A Case Study: Assessing a Welfare-to-Work Organization

The Case Study: A small nonprofit welfare-to-work training program has met its goal of moving people from welfare into work but there is concern for the poor standard of living achieved by graduates from the program, including how it impacts the welfare of the graduates’ families, and recently the local government has threatened to cut funding to the program. The organization’s director has tasked all agency staff to begin strategic planning with the primary goal of raising the standard of living for program graduates and additionally strengthening the organization’s sources of funding.

Part One — Outline the organization’s theory of change and overarching goals.

TOC: The theory of change that had been driving welfare-to-work programs was that work “has the power to save the soul.” The goal of welfare-to-work was simply to get people engaged in work because of the belief that participation and culture of work can positively affect the “dependent poor” who otherwise lose connections that work provides through helping others and their own family. In the ideal outcome, welfare-to-work gives the “dependent poor” a purpose and provides them with ethics of working culture.

Based on what I observed, welfare-to-work achieved its basic goal in that it did put single mothers to work. However, the long-term goal of breaking the cycle of poverty has not been achieved. Even the politicians who promoted the welfare-to-work admitted that a change in poverty has yet to be seen. In fact, families who were part of a welfare-to-work program experienced a similar pattern to those living in poverty prior to these programs — children who are in poverty often drop out of high school to get jobs so they can help pay bills and raise other siblings while their mothers are at work, which then makes it harder for these children to get high wage jobs when they become adults.

Factors that suggest that the working hypothesis (theory of change) of welfare-to-work needs to be adjusted can be noted in the exemplary family of Angie Joe. The case study of Angie, who is the “ideal welfare woman,” struggles to pay bills, has had electricity cut off multiple times, and has difficulty keeping enough food to feed her children. According to her children, there was apparently no change in their lives to show a transformation away from poverty because of the welfare-to-work program. There is a lack of evidence that these programs help families get out of poverty.

Indeed, despite single mothers acquiring a job(s), these families are still struggling financially. Some suggest that single mothers transitioning away from welfare would be better off if they could attain jobs that weren’t low wage. For instance, if they could use the money from welfare for upward mobility, like seeking a college degree or GED, they could benefit more. Unfortunately, it is not so simple to do this when taking care of children and making sure bills are paid.

Goals

1. Reduce poverty across the nation.

2. Help parents achieve a job with the possibility of upward mobility.

3. Provide parents the opportunity of obtaining their GED and/or higher education.

Part Two — Compare and contrast data collection and analysis with an empirical study on another welfare to work program.

The Per Scholas Employment/Training Program for Low-Income Workers intervention, which provided information technology job training to those struggling with employment, was evaluated for effectiveness during a two-year operation period and based on follow-ups with participants two years after training. The experimental group received Per Scholas job training (78% retention rate), while the control group was offered other types of job training in the community (Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2017).

Types of Monitoring and Evaluation

The evaluation report used an outcomes evaluation for monitoring and evaluating. Essentially, researchers wanted to determine the effectiveness (did the intervention meet the goal?) of the intervention, so they looked at the outcomes for participants over a two year period and two years after participation in the program, including average earnings, months employed, and likelihood of working at a job paying more than $11/hour.

Data Sources

Data came from a case study of participants, both a control group and an experimental group. The sources of data used were limited to self-reports through researcher-administered surveys. One limitation of the study was its lack of verification of self-reports through official records, such as proof of employment, records of collecting unemployment, etc.

Types of Measures

The types of measures used to collect data during the evaluation activities included a behavioral measure, standardized scale, and qualitative measure. The behavioral measure was whether the participant obtained and maintained a job within two years and after two years of Per Scholas training. The standardized scale was the survey provided to participants by the experimenters. The qualitative measure would be personal statements provided by participants about their belief in their ability to acquire a well-paying job post-training.

Qualitative Measures

Two qualitative measures in this study included average earnings during the second-year follow-up and number of months employed during the second-year follow-up.

Quantitative Measures

One quantitative measure was the self-report about likelihood of the participants to obtain a job paying over $11/hour in the second-year follow-up. No other quantitative measures were used in this study.

Part Three — Propose an intervention with consideration of human rights.

The welfare to work organization offers job training to underemployed and unemployed parents and helps clients “get off” welfare assistance. My proposed intervention is the Per Schola Job Training Program.

Potential Opportunities

Some opportunities the program has that can enhance the realization of participants’ human rights include potential for employment and protection against unemployment through skills training and interview preparation, which supports UDHR Article 23. Additionally, employment opportunities mean the families can achieve adequate living and welfare offers special assistance to family units, which supports Article 25.

Lastly, working parents can support their children’s education, which could fulfill Article 26. Not only does this program offer training to parents for better wages, it educates said parents and provides them with the opportunity to help their children receive a better education.

Potential Human Rights Violations

Unfortunately, the welfare-to-work program can inadvertently cause human rights violations. For instance, a welfare to work parent may not be able to take care of their children or afford childcare, which could result in the oldest child missing school to take care of younger siblings. Moreover, children of low-income mothers tend to struggle in school for a variety of reasons, including limited access to books and attendance at low performance public schools (Twill and Fisher, 2007). This violates Article 26.

Furthermore, “work” is not defined as a mother taking care of children, and thus the assumption can be (and has been) made that stay-at-home mothers are not “working” and therefore are not compensated for their child rearing duties, which Twill and Fisher (2007) identify as a violation of Article 23. Not to mention, the welfare to work program does not account for unemployment due to lack of available jobs, which unfortunately may lead to consequences for clients who cannot find work.

Additionally, despite moving off welfare assistance, women have struggled to maintain adequate living, such as providing food to their children or being able to afford rent (Twill and Fisher, 2007). This violates Article 25 of the UDHR.

UDHR Violations and Remedies

Table 1: Article 23 (Work and Wages) Violations — Have you been unable to find work because of a lack of available jobs?

The proposed intervention does remedy this violation because it offers job training in arenas that are hiring and in-need. Lack of available jobs should not be an issue.

Table 2: Article 25 (Well-Being) Violations — Have you ever been unable to afford child care?

The proposed intervention does not remedy this violation. There would need to be an added childcare benefit for welfare-to-work participants.

Table 3. Article 25 (Health Care) Violations — Have you ever been denied medical treatment?

The proposed intervention does not remedy this violation. Unless the welfare-to-work organization already has this, it would need to offer some form of comprehensive healthcare and access to abuse/mental health services to participants and their families.

Table 4. Article 26 (Education) Violations — Have your children ever missed school because of homelessness, malnutrition, or because of the lack of any of the above mentioned rights?

The proposed intervention does not directly remedy this, but with the combination of in-need job training and obtaining employment, child care services, and health care provided to participants and their families, this could potentially be prevented in the future.

Part Four: Analyze pros and cons to changes in the organization and outline strategies to implement change.

Pros and Cons Analysis Chart

Strategies

1. Education and Communication: Communication of ideas helps people see the need for and the logic of a change. The education process can involve one-on-one discussions, presentations to groups or memos, and reports.

I chose this strategy because offering information on the change and having open communication with the client can help remedy their fears and reduce their distrust of the organization and its employees. I will use this strategy by discussing one-on-one the actual change and what can be expected if it goes through. A persuasive presentation of the change plan can help open minds to change. However, my main concentration would be on opening the floor to clients by asking them questions about and listening to their concerns, fears, and anxieties. Then I would offer them peace of mind through information about the program intervention plan.

2. Facilitation and Support: Be supportive. This process might include providing training in new skills, or giving employees time off after a demanding period, or simply listening and providing emotional support.

Parents deserve to feel supported during their work endeavors, and I believe that offering support before and throughout the change process will be key to reducing their hesitation of change. The welfare to work program has the goal of helping clients obtain work, which is in itself a form of support. Beyond that, though, I would use this strategy to help clients feel more at ease about potential change within the organization and discuss options for childcare/family help for working parents.

The communication strategy goes hand-in-hand with the support strategy, which is why I chose them both.

References

Laura and John Arnold Foundation. (2017). Evidence summary for Per Scholas Employment/Training Program for low-income workers in Social Programs That Work. Retrieved from https://evidencebasedprograms.org/document/per-scholas-evidence-summary/

Netting, F. E., Kettner, P. M., McMurtry, S. L., & Thomas, M. L. (2017). Social work macro practice (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson

PBS. (2014, May 9). The fate of families after welfare. [Online video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wINwlE1WdU

Twill, S. & Fisher, S. (2007). Economic human rights violations experienced by women with children in the United States. Families in Society, 91(4), 356–362

The World with Theory of Constraints (2010, Jul 17). Overcoming Resistance to Change — Isn’t It Obvious? Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcz1aZ60k7w