In the post-welfare reform era, increased discretion has been given to frontline staff for day-today welfare policy implementation. To determine how frontline staff address the complex needs of welfare program participants in this new policy environment, the decision-making processes of welfare staff (N = 52) in 11 San Francisco Bay Area county social service agencies were assessed through a case vignette using a Web-based survey design. We examined staff decision making in four areas: problem recognition, goal formulation, information search processes, and evaluation. The results suggest that the high level of staff discretion apparent in the day-to-day implementation of welfare policy may have important implications for participants. Several recommendations for policy, practice, and future research are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AustinM. J., JohnsonM. A., DeMarcoA., KetchV., & ChowJ. (2003). Delivering welfare-to-work services in county social service organizations: An exploratory study of staff perspectives.Berkeley, CA: Bay Area Social Services Consortium, University of California.
2.
BeckermanA., & FontanaL (2001). The transition from AFDC to PRWORA in Florida: Perceptions of the role of case manager in welfare reform. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 28(3), 29-47.
3.
BrodkinE. Z. (2000). Investigating policy's practical meaning: Street-level research on welfare policy (Working Paper 162). Chicago: Joint Center for Poverty Research, Northwestern University.
CarrollJ. S., & JohnsonE. J. (1990). Decision research: A field guide.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
CarnochanS., & AustinM. J. (2002). Implementing welfare reform and guiding organizational change. Administration in Social Work, 26, 61–77.
8.
CherlinA. J., BogenK., QuaneJ. M., & BurtonL. (2002). Operating within the rules: Welfare recipients’ experiences with sanctions and case closings.Social Service Review, 76, 387–405.
9.
DillmanD. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design methods (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
10.
DoolittleF., GoodenS., & RoblesA. (2003). Community service jobs in Wisconsin Works: The Milwaukee County experience. New York: Manpower Development Research Corporation.
11.
GaisT. L., NathanR. P., LurieI., & KaplanT. (2001). Implementation of the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996. In BlankR. M. & HaskinsR. (Eds.), The New World of Welfare.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
12.
HagenJ. L., & LurieI. (1995a). Implementing JOBS: A view from the front line.Families in Society, 76, 230–238.
13.
HagenJ. L., & LurieI. (1995b). Implementing JOBS: From the rose garden to reality. Social Work, 40, 523–532.
14.
HagenJ. L., LurieI., & WangL. (1993). Implementing JOBS: The perspective of front-line workers.New York: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
15.
HagenJ. L., & Owens-ManleyJ. (2002). Issues in implementing TANF in New York: The perspective of frontline workers. Social Work, 47, 171–182.
16.
HagenJ. L., & WangL. (1993). Roles and functions of public welfare workers.Administration in Social Work, 17(2), 81–103.
17.
HagenJ. L., & WangL. (1994). Implementing JOBS: The functions of frontline workers.Social Service Review, 68, 369–385.
18.
HasenfeldY., GhoseT., & LarsonK. (2004). The logic of sanctioning welfare recipients: An empirical assessment. Social Service Review, 78, 304–320.
19.
HenlyJ., R., & DanzigerS. K. (1996). Confronting welfare stereotypes: Characteristics of general assistance recipients and postassistance employment.Social Work, 20, 217–227.
20.
HolcombP. A., & MartinsonK. (2002). Putting policy into practice: Five years of welfare reform. In WeilA. & FinegoldK. (Eds.), Welfare reform: The next act.Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
21.
KeiserL. R., MueserP. R., & ChoiS. (2004). Race, bureaucratic discretion, and the implementation of welfare reform.American Journal of Political Science, 48, 314–327.
22.
KleinmuntzD. N. (1985). Cognitive heuristics and feedback in a dynamic decision environment. Management Science, 31, 680–702.
23.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
24.
LurieI. (2002). Changing welfare offices. In SawhillI. V., WeaverR. K., HaskinsR., & KaneA. (Eds.), Welfare reform and beyond: The future of the safety net.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
25.
MeyersM., RiccucciN., & LurieI. (2001). Achieving goal congruence in complex environments: The case of welfare reform.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 165.
26.
MontgomeryL., KayeK., GeenR., & MartinsonK. (2002). Recent changes in California welfare and work, child care, and child welfare systems. (State Update No. 11). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
27.
MorgenS. (2001). The agency of welfare workers: Negotiating devolution, privatization, and the meaning of self-sufficiency.American Anthropologist, 103, 747–761.
28.
MuhrT. (1998). Atlas.ti for Windows.Berlin, Germany: Scientific Software Development.
RiccucciN. M. (2002). Implementing welfare reform in Michigan: The role of street-level bureaucrats.International Journal of Public Administration, 25, 901–921.
31.
SandfortJ. (1999). The structural impediments to human service collaboration: Examining welfare reform at the front lines. Social Service Review. 73, 314-339.
32.
SPSS, Inc. (2003). SPSS Graduate Pack 11.5 for Windows.Chicago: Author.
33.
WeissertC. S. (1994). Beyond the organization: The influence of community and personal values on street-level bureaucrats’ responsiveness.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 225–254.
34.
WolnickD. (1998). StatPac for Windows.Minneapolis, MN: StatPac, Inc.
