. We describe and analyze the results in the following sections. Results
Identity and Perception of Challenges and Barriers to the Program
Following the
Watkins-Hayes typology (2009), we place
the managers into one of three categories:
Social Work-oriented, Efficiency
Engineers, and Conflicted managers.
The focus of this section is to discuss
the ways each type of manager discussed
the challenges and barriers of the
programs that they supervise. During
the interview the managers were asked two
questions: "What are the challenges in
helping people become self-sufficient?"
and "What do you see as your program's
main barrier in reaching this
self-sufficiency goal?" These manager
responses included the role that
structural challenges/barriers like the
lack of employment and poor economy
played, individual challenges/barriers,
and the combination of structural and
individual challenges/barriers that hinder
client self-sufficiency. The categories of
responses by manager type are shown in
Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Figure 1: Types of Challenges Perceived with Manager Identity  Social
Worker N=58, Conflicted Worker N=24,
Efficiency Engineer N=18
Figure 2: Types of Program
Barriers Perceived with Manager Identity  Social Worker N=58,
Conflicted N=24, Efficiency Engineer
N=18
Two themes emerged
from the fifty-eight social-work
oriented managers (58%). The first
theme is the role that structural
challenges/barriers such as the economy,
have on finding gainful employment in
North Carolina. Of the 58 social work
managers, 22 (37.90%) managers responded
that structural factors were a challenge
and 32 (55.20%) social work managers
responded that structural factors were
program barriers to self-sufficiency.
This is compared to only one efficiency
engineer (5.50%) and four (16.60%)
conflicted managers who responded that
structural factors were challenges to
self-sufficiency and five (27.70%)
efficiency engineers and seven (30.40%)
conflicted managers believed structural
factors were major program barriers
to self-sufficiency.
These social work managers responded that economic conditions and the availability of jobs in the counties provided a significant challenge/barrier to clients becoming self-sufficient. When asked about the challenges to self-sufficiency, social work managers indicated that the lack of jobs in the county, loss of factories, and the inadequate minimum were the biggest challenges. Similarly, when asked about barriers to self-sufficiency, social work managers indicated that the lack of jobs, a structural challenge/barrier, is the main program barrier to self-sufficiency. The individuals who do not meet the qualifications of the jobs available had no chance at success in the economy, making self-sufficiency a very hard goal to reach: Jobs. Lack of jobs. Now it's even worse. Right now, I know of one position available. Do you want to know how many people applied? 90! Ninety applied and they're all very qualified. Those who applied and are unqualified have no chance. That's when you see how hard it is to become self-sufficient in this economy (County 8).These managers emphasized that it is not the fault of the clients that they were not self-sufficient. The lack of self-sufficiency is a product of poor economic conditions in the county. The second theme in the data is that social work managers also talked about individual challenges/barriers, but in the sense that these clients struggle with personal challenges/barriers within structural constraints. These challenges/barriers include lack of motivation, level of education of clients, substance abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence situations, and criminal records as challenges/barriers to client self-sufficiency. These clients need extra help because of these challenges/barriers to self-sufficiency. Many times these challenges/barriers are not apparent, as in the case of substance abuse, mental health issues, or domestic violence while other challenges/barriers such as having a criminal record can make clients difficult to place a work sites and in employment to make them self-sufficient (see Figures 1and 2). Eleven (18.9%) social work managers indicated that individual challenges made it difficult for clients to become self-sufficient. One manager indicates the challenges in helping people become self-sufficient are: Substance abuse issues, mental health issues; all those things that are kind of hidden that don't come out until months down the road when clients are not following through (County 20).This manager explains that these types of issues are not apparent until clients are not following through (i.e. not meeting participation rates). These clients are harder to place, possibly because these individuals need treatment in order to overcome these issues. Another manager raises another issue, saying: With those families with a criminal record we have some difficulty placing them in employment. Also have substance abuse challenges. There are some agencies to handle that but it may take a family 1-2 years to get self-sufficient when dealing with those issues (County 32).In the current program, clients with criminal records or substance abuse challenges are harder to place. This could be for a multitude of reasons, such as needing treatment or employers unwillingness to hire someone with a criminal record. The Department of Social Services does not handle these challenges-they are outsourced to other agencies. Given the time limits to receiving assistance, this period of time when they are getting important services pushes families right up to the point of being dismissed from the program. Once clients reach the two year limit, they cannot receive benefits for the following three years, placing another challenge on the shoulders of these individuals in need. The second manager type in Watkins-Hayes typology, efficiency engineers, saw challenges/barriers individualistically and focused on the clients themselves rather than structural constraints. These eighteen managers (18%) viewed clients as unmotivated and resistant to change while focusing on the clients' lack of education, criminal records, low job histories, mental health issues, and substance abuse issues. Of these managers, fourteen (77.70%) indicated that individual problems created challenges in clients attaining self-sufficiency while eleven (61.10%) indicated that individual problems created program barriers to self-sufficiency. Additionally, these managers focused on the attitudes of clients toward the program. To these managers, the clients do not "buy in" to the attitude of work first. They lack motivation and some do not "want" to become self-sufficient. When asked about the challenges in helping people become self-sufficient, several managers echoed this theme: The biggest challenge is getting them to buy into the behavior that they need to do something for themselves (County 39). Lack of motivation on the clients' part. I hate to be negative but Work First participation is low because clients just don't care (County 55). Getting them to follow through. In income maintenance they do fairly well until they get to services (County 96). Motivation, to motivate them to get out and seek employment. Education also, as some did not finish school and its harder to place them. These days a lot more people have a criminal record, and it's very hard to place them (County 98).This individual blame extends to managers' "us" versus "them" narratives, such as: Substance abuse and just their attitudes. You have to want to work for this to be of help (County 41).According to these managers, the major barrier to self-sufficiency is clients do not want to be successful or self-sufficient, While these managers mention issues with lack of education and substance abuse, they explain it as just another client barrier that must be overcome by the individual in order to be self-sufficient. We categorized twenty-four managers (24%) as "conflicted" in the way that they talked about clients throughout the interviews and of these twenty four managers, thirteen (54.10%) of these managers discussed both structural and client challenges to self-sufficiency while six (26.10%) indicated a mixture of structural and individual program barriers to self-sufficiency. Similar to social work managers, conflicted managers note structural barriers to self-sufficiency. That said, conflicted managers are also similar to efficiency engineers in that they blame the clients for their attitudes toward the program. (See Figures 1 and 2). This pattern is exemplified in the following responses: Interviewer: What are the challenges in helping people become self-sufficient?And: Interviewer: What are the challenges in helping people become self-sufficient?Unlike the majority of social work managers who mention structural constraints or individual constraints in the context of the social structure or the efficiency engineers who focus on the individuals themselves; these managers offer confusing responses in which they blame structural constraints on the one hand and then make strong individual or client blame responses to other questions. When asked about the challenges in helping people become self-sufficient, another conflicted manager indicated, "Lack of jobs. A lot of people do not want to work" (County 65). In this county there is a structural constraint-the lack of jobs-that is a challenge to self-sufficiency. However, the manager also responds with an individualistic constraint-that people do not want to work. Another conflicted manager also exemplifies this argument: Interviewer: What are the challenges in helping people become self-sufficient?According to this manager, the challenges to self-sufficiency are the clients themselves, but the program barriers are a result of the downturned economy. Designing a New Program The
managers interviewed were also
asked: "If you could design a
completely new program to serve the poor,
what would it look like?" This open-ended
question gave managers a chance to voice
their opinions about the changes that they
would make to the current TANF program in
North Carolina (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Designing a New Program with Manager Identity  Social Worker
=58, Conflicted=24, Efficiency
Engineer=18
When
the social work-oriented
managers were asked to
design a new program, the
most common responses
focused on improving
education (20 managers,
34.40%), training (15
managers, 25.80%), and
changing requirements (10
managers 17.20%) to assist
clients in attaining
self-sufficiency. For
instance one manager
captured the holistic
orientation of social work
managers approach and
indicated changing specific
program requirements would
help clients overcome the
challenges/barriers to
self-sufficiency, while
lowering caseloads and
keeping some of the work
first policies in place:
There would be sufficient time
to assess a customer. There
would be resources in the front
end to address substance abuse
and mental health issues. There
would be an opportunity to
anyone that needed financial
assistance if that desire was
there to improve their situation
and follow through, then the
county would provide assistance.
Even if that means staying in
school for as long as needed to
advance education in addition to
working—but the two would go
hand in hand. There would still
be sanctions of some type so
folks have the opportunity to
know that there are consequences
without just cutting them off
altogether. Caseloads would not
be as high—so the social workers
would have time to truly work
with the customer. We'd continue
to have strong working
relationships with
organizations—leverage funds and
services to benefit each other
and the customers. I would stay
away from all the policy
changes, unless they were all at
one time and not
counterproductive and didn't
make it more difficult of the
customer and for agencies to
assist the customer (County 20).
Another manager
was adamant about changing the
program itself even though s/he
agrees with some of the
requirements:
It wouldn't be Work First!! Gosh, I don't even know what to say. […]When we're in a county like ours that's so small, it's really hard to find resources to find them jobs to meet the hours. Get rid of this program!! (County 39) This manager says that they want the program eliminated but because it does not benefit their clients. The requirements of the program are not easily obtained, particularly in this small county, because there are not enough work sites to meet the participation rates of the clients.
Social work managers are more
holistic in their approach, yet
still struggled with articulating
how best to change the program.
One manager (county 2)
wanted to add more education into
the program and look at the ways
in which self-sufficiency is
defined, but s/he did not go into
detail about how that would be
done. Another manager (county 39)
wanted to get rid of the program
completely because the
requirements did not benefit the
clients or their county, but
offered no other system that could
be put in its place.
Therefore, while these managers
have their clients' interests and
needs at the forefront of their
discussion, they do not offer
clear ways in which the program
could be changed to address the
challenges/barriers in their
counties.
Efficiency engineers, in contrast
to social work-oriented managers,
wanted to make requirements
stricter for participants. For
instance, one manager said:
Give them more money but make requirements stricter…if someone lost a job, say you have 90 days to find a job instead of 2 years or no more money, but in the meantime give them more money…clients would feel an urgency to get a job quicker and not rely on such little money (County 96). While the manager would give them more money to assist with living expenses, clients would have an extremely shorter time-frame to move from welfare to work. This manager views client self-sufficiency as a problem in which the client should solve on their own and the requirements should be stricter in order to meet the goals of the program.
In addition to just making
requirements stricter, efficiency
engineers discussed they ways in
which they would change their
programs in order for clients to
attain self-sufficiency.
However, managers discussed ways
in which they would start with
younger generations in order to
make changes
We need a program for teen parents. It's a waste of resources and a waste of energy to start with the older people. Start with the teenagers! It would be nice to start with them before they got pregnant. We reduced the rolls from 4,895 to 1,000. Have they all been successful? Absolutely not. Limited resources. We need to put time and energy into the younger generation to really make a change (County 25). And: You have to start with the school system. I don't think we can get someone whose already 18 and change and change their mind in 24 months. We need to start in kindergarten. We need to put more money into children, adolescents, and teenage pregnancy. Work on stopping cycles. Adults needing would be a true need- and not a crutch, or getting one over on the system. Dependence has come from schools, medical, etc. We need to put more money into education (County 84). These two managers emphasize that there is a need to put their resources into education and teenagers as opposed to putting resources into adults. Efficiency engineers focus on individual attainment when it comes to talking about clients. When talking about making requirements stricter, the manager from County 96 feels that clients would not need to depend on the welfare system for a long period of time if they felt the urgency to find a job. The other managers talked about teaching younger generations about "responsibility" instead of trying to implement services with adults.
When
asked about creating a new
program, conflicted managers
would create more programs to
help clients, but they would
also increase requirements to
make sure that clients actually
'need' assistance. Five
conflicted managers (20.80%)
indicated that they would
increase education and four
managers (16.60%) said they
would like to change the
requirements. However,
seven managers (29.20%)
indicated that they wanted the
program to require client take
more personal responsibility.
For example, one conflicted
manager would design:
A program that helps all people, not based on families with children. People in need of help; housing bills, etc. It would have to be strict, to make sure its people who really need help, not just a free handout (County 12). This manager's
program would only help the
people that the manager felt
"deserved" help. This
stresses that this conflicted
manager wants to only help those
clients are willing to help
themselves (i.e. do not see the
welfare program as a
handout). Similar to the
manager above, other conflicted
f managers focused on both
structural and individual
barriers to self-sufficiency:
I would allow more time-more one on one with participants. I would relieve some hourly requirements. More individual planning […]People should work and he held accountable, but a lack of resources makes it hard. All people are lumped under one category, with no consideration given to individual situations. They can't do what [county name] County can do, don't have the growth, or transportation. Things have to change (County 87). And: It would be like Work First. I like the concept of Work First. I don't think you can really help anyone by just giving money. It really does a disservice. When we wanted people to go to school they wanted to work and now we want people to work they want to go to school. We just need to show people they can live on their own. Show their children the changes. Our county is pretty well off with resources but I wish every county had the same resources. For example, transportation is not a barrier in our county and it is horrible in other counties. We are lucky for such things as the community college and good public transportation. (County 88)
Conflicted managers all discuss
on different aspects of the
program-the hourly requirements,
the work requirements, and the
self-sufficiency contract.
Mainly the managers focus on the
structural barriers, like
transportation, drug addiction,
and mental health issues while
also acknowledging that there
were challenges/barriers to
client self-sufficiency outside
of the control of the client but
also believed that clients
should be held accountable for
their self-sufficiency no matter
the challenges/barriers The role
of the program, to conflicted
managers, is to help clients
help themselves.
Discussion
and Conclusions
In the current
US welfare-to-work system,
"self-sufficiency" means clients
acquire any employment get them
off of assistance and an into
low-wage work (Daughtery and
Barber 2001; Lens 2002; Handler
and Hasenfeld 2007).
Efficiency engineers and
conflicted managers adopt this
approach, but social work
managers realize that working a
minimum wage job is not going to
make recipients
self-sufficient. Efficiency
engineers and conflicted managers
prioritize the short-term aspects
of recipients gaining employment
while social work managers focus
on the long term goals of clients
a living wage.
Consistent with Watkins-Hayes (2009) work, the social work identified managers in this study take a more holistic approach to assisting clients. For instance, they go against the current rhetoric or "common sense" of welfare implementation that clients should get 'any job' to support their families (Hays 2003; Ridzi 2009). These managers realize that clients are not at fault for structural constraints such as an economic downturn. While some of these managers do mention individual barriers such as education or lack of job history, they are still aware of the structural constraints that create these individual barriers. They see that the lack of client self-sufficiency is a consequence of limited opportunities for social mobility (Handler and Hasenfeld 2007). The efficiency engineers in North Carolina stress individual barriers for clients' lack of self-sufficiency and view reaching participation rates as the only measure of client success in the current program (Watkins-Hayes 2009; Taylor and Seale 2013). These managers emphasize the rational, efficient, and neutral practices of the bureaucratic structure (Merton 1940; Blau 1960; Watkins-Hayes 2009), exemplifying what Merton (1940) describes as the bureaucratic personality. Efficiency engineers suggest that compliance with organizational goals (Blau and Meyer [1956] 1971; Perrow 1961) is the way to make clients self-sufficient. Clients who do not comply with organizational standards are viewed by these managers as barriers to their own self-sufficiency (Gilens 1999; Rogers-Dillon and Skrentny 1999). The conflicted managers in our study show aspects of both the social work and efficiency engineer identity (Watkins-Hayes 2009; Taylor and Seale 2013). These managers discuss challenges and barriers to client self-sufficiency in contradictory ways (Taylor and Seale 2013). Conflicted managers are aware of structural and bureaucratic barriers to self-sufficiency but still hold clients responsible for their lack of self-sufficiency and do not buy in to the bureaucratic system of casework (Watkins-Hayes 2009; Taylor and Seale 2013). When managers were asked about designing a new program to serve their clients, the social work managers, in line with Watkins-Hayes (2009), said that they would increase programs to assist clients in attaining the goal of paid employment so that they no longer rely on public assistance. Conflicted managers also said that they would increase programs, but additionally they focused on the deservingness of clients (Hays 2003; Ridzi 2009; Rogers-Dillon 2011). Efficiency engineers, consistent with Watkins-Hayes' research, suggested that requirements should be harsher for those individuals who do not meet the work requirements. They believe that these individuals are not trying hard enough to become self-sufficient, and therefore they need to be penalized for noncompliance. Our research findings are consistent with other research examining managers' influence on welfare-to-work programs (Watkins-Hayes 2009; Seale et al. 2012; Taylor and Seale 2013). We extend this research in a few ways. First, we examine how the manager identity affects the manager's perception of the challenges and barriers of their program. Second, instead of focusing on caseworkers, we focus on managers, who are understudied. Additionally, managers affect how the bureaucracy operates and how services are implemented because of their administrative duties and proximity to the front lines of casework (Lipsky 1980; Riccucci et al. 2004; Riccucci 2005; Watkins-Hayes 2011). In short, our findings concerning managers' perceptions of challenges and barriers to self-sufficiency are an extension of previous research (see Brodkin 2008; Brodkin and Majmundar 2010; Brodkin 2011). However, since our data is specific to the Work First program in North Carolina, we suggest future research should examine how manager identity relates to the self-sufficiency ideology in other state policy contexts. In this research, we have explored manager identity and the managers' perceptions of challenges in providing help to clients and barriers in the program. These two questions allowed us to better understand how managers come to view self-sufficiency as a goal of the program. Further, examining these questions were revealing in how managers view clients. In our interviews we were interested in inter-organization coordination to deliver services to the poor and we never explicitly asked about clients. Yet managers frequently spoke of clients and many blamed clients for any failures in the program. Future research should examine the consequences of these views and explore how managers' attitudes towards clients might affect the services those clients receive. We also asked managers about designing a new program. This very open-ended question was meant to offer respondents a chance to share their ideas and creativity in changing the programs and addressing the challenges and barriers they had already discussed. Additionally, central to our analysis, looking at the "design a new program" question allowed us build on Watkins-Hayes' (2009) research by exploring the relationship between worker identities and perspectives about the program. Future research should also examine the process through which manager identities are created and cultivated. This was beyond the scope of our data, but remains an important avenue for future research. This research has policy implications as well. The goal of self-sufficiency is central to the welfare-to-work program, yet our findings indicate managers define "self-sufficiently" very differently. If the goal of welfare-to-work is to force clients into any low-wage work, then "self-sufficiency" is clearly not the goal. However, if the goal of welfare-to-work programs is to help clients achieve work that will lead to a living wage, current US welfare-to-work programs need substantial revision to address the needs of clients and the structural constraints they face. References
Blau,
Peter M. 1960. "Orientation
toward Clients in a Public
Welfare Agency." Administrative
Science Quarterly
5(3):341-361.
Blau, Peter M. and Marshall W. Meyer. [1956] 1971. Bureaucracy in Modern Society. New York: Random House. Brodkin, Evelyn Z. 2008. "Accountability in Street-Level Organizations." International Journal of Public Administration 31: 317-336. Brodkin, Evelyn Z and Malay Majmundar. 2010. "Administrative Exclusion: Organizations and the Hidden Costs of Welfare Claiming. "Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20: 827-848. Brodkin, Evelyn Z. 2011. "Policy Work: Street-Level Organizations Under New Managerialism." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21: 253-277. Charmaz, Kathy. 2001. "Grounded Theory" pp. 335-352 in Contemporary Field Research: Perspective and Formulations Reader edited by Robert M. Emerson. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage Publications Daughtery, Robert H. and Gerard M. Barber. 2001. "Self-Sufficiency, Ecology of Work, and Welfare Reform." Social Science Review 75(4): 662-675. Dias, Janice Johnson and Steven Maynard-Moody. 2006 "For-Profit Welfare: Contracts, Conflicts, and the Performance Paradox." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(1): 189-211. Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media and the Politics of Anti-Poverty Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hagen, Jan; Owens-Manley, Judith. 2002. "Issues in Implementing TANF in New York: The Perspective of Frontline Workers." Social Work 47:2. Haney, Lynne and Robin Rogers-Dillon. 2005. "Beyond Dependency: Welfare States and the Configuration of Social Inequality" pp. 327-337 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Inequalities, edited by M. Romero and E. Margolis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Handler, Joseph and Yeheskel Hasenfeld. 2007. Blame Welfare, Ignore Poverty and Inequality. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hays, Sharon. 2003. Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform. New York: Oxford University Press. Lens, Vicki. 2002. "TANF: What Went Wrong and What to Do Next." Social Work 47(3): 279-290. Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Merton, Robert K. 1940. "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality." Social Forces 18(4):560-568 Meyers, Marcia, Norma Riccucci, Irene Lurie. 2001. "Achieving Goal Congruence in Complex Environments: The Case of Welfare Reform." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2:165-201. Nelson, Margaret K. 2002. "The Challenge of Self-Sufficiency: Women on Welfare Redefining Independence." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 31(5): 582-614. North Carolina Division of Social Services. 2013. Work First. Retrieved on March 26th, 2013 (http://www.ncdhhs.gov/dss/workfirst/index.htm#plan). North Carolina State. 2013. North Carolina's Temporary Assistance to Needy Families State Plan. P.L. 104-193. Retrieved on March 26th, 2013. (http://www.ncdhhs.gov/dss/workfirst/index.htm#plan). Pandey, Sanjay K. and Bradley E. Wright. 2006. "Connecting the Dots in Public Management: Political Environment, Organizational Goal Ambiguity, and the Public Manger's Role Ambiguity." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(1): 511-532. Perrow, Charles. 1961. "The Analysis of Goals in Complex Organizations." American Sociological Review 26(6): 854-866. Riccucci, Norma M. 2005. "Street-Level Bureaucrats and Intrastate Variation in the Implementation of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(1):89-111. Riccucci, Norma; Meyers, Marcia; Lurie, Irene. 2004. "The Implementation of Welfare Reform Policy: The Role of Public Managers in Front-Line Practices." Public Administration Review 64:4. Ridzi, Frank. 2004. "Making TANF Work: Organizational Restructuring, Staff Buy-In, and Performance Monitoring in Local Implementation." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 31 (2): 27-48. Ridzi, Frank. 2009. Selling Welfare Reform: Work-First and the New Commonsense of Employment. New York: New York University Press. Rogers-Dillon, Robin H. 2001. "What Do We Really Know About Welfare Reform?" Society 38 (2): 7-15. Rogers-Dillon, Robin H. and John David Skrentny. 1999. "Administering Success: The Legitimacy Imperative and the Implementation of Welfare Reform." Social Problems 46: 13-29. Rogers-Dillon, Robin and Lynne Haney. 2005. "Minimizing Vulnerability: Selective Interdependencies After Welfare Reform." Qualitative Sociology 28(3): 235-254. Rowe, Gretchen, and Mary Murphy. 2009. "Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of 2008." The Urban Institute. http://anfdata.urban.ord/wrd/databook.cfm Seale, Elizabeth, Alison Buck, and Kylie Parrotta. 2012. "Who's to Blame? The Identity Talk of Welfare-to-Work Program Managers." Sociological Perspectives 55 (3): 501-527. Taylor, Tiffany and Elizabeth Seale. (2013). "Implementing Welfare-to-Work: Program Managers' Identities and Service Delivery in North Carolina." Sociological Focus 46 (4): 295-313. Watkins-Hayes, Celeste. 2009. The New Welfare Bureaucrats: Entanglements of Race, Class, and Policy Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. © 2013 by Sociation Today
|