You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Welfare’ tag.
People want to help people – being a social worker is a testament to providing care for others – But what if, due to structural constraints it is impossible. Apparently, the answer is, you do paperwork. Tiffany Taylor tackles this in her report : Paperwork First, not Work First: How Caseworkers Use Paperwork to Feel Effective.
Her conclusions paint a sad picture. The case studies she looked at describing, essentially, social workers do paperwork because they cannot help the people they have been tasked to help.
“My findings illustrate that caseworkers used paperwork in three main ways: paperwork was a way to feel effective or successful in their jobs; paperwork was a way to show you followed rules and “covered your ass;” and paperwork was, according to caseworkers, a way to ensure the fair treatment of clients.” -p.23
Fascinating. But it makes sense as we as human beings like to be reinforced for doing the “right” thing.
“First, completing paperwork was a way for caseworkers to achieve standard measures of effectiveness and to feel successful in their jobs. A great deal of literature has questionedthe effectiveness of current welfare-to-work programs in the United States (e.g., see the 2008 special issue of the Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare about the “success” of welfare; Corcoran et al., 2000; Hennessy, 2005; Lichter & Jayakody, 2002; O’Connor, 2000). There are no clear mechanisms currently in place in the Smithgrove County Work First program that would allow caseworkers to effectively help participants. Even if there were mechanisms, the lack of participant education and skills and the poor local labor market are barriers potentially too large to overcome. Given this, caseworkers turn to the concrete tasks on which supervisors evaluate them: finishing their paperwork on time. While paperwork is frustrating, it is something they can do effectively.”
“Additionally, caseworkers and managers argued the paperwork was important to show you were doing your job correctly (cover yourself) and it is important because it holds case workers accountable to treating program participants fairly. Lipsky (1980), and later Watkins-Hayes (2009), both describe the conflicting roles of street-level bureaucrats. On the one hand, these workers are expected to help clients, but on the other, they are expected to police the behavior of those they serve. Being somewhat wedged between serving their bureaucracies and clients creates a dilemma, one that is often solved by focusing on rule-mindedness. In many ways, caseworkers avoid this dilemma through focusing the majority of their time on completing paperwork. Again, given the lack of mechanisms for helping program participants, caseworkers focus on completing paperwork, arguing that it helps them be fair. No one, however, suggested the paperwork helps program participants find work or helps them move from welfare to work.
******The argument that paper work ensured fairness also seemed a response to arguments of bias or discrimination by caseworkers (see Gordon’s 1990 historical work on caseworker bias), something future work should consider more. While recent work has examined case closure and race (Monnat, 2010; Monnat & Bunyan, 2008; Schram, 2005), it is possible some caseworkers believe they are resisting bias, which may or may not be the case. In short, the caseworkers in Smithgrove County wanted to treat people fairly and to them, treating everyone the same, in terms of paperwork, meant being fair.” -p.24
When looking at research like this it reminds me of the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy. The reactionary forces in the United States have been waging a war on the social safety net since the late 1970’s. The idea of a society that helps all of its members is regarded as some sort of toxic left-wing fantasy. Count how long it takes to the conservative self-righteous to decry big government, welfare and the “takers” in society. Under this banner they have systematically rendered much of the social safety net ineffective in the US, thus gradually making the unreality of their arguments begin to ring true.
Now… Now our zealots can point to the ineffectiveness of Big Government! To that I reply: “Where you expecting a different result when you’ve been hollowing out the system for last 40 or so years?”.
The insidiousness of self fulfilling prophecies indeed.
“When we see the expansion of the dependency class in America and you add this to the 79 other means tested programs that we have in the United States, each time you add another brick to that wall, it’s a barrier to people that might go out and succeed. ” – Steve King Idaho (R).
The idea that is represented above is exactly what is wrong with the political climate in United States. This bullcookery is debunked handily at 3:15 of the video by Greg Kaufmann who uses empirical fact as opposed to ideological mantras to describe the poverty situation in the US.
If you give people the basics of survival, they will prosper and return more to the society and the economy then simply letting them become destitute.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…