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.

Attributions of Responsibility for Terrorist Attacks: The Role of Group Membership and Identification

Three studies examine how people’s attributions of responsibility for terrorist attacks depend on their group membership and their identification with the victim (study 1) or their identification with the victim’s or perpetrator’s ingroup (studies 2 and 3). We observe that people’s group membership (perpetrator group versus victim group) determines the judgments of responsibility for recent terrorist attacks. Members of the perpetrator group hold the direct perpetrators responsible, while members of the victim group perceive the perpetrator world as a whole as relatively responsible as well. Identification with the victim (study 1) or victim group (studies 2 and 3) strengthens attributions of responsibility to the whole perpetrator group, and this relationship is partially mediated by the perceived typicality of the perpetrator for the whole group. We discuss possible explanations for this pattern, and indicate the implications of these results in terms of improving intergroup relations.

The Effects of Living in Segregated vs. Mixed Areas in Northern Ireland: A Simultaneous Analysis of Contact and Threat Effects in the Context of Micro-Level Neighbourhoods

This study examines the consequences of living in segregated and mixed neighbourhoods on ingroup bias and offensive action tendencies, taking into consideration the role of intergroup experiences and perceived threat. Using adult data from a cross-sectional survey in Belfast, Northern Ireland, we tested a model that examined the relationship between living in segregated (N = 396) and mixed (N = 562) neighbourhoods and positive contact, exposure to violence, perceived threat and outgroup orientations. Our results show that living in mixed neighbourhoods was associated with lower ingroup bias and reduced offensive action tendencies. These effects were partially mediated by positive contact. However, our analysis also shows that respondents living in mixed neighbourhoods report higher exposure to political violence and higher perceived threat to physical safety. These findings demonstrate the importance of examining both social experience and threat perceptions when testing the relationship between social environment and prejudice.