When Does the Social Service Ecosystem Meet Consumption Needs? A Power–Justice–Access Model of Holistic Well-Being from Recipients’ Perspectives

Abstract

Many Americans living in poverty rely on a constellation of social services to meet their consumption needs. This article explores the conditions under which social service programs enhance or detract from holistic well-being, from recipients’ perspectives. Depth interviews with 45 rural and urban recipients reveal, through a power–justice–access model, that holistic well-being extends beyond access to social service programs to include power to choose and control resource outcomes and justice (respect) in recipients’ experiences with elements of the social service ecosystem (design, practices, actors, resources). Theoretically, focusing on the social service ecosystem allows a broader understanding of holistic well-being than is possible through a resource-based or dyadic perspective. In terms of policy, the findings suggest the need to include subjective, versus solely objective, approaches in assessing the performance of the social service ecosystem in meeting consumption needs. Finally, the authors offer a practical principle termed “sensitized standardization,” whereby, at the local level, needs are addressed in relation to the context of recipients’ daily lives and the macro structure of the social service ecosystem.

Harmonious homegoings: alleviating consumer vulnerability through service fluidity and compassion

“…In services marketing, providers are typically considered separate from clients in the provider-customer dyad and profitability is considered the utmost goal. However, these changes in contexts wherein the service is necessary, clients are CTC, or well-being is at stake, such as in healthcare or social services (Anderson et al , 2016; Baker et al , 2020). First, service providers may need to be more integrally involved in the lives of consumers, deeply understanding their needs and situations.…”

“…The lessons gleaned from this research are transferable and can provide valuable insights for a variety of service organizations, but particularly for those operating in spaces that provide necessary or required services for CTC or for those that are potentially transformative (TSR). For example, service providers in health care (Anderson et al , 2016; Virlee et al , 2020), financial services (Amine and Gatfaoui, 2019) or social services (Baker et al , 2020) could benefit from adopting these principles. When consumers experience vulnerability that demands reliance upon these service industries, such as a chronic, life-threatening health condition or such as a family facing a home foreclosure, services organizations could implement fluidity and agility, adopt deep understanding and altruistic practices and operate with empathy and compassion.…”

Unintended Consequences in Transformative Service Research: Helping Without Harming

“…Facilitating "transformative value" in service research and practice demands a more holistic view of consumers' lives, a broader focus than the individual (e.g., family, tribe, community), and acknowledgment of the broader systems that influence wellbeing (Blocker and Barrios 2015;Upadhyaya et al 2021). Doing so requires thinking about value creation and well-being within a service ecosystem across an assortment of providers and multiple levels of analysis (Baker et al 2020;Vink et al 2021). Notably, Ostrom et al (2021, p. 332) identify large-scale and complex service ecosystems for transformative impact as critical service priority needing research; their analysis highlights a need for greater clarity into the positive and negative consequences of services, a better understanding of who is negatively impacted, and more insights into the (in)direct repercussions of recent market disruptions (e.g., COVID-19, the gig economy) shaping service models.…”

Consumer Power and Access

“…It includes the belief that one is powerful (Wang, Minton, and Zhang 2020), power of voice (the ability to express opinions to others; Legocki, Walker, and Kiesler 2020), power of choice (the ability restrict a firm’s access to personal data and/or to vote with one’s feet; Andrews, Walker, and Kees 2020; Bornschein, Schmidt, and Maier 2020), policy power (the power to affect public policy; e.g. Baker et al 2020), and power over firms (the ability to affect firm behavior). A lack of power results when voice, choice, and actions directed toward public policy and firms are frustrated, limited and restricted (Bone 2008; Bone, Christensen, and Williams 2014).…”

“…Instead of sticky, we encounter a situation more along the lines of Gorilla Glue. Baker et al (2020) offer another dimension of consumer access and power-that of respect. They show the fallacy of scorning low-income individuals' access to "luxuries," such as Starbucks coffee, and the importance of going beyond simple access and power and include the level of perceived justice (e.g., respect).…”