Welfare and Social Services

Earned Income Tax Credits

(EITC)

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(SNAP, formerly known as food stamps)

Supplemental Security Income

(SSI)

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF, often called "welfare"),

triage:

A concept most familiar in emergency medicine, where health workers must decide who to serve, who is most in need of immediate services, and who is beyond help. Social workers must sometimes engage in this same kind of process, given limited resources (time, personnel, money). One form of triage is "creaming", where only the most easily helped received assistance. But one can imagine a different kind of triage where social workers may choose to more often help people in the most dire circumstances, whether or not they will show the kinds of progress the organization may wish for.

bureaucracy

A type of organization marked by a clear hierarchy of authority, the existence of written rules of procedure, and staffed by full‐time, salaried officials

ABAWD:

Able Bodied Adult without Dependents -- These are presumably healthy people who can work and provide for themselves. The became famous, or infamous, during the Great Recession when unemployment was so high, that even these most employable of persons needed extra help. For a time during the recession, SNAP was made more readily available to ABAWDs, and then this extra help was dramatically reduced. (Sometimes states may ask for a waiver to be more generous to ABAWDs in areas within the state where unemployment is very high.)

discretion:

Among those who deliver services from within a bureaucratically organized agency, there is sometimes freedom to make decisions about how to apply or interpret a rule so as to be more or less helpful to a client. When considering street level bureaucracy, we are often interested in the degree to which agents in the organization (social workers and managers) have discretion. This concept is loosely related to the idea of federalism, where state agencies are granted some freedoms to apply and interpret federal laws and programs in ways the state wants to. But we usually reserve the concept of discretion for describing social workers' & managers' sense of freedom to interpret state/federal laws in more or less generous ways.

"take up" rate

Another phrase sometimes used instead of participation rate. Policy makers are interested in the process of take-up, meaning, do people go sign up for the program they are eligible for.

DHS (Oregon)

Department of Human Services in Oregon. Oregon's DHS oversees many social safety net programs, although they prefer to call them "self sufficiency programs" for a variety of reasons.

collaborative governance:

From Ansell & Gash (2008), quoted in Edwards article: "a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets." In the delivery of social welfare programs, we see some evidence of this for example in collaboration between the Oregon Food Bank and the Department of Human Services, and other groups in the Oregon Hunger Task Force. Note that this is different from merely contracting with some non-profits to do some work for the state (recall the article about Michigan nonprofits (contractors) working for Work First agencies. The nonprofits don't get to set policy; but in a truly collaborative governance structure, non-state groups and state agencies work together to make and implement policy.

welfare reform:

In 1996, a strange mix of politics led to the reforming of the social safety net (at least in terms of SNAP and TANF). Years of criticizing the safety net (during the 1980s and early 90s by conservative politicians) and an unexpected level of bipartisanship and a willing Democratic president, let to the signing in 1996 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Notice that the emphasis is on challenging poor people to be more responsible and to work more, which is exactly what was instituted for TANF (formerly known as AFDC -- Aid to Families with Dependent Children). So rather than just providing aid to families, now the emphasis was on responsibility and work, largely due to concerns that welfare (AFDC) recipients (usually single mothers) were irresponsible (having children out of wedlock) and not working enough (hanging out on the stoop waiting for a monthly check). So, this reforming of welfare had a big impact on poor people in America both in terms of work expectations, what it took to be eligible, and for how long a person could receive support.

categorical" programs

In contrast to "means tested" programs (that see if you are economically eligible), these programs simply assess if you are eligible by being in the right category (not using economic need as a relevant category). For example, are you over age 65, or do you have a disability?

spell:

In the context of considering social welfare programs, a "spell" is a period of time in which a person remains enrolled in a program. By studying the length of spells we can study how people's loss of eligibility or how programs' willingness to let people remain eligible impact the number of people who are receiving the program. State differences in the administration of a program like SNAP, TANF, Unemployment Insurance can cause spells to be longer or shorter. The study of people entering and exiting from a program is sometimes referred to as studying the "program dynamics."

in-kind transfers

Instead of giving a recipient some cash, the program transfers a particular "good" to you. For example, a housing voucher, a child care voucher, access to health care, or SNAP benefit -- it has economic worth, but it is not money that can be used for anything else. It is a transfer that is targeted for a particular good.

EBT: Electronic Benefits Transfer (card)

Money for SNAP and TANF is often (most states) made available to recipients through a card which allows them to make food purchases (SNAP) at stores that accept these cards or withdraw cash (TANF). Recipients have a PIN (personal identification number) that helps make sure that the right person is using the card. States differ in their rules on where one can use cards -- for example, some states won't let casinos or liquor stores have ATMs that accept TANF cards. And an ongoing debate is how much more to limit what SNAP card-users can buy with their benefits. Having these cards allows for computer programming with scan codes which items may and may not be purchased with a SNAP EBT card.

asset test:

Some "means tested" safety net programs take into account assets when evaluating one's eligibility. Assets are cars, homes, other valuable property, savings, etc., beyond just one's monthly or annual income. This becomes relevant when, for example, a middle class person with a car and a mortgage falls on hard times and needs SNAP support for a few months. Should the thousands of dollars in home equity or the $7,000 value of the car disqualify the person from receiving SNAP? If so, then this person would need to sell the car and buy something cheaper, or sell the house. Some people would agree that this is the right thing to require, and others would say this unnecessarily impoverishes someone who just needs a brief period of help before they can easily escape the safety net. States can request and sometimes get waivers from the USDA for whether or not to apply an asset test, or for raising the level of permitted value, so that the car or house does not become a "disqualifying asset".

benefits cliff:

Sometimes if a person earns just a bit too much, for example, getting a small raise at work, they may suddenly become ineligible for a program. If they lose the program, they actually are in a worse situation than if they had not received the raise. This is the benefits cliff. And it serves as a disincentive for some clients to improving their income situation through work. (The same thing sometimes happens with insurance coverage -- if a person suddenly makes too much they may lose their Medicaid coverage.) Some programs try to soften this problem with a kind of "ramp" rather than a cliff, so that incremental increases in earnings lead to incremental decreases in what they receive from the program. That is, as income rises, benefits are incrementally phased out so people are not going backwards. SNAP and TANF are attentive to this, although some states are more attentive than others in how they've arranged this.

Wavier

States may ask a federal agency if they can experiment with something new, or if they can hold off from implementing a required policy change. They are asking for a "waiver" from the rules. They have to justify why they want to do it, and the agency can then decide to approve it or not. Waivers can be used to try to be more or less generous with a program, make it more or less easily accessed, and the like.

block grant vs categorical grant

TANF is a block-granted program. SNAP is a categorical grant program.

food insecurity:

The USDA has carefully conceptualized and sought to measure an experience that many households face, which includes not just lacking calories and volume to alleviate feelings of hunger, but also the nagging worry about stretching food dollars, the coping strategies of eating less or less healthfully than one knows they should, etc. The video in our class discusses how this is measured. People who have a very deep, more severe experience of food insecurity are said to have "very low food security". This is analogous to the idea of deep poverty among the poor. Advocates and casual observers often refer to this category of people as being "hungry". (We do this because in the past the official measure said this was food insecurity with hunger, and because people in this group often do have real interruptions of being able to eat.)

creaming:

The actions of some social workers where they 'take the cream from the top', providing services first for those who are most easily helped or who are most likely to show an improvement in terms of some problematic outcome. The presence or absence of this will depend on a variety of influences, including incentives in the job to do this (for example, when managers measure success by number of people "fixed" versus number of people "served"), the culture of the organization (for example, if other coworkers approve of it), and personal biases and commitments of social workers.

work participation rate:

The federal government expects each state, as it implements TANF, to achieve a particular rate of employment for its TANF recipients. If that rate gets low, the federal government starts threatening to reduce the block grant. If it is high, they publicly praise the state. Not every poor person who receives TANF is able to work -- they may, for example, be disabled, enrolled in a training program, or looking for a job but haven't landed one yet. So, it's unreasonable to expect a 100% work participation rate among TANF recipients. But states with lower rates look bad in comparison to those with higher rates, and this can have an impact on how the states are regarded by the federal government (Health & Human Services agency).

participation rate:

The fraction of eligible people in a state who actually do participate in the program.

street level bureaucracy:

The interface of a bureaucratic organization with the public. In the delivery of social services, this is often the cadre of front-line workers who interact with clients and potential clients. Many times such workers have discretion to either strictly enforce bureaucratic rules, or to accommodate and flex to help clients, giving these agents of the bureaucracy impressive power over the experience of clients.

devolution:

The process of handing more control of federal programs to state governments. It is the act of handing off the power, providing the block of money to the state, that is the process of devolution. It is supported by the political philosophy of "federalism" that suggests that it is always better when possible to let states retain control of how they care for their residents.

welfare dynamics, program dynamics:

The study of people entering and exiting programs. Some programs are not very dynamic. For example, once a person gets to the right age, they receive Social Security, so there is no exiting. But other programs designed to be temporary indeed have dynamics of people coming and going. See "spells" as a related vocabulary word.

LTSS (long term supports and services):

These are alternative care-giving arrangements usually for the elderly that are supported by state and federal funds. (These supports can be made available for the non elderly too.) For example, rather than having all of our 70 or 80 year olds relegated to convalescent hospitals or other institutions, we now prefer to let people age-in-place, to stay in their homes as long as possible, even if it means having staff visit them regularly and helping them with basic house and self-care. The growing number of old people in our society (the aging baby-boomer cohort is driving much of this) is likely to have a big impact on the safety net in the coming decades. This is the "silver tsunami" that some people think will stretch the net to its max.

new federalism:

This isn't that "new" anymore, but in the 1990s, there was a revival of the idea that states should be given more latitude, more freedom for implementing federal safety net programs. There are pro's and con's to this, but it is generally more favored by conservative politicos because it gives states greater control (a value that's often important to conservatives) and because it often reduces costs to the federal government (reducing bureaucracy and tax resources -- another value often important to conservatives). Political liberals usually see this as a strategy to cut down on support for poor people. Reasonable people can disagree on this.

means tested

To find out if you qualify for a particular program, authorities what to test what "means" you have (i.e., how much money, if you have a job, etc.). So, "means tested" programs check out potential participants to see if they are eligible, based on their "means".

recertification (sometimes called redetermination):

To remain on some programs, a participant must continue to demonstrate need. Some programs require very frequent recertification, and others less frequent. Some states require more and other states less frequent recertification. While recertification appears to be a good way to make sure that people are not getting a benefit they are not eligible for, there are challenges and costs to having lots of recertification. It's expensive to hire enough staff to do all that paperwork, checking and rechecking; and clients can be incorrectly tossed from the program because of the extra bureaucratic processes, and/or because they forgot to bring a particular form, and thus get cut off temporarily while the paperwork problem is fixed.

churn:

When people have to keep re-certifying that they are eligible for a program, some are dropped due to their own failure to provide the right documentation, or perhaps not showing up for an appointment, or due to the failures of the agency they are dealing with. Bureaucracies lose paperwork, agency workers make mistakes when assessing whether or not a person remains qualified. This churning off and on is a concern to (a) those who are temporarily without their benefits and (b) those who want qualified people to have their benefits. The phenomenon of "churn" is relevant when we consider program "dynamics" (e.g.., length of spells, number of intermittent spells, rates of "take up", etc.).

block grants:

When power is "devolved" (see 'devolution') to states, it usually means that states receive not just freedom to implement the program but also they are given a block of money that is limited and cannot easily be increased. This block grant then provides each state some real limits in terms of what it can offer, and if it spends all the money wisely or poorly, it is finite and the federal government is not going to add to it. This is in contrast to categorical grants that essentially say to states, "We see that you have this many poor people, or this many hungry people . . . we will give you such no so amount of money for each one of them, and the funding will rise and fall as your numbers of eligible people rise and fall."

work requirements

With the reforming of welfare in 1996, the work requirements for adults receiving TANF were increased. Meanwhile, Medicaid and SNAP do not have work requirements (as of now, January 10, 2018). But there are discussions afoot in Washington about adding work requirements for recipients of these programs

re-authorization:

a process in Congress, where every 5 or 7 or 10 years, various programs have to be approved again by Congress, with whatever new changes are deemed right. So, for example, the legislation known as "The Farm Bill" is authorized every 5 years or so, and this is relevant to SNAP because SNAP is administered by the US Department of Agriculture. So, changes to SNAP are more likely during this process. Welfare (TANF) reauthorization technically expired in 2010 and was not re-authorized for 5 or 10 years, but now it sort of limps along being re-approved every year, but without any long term commitments. Congressional gridlock seems to have caused this problem. Attending to this issue of re-authorization reminds us of the vulnerability of safety net programs to changes in the political landscape.

Institutionalized Discrimination

built-in ways that the normal operating procedures of organizations and institutions systematically and disproportionately reduce opportunities for some groups. These processes can happen apart from the opinions and biases of organizational leadership and/or members.

fraud:

the officially measured rates of fraud for SNAP and TANF and other programs is low (single digits), but even a little bit of fraud can rob precious resources from others, and for some critics, it is evidence that government programs should either not be trusted or should be more demanding that clients demonstrate they are eligible and they are using their resources responsibly.

rationalization

the progressive disenchantment of the world, the eradication of mystery, emotion, tradition, and affectivity, and its replacement by rational calculation."