How Mental Health and Welfare to Work Interact: The Role of Hope, Sanctions, Engagement, and Support

Abstract

Abstract[Excerpt] This article describes some of the lessons learned in the implementation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) as it relates to people with psychiatric disabilities. It attempts to articulate some of the inherent difficulties faced in serving these individuals within the welfare system as well as how the established strengths of each system can inform the other's efforts. The philosophy concerning work for clients of the welfare and mental health systems differ. Each system has developed separately, and they do not easily integrate their differing philosophies and goals. At the client level, this lack of consistency presents obvious coordination barriers. At the system level, examination of practice and the underlying philosophy of each provides incentives for cross-training and policy changes. Two case studies describe the identification of issues, opportunities, and challenges to providing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) services to individuals with mental illness. These lessons can provide guidance to mental health systems as they strive to implement evidence-based employment practices and provide welfare entities with policy direction as a result of a widening knowledge base. Specific policy and program innovations in a county and in a state are highlighted to demonstrate these issues. Finally, the authors raise areas for further inquiry and reflection. This article describes some of the lessons learned in the implementation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) as it relates to people with psychiatric disabilities. It attempts to articulate some of the inherent difficulties faced in serving these individuals within the welfare system as well as how the established strengths of each system can inform the other's efforts. The philosophy concerning work for clients of the welfare and mental health systems differ. Each system has developed separately, and they do not easily integrate their differing philosophies and goals. At the client level, this lack of consistency presents obvious coordination barriers. At the system level, examination of practice and the underlying philosophy of each provides incentives for cross-training and policy changes. Two case studies describe the identification of issues, opportunities, and challenges to providing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) services to individuals with mental illness. These lessons can provide guidance to mental health systems as they strive to implement evidence-based employment practices and provide welfare entities with policy direction as a result of a widening knowledge base. Specific policy and program innovations in a county and in a state are highlighted to demonstrate these issues. Finally, the authors raise areas for further inquiry and reflection.

Organizational approaches to collaboration in vocational rehabilitation − An international literature review

“…A lack of communication or an insufficient dialogue between the different actors is a barrier [53], which may lead to ambiguity regarding the different roles and responsibilities in the rehabilitation process [14, 26, 37]. In the absence of communication, the actors may also have different views on the aims and goals of the collaboration [40, 45].…”

Association of Occupation, Employment Contract, and Company Size with Mental Health in a National Representative Sample of Employees in Japan

“…Male part-time workers may be more psychologically distressed because they bear job insecurity with lower wages despite their expected role of supporting their family and their desire to be employed as permanent workers 7) . However, an alternative interpretation is that many male workers being treated for mental disorders are employed as part-time workers because, in general, people with mental disorders have difficulty working full-time 32) . On the other hand, there was no significant difference in the prevalence of psychological distress between permanent and temporary/ contract male workers.…”

Fear and Distrust Within the Canadian Welfare System: Experiences of People With Mental Illness

“…Their vulnerability is further bolstered by welfare policies that are seemingly in constant flux (Garthwaite, 2014; Traustadóttir & Rice, 2012), making it hard for recipients to anticipate the impact of earnings from employment on their eligibility for benefits. Under these “highly pressurized” conditions (Herd, Mitchell, & Lightman, 2005, p. 72), recipients often hesitate to test the waters of employment out of fear of losing their benefits (Drake, Skinner, Bond, & Goldman, 2009; Gewurtz, Cott, Rush, & Kirsh, 2015b; Krupa, Kirsh, Gewurtz, & Cockburn, 2005; Marrone, Foley, & Selleck, 2005). Despite acknowledgment of this pervasive fear, there remains a lack of understanding of how system features perpetuate fear and distrust, and the impact it has on the experiences of recipients.…”

“…Thus, recipients might fear having to prove their disability after a period of wellness and work capacity (de Urries, Verdugo, & Benito, 2012; Gewurtz et al, 2015b; Shankar & Collyer, 2004; Vick & Lightman, 2010). People living with mental illness face particular barriers including suspicion, pervasive stigma, and the need for workplace accommodations that are often hard to negotiate (Drake et al, 2009; Gewurtz & Kirsh, 2009; Krupa et al, 2005; Marrone et al, 2005; McDowell & Fossey, 2015). Yet, according to an extensive review, mental illness is now the leading cause of new claims for disability benefits within the welfare programs in many jurisdictions (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2012).…”