2006
DOI: 10.1606/1044-3894.3536
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Implementing Welfare-to-Work Services: A Study of Staff Decision-Making

Abstract: 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, goa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 18 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Particular attention was given to the policy implementation process since most of the national administrative data focused on caseload dynamics and not the service innovations associated with the use of incentive funds provided to the states for reducing caseloads (Austin, 2004; Austin & Carnochan, 2002; Prince & Austin, 2001, 2003). In addition, survey research was carried out to assess both staff and client perceptions of the process of welfare reform implementation (Austin, Chow, Johnson, DeMarco, & Ketch, 2008; Austin, DeMarco, & Chow, 2009; Johnson, Ketch, Chow, & Austin, 2006). As our county partners struggled with policy development to envision postwelfare reform options, there was a call for a literature review on the latest research on low-income families since many poor families were not eligible under the welfare reform legislation along with a continuing interest in policy options to address child poverty (Anthony, King, & Austin, 2011; Austin, Lemon, & Leer 2006; Chow, Johnson, & Austin, 2006; Hastings, Taylor, & Austin, 2006; Lemon & Austin, 2006).…”
Section: Past Completed Projectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Particular attention was given to the policy implementation process since most of the national administrative data focused on caseload dynamics and not the service innovations associated with the use of incentive funds provided to the states for reducing caseloads (Austin, 2004; Austin & Carnochan, 2002; Prince & Austin, 2001, 2003). In addition, survey research was carried out to assess both staff and client perceptions of the process of welfare reform implementation (Austin, Chow, Johnson, DeMarco, & Ketch, 2008; Austin, DeMarco, & Chow, 2009; Johnson, Ketch, Chow, & Austin, 2006). As our county partners struggled with policy development to envision postwelfare reform options, there was a call for a literature review on the latest research on low-income families since many poor families were not eligible under the welfare reform legislation along with a continuing interest in policy options to address child poverty (Anthony, King, & Austin, 2011; Austin, Lemon, & Leer 2006; Chow, Johnson, & Austin, 2006; Hastings, Taylor, & Austin, 2006; Lemon & Austin, 2006).…”
Section: Past Completed Projectsmentioning
confidence: 99%