Abstract
Poverty is sustained not only by structural barriers but also by entrenched beliefs. This study evaluates Clear Beliefs trauma-informed coaching for New Jersey WorkFirst Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) clients and staff using a quasi-experimental design with pre/post belief measures and interviews. Coached clients showed sizable reductions in belief-related distress, dysfunctional cognitions, and strong negative emotions, alongside narratives of increased self-efficacy, reframing, and proactive problem solving. Staff reported reduced cynicism and clearer, more supportive roles. Despite attrition and nonrandom assignment, findings provide preliminary evidence that therapeutic coaching can shift maladaptive beliefs and relational climates, warranting rigorous trials with long-term economic outcomes.
Introduction
Poverty is a pervasive economic condition with far-reaching consequences beyond financial hardship. Its drivers are complex, often reinforced by institutional and governmental structures that restrict upward mobility (Affandi et al., 2025; Dupont & Roy, 2024). While structural and institutional inequities create the external conditions of poverty, they are not the only contributors; internalized beliefs about one's own abilities, others, and the broader world also shape behavior, resilience, and decision-making that can affect a person's economic prospects (Dweck, 2008; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Pajares & Schunk, 2002). To address the psychological factors affecting economic mobility, New Jersey initiated a therapeutic coaching program within its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program aimed at strengthening self-efficacy, resilience, and empowering staff to support TANF clients in becoming self-sustaining. This study examines the applicability and efficacy of therapeutic coaching practices in alleviating maladaptive beliefs that hinder economic mobility for individuals experiencing poverty, as well as shifting the beliefs that diminish the effectiveness of social workers and staff tasked with supporting them.
Historical Context
The conditions that lead to poverty cannot be understood without acknowledging the broader structural and historical forces that have established inequality and limited opportunities across generations. Maps used in the discriminatory practice of redlining in the 1930s accurately predicted lower homeownership rates, property values, and credit scores for African American communities in 2010, demonstrating the persistence of inequity through time (Meier & Mitchell, 2022). Although governments and institutions are tasked with promoting economic growth, uneven growth exacerbates wealth inequality and deepens the incidence and severity of poverty (Tebaldi & Mohan, 2010). Common methods and policies used by welfare systems address financial conditions of poverty without supporting emotional or psychological barriers to success (Senior et al., 2019). Additionally, these methods and policies have mixed effects on reducing poverty rates. For example, family caps (denying benefit increases for children conceived while on welfare) and sanctions for noncompliance with work requirements significantly increase rates of poverty (McKernan & Ratcliffe, 2006). While higher minimum wages, more generous vehicle exemptions, and child support pass-throughs all reduce rates of poverty (McKernan & Ratcliffe, 2006). These structural forces establish the external conditions of poverty, and their persistence is often reinforced by bureaucratic hurdles and cultural perceptions that make them especially difficult to change, highlighting the importance of examining internal beliefs as an alternative lever for improving the economic conditions of those experiencing poverty.
Structure and Formation of Beliefs
Beliefs are internal experiential conclusions that humans rely on for survival and belonging. They shape our perceptions of reality and create our responses to life's challenges (Clifton et al., 2018). The Core Beliefs Inventory (CBI) is a validated self-report measure developed to assess the degree to which stressful or traumatic experiences disrupt a person's beliefs about the world, self, and others (Cann et al., 2009). Self-beliefs encompass two components: self-efficacy, belief in one's capacity to succeed in specific tasks; and self-concept, one's overall perception and evaluation of oneself (Pajares & Schunk, 2002). Other-beliefs encompass generalized perceptions about others, as well as assumptions about trustworthiness, fairness, and the intentions of people and institutions. These beliefs strongly shape interpersonal interactions, influencing whether individuals expect support, hostility, or indifference from their communities and social systems (Cook et al., 2012; Murray et al., 2006). Finally, world-beliefs represent overarching assumptions about the safety, allure, and fairness of the world at large (Clifton et al., 2019; Janoff-Bulman, 1992). According to Dweck (2008), beliefs are central to adaptive functioning, with the distinction between fixed and growth mindsets critically shaping an individual's capacity for learning, resilience, and personality change. This distinction aligns closely with the CBI framework, as mindset informs the structure and formation of beliefs: individuals with a fixed mindset doubt their capacity to change or succeed (low self-efficacy and negative self-concept), whereas those with a growth mindset maintain adaptive beliefs that foster resilience, motivation, and openness to opportunity.
Beyond individual experiences, beliefs are shaped and reinforced by narratives and cultural schemas that structure social behavior and inform people's perceptions. Cultural schemas are generalizable rules and procedures present in most of the population that structure social behavior and shape public perceptions (Sewell, 1992). For example, a cultural schema prevalent in the United States distinguishes between those born into poverty and those who become poor later in life, assigning different causality and levels of responsibility to each group (Alcañiz-Colomer et al., 2023; Homan et al., 2017). Those born into poverty are more often blamed for their economic situation, with cultural schemas framing them as inherently deficient or permanently disadvantaged, while those who experience downward mobility later in life are more likely to be seen as victims of circumstance and attributed less personal responsibility (Alcañiz-Colomer et al., 2023; Homan et al., 2017). People living in poverty, especially those born into poverty, internalize cultural schemas that are projected onto them, often leading to negative beliefs that manifest as diminished self-efficacy, learned helplessness, social isolation, and systemic mistrust that make barriers to economic mobility harder to overcome (Dweck, 2008; Pajares & Schunk, 2002; Seligman, 1975). People living in poverty are significantly more likely to experience violence, abuse, housing instability, and systemic neglect (Hwang et al., 1998; Roy et al., 1998; Turnbull & Podymow, 2002). Traumatic experiences such as violence, eviction, or chronic discrimination adversely affect beliefs, often leading to other- and world-beliefs characterized by danger, instability, and hopelessness that make trusting others difficult and undermine confidence in systems intended to provide support (Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Santiago et al., 2011). Poverty is further associated with disproportionately high rates of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic illness, infectious disease, substance abuse, and reduced life expectancy (Hwang et al., 1998; Roy et al., 1998; Turnbull & Podymow, 2002). These outcomes are driven by limited access to resources, time constraints (e.g., inability to seek medical care while working multiple jobs), and the chronic stress and uncertainty inherent to poverty (Hwang et al., 1998; Turnbull & Podymow, 2002). When daily life is saturated by adverse conditions and negative cultural schemas of poverty, individuals will internalize beliefs that their situation stems from unchangeable personal flaws or inevitable fate, undermining motivation and making economic improvement exceedingly difficult (Haushofer & Fehr, 2014). Together, these dynamics demonstrate how beliefs, shaped by both personal experience and cultural schemas, become deeply entrenched cognitive frameworks that not only influence psychological well-being but also determine pathways of economic mobility.
Beliefs and Economic Mobility
Entrenched beliefs erode motivation, diminish perceived self-efficacy, and constrain openness to opportunity, creating feedback loops of disengagement and hardship (Haushofer & Fehr, 2014). Individuals with a fixed mindset and negative self-beliefs are especially vulnerable to relapse into poverty, even after periods of stability, because setbacks are interpreted as confirmation of personal inadequacy rather than temporary obstacles (Luthar et al., 2000). Within this framework, relatively minor adverse events—such as interpersonal conflicts, transportation problems, or technology breakdowns—can appear insurmountable. Although material conditions certainly heighten the challenge posed by such events, distorted beliefs further amplify their impact, making them harder to overcome. Each failure to surmount these obstacles reinforces the very limiting beliefs that made them seem insurmountable in the first place. Understanding the structure and formation of these beliefs is therefore essential, as they not only mediate the psychological toll of poverty but also actively shape the behaviors, expectations, and choices that sustain cycles of disadvantage, while serving as critical levers for change when addressed through targeted interventions that build resilience and restore self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Haushofer & Fehr, 2014).
Beliefs of Welfare Social Workers
An often overlooked aspect of the welfare system is the perspectives of social workers tasked with aiding those attempting to improve their economic condition. Welfare workers’ beliefs and attitudes strongly shape their efficacy in delivering support, influencing both the quality of client interactions and the overall impact of welfare programs (Maslach & Leiter, 2016; Pazer, 2025). The bureaucratic hurdles inherent in welfare administration, combined with social workers’ persistent exposure to clients’ traumatic life experiences, contribute to diminished motivation and heightened risk of burnout, ultimately undermining both worker efficacy and program impact (Maslach & Leiter, 2016; Morse et al., 2012; Pazer, 2025). Welfare bureaucracies can perpetuate harmful cultural schemas, as social workers’ negative assumptions about clients’ motivation or worthiness are subtly communicated in ways that reinforce self-limiting beliefs held by clients (Schram et al., 2010). Over time, the strain of navigating bureaucratic inefficiencies and repeated exposure to client hardship can shift social workers’ beliefs toward a lack of confidence in the welfare system's ability to provide meaningful assistance. Rather than doubting clients’ worthiness, many begin to view the system itself as inadequate or obstructive, a perspective that can erode motivation, reduce efficacy, and inadvertently weaken the supportive role they can play (Maslach & Leiter, 2016; van Breda, 2018).
Previous Research
Over the past two decades, coaching psychology literature has documented that structured coaching can improve goal attainment, well-being, and coping in nonclinical adult populations (Grant, 2001, 2003; Passmore & Lai, 2019; Stober & Grant, 2006). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies show that coaching can enhance mental health, quality of life, and performance while reducing stress and distress (Grant, 2003; Gyllensten & Palmer, 2005). This work has established coaching as a psychologically informed, evidence-based practice rather than a purely advisory or motivational activity. Existing work on coaching for people in poverty highlights two main strands. First, coaching has emerged as a relatively new but growing approach in antipoverty policy, in which long-term, holistic coaching supports individuals and families across multiple life domains (e.g., income, education, health, housing) alongside material assistance. Synthesizing innovative practices such as Mobility Mentoring, Poverty Stoplight, and strategically targeted unemployment reduction techniques, Cassio and Efremova (2023) conclude that coaching can enhance capabilities, agency, and socioeconomic advancement, while noting that the empirical track record is still limited and heterogeneous. A related strand of work on holistic economic mobility programs finds that multifaceted approaches—including asset transfers, training, and regular coaching—produce sustained improvements in consumption, income, and psychological well-being for ultrapoor households across several countries (Banerjee et al., 2015). Second, ethnographic work on financial capability programs in Boston documents a wider application of coaching practices in social services, with nonprofit organizations increasingly using one-to-one financial coaching to reshape the financial practices and subjectivities of low- and moderate-income adults (Loomis, 2018). Together, these literature studies indicate that coaching is being used globally as a tool for empowerment and facilitating economic mobility among people experiencing poverty. However, current research has focused primarily on coaching financial behavior, capabilities, asset usage, and inclusion rather than on shifts in internal structures that influence one's economic mobility, and they do not examine the impact of training front-line welfare staff in successful coaching techniques—gaps that the present study begins to address.
The Clear Beliefs Method of Therapeutic Coaching
Conventional coaching generally focuses on goal setting, accountability, and personal growth in domains such as career or relationships, working with generally well-functioning adults on present- and future-oriented goals rather than deep psychological disturbance (Grant, 2003; Grant & Cavanagh, 2004). In contrast, we drew on Jackson and Parsons’ (2016) conception of therapeutic coaching as a nondirective, relational process that creates a safe, trusting space for clients to explore difficult emotions and vulnerabilities, while integrating trauma-informed methods derived from clinical psychology to address emotional or psychological factors that inhibit personal progress. Although conventional talk therapy similarly targets emotional distress, it often neglects goal-oriented self-improvement and is financially inaccessible to low-income adults due to insurance gaps, copayments, and limited coverage for mental health visits (Mojtabai, 2021). By embedding a therapeutic coaching program within an existing welfare system, services can be offered at low or no direct cost to participants by leveraging program funds and infrastructure to bypass many of these affordability barriers.
Clear Beliefs Coaching is a 12-month program of one-on-one, trauma-informed therapeutic coaching. Conceptually, it can be understood as a trauma-informed variant of solution-focused, cognitive-behavioral coaching (Grant, 2001, 2003), situated within coaching psychology's emphasis on collaborative goal setting, self-directed learning, and enhanced well-being (Palmer & Whybrow, 2007; Passmore & Lai, 2019). Consistent with Jackson and Parsons’ (2016) account of therapeutic coaching, the method combines nondirective inquiry, emotional processing, and belief deconstruction with structured goal setting and action planning, targeting both deep-seated cognitive schemas and day-to-day behavioral strategies. Certified Clear Beliefs Coaches complete a 6-month, 120-h training in the Clear Beliefs Method of Trauma-Informed Therapeutic Coaching. Since 2010, more than 700 professionals from 45 countries have graduated from the training and have collectively coached over 10,000 clients, most of whom are middle- or upper-income individuals who can afford to pay privately. Internal evaluations of training cohorts, using the Big Five Personality Test, the Veterans Administration's PTSD Checklist, and a proprietary Beliefs Assessment, indicate reductions in trauma-related symptoms, improvements in personality traits associated with emotional stability and openness, and widespread shifts away from maladaptive core beliefs. Together, these findings suggest that the Clear Beliefs methodology can strengthen mindset and psychological functioning in healthy, high-functioning adults, providing a rationale for extending this approach to structurally disadvantaged populations such as low-income welfare recipients.
As part of two Innovative Grants from the Department of Labor to WorkFirst New Jersey, Clear Beliefs Coaching was adapted and delivered to TANF clients experiencing poverty. The intervention was designed to disrupt belief patterns that contribute to cycles of poverty and psychological distress. Through guided inquiry and deliberate dismantling of maladaptive beliefs, participants were encouraged to reframe their identities around resilience, self-worth, and possibility. The program integrates practical skill-building—such as goal setting, resource navigation, and growth mindset exercises—with deeper psychological practices informed by transformative learning (Mezirow, 1997), Intentional Change Theory (Boyatzis, 2019), trauma healing (van der Kolk, 2014), and self-affirmation. To support the durability and diffusion of these benefits, social workers and volunteers at WorkFirst New Jersey also completed Clear Beliefs training to instill trauma-informed coaching skills. For social workers in high-poverty contexts, such training both equips them with tools to address clients’ maladaptive beliefs and helps mitigate secondary trauma, compassion fatigue, and bureaucracy-related burnout (Bride, 2007; Figley, 1995). By enabling staff to clear their own limiting beliefs and model more adaptive belief systems, the program is intended to produce cascading effects: enhancing staff well-being, improving the quality of coaching relationships, and ultimately increasing the effectiveness of poverty alleviation efforts.
Given the characteristics of poverty and the conditions that lead to it, there is a clear need for interventions that target the internalized maladaptive beliefs that contribute to persistent poverty. Therapeutic coaching-based approaches, such as the Clear Beliefs Method, offer a promising avenue to transform not only the lived experiences of people in poverty but also the effectiveness of the professionals who serve them. This study aimed to evaluate a trauma-informed therapeutic coaching program delivered within a TANF welfare-to-work context to both clients and frontline staff. Specifically, we sought to:
Assess client-level change; testing whether coaching reduces belief-related distress, negative core beliefs, and strong negative emotions, and whether these shifts are accompanied by more agentic coping and early steps toward economic mobility (e.g., job search, schooling, micro-enterprise). Assess staff-level change in beliefs and role efficacy, examining whether coaching reduces cynicism and bureaucratic exhaustion and increases role clarity and client-centered communication. Explore the potential “two-sided” effect, considering how simultaneous coaching of clients and staff may improve the relational climate in welfare services and thereby amplify and sustain client-level gains.
Methods
The present study employed a quasi-experimental design to assess the impact of therapeutic belief-clearing coaching on both clients and social-service staff in WorkFirst New Jersey's TANF program. Four groups were included: (1) client participants—TANF recipients enrolled in the Clear Beliefs Coaching program; (2) client controls—TANF recipients who did not receive coaching; (3) staff participants—TANF social workers and related service providers who completed the coach training; and (4) staff controls—staff who did not receive coaching.
The survey instrument was adapted from the CBI to assess disruptions or reinforcements in assumptions about the self and others, and from Clifton's Primal World Beliefs items to assess world-beliefs (Cann et al., 2009; Clifton et al., 2019). The CBI was selected because it was developed specifically as a brief, applied measure of the extent to which stressful experiences prompt people to re-examine and revise core assumptions (i.e., disruption of the “assumptive world”), making it conceptually well-aligned with a coaching program explicitly targeting belief reappraisal and restructuring (Cann et al., 2009). Items were tailored to domains most relevant to poverty and service work, including self-efficacy, perceptions of others, and worldview stability. Belief scores were calculated by summing numeric response values for discrete belief domains (self-, other-, and world-beliefs) and dividing by the total possible numeric value for that belief, we termed this belief score. Coding of response scale for belief domain questions was consistent, with greater scores indicating higher prevalence of negative belief patterns. These scores were calculated for each time point to assess change in beliefs over the course of the coaching program. Negative changes in belief score indicated an improvement of belief patterns, while positive changes in belief score indicated degradation of belief patterns. Additional questions assessed exposure to, and cognitive disruption due to, trauma, given its strong relationship to beliefs.
Surveys were administered online at two time points: a baseline (pretest) survey distributed prior to the start of the 16-week client coaching program and the 20-week staff coach training program, and a posttest survey at program completion. TANF policy restricts cash compensation, so survey completers were compensated with gift cards. Initially, coaching participants received $25 and controls received $50 to incentivize participation; during the second wave, compensation was increased to $50 for every completed survey. Due to low participation and attrition, paired pre–post samples were small and imbalanced in both client and staff cohorts, limiting the scope for statistical testing; quantitative results are therefore treated as provisional signals and interpreted alongside qualitative and ethnographic data.
After each survey, respondents could participate in semistructured qualitative interviews. Between May 9 and August 18, 2025, seven in-depth interviews were conducted to capture the lived experiences of both staff and clients within the WorkFirst New Jersey TANF program.
The qualitative component was designed and overseen by a sociologist with expertise in inequality research and qualitative indicator development. This approach was selected to identify gaps in structural inequality and assess how social programs might alleviate them.
In addition to the interviews, the qualitative work incorporated ethnographic methods to better understand behavioral change over time. We did this by tracking how participants behaved prior to coaching (i.e., avoiding self-advocacy or hesitating to ask for help) and observed how those behaviors shifted after coaching. We also compared coached participants to noncoached participants to understand how much traditional resources were impacting behavior versus coaching. This approach helped document not only what participants said about their experiences, but also how their actions and habits were changing in reaction to the coaching.
TANF Clients
Client participants were recruited from individuals enrolled in TANF who agreed, on a voluntary basis, to take part in the Clear Beliefs Coaching program and the research component. A total of 37 TANF clients participated in and completed the 16-week coaching program. Client controls were recruited separately through email invitations distributed by TANF case managers to eligible recipients who were not receiving coaching; 14 TANF clients were recruited as controls.
For the client survey, 30 individuals completed the pretest: 17 client participants and 14 client controls. At posttest, 19 clients completed the survey: 14 client participants and 5 client controls. Thus, paired pre–post data were available for 12 coached clients and 2 client controls. These small numbers constrained the use of formal inferential statistics and motivated a greater reliance on qualitative and descriptive analysis for interpreting client trajectories.
Four qualitative interviews and observations were conducted with TANF clients: two from the control group and two from the coaching group. Client interviews opened with accounts of daily life and personal goals, then transitioned to experiences with WorkFirst New Jersey and, where applicable, the Clear Beliefs intervention, including moments of support and perceived gaps. Interviews concluded by inviting participants to suggest resources, program improvements, and ideal forms of support. This design sought to illuminate systemic barriers while foregrounding the subjective meaning and perceived impact of coaching on beliefs, coping, and economic agency.
TANF Staff
Staff participants were recruited from individuals employed by, and volunteers for, WorkFirst New Jersey, including social workers and related service providers. A total of 34 staff members participated in the 20-week Clear Beliefs coach training program. Staff controls were recruited via email invitations distributed by supervisors to staff who did not receive coaching; 20 TANF staff were recruited as controls.
For the staff survey, 37 individuals completed the pretest: 17 staff participants and 20 staff controls. At posttest, 15 staff completed the survey: 7 staff participants and 8 staff controls. Paired pre–post data were therefore available for 7 coached staff and 8 staff controls, again limiting statistical power and reinforcing the need to interpret quantitative changes in light of qualitative evidence.
Three qualitative interviews were conducted with staff: two from the treatment group and one from the control group. Staff interviews began with introductions and professional background, moved to discussion of frustration in organizational and systemic contexts (e.g., bureaucratic hurdles, exposure to client hardship), and concluded with reflections on the perceived impact of coach training interventions (for participants) or on usual practice (for controls). Questions prompted narratives around role identity, challenges in effecting change, organizational barriers, and how coaching shaped confidence, goals, beliefs about clients and the welfare system, and day-to-day practices. This approach was intended to clarify how therapeutic coaching intersected with staff beliefs, burnout, and role efficacy within the TANF system.
Results
TANF Client Outcomes
Quantitative Belief-Domain Scores
Paired pre–post data were available for 12 coached TANF clients. Given the nonrandomized design and small n, analyses focus on descriptive within-person change. As shown in Table 1, other-beliefs showed the clearest positive shift from Time 1 (TP1) to Time 2 (TP2), with a mean increase of 22.78 points and a large standardized change (dz ≈ 1.00) (Table 1). Self- and world-belief scores decreased on average (ΔM = −7.79 and −11.47), trauma increased modestly (ΔM = 7.20) (Table 1).
Summary of Change in Belief Scores Observed in TANF Clients (Coaching Participants and Control) Between the Pre- and Postassessment.
Note. TP1 is the initial belief score assessment prior to initiation of coaching, and TP2 is the belief score assessment after conclusion of the coaching program. Participants n = 12; controls n = 2 (paired TP1–TP2 cases). ΔM = TP2 − TP1. SDΔ = standard deviation of individual change scores. ΔΔ is the difference in change (participant change minus control change). Given the very small control group and nonrandomized design, ΔΔ values are descriptive and should not be interpreted as confirmatory causal effects. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
The very small control group with paired data (n = 2) also showed nonuniform shifts, including a large increase in other- and a decrease in world-belief scores. These patterns provide only tentative context and are not interpreted causally. Overall, client data suggest substantial positive movement in relational beliefs among coached participants, with more heterogeneous change in self-, world-, and trauma-related domains.
Qualitative Themes among Clients
Interviews with four TANF clients (two controls, two participants) yielded three themes that helped interpret patterns observed in the quantitative data.
Theme 1: From Paralysis to Step-Wise Action
Coached clients described a shift from feeling “stuck” or in “survival mode” toward breaking problems into smaller, manageable steps and initiating action and help-seeking. One uncoached participant captured this experience: “I have these goals … but once it comes down to it, I don’t really know how to get to them … I’m lost. So I just start feeling like a lost cause” (TANF Recipient; No Coaching). This sense of cognitive overwhelm and helplessness was a common pattern among participants who had not yet received coaching support.
Following coaching, clients described a transition toward a more regulated mental state that facilitated problem-solving, help-seeking, and incremental progress. One participant noted, “It's just giving me better life coping skills … it has helped me to not be as stressed” (TANF Recipient; Coaching). Another emphasized the broader need for mental health support embedded within the program, stating that “the mental health [resource] should be required across the board, because the circumstances that people get put in, it's very difficult to deal with” (TANF Recipient; Coaching). Together, these accounts reflected a shift from anxiety-driven inaction toward more agentic engagement with available resources.
Theme 2: Reframing Self-Worth and Deservingness
Participants reported shifts from “lost cause” narratives toward more adaptive self-perceptions, including “I can do this” and “I have most of what I need to succeed,” consistent with observed improvements in self-belief domains among engaged clients. Even among some participants who had enrolled in coaching, moments of regression were evident during the early stages of the program; one such participant described feeling as though they were “going back to where I was before mentally” (TANF Recipient; Coaching), while another reflected that “everything's … slipping out of my hands, I have no control over anything” (TANF Recipient; Coaching). Among those without access to coaching, feelings of shame and instability were particularly pronounced, as illustrated by one participant's account of wanting to “feel comfortable in my own skin, and not feel like a scumbag living in her car” (TANF Recipient; No Coaching).
Following coaching, clients increasingly began to see themselves as capable and deserving of success. One participant described the impact of coaching on her sense of self-worth, noting that it had helped her “not [to feel] hopeless and worthless … worthy to know that I can do things” (TANF Recipient; Coaching). Another offered a fuller account of this shift: “And, you know, the mental health part is very beneficial, because it has helped me to not be as stressed or make me feel better about not feeling hopeless and worthless or without worth” (TANF Recipient; Coaching). These accounts pointed to meaningful movement away from global self-condemnation toward a more nuanced and affirming sense of self.
Theme 3: Seeing Systems as Navigable Rather than Hostile
Bureaucratic barriers that were initially interpreted as confirmation of personal inadequacy were subsequently reframed as challenging but manageable, alongside increased comfort in engaging with caseworkers as potential resources. One coached participant described her experience before the effects of coaching took hold: “I think the workers need to be a little bit more empathetic to the clients … They have no compassion. They’re not empathetic at all, [and are] unable to help with resources to help me get out of these situations” (TANF Recipient; Coaching). Others described the system itself as opaque and circular; one participant recalled that “I didn’t understand what was going on. I thought you could get help, but then it turned out, no …” (TANF Recipient; Coaching), while a third characterized the experience as “kind of like this endless loop … you need the help, but … you can’t actually get the help” (TANF Recipient; Coaching). These accounts reflected a prevailing sense that institutional systems were barriers rather than resources.
Following coaching, clients described reduced perceptions of systems as adversarial and greater confidence in their ability to navigate institutional processes. One participant credited her coach directly, noting that “my coach … she's been very helpful … she's given me tools … to help me mentally relax … [and] break the fear” (TANF Recipient; Coaching). A second coached participant described a pattern of repeatedly losing jobs after making mistakes as a new employee; when supervisors corrected her, they had not felt confident enough to ask for guidance and instead repeated the same errors. Coaching helped her learn, for the first time, how to ask supervisors and shift leads for clarification on how to improve—a concrete behavioral change that reflected her growing comfort navigating institutional relationships.
TANF Staff Outcomes
Quantitative Belief-Domain Scores
For TANF staff, paired pre–post data were available for seven coached participants and six controls. Among participants, changes were modest: slight decreases in self and other, an increase in world (ΔM = +8.91), and a small decrease in trauma (Table 2). Controls showed decreases in self, world, and trauma and an increase in other (Table 2).
Summary of Change in Belief Scores Observed in TANF Staff (Coaching Participants and Control) Between the Pre- and Postassessment.
Note. Participants n = 7; controls n = 6 (paired TP1–TP2 cases). ΔM = TP2 − TP1. SDΔ = standard deviation of individual change scores. ΔΔ is the descriptive difference in change (participant change minus control change). Given the nonrandomized design and small sample sizes, ΔΔ values are descriptive and should not be interpreted as confirmatory causal effects. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Qualitative Themes among Staff
Interviews with three staff members (two participants, one control) yielded three themes that reflected changes in how staff understood their roles and their capacity to support clients.
Theme 1: Reclaiming Role Clarity amid Bureaucratic Strain
Prior to coaching, staff described arriving “exhausted” and “worn down by the system,” but through coaching developed a clearer sense of what was within their control versus what belonged to the wider bureaucracy. As one uncoached staff member noted, “sometimes clients do not have any options available … that's difficult” (Staff; Not Coached). This frustration, the gap between the support staff wished to provide and what the system permitted, emerged as a core source of strain in their roles.
Following coaching, staff reported a broader and more sustainable sense of purpose within their roles. One coached participant articulated this shift: “I have a better … understanding, even for myself, of okay, this is what we do. This is how we help our customers. This is what we’re passionate about” (Staff; Coached). Another reflected that they felt “most confident when I have a customer who is successfully … getting those barriers … taken care of” (Staff; Coached). These accounts suggested that coaching helped staff reconnect with the motivating purpose of their work rather than feeling defined by the limitations of the system.
Theme 2: Buffering Secondary Trauma and Emotional Exhaustion
Participants reported feeling “less drained” and better able to “step back instead of taking it all on,” drawing on belief-clearing techniques for their own emotional regulation. Prior to coaching, staff described the cumulative toll of navigating constant compliance demands, appointment pressures, and limited options for clients in need. One uncoached staff member conveyed this strain directly, noting that “sometimes clients do not have any options available … [and] we have to terminate services … that's difficult” (Staff; Not Coached).
Following coaching, staff reported reduced cynicism and a clearer, more supportive orientation toward their roles. One coached participant described a renewed sense of relational investment: “We actually care. We’re in touch with our customers more. We’re actively involved” (Staff; Coached). Another reflected the shift from institutional detachment to genuine engagement, noting that clients would respond, “Wow, you guys really do care …” (Staff; Coached). These accounts pointed to coaching as a meaningful buffer against the secondary trauma and burnout that commonly affect frontline welfare workers.
Theme 3: Modeling Adaptive Beliefs in Client Interactions
Staff reported shifting from directive, compliance-oriented interactions toward a style that helped clients examine their own beliefs and possibilities, using curious questioning, normalization of setbacks, and explicit belief-challenging. One uncoached staff member observed that many clients “haven’t had … positive experiences when they’re going through … the board of social services” (Staff; Not Coached), while a coached participant recognized that clients are often “kind of looked down upon, [in] how they’re talked to” (Staff; Coached). These observations highlighted the relational climate that coaching sought to shift.
Following coaching, staff described a clearer understanding of how to approach clients with humility, care, and encouragement. One participant reflected this change in orientation, noting that after engaging with the coaching program, clients would respond with recognition: “ … you guys really do want to see me succeed” (Staff; Coached). Even where belief scores changed only modestly, these accounts indicated perceived shifts in how staff understood their roles, managed their emotional load, and engaged with clients in ways that modeled more adaptive and hopeful ways of thinking.
Discussion
This exploratory study examined a trauma-informed therapeutic coaching intervention with both TANF clients and frontline staff in a welfare-to-work setting. For clients, quantitative results showed improvement in other-beliefs for engaged participants, with more mixed movement elsewhere; qualitative themes indicated shifts from paralysis to step-wise action, from global self-condemnation to more nuanced self-worth, and from seeing the system as uniformly hostile to viewing it as difficult but navigable. These patterns are consistent with theories that coaching can increase perceived controllability and competence, weaken global–stable–internal attributions for failure, and support growth-oriented schemas under structural friction (Dweck, 2008; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Pajares & Schunk, 2002).
Staff findings were more modest numerically but suggestive. Coached staff appeared to maintain or improve world-beliefs relative to controls and reported clearer role boundaries, reduced emotional exhaustion, and more intentional, client-centered communication, echoing prior work on mitigating burnout and strengthening service delivery (Maslach & Leiter, 2016; Morse et al., 2012; Pazer, 2025). Conceptually, this is consistent with a dual-lever model in which therapeutic coaching may be associated with changes in clients’ beliefs and coping, and with staff beliefs and practices that shape the relational climate of welfare encounters (Schram et al., 2010). Engagement and dosage emerged as critical; nonresponders and early drop-outs did not show improvements, underscoring the importance of sustained contact.
The client and staff results clarify the intervention's impact on two distinct but interconnected fronts. At the client level, the findings suggest that therapeutic coaching can be meaningfully integrated into welfare programs as a psychologically informed resource that targets belief-related distress and supports more agentic, help-seeking responses to structural barriers—addressing a dimension of poverty (maladaptive self-, other-, and world-beliefs) that conventional financial or case-management services rarely reach. At the staff level, the findings indicate that coaching may function as an internal capacity-building tool, helping welfare professionals hold clearer, more sustainable roles, manage secondary trauma, and adopt more reflective, client-centered interactional styles. Together, these strands point to the importance of treating coaching not only as an individual client intervention but also as an organizational and relational resource that can shape the human environment in which welfare policies are enacted.
From a coaching scholarship perspective, these findings contribute in three main ways. First, they illuminate mechanisms of change in therapeutic coaching by illustrating how belief-focused work (guided inquiry, belief deconstruction, self-affirmation, and goal structuring) may be associated with shifts in core schemas about self, others, and the world in line with coaching psychology's emphasis on self-efficacy, metacognition, and growth-oriented mindsets (Dweck, 2008; Grant, 2003; Pajares & Schunk, 2002). Second, they foreground context constraints: under chronic scarcity and bureaucratic friction, attentional bandwidth, engagement, and “dose” become binding conditions on coaching impact, extending coaching theory into high-strain environments shaped by poverty and administrative burden (Haushofer & Fehr, 2014; Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013). Third, they highlight relational dynamics as a locus of coaching effect, suggesting that when frontline staff engage in therapeutic coaching themselves, they can model adaptive beliefs and cocreate more enabling interactional climates for clients, thereby operationalizing Jackson and Parsons’ (2016) vision of therapeutic coaching as a relational, emotionally attuned practice within complex human-service systems.
Limitations of this study include its quasi-experimental design, small and imbalanced groups, and nonrandom attrition, all of which constrain causal inference and generalizability. In addition, belief measures were adapted rather than fully validated, early economic indicators were based on self-reported short-run outcomes, and the qualitative sample was small. Accordingly, estimated effect sizes should be interpreted as provisional signals rather than precise estimates, and the qualitative themes as illustrative rather than exhaustive.
Conclusion and Future Directions
These findings support further investigation of integrating trauma-informed therapeutic coaching into social support systems. For staff, the intervention was associated with improved role clarity, emotional buffering, and more reflective, client-centered practice, pointing to the potential of coaching as a force multiplier that strengthens the relational conditions under which clients pursue their goals. Together, these client and staff effects underscore the importance of designing coaching interventions that operate at both the individual and system-facing levels of welfare provision.
Future research should employ adequately powered randomized or strong quasi-experimental designs, preregistered analyses, comprehensive psychometrics (e.g., full CBI, validated self-efficacy scales), and administrative outcomes (employment, income, sanctions, case duration). Factorial trials that vary intensity, modality (in-person vs. tele-coaching), and client-only versus client-plus-staff conditions would clarify how therapeutic coaching can most effectively shift belief systems and relational climates in efforts to interrupt cycles of poverty.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the use of AI-assisted tools (ChatGPT, OpenAI) for editorial support in drafting and refining the language of this manuscript. All intellectual content, data interpretation, and conclusions are solely the responsibility of the authors.
The authors are thankful to the following for their help: Tammy Molinelli, Executive Director of the Bergen County Workforce Development Board.
Francis Kuhn, Executive Director of the Atlantic County Workforce Development Board.
Donna Dalton, D. Div, Case Manager for the Project.
Donna Beegle, PhD, President, and Debbie Ellis, Manager, Communication Across Barriers, Inc.
Charles A. Wallace II, PhD, CW2 Associates, program Manager.
The Department of Labor, State of New Jersey for funding the Innovation Grant.
Certified Clear Beliefs Coaches: Tamara Kailany, Taj Avaje, Dr Erika Yeates, Robyn Ladinsky, MSW, LCSW, Silvia Causo, Cynder Niemela.
Consultants: Carista Luminare, PhD, Fernando Flores, PhD, Saqib Rasool, Chauncey Bell, Deloris Thomas, PhD, Jane Armstrong, PhD Jeremy Clifton, PhD, Professor of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, founder of The Primals Project.
Research Team: Amy Graglia, PhD, founder of Novi Research, and Becky Simmons, PhD.
The many good people of New Jersey, whom we coached and the wonderful public servants and social workers who participated in our training.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by two Innovative Grants from the Department of Labor to WorkFirst New Jersey.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.