Workfare Work: The Impact of Workfare on the Worker/Client Relationship

This article details the American experience of welfare reform, and specifically its experience instituting workfare programs for participants. In the United States, the term "welfare" is most commonly used to refer to the program for single mothers and their families, formerly called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and now, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). In 1996, politicians "ended welfare as we know it" by fundamentally changing this program with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). The principal focus of the 1996 reform is mandatory work requirements enforced by sanctions and strict time limits on welfare receipt. While PRWORA's emphasis on work is not new, the difference is its significant ideological and policy commitment to employment, enforced by time limits. When welfare reform was enacted, some of its proponents recognized that welfare offices would have to change in order to develop individualized workfare plans, monitor progress, and impose sanctions. The "culture" of welfare offices had to be changed from being solely concerned with eligibility and compliance to individual, intensive casework. In this article, I will discuss how implementing workfare programs have influenced the relationship between clients and their workers at the welfare office. I start by describing the burdens faced by offices even before the enactment of welfare reform. Local welfare offices were expected to run programs that emphasized compliance and eligibility at the same time as workfare programs, which require intensive, personal case management. The next section of the paper will focus on strategies welfare offices and workers use to navigate these contradictory expectations. Lastly, I will present information on how clients react to workfare programs and some reasons they acquiesce to workfare contracts despite their unmet needs. I conclude with recommendations of how to make workfare truly work for welfare clients.

The Monotonicity Puzzle: An Experimental Investigation of Incentive Structures

Non-monotone incentive structures, which - according to theory - are able to induce optimal behavior, are often regarded as empirically less relevant for labor relationships. We compare the performance of a theoretically optimal non-monotone contract with a monotone one under controlled laboratory conditions. Implementing some features relevant to real-world employment relationships, our paper demonstrates that, in fact, the frequency of income-maximizing decisions made by agents is higher under the monotone contract. Although this observed behavior does not change the superiority of the non-monotone contract for principals, they do not choose this contract type in a significant way. This is what we call the monotonicity puzzle. Detailed investigations of decisions provide a clue for solving the puzzle and a possible explanation for the popularity of monotone contracts.

Beyond the Margins: Analyzing Social Exclusion with a Homeless Client Dataset

A great share of literature on social exclusion has been based mainly on the analysis of official survey data. Whereas these efforts have provided insights into the characteristics and conditions of those people living at the margins of mainstream social relations, they have however failed to encompass those who live beyond these very margins. Meanwhile, research on these hidden subpopulations, such as homeless and other vulnerable groups, remains generally less abundant and is significantly detached from the theoretical core of the debate on social exclusion. The concern about these shortcomings lies at the heart of our research. We seek to bring some light to the area by using data made available by an organization that provides services to people experiencing homelessness in Barcelona (Spain). The data sample contains clients in early stages of exclusion and others in chronic situations. Thus, we attempt to identify some of the variables that operate in preventing the "chronification" of those individuals in situation of social exclusion. Our findings suggest that certain variables such as educational level, income and housing type, which are considered to be central predictors in the analysis of poverty, behave differently when analyzing differences between stages of social exclusion. Although these results cannot be extrapolated to the whole Spanish or European reality, they could provide useful insight for future investigations on this topic.