Based on interviews with clients in two welfare programs, this article explores three questions regarding application encounters: (a) What criteria do applicants use to evaluate the treatment they receive? (b) How do application experiences affect individuals’ expectations of the status that they will occupy as clients? and (c) How do program designs influence these evaluations and expectations? The analysis sheds new light on a longstanding tension between observation research, which suggests that clients are subordinated in welfare encounters, and survey research, which suggests that clients are satisfied with the treatment they receive. The program comparison also offers a basis for reflecting on recent critiques of the dual U.S. welfare system.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alcabes, A. , & Jones, J. A. (1985). Structural determinants of “clienthood.”Social Work, 30(1), 49-53.
2.
Bennett, S. D. (1995). “No relief but upon the terms of coming into the house”—Controlled spaces, invisible disentitlements, and homelessness in an urban shelter system. Yale Law Journal, 104(8), 2157-2212.
3.
Block, F. (1987). Rethinking the political economy of the welfare state. In F. Block, R. A. Cloward, B. Ehrenreich, & F. F. Piven (Eds.), The mean season: The attack on the welfare state (pp. 109-160). New York: Pantheon.
4.
Blumer, H. (1966). Sociological implications of the thought of George Herbert Mead. American Journal of Sociology, 71(3), 535-544.
5.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.
Brodkin, E. Z. (1992). The organization of disputes: The bureaucratic construction of welfare rights and wrongs. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 12, 53-76.
7.
Chong, D. (1993). How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. Journal of Politics, 37(3), 867-899.
8.
Derthick, M. (1990). Agency under stress: The Social Security Administration in American government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
9.
Edelman, M. (1977). Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. New York: Academic Press.
10.
Edin, K. , & Lein, L. (1997). Making ends meet: How single mothers survive welfare and low-age work. New York: Russell Sage.
11.
Fetterman, D. M. (1979). Ethnography: Step by step. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
Fraser, N. (1987). Women, welfare, and the politics of need interpretation. Hypatia, 2(1), 103-121.
13.
Fraser, N. , & Gordon, L. (1993). Contract versus charity: Why is there no social citizenship in the United States?Socialist Review, 22(3), 45-67.
14.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor.
15.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Basic Books.
16.
Goodsell, C. T. (1977). Bureaucratic manipulation of physical symbols: An empirical study. American Journal of Political Science, 21(1), 79-91.
17.
Goodsell, C. T. (1980). Client evaluations of three welfare programs: A comparison of three welfare programs. Administration & Society, 12(1), 123-136.
18.
Goodsell, C. T. (1981). The public encounter and its study. In C. T. Goodsell (Ed.), The public encounter: Where state and citizen meet (pp. 3-20). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
19.
Goodsell, C. T. (1984). Welfare waiting rooms. Urban Life, 12(4), 467-477.
20.
Goodsell, C. T. (1985). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic (2nd ed.). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
21.
Gordon, L. (1990). The new feminist scholarship on the welfare state. In L. Gordon (Ed.), Women, the state, and welfare (pp. 9-35). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
22.
Gordon, L. (1994). Pitied but not entitled: Single mothers and the history of welfare. New York: Free Press.
23.
Gouldner, A. (1952). Red tape as a social problem. In R. Mertonet al. (Eds.), Reader in bureaucracy (pp. 410-418). New York: Free Press.
24.
Gutek, B. (1992). Disputes and dispute-processing in organizations. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 12, 31-52.
25.
Handler, J. F. (1986). The conditions of discretion: Autonomy, community, bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage.
26.
Handler, J. F. (1992). Discretion: Power, quiescence, and trust. In K. Hawkins (Ed.), The uses of discretion (pp. 331-360). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
27.
Harris, D. (1988). Child support for welfare families: Family policy trapped in its own rhetoric. Review of Law and Social Change, 16(4), 619-657.
28.
Hasenfeld, Y. (1985, December). Citizens’ encounters with welfare state bureaucracies. Social Service Review, 59, 622-635.
29.
Hasenfeld, Y. (1987, September). Power in social work practice. Social Service Review, 61, 469-483.
30.
Hasenfeld, Y. , Rafferty, J., & Zald, M. (1987). The welfare state, citizenship, and bureaucratic encounters. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 387-414.
31.
Hasenfeld, Y. , & Steinmetz, D. (1981). Client-official encounters in social service agencies. In C. T. Goodsell (Ed.), The public encounter: Where state and citizen meet (pp. 83-101). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
32.
Hibbing, J. R. , & Theiss-Morse, E. (1995). Congress as public enemy: Public attitudes toward American political institutions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Hirsch, A. E. (1988). Income deeming in the AFDC program: Using dual track family law to make poor women poorer. Review of Law and Social Change, 16(4), 713-740.
34.
Hochschild, J. L. (1981). What’s fair? American beliefs about distributive justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
Hochschild, J. L. (1993). Disjunction and ambivalence in citizen’s political outlooks. In G. Marcus & R. Hanson (Eds.), Reconsidering the democratic public (pp. 187-210). University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
36.
Hummel, R. (1977). The bureaucratic experience. New York: St. Martin’s.
37.
Jones, K. B. (1990). Citizenship in a woman-friendly polity. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 15(4), 781-812.
38.
Josephson, J. (1997). Public policy as if women mattered: Improving the child support system for women in AFDC. Women & Politics, 17(1), 1-26.
39.
Kane, T. J. (1987, September). Giving back control: Long-term poverty and motivation. Social Service Review, 61, 405-418.
40.
Katz, D. , Gutek, B. A., Kahn, R. L., & Barton, E. (1975). Bureaucratic encounters. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
41.
Keiser, L. , & Soss, J. (1998). With good cause: Bureaucratic discretion and child support enforcement. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1133-1156.
42.
Lane, R. E. (1962). Political ideology: Why the American common man believes what he does. New York: Free Press.
43.
Lasswell, H. (1979). The signature of power: Buildings, communication, and policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
44.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage.
45.
Lipsky, M. (1984, March). Bureaucratic disentitlement in social welfare programs. Social Science Review, 58(1), 3-27.
46.
Loseke, D. R. (1987). Lived realities and the construction of social problems. Symbolic Interaction, 10(2), 229-243.
47.
Mannix, M. R. , Freedman, H. A., & Best, N. R. (1987). The good cause exception to the AFDC child support requirement. Clearinghouse Review, 21(4), 339-346.
48.
Martin, E. (1986). Consumer evaluation of human services. Social Policy and Administration, 20(3), 185-200.
49.
Marziali, E. (1988). The first session: An interpersonal encounter. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 69(1), 23-27.
50.
Miles, M. , & Huberman, M. (1984). Drawing and verifying conclusions. In M. Miles & M. Huberman (Eds.), Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (pp. 215-243). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
51.
Nelson, B. J. (1980). Help-seeking from public authorities: Who arrives at the agency door?Policy Sciences, 12(1), 175-192.
52.
Nelson, B. J. (1981). Client evaluations of social programs. In C. T. Goodsell (Ed.), The public encounter: Where state and citizen meet (pp. 23-42). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
53.
Nelson, B. J. (1984). Women’s poverty and women’s citizenship: Some political consequences of economic marginality. Signs: Journal of Women’s Culture and Society, 10(2), 209-231.
54.
Nelson, B. J. (1990). The origins of the two-channel welfare state: Workmen’s compensation and mothers’ aid. In L. Gordon (Ed.), Women, the state, and welfare (pp. 123-151). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
55.
Pearce, D. M. (1990). Welfare is not for women: Why the War on Poverty cannot conquer the feminization of poverty. In L. Gordon (Ed.), Women, the state, and welfare (pp. 265-279). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
56.
Peterson, P. E. (1995). The price of Federalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
57.
Piven, F. F. , & Cloward, R. A. (1971). Regulating the poor: The functions of public welfare. New York: Vintage.
58.
Prottas, J. M. (1979). People-processing: The street-level bureaucrat in public service bureaucracies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
59.
Rees, S. , & Wallace, A. (1982). Verdicts on social work. London: Arnold.
60.
Roberts, P. (1991). Turning promises into realities: A guide to implementing the child support provisions of the Family Support Act of 1988 (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
61.
Rosenbloom, D. H. , & O’Leary, R. (1997). Public administration and law (2nd ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker.
62.
Sapiro, V. (1990). The gender basis of American social policy. In L. Gordon (Ed.), Women, the state, and welfare (pp. 36-54). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
63.
Sarat, A. (1990). “The law is all over”: Power, resistance and the legal consciousness of the welfare poor. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 2(1), 343-379.
64.
Scheff, T. J. (1968). Negotiating reality: Notes on power in the assessment of responsibility. Social Problems, 16(1), 3-17.
65.
Schwartz, B. (1975). Queuing and waiting: Studies in the social organization of access and delay. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
66.
Soss, J. (1996). Unwanted claims: Politics, participation, and the U.S. welfare system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
67.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
68.
Stack, C. B. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a Black community. New York: Harper & Row.
69.
Stack, C. B. (1987). A critique of method in the assessment of policy impact. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 4, 137-147.
70.
Stone, D. A. (1984). The disabled state. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
71.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
72.
Vobejda, B. , & Havemann, J. (1996, October 6). States take variety of paths to welfare reform. Washington Post, p.A4.
