Chapter3Conceptual Foundations of Social Welfare Policy
Social welfare policy usually represents the culmination of many social, political, and economic events. A policy is shaped by the values and beliefs of its supporters and influenced by social and economic conditions, timing of policy development, or a combination of these and other factors. Many theories attempt to explain why policy evolves the way it does. To understand social welfare policy, students should become familiar with some of the leading ideologies, theories, and paradigms. These three terms are often used interchangeably. However, for our purposes they aredefined as follows:Ideologiesare ideas or bodies of thought that offer guidance;theoriesare systems of ideas that explain a phenomenon; andparadigmsare patterns or models that provide a conceptual framework. AsFigure 3.1illustrates, the three concepts are interrelated. Ideologies are the building blocks for theories. Paradigms are built on both ideologies and theories.
FIGURE 3.1PARADIGMS,THEORIES,AND IDEOLOGIES
This chapter presents ideologies, theories, and paradigms that attempt to explain why and how social welfare policy develops. The social conditions and values that influence policy are also discussed. The synthesis of these factors is the foundation for the analysis of the social welfare policies and programs discussed in this book. The array of ideologies, theories, and paradigms is great. Consider that these concepts are tools to help you analyze social welfare policies. Most public policies reflect several of these concepts. The same social issue can be interpreted by one set of ideas, only to shift to another over time. A clear example is the policy of slavery in this country. Slavery was a policy based on ideologies, theories, and paradigms that have changed over time. The changes in perspectives ultimately led to the abolition of slavery. Knowledge of ideologies, theories, and paradigms helps us analyze policy and subsequently understand how and why policies and programs have evolved. One point worth noting is that the same issue over time can be analyzed from different perspectives. Ideologies, theories, and paradigms are dynamic, changing in response to new information, research, and societal events.
IDEOLOGIES OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM
Many concepts in social welfare policy are based on ideologies, which are ideas that influence our thinking. Many ideologies influence the design of the American social welfare system. Understanding ideologies helps clarify some of the inconsistencies in policies and explain why the system looks the way it does today.
CAUSE AND FUNCTION
In the early years of the social work profession, the role of human services was the focus of much debate. In 1929, the president of the first professional organization, the National Conference on Social Work, addressed the issue. Porter Lee (1929) differentiated between two aspects of social work: cause and function.Causeis the issue on which people take a moral position to improve society.Functionis the day-to-day effort to provide services. Lee believed that workers should support the cause while carrying out their daily duties.
The conflict between cause and function is always present. To what extent should people take action and fight for a cause, and to what extent should they tend to the daily needs of the recipients of social services? Lee's exhortation that one should embrace the cause at the same time that one is carrying out daily duties is a very tall order. Some theorists argue that supporting both cause and function is impossible and that one must choose between the two. The War on Poverty of the 1960s demonstrated elements of this conflict. Some advocates felt that the public assistance system was punitive. To labor in service of the system, or in Lee's terms to provide function, was to continue to impose a system that was not helpful. Instead, it was important to fight for the cause—better treatment of those who are poor and receiving public assistance—and to change the selective residual program to a more universal institutional program. These fighters believed that the cause prevented workers from functioning well.
The struggle between cause and function is often seen in social welfare history, and social service providers face it today. For example, when a client lives in a dangerous neighborhood, should the social worker help the client move or should the worker fight to change the neighborhood? Often, it is easier to change the individual's situation than to change an entire community.
BLAMING THE VICTIM
Individual responsibility is a key belief shaping the U.S. social welfare system. Holding each person responsible for his or her own circ*mstances is a significant part of American ideology (as discussed inChapter 1). One variation of the ideology of individual responsibility isblaming the victim.
The concept of blaming the victim was introduced by William Ryan (1971) to explain why poverty and other concerns are viewed as personal rather than social problems. Ryan argues that it is easier and more comfortable to blame the individual who is poor than to blame all of society. Social welfare in America has been much influenced by this ideology. Citizens often prefer “to treat what we call social problems, such as poverty, disease, and mental illness, in terms of the individual deviance of the special, unusual groups of persons who had those problems” (Ryan, 1971, p. 16). If defects can be identified in the community and the environment, responsibility for them can be placed on all members of society. Ryan argues that because of self-interest and class interest, most people prefer to see social problems as a result of individual defect rather than the result of a social system that is unfair and exclusionary. If the individual is to blame, then the rest of society is not responsible for making changes or offering help.
For example, if urban poverty is the fault of those who live in poor areas of a city, then it is the poor residents' responsibility to correct their behaviors and improve their surroundings. On the other hand, if urban poverty is the result of the economic system, then social change is needed to provide work for unemployed people.
Those who benefit from society the way it is are reluctant to criticize a system that has been good to them. At the same time, there may be genuine concern for those who are disadvantaged. The best way to reconcile concern for the poor with respect for the status quo is to blame the victim and create social welfare services that focus on changing the individual.
An extension of this theory is second-order victim blaming (Dressel, Carter, & Balachandran, 1995). This theory explains the reasons why social welfare programs fail. For example, a social problem such as poverty gives rise to programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). If the programs fail, critics claim that recipients are at fault rather than the programs. An illustration will clarify this point further. If a client fails to show up for a scheduled appointment, the client is viewed as “noncompliant.” The possibility that the social service office is not accessible to the client because public transportation is not available is ignored. This level of victim blaming is important to social workers and their clients. If a client is not benefiting from a social service, workers should examine the service's design, funding, and implementation before considering the individual's motivation. Are the program components sound? Are services accessible? If not, how can the program be changed? Too often, program failures are blamed on individual recipients instead of poorly designed and implemented programs. This is second-order victim blaming.
THE CULTURE OF POVERTY AND THE UNDERCLASS
Social services are often developed to assist those whose needs are greater than their resources or the resources of their family. Therefore, ideologies related to poverty and how we view the poor are important to understand. The ideology of aculture of povertygoes hand in hand with the concept of blaming the victim. This ideology asserts that some people are born poor and socialized to remain poor. Poverty is a cultural destiny passed on from one generation to another. Poverty is viewed as a set of attitudes and behaviors; the only way to help the poor is to teach them to take on a new culture, the dominant culture. This idea was prevalent in discussions of poverty in the 1960s, but it began much earlier. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, Charity Organization Society “friendly visitors” entered the homes of poor people to model ideal behaviors for them.
In the years following the 1960s, a new version of the culture of poverty surfaced. Several social scientists, particularly William Julius Wilson (1987), have described the permanent underclass and the culture of the ghetto. Wilson cites both the individual and society as having responsibility for social conditions, specifically poverty. He argues that because of economic isolation and distress, urban ghettos produce a unique culture that is antithetical to the behaviors, beliefs, and values of the majority culture. As Wilson sees it, the solution to poverty and related problems is for both institutions and individuals to change. Social welfare programs and the economic system must become more sensitive to the needs of the individual, and each person must take responsibility for his or her personal behavior.
CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES
The degree of commitment to conservative and liberal beliefs about social welfare policy differs. Conservatives generally oppose government intervention as a waste of taxpayers' money. Social programs are viewed as providing benefits to those who do not need them or as creating a dependency that encourages people to stop caring for themselves. (This perspective is found in many of the previously discussed ideologies.)
Liberals generally support active intervention by the federal government. Social welfare policies are regarded as being so important that they should be legislated by the government. Implicit in this view is the idea that the welfare of society cannot be left to freely operate without some controls. Liberals view the government as being a referee to ensure fairness and a provider to correct imbalances and inequities.
Conservative and liberal views are often considered to be contradictory and exclusionary; that is, a person can hold one belief or the other but not both. The politics of the 1990s, 2000s, and today have demonstrated how polarizing this dichotomy can be. Radio talk show hosts identifying themselves as conservative have flourished, giving rise to competing liberal-oriented shows. The media conflict reinforces the public debate and dichotomy. It is possible, and some people self-identify this way, to hold both perspectives. For example, you might hear someone describe himself or herself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. What they mean is that they do not support major government intervention in the economic realm, but favor government roles in social services and in promoting civil rights. If the social welfare of all citizens is a high priority for policy makers, then the debate about which perspective is better needs to be changed to the perspective of what will be most beneficial for the most people.
BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM
Many of the ideologies already discussed are related to the concept ofbiological determinism. Biological heredity is seen as determining how people behave. This view holds that one's heredity predetermines, or at least strongly influences, the level of social and economic position a person achieves. Biological determinism is not new. It has surfaced at numerous times throughout Western history. It gained early legitimacy by claiming support through science. Darwin's concept of natural selection was adapted by nonscientists and applied to human beings as the concept “survival of the fittest” to explain poverty, racial differences, and gender differences (Harvey & Reed, 1992;Shipman, 1994). Supporters of Social Darwinism, as this perspective has come to be known, argue that those at the top economically and socially got there because of innate inherited abilities. This approach ignores environment, social surroundings, access to opportunities such as educational and employment opportunities, and resources and privileges available to a person born to the right parents, classes, races, or social stratification.
Biological determinism flourished during the 1920s, resurfaced during the 1970s, and again gained popularity during the 1990s. The bookThe Bell Curve(Hernstein & Murray, 1994) claims that intelligence is inherited and thereforepredetermined. This ideology, like all forms of biological determinism, is antithetical to the social work belief that people are affected by the environment and, therefore, have the ability to change. Social welfare policies are often responses to inequalities in the social and economic environment. Policies are public attempts to make changes in the social environment so that people may grow and change. Adherence to biological determinism blocks the development of social welfare policy.
SOCIAL WELFARE SERVICES AS A RIGHT
The last ideology to be discussed here is the perspective that social welfare services are a right. Most of the values and beliefs behind the U.S. social welfare system reflect an emphasis on the individual. If one focuses on the individual and his or her abilities or means, then one can ignore the larger social and economic structure. For example, people who view the failure of the War on Poverty to eradicate poverty as a result of badly planned programs or the unwillingness of poor people to change ignore the reality of the economic system.
Theorists such as Richard M. Titmuss (1968) have argued that the private market system is plagued by problems of inequality, social injustice, and exclusion. Poorly educated, ill-clothed, homeless, disenfranchised individuals cannot participate fully in the market system because they are so far outside of it. Their opportunities are limited because of where they were born and where they live, as well as their skin color, gender, physical ability, sexual orientation, and other factors. Individuals cannot control or change the discrimination and exclusion imposed on them by others. Therefore, the system and society as a whole must be held responsible for the social well-being of these individuals.
This ideology holds that social welfare programs should not be viewed as an afterthought provided selectively, but as a social right provided through a universal system. Health care is a good illustration of this ideology. Relying on the marketplace to provide health coverage has meant that large groups of people have no health insurance coverage. Social welfare rights advocates believe that health care coverage is a right to which all people are entitled, regardless of their own resources. They argue that the only way to make health care a right is through universal coverage provided by the federal government. Social welfare services as a right is a function of public purpose over private interest.
THEORIES OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM
Social welfare policies and programs in this country evolved over time. How did the current social welfare system come to be? What factors precipitated the development of social welfare policies, and how were those policies influenced? Several theories have been developed to explain why the social welfare system evolved as it did. Six of these theories are discussed here. This section closes with a look at how appropriate these theories are for the new information and globalization era of the 21st century. Again, keep in mind that no one theory explains all social policy. Different perspectives fit for different issues and different times in our history.
INDUSTRIALIZATION AND THE SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM
The structure of the modern social welfare system was created when the Social Security Act was passed in 1935. This legislation created a permanent role for the federal government as guardian of the social well-being of the entire nation (seeChapter 2). Passage of the act marked the culmination of many events and social conditions.
According to the industrialization theory outlined by Wilensky and Lebeaux (1965), today's social welfare state traces its beginnings to the advent of the industrial era. From the 1850s to the 1920s, tremendous industrial expansion and urbanization occurred in the United States. The result was both a greater need for social welfare services and the means to cover that need: Industrial growth and urban crowding gave rise to social conditions that demanded attention, and greater productivity gave rise to greater economic resources to address human needs.
Industrialization led to new methods of manufacturing and new types of jobs. It also led to modernization and attempts to produce more at less cost. The workers' standard of living improved with increased production and incomes, but the magnates' desire to maximize profits also caused poor working conditions to proliferate. The changes in the workplace led to worker dependence on the owners of businesses. This dependence gave rise to concerns about unemployment, job-related disability, health care, and the care of dependent children and widows when a worker was disabled or died.
Social conditions were also changing during the industrial era. With improvement in health care and modernization of living conditions, life expectancy increased and retirement became a real possibility. Family incomes rose, and people became more mobile. Consequently, the extended family that had lived in the same area in previous generations disappeared and with it the safety net it had provided.
The changes in economics, communities, and family relations altered the provision of social welfare services. Although the individual was still primarily responsible for his or her well-being, workers also expected industry and government to ensure that certain basic needs were met. Those needs included safety in the workplace, a guaranteed minimum wage, regulated work hours and conditions, social insurance for retirement, disability compensation, and survivors' benefits in the event of death. Industrialization had led to general acceptance of the federal, state, and local governments having key roles in maintaining the social well-being of all citizens. Although the government had provided temporary services during the early years of the United States, by the 1950s the government had become a permanent provider of social welfare services.
CYCLES OF HISTORY
Most social welfare programs and services in this country are residual in response and selective in coverage (seeChapter 1). The residual and selective design of social welfare policy largely reflects the ideologies, values, and beliefs of U.S. society. This country was founded on individualism and self-sufficiency. Government intervention runs contrary to this philosophy, yet Americans also believe in helping those in need. The tensions between these conflicting beliefs, individual responsibility and social responsibility, have played a key role in the development of social welfare policy.
Schlesinger (1986) views American history as a cycle between individual responsibility and social responsibility. He describes a “continuing shift in national involvement between public purpose and private interest” (p. 27). During the cycles, each period runs its course and brings about a change. When public purpose is the dominant influence, sweeping changes are made in a short period of time. Sustained public action, however, requires energy and intense political commitment. People tire of this level of activity and need to regroup. Therefore, periods of public purpose are followed by times of private interest, when people become immersed in their personal lives. During periods of private interest, changes brought about by public action are absorbed and people focus on privatization and personal acquisition. Eventually, however, private interest leads to dissatisfaction because acquisition is not possible for everyone and segments of society are in need. People begin to feel that the system is not fair, and they press for public change and social responsibility. In this way, the course of history shifts from private interest to public purpose and back again to private interest.
The cycles shift with generations. Schlesinger posits 30-year cycles. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the cycles shifted several times. For example, around the turn of the century the progressive movement called for public action. The materialistic, acquisitive period of the 1920s followed. The next shift occurred with the Great Depression and the accompanying outcry for public action. Public action in the 1930s consisted of the New Deal and government provision of social welfare services to individuals. In the 1950s, there was a return to private interest characterized by conservatism and material growth. A shift occurred again in the 1960s, which was a period of public action. Interest and energy ebbed, and by the 1980s the nation had once again settled into a period of private interest. According to the historical cycles theory of social welfare policy development, the 1990s might have ushered in a new period of public action and social change, but the theory did not hold up in this instance. Although policies that had languished during the 1980s, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act and civil rights legislation, were passed during the 1990s, the 1990s was overall a weak period of social responsibility. It remains to be seen how the cycle will shift in the early decades of the 21st century. Regardless of whether the time frames fit (30-year cycles), the concept of moving back and forth from periods of private focus to public action seems to help explain the shifts we have seen in social welfare policy over the past 100 years.
SOCIAL CONTROL
Some theorists view the development of social welfare policy as a tool ofsocial control. Those in positions of power use the institutions of the social welfare system to control and direct the behavior of the needy. Piven and Cloward (1971), inRegulating the Poor, cited public assistance as a tool used by those in political power to quell social unrest and reinforce the employment system. By creating a residual social welfare program and keeping benefits low, the powers that be ensure that most people will not be inclined to rely on public assistance but will instead be willing to work, even at low-paying jobs. In time, when benefits are too low to meet people's basic needs, social unrest develops, and programs are expanded. In this way, shifts are made in benefit amounts and eligibility, but the basic system remains intact.
Like the historical cycles theory, the social unrest theory views social welfare policy as alternating between periods of minimal benefits and periods of broader services. The movement on this continuum reflects ongoing efforts by those in political power to keep social unrest at a minimum by first providing generous benefits and then encouraging people to work by cutting back on benefits and tightening eligibility requirements. This fluctuation has often occurred. Piven and Cloward point to the 1930s and the 1960s as times when coverage and benefits for public assistance expanded. These periods are evidence of attempts to regulate the poor through social control. Both the 1930s and 1960s began with social movements and ended with expansions in the social welfare system. After the expansions, social unrest dissipated. The poor were successfully regulated through changes in social welfare benefits.
ELITE POWER THEORY
Theelite power theoryis built on the idea that a handful of people control the policies that govern all of society. It is related to social control theory. Domhoff (1990) describes the elite control of public policy as the domination of the nation by a small capitalist class. This dominant elite class is well connected to those who make public policy.
· There usually are very narrow limits to what can be accomplished by poor people, minorities, trade unionists, and liberals through elections and the legislative process. The costs of running for office are enormous for average people in terms of time and money, and the impediments to change built into the legislative process make it very hard to sustain a pressure-group coalition or legislative social movement that does not have a great amount of money and patience. (Domhoff, 1990, p. 260)
Domhoff agrees with the social control theory on the fact that power gets redistributed when average people organize to disrupt the system. Although the conditions and reasons that motivate people to disrupt the system vary and cannot be predicted, the process does occur and is often supported by those in power. That support is, however, both a response to disruptionandan attempt by the elite class to hold onto its position of power. The concept of a ruling elite is controversial.Box 3.1discusses this in more detail.
ECONOMICS AS A DETERMINANT OF SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY
All of the theories discussed so far have a number of common characteristics. Each theory suggests that social welfare policy is a consequence of historical events. Several identify a cyclical pattern, and all have an economic component. Industrialization changed the economy of this country, giving rise to the modern social welfare system. Social values and beliefs changed as the acquisition of resources shifted: When private interests were not being met through sufficient growth in income, people looked to the government for remedies. Benefits expanded in response to social unrest. Often that social unrest was sparked by economic upheaval, as during the Great Depression.
Analysis of history and policy evolution suggests that economics is a driving force behind the policies and politics of social well-being (Segal, 1987).Chapter 2traced the historical ebb and flow between periods of economic growth andeconomic hardship. A pattern seems to emerge of policies changing in response to economic shifts. Times of growth are marked by emphasis on individual responsibility and times of economic contraction by increased demands for the government to take responsibility for people's well-being.
BOX 3.1CONTROVERSIAL PERSPECTIVES…
Is the country run by an elite group?
The idea that a small, powerful group of people are making pivotal decisions and are in control of policy flies in the face of our belief in our democratic system. We believe that all people have a say in their government. According to our Declaration of Independence, our government derives its power from the consent of the governed. We have a Constitution that outlines the right of the people to govern themselves. So how can we have an elite group with power and control of America? Dye (2002) argued that power in America rests with a handful of people by virtue of the positions they hold:
· A few thousand individuals out of 281 million Americans decide about war and peace, wages and prices, consumption and investment, employment and production, law and justice, taxes and benefits, education and learning, health and welfare… In all societies-primitive and advanced, totalitarian and democratic, capitalist and socialist-only a few people exercise great power. This is true whether or not such power is exercised in the name of “the people.” (p. 1)
Dye (p. 10) identified a total of 7,314 elite people, that is, less than three-thousandths of 1 percent of the nation's population, who:
· control over one half of the nation's industrial assets;
· control over one half of all U.S. banking assets;
· control over three-quarters of all insurance assets;
· direct Wall Street's largest investment firms;
· control all the television networks;
· control all the major media conglomerates;
· control almost half of all the assets of private foundations;
· control two-thirds of all private university endowments;
· direct the nation's largest and best-known New York and Washington law firms;
· occupy key federal government positions in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
As we have seen, the value placed on individual responsibility dates back to the earliest times in America. Rugged individualism meant that each person was responsible for his or her own welfare. This responsibility extended to the individual's family and sometimes to the well-being of the immediate community. Throughout American history, however, there have been national upheavals, such as industrialization, urbanization, depression, and war, which have altered the marketplace. During national upheavals, individuals could not adequately provide for their own well-being. At these times, government was called upon to step in and take over the responsibilities of individuals and families. Thus, in spite of the idealized image of the rugged individual, the reality of life is that government has always stepped in to aid individuals (Dolgoff, Feldstein, & Skolnik, 1993). From the earliest history of this country to the present, government has helped support medical care, economic credit, industrial development, and general social well-being.
The theory of economics as a determinant of social welfare policy focused on the public perception of government intervention. When the economy is strong, opportunity for economic gain appears limitless. If there are jobs and growth and yet a person is not working, that person is viewed as lazy. Government assistance is seen as evidence that an individual is weak and not taking responsibility. When the economy is bad, however, the market system is blamed rather than the individual. People turn to the government for assistance, and seeking help is not seen as a weakness. The Great Depression is the most significant illustration of this phenomenon. The rate of unemployment during the Great Depression exceeded 25 percent. With so many previously employed people out of work, public attention focused on the failures of the economic structure and people were open to government intervention. As discussed previously, the dire economic conditions resulted in the enactment of the Social Security Act and the birth of the modern social welfare system. The recession of 2007–2009, which officially began in December of 2007, and the accompanying economic meltdowns of the housing and financial markets demonstrate the theory as well. The federal government embarked on an economic intervention not seen since the days of the Great Depression, with programs lasting several years. The post-2007 recession years demonstrate the contradictory nature of social welfare policy in response to economic conditions—tremendous efforts at government intervention were called for but simultaneously accompanied by sentiments opposed to government intervention, as articulated by “Tea Party” groups.
Public debate on national health insurance coverage is another example of how economic pressure can influence social welfare policy. For decades during the mid-and late 20th century, advocates had called for a national health care program, but policy makers did little to address the issue. Following the election of Bill Clinton, as the nation was coming out of an economic recession, there was a flurry of activity on health care reform. The federal government considered developing a comprehensive health care system. Federal attention diminished with the election of George W. Bush and a commitment to private-sector management. However, state governments still struggled with the issue. Why? According to the economic determinants theory, health care had been an area in which the marketplace failed, because individual needs were not being met. The recession years of 2007 and 2008 rekindled the argument. Many more people became unemployed and/or worked less than full-time and lacked adequate health care coverage for themselves or their families. When such an imbalance occurs, people look to government to correct the inequity. With the economic downturn of the late 2000s and the presidential campaign of 2008, the issue of national health care returned to public debate. The election of Barack Obama as president brought discussion of a national approach to health care to the forefront of policy making. In 2010, thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)was signed into law, creating a program to provide coverage for those who are uninsured (the details of this policy are discussed inChapter 12).
Thus we see that one driving force behind the push for government intervention in addition to economic conditions is a sense that those who participate fully in the marketplace are not reaping the rewards of their efforts. Other economic variables can influence the debate. Support for government-funded health insurance grew not only in response to public concern about the economic imbalance between working and not receiving health care coverage, but in response to the economic bottom linefor businesses—profitability. Corporations and businesses more and more found that the cost of health insurance for employees was growing and affecting their economic profitability. The shift in support by some sectors of the marketplace was based on the belief that if the federal government were to step in to provide health insurance, businesses would be able to remove themselves from the role and cost of being the source of health insurance. Thus, individual, social, and even corporate economics can be a driving force behind social welfare policy.
CRITICAL THEORY
Critical theory combines elements of social control, elite power, and economics in explaining the evolution of social welfare policy.Critical theoryexamines social life with the goal of evaluating the U.S. social order and the ways in which power and domination affect people's lives. Critical knowledge helps us discern ways that oppression and domination can be changed (Bentz & Shapiro, 1998;Fay, 1987). Although analysis of social interactions is important, critical theory includes prescriptions for change that liberate oppressed people from people in power. We must examine the U.S. social world from many perspectives to find power imbalances, including those involving class, race, and gender (Agger, 1991;Thayer-Bacon, 2000).
An illustration of this theory is found in a critical theorist's view of public assistance. Although Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is a social welfare program that addresses poverty, its recipients are primarily low-income single women and children who are disproportionately people of color. The public policy makers who crafted TANF were mostly white male legislators with high levels of education and income. Therefore, a deconstruction of TANF from a critical theory perspective means not only looking at the economics of poverty but also at the ways in which gender, race, class, and family composition fit in and at who is making the decisions on how the program is constructed (Segal & Kilty, 2003). How well did those who made the decisions about TANF understand the conditions of those who live under the program? A comparison of lawmakers and those for whom the law was made reveals vast differences in class, race, and gender.
Critical theory includes a call for action. Paulo Freire's work (1990) emphasizes this important piece of critical theory—the element of consciousness raising and praxis, or social action. Critical theory includes the process of self-reflection and ultimately should result in social change. Once people understand the imbalance of power, they can begin the process of social change to liberate those who are oppressed. It is action oriented, because it calls for social change to even out power imbalances. Critical theory is a controversial way to analyze the U.S. social welfare system because it challenges the status quo.
POSTINDUSTRIALIZATION AND GLOBALIZATION
The theories already discussed have emphasized the influence of the industrial era and political elites. The United States underwent a major shift in the late 20th century. The production era of industrialization that lasted from the 1950s through the 1970s ended, and the nation entered a new economic period based on services. Thisnew period, begun in the 1980s, is often referred to as thepostindustrial era. Postindustrial production centers on service delivery, examples of which include health care, technology, financial and legal information, and personal care. The other significant influence since the 1980s has beenglobalization, the increasing connectedness of the world's economy. Theories about postindustrial changes and globalization shaping social welfare policy since the 1980s posit that these changes are different than those of the industrial period following World War II and continuing through the 1970s.
Myles and Quadagno (2002) discuss the influences of postindustrialism, globalization, and two other social forces, gender and the aging of the workforce. They find that neither postindustrialism nor globalization has changed the structure of the U.S. social welfare system. Although economic downturns have resulted in retractions, the structure of the system as it evolved out of the industrial era is still intact. Two other issues have been the main influences: the movement of women into the labor force and the aging of the U.S. population. The demographic shift of women in the workplace has affected social welfare policies more than any other single factor in recent years. During the postwar years, social welfare proponents were concerned with creating a safety net to be used in the event that the typical male breadwinner lost his job because of illness, unemployment, or old age. With the increase in the number of women working, the social welfare system has been pushed to accommodate women's and families' needs. “The pattern of the welfare state reform since the 1980s has not just been a story of retrenchment but also one of significant restructuring. At the same time that traditional benefits have been scaled down, new entitlements are being created” (Myles & Quadagno, 2002, p. 49). So although traditional social services related to the needs of the male breadwinner have been cut back, new women- and family-centered policies, such as family leave and child care credits, have been increased. Therefore, Myles and Quadagno argue the social welfare system has not radically changed since the industrial era; rather, it has been restructured and the focus has shifted to accommodate the changing demographic and social needs of the nation.
PARADIGMS OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM
Paradigms are patterns or models that form a picture to help us understand social phenomena. By analyzing social welfare policy with these models, we can understand why policies evolved the way they did. With those insights, we can find ways to make social welfare policies and programs more effective and appropriate. Once again, social issues can fit multiple paradigms, although typically there is a dominant model based on the issue and historical context that helps explain how specific social policies come to be. And paradigms include and are built on ideologies and theories, all of which are influenced by values and beliefs.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION
People create a shared reality. We attribute various characteristics to groups. For example, we may believe stereotypes that “all men are strong” or “all women are nurturers.” These views are reinforced through values and beliefs, and then passedon to others through stories, language, and interpretations. These images are seen as reality, although they are social constructions.Social constructionoccurs when those who are dominant in a society define a group's characteristics and determine the group's value. The dominant perceptions are accepted by society as the norm.
The social construction of racial groups has changed enormously, with a tremendous impact on American society. Racial differences have historically been promoted as facts of nature. However, many have realized that “the racial categories with which we have become so familiar are the result of our imposing arbitrary cultural boundaries in order to partition gradual biological variation” (Marks, 1994, p. 34). In fact, the mapping of the human genetic code reveals that there is very little differentiation between people all over the world—we are about 99.9 percent genetically identical—and that “race itself has no genetic basis. No genes, either by themselves or in concert with others, were able to predict which race each person had claimed to be.” (Weiss, 2001, p. 7) Race has been socially constructed to label some people as inferior and others as superior. The labels are not based on biological reality.
Social construction means that people give meaning and importance to characteristics and that those differences are not based on physical realities. That meaning is reinforced through public policy (Schneider & Ingram, 2005). Slavery, and then later the abolition of slavery, are major historical examples of public policy reinforcing social construction, in this case the view that one race was superior to another. Public policy formalizes this view, and then the impact over time from the policies “proves” the veracity of the social construction. For example, segregation in the United States ensured that people of color, particularly African Americans, were educated separately from whites. Even when freed slaves were finally allowed to attend school, they attended separate schools that were poorly funded and inferior to the schools attended by whites. This led to continued low levels of education for many African Americans, and this outcome served as proof supporting the original social construction of inferiority due to race.
As a paradigm, social construction provides a lens through which to analyze social welfare policy. If social programs are designed to support the family model of two heterosexual parents, with the male working full-time outside the home and the female staying home to care for children, and if families no longer look like that, then social construction allows one to examine the structure of today's families and, in turn, what social supports those families need. If women are working full-time, then child care policies need to be considered. Rather than insisting on the genetic “fact” that men work and women stay at home, social constructionists push us to see whether this is a physiological reality or a socially constructed norm.
Social construction can also lead to social change. If indeed all policies are framed by values and beliefs reinforced by dominant groups, then we have the power to change the way issues are viewed and hence change policy. Social construction not only explains why things are the way they are, but can also provide a method to create social change. For example, the nation, having experienced an African American and a woman running for president in 2008, challenged the historically dominant view that U.S. presidents are always white men, as had been the case for the entire history of the nation. The outcome of the 2008 election proved that there can be different social constructions of the qualifications for the highestpolitical office. There is no doubt that 100 years ago society held strongly to the view that it was a factual impossibility that an African American person or a woman could hold such a political leadership position. Now that possibility exists with the election of an African American man, even though physical attributes have not changed over the past 100 years. Social perspectives and dominant ideologies have changed, and that is social construction.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Critical analysis, which is based on critical theory, is a way of viewing the world that combines deconstruction, self-reflection, and praxis, or social action (Fay, 1987). It includes norms, or values. It is not value neutral (Bentz & Shapiro, 1998). One technique used for critical analysis isdeconstruction(Agger, 1991), which is discussed in more detail inBox 3.2. What a person's language or writing appears to mean on the surface may not be what is truly meant. People use analysis to take apart what is said or written to identify who is speaking and why, what the words mean to different people, and how the historical and current contexts influence the words. Why is critical analysis being promoted at this time, and by whom? Critical analysis draws further on critical theory, examines power relations, and calls for change if there are imbalances in power. If one group dominates another that is oppressed, then action must be planned to address this imbalance.
Critical analysis can be very controversial because it calls for action to change the control and distribution of power in policy making. Based on social construction, critical analysis identifies the dominant culture and its values. Critical analysis goes beyond the assessment of the dominant culture and outlines ways that it can be changed. Critical analysis looks closely at the impact of power and dominant control of society, assesses how those in control use their power to reinforce the status quo, and looks for ways to change the distribution of power. Civil rights movements often reflect critical analysis. Disenfranchised groups identify how they are oppressed and make demands to change social structures to include or protect them. For example, the women's movement was based on critical analysis of how men had dominated social, political, and economic domains in society and women had been relegated to secondary status. Awareness of this difference led to a social movement demanding changes that allowed women access to the same levels of power that men had. Over the decades since the beginning of the women's movement, social change has evolved—women's wages have grown, the numbers of women in male-dominated professions has increased, and women are actively involved in politics and elected office. Policy analysis of gender differences in society, accompanied by social action to change that imbalance, combined to demonstrate the application of the critical analysis paradigm.
BOX 3.2MORE ABOUT DECONSTRUCTION
Jacques Derrida was one of the most famous critical theorists who used the technique of deconstruction. Here he differentiated between the process of deconstruction, examining law, and the impulse or feeling of justice, which is a drive and not something to be deconstructed:
· There is a history of legal systems, of rights, of laws, of positive laws, and this history is a history of the transformation of laws. That is why they are there. You can improve law, you can replace one law by another one. There are constitutions and institutions. This is a history, and a history, as such, can be deconstructed. Each time you replace one legal system by another one, one law by another one, or you improve the law, that is a kind of deconstruction, a critique and deconstruction. So, the law as such can be deconstructed and has to be deconstructed. That is the condition of historicity, revolution, morals, ethics, and progress. But justice is not the law. Justice is what gives us the impulse, the drive, or the movement to improve the law, that is, to deconstruct the law. Without a call for justice we would not have any interest in deconstructing the law. That is why I said that the condition of possibility of deconstruction is a call for justice. Justice is not reducible to the law, to a given system of legal structures. That means that justice is always unequal to itself. (Caputo, 1997, pp. 16–17)
MODELS OF JUSTICE
Another way of viewing the social welfare system is through models based on justice. The principle of justice, which is generally thought of as the belief in fairness, is at the foundation of our government. The U.S. Constitution begins with the declaration that the people establish justice as the basis for governance of the country. Justice is also at the foundation of social work. As presented inChapter 1, the principle of social justice is a core value of the social work profession, with the goal of fairness for all in society. While both principles of justice, fairness in governance and social welfare, may sound simple, the day-to-day application of justice is more complicated than the theory. There are two models for social welfare fairness that can help us understand how best to apply justice to the formation and implementation of social welfare policy.
Distributive justicedescribes the social obligation of the state to all its citizens to provide agreed-upon social benefits that are not only fair to the recipients but that contribute to the betterment of U.S. society (Rawls, 1971). Rawls argued that public adherence to justice is fundamental to a well-ordered society. In terms of social welfare policy, distributive justice involves attention to both the individual and society, providing a framework that combines the two:
· Justice is a matter of allocating social resources fairly, and injustices can be rectified either by helping an individual to work within the current system to obtain the needed resources or by getting society to change the system of allocation. The justice account has no problem integrating indirect and direct services, policy and treatment, as justice-related interventions. (Wakefield, 1988, p. 208)
A distributive justice paradigm calls for us to identify what social benefits should be provided to all citizens, and then create ways to ensure a fair allocation of those benefits. So, if education is believed to be a social benefit (i.e., that the receipt of it helps both the individual and all of society), then we must strive to find ways to ensure that all citizens have access to quality education. Although there is attention to both the individual and society, this distributive justice approach to social welfare policy emphasizes social responsibility. This approach also assumes that there is general agreement on what are key social benefits or rights, such as education in the example above, but does not clearly identify a process to decide on what those rights or benefits should be.
Procedural justiceinvolves the institutional methods or processes that take place to make decisions (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). While procedural justice is usually applied through a legal process, it can serve as a model for social policy. Unlike distributive justice, which is more concerned with the outcome, procedural justice stresses the fair representation and participation of all those impacted by social welfare. Entitling all to just procedures has been found to increase satisfaction with outcomes and decrease conflict:
· Since those affected by decisions will evaluate them in procedural terms, decision makers can gain through designing and implementing policies in ways that accord with public views about what is fair. To the extent that policies or decisions are made in a fair way, their public acceptability will be enhanced. (Lind & Tyler, 1988, p. 219)
Developing processes that allow for fair representation and participation can be challenging—social constructs such as withholding voting rights based on race historically kept African Americans out of the processes of government decisionmaking. Even today, many people worry that access to elected officials is skewed toward those with greater resources and social standing, making the processes of deciding what services and benefits should be distributed closed and not reflective of procedural justice.
Both distributive justice and procedural justice hold that people should be treated fairly—one in terms of receiving a fair outcome, the other in terms of ensuring that decisions are made in a fair way. However, political decisions that involve redistribution of resources, as promoted by models of distributive justice, are often met with resistance because of the perception that in order for those in need to receive services, those who have resources must sacrifice or lose something (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Applying a model of procedural justice to the development and implementation of social welfare policy where all parties affected can be involved might lead to greater public acceptance of the decisions made.
STRENGTHS-BASED MODEL
The strengths-based focus is an intervention model posited to guide social service providers to emphasize the positive attributes of a person over the person's deficits or needs.
· A strengths perspective assumes that when people's positive capacities are supported, they are more likely to act on their strengths. Thus, a belief in people's inherent capacity for growth and well-being requires an intense attention to people's own resources: their talents, experiences, and aspirations. Through this active attention, the probability for positive growth is significantly enhanced. (Saleeby, 1992, p. 25)
In social welfare policy, this means building policies and programs on people's existing strengths. For example, if parents want to stay at home with their children, and there is a social benefit from adults being at home and available to theirchildren, regardless of whether they are single parents or married, then social supports should be found to allow parents to stay home. This solution builds on the strengths of adult caregiving for children without emphasizing how a family should be structured—that is, single or married parents. The strengths perspective can be seen as a corollary to the social construction model. Again, using family structure as an example, a strengths focus for policy is to look at how to support all parenting regardless of marital status of the parent. Individuals bring skills and abilities to parenting, so how can social policy reinforce those abilities for the individuals? What social structures need to be in place to support those individuals and bring out their strengths as parents? Thus, the focus is on parenting and not on the composition of families. And in this process, we can socially reconstruct what is good parenting and move away from the social construction that good parenting is only achievable with two parents.
SOCIAL EMPATHY
Empathyis the ability to understand the situation and experiences of another person.Social empathy(Segal, 2006,2011) calls for us to use insight gained about people's lives to develop public policies that are sensitive to people's needs based on the realities of their living situations. A social empathy paradigm provides a framework with which to analyze social concerns and develop policies that reflect the lived experiences of people.
If people want to address social problems in the United States and change the conditions that perpetuate economic and social disparity and exclusion, then they must address the conflict in attitudes and experiences. People who have never been poor or never experienced discrimination that has kept them from educational and employment opportunities, for example, may have trouble understanding values like prevention and social support. If a person's frame of reference is that everything in life depends on individual efforts, then the person will not see any value in social responsibility.
Although there are other ways to address social well-being, a social empathy model suggests that we need to help people who have no personal experience or insight into what it means to grow up poor or disadvantaged or discriminated against in America to see what that looks and feels like. If ways to develop social empathy—increasing the capacity of people to understand and experience the conditions of others who are not like them—are enhanced, then social welfare policies can be developed that are more attuned to people's needs.
Teaching individuals how to be more empathic is difficult, yet it is considered an important part of social relationships and development. It is key to the ability to adapt and change (Watson, 2002). Empathy is critical to becoming an emotionally intelligent person (Goleman, 1994). When people develop empathy, they are more likely to understand other people's needs and develop ways to build a better society.
The likelihood of someone who is wealthy knowing or understanding the day-to-day life of someone who is poor is small today. Yet we know that people learn best from first-hand experience. How can educators close the experience gap between those at the top and those at the bottom? They must begin to find ways to teach policy makers, voters, and people who have never experienced need and inequality what it is like. They need to find ways to develop social empathy, theability to feel and understand what others are experiencing in American society, and what it would be like to live the lives of others.
SOCIAL WORK PROFESSIONAL PARADIGM
Social work has professional principles and ethics. Each social worker, in receiving a degree, agrees to abide by the profession's values. These values include fostering self-determination on the part of clients and promoting the general welfare of society (seeBox 3.3). They also demonstrate that workers are obligated to advocate for social welfare policies and programs that promote social justice, respect diversity, and improve social conditions.
BOX 3.3MORE ABOUT SOCIAL WORK VALUES
Section 6. The Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities to the Broader Society
6.01 Social Welfare
Social workers should promote the general welfare of society, from local to global levels, and the development of people, their communities, and their environments. Social workers should advocate for living conditions conducive to the fulfillment of basic human needs and should promote social, economic, political, and cultural values and institutions that are compatible with the realization of social justice.
6.02 Public Participation
Social workers should facilitate informed participation by the public in shaping social policies and institutions.
6.03 Public Emergencies
Social workers should provide appropriate professional services in public emergencies to the greatest extent possible.
6.04 Social and Political Action
(a) Social workers should engage in social and political action that seeks to ensure that all people have equal access to the resources, employment, services, and opportunities they require to meet their basic human needs and to develop fully. Social workers should be aware of the impact of the political arena on practice and should advocate for changes in policy and legislation to improve social conditions in order to meet basic human needs and promote social justice.
(b) Social workers should act to expand choice and opportunity for all people, with special regard for vulnerable, disadvantaged, oppressed, and exploited people and groups.
(c) Social workers should promote conditions that encourage respect for cultural and social diversity within the United States and globally. Social workers should promote policies and practices that demonstrate respect for difference, support the expansion of cultural knowledge and resources, advocate for programs and institutions that demonstrate cultural competence, and promote policies that safeguard the rights of and confirm equity and social justice for all people.
(d) Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, or mental or physical disability.
Source: Revised by the 2008 NASW Delegate Assembly NASW (2008).
The ideologies, theories, and paradigms presented here are not mutually exclusive. They are interrelated. Some build on others, as suggested inFigure 3.1. They are tools for analyzing social welfare policies and programs and the social conditions and social needs that are part of society. It is likely that particular paradigms may appeal more than others. Some policy analysts prefer to use one paradigm consistently. They might refer to it as the “lens” through which they perceive social conditions. The author prefers to see the paradigms as an arsenal of tools that can be used to decipher why the U.S. social welfare system is the way it is.
CONFLICTING VALUES AND BELIEFS AND THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY
So how do conflicting beliefs enter into the discussion of ideologies, theories, and paradigms? Beliefs sway thinking and hence play a significant role in people's interests in a particular ideology, theory, or paradigm. For example, if a person feels strongly that social responsibility is important, that person might be drawn to the paradigms of critical analysis and social empathy because both emphasize social change. If a person is more focused on individual change, then distributive justice or strengths-based paradigms may be a better fit. Understanding one'sownbeliefs is an important first step in analyzing social welfare policies. Once people are aware of their own biases and preferences, they can better understand how and why they perceive their social surroundings the way they do.
FINAL THOUGHTS
This chapter has presented the broad concepts of the foundations of social welfare policy. Understanding these ideas helps us analyze social welfare policy in America. At different times in history, these perspectives have dominated social thought. At first reading they may seem complicated and varied; however, it is important to become familiar with them. They are key to understanding our social welfare system. These principles help explain why and how the social welfare policies of today came to be. Without understanding their evolution, it is impossible to intelligently evaluate them and make meaningful changes. Parts of all of these concepts can be found in the patchwork of the social welfare system. Throughout the rest of this book, I will refer to these ideas in explaining social welfare policies, programs, and practices.
Key Terms
biological determinism(p. 63)
blaming the victim(p. 61)
cause(p. 61)
critical analysis(p. 73)
critical theory(p. 70)
culture of poverty(p. 62)
deconstruction(p. 73)
distributive justice(p. 74)
elite power theory(p. 67)
empathy(p. 76)
function(p. 61)
globalization(p. 71)
ideologies(p. 60)
paradigms(p. 60)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)(p. 69)
postindustrial era(p. 71)
procedural justice(p. 75)
social construction(p. 72)
social control(p. 66)
social empathy(p. 76)
theories(p. 60)
Questions for Discussion
· 1.What is the difference between an ideology, a theory, and a paradigm?
· 2.Consider the roles of men and women in our society. How have these roles been socially constructed? Have those constructions changed over time? Describe.
· 3.How has economics played a part in the development of social welfare policy?
· 4.What is critical theory? How can you use it to apply critical analysis to the study of social welfare policy?
· 5.What is social empathy? Do you think that our social programs are built using social empathy? Why?
Exercises
· 1.Choose one theory of the U.S. social welfare system. List the strengths and weaknesses of this theory. Does it help explain the evolution of social welfare policy in this country? Why or why not?
· 2.Choose a social issue or problem. Choose a partner. Each partner should take one side of an opposing position based on the ideologies presented in the chapter. After five minutes of debate, switch sides. Which perspective was easier to articulate? Why? How did your own feelings or values affect your arguments?
· 3.Obtain a copy of the mission statement of a social service organization in your community. Does it reflect the social worker's ethical responsibility to society as described in the NASW Code of Ethics inBox 3.3?
· 4.Choose a social characteristic—a race, gender, class, or sexual orientation. List all the attributes you can think of that are associated with that characteristic. Now review the list. Are these attributes biologically predetermined or socially constructed? Share your list with a classmate and discuss.
References
Agger, B. (1991).A critical theory of public life: Knowledge, discourse, and politics in an age of decline.New York: Falmer.
Bentz, V. M., & Shapiro, J. J. (1998).Mindful inquiry in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Caputo, J. D. (ed.). (1997).Deconstruction in a nutshell: A conversation with Jacques Derrida. New York: Fordham University Press.
Dolgoff, R., Feldstein, D., & Skolnik, L. (1993).Understanding social welfare, 3rd ed. New York: Longman.
Domhoff, C. W. (1990).The power elite and the state: How policy is made in America. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Dressel, P. L., Carter, V., & Balachandran, A. (1995). Second-order victim-blaming.Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 21(2):107–123.
Dye, T. R. (2002).Who's running America?7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fay, B. (1987).Critical social science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Freire, P. (1990).Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Goleman, D. (1994).Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Harvey, D. L., & Reed, M. (1992). Paradigms of poverty: A critical assessment of contemporary perspective.International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 6:269–297.
Hernstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994).The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.
Lee, P. (1929). Social work as cause and function.Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988).The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Marks, J. (1994). Blacks, whites, other.Natural History, December, pp. 32–35.
Myles, J., & Quadagno, J. (2002). Political theories of the welfare state.Social Service Review 76(1):34–57.
National Association of Social Workers. (2008).Code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author.
Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1971).Regulating the poor: The functions of public welfare. New York: Random House.
Rawls, J. (1971).A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ryan, W. (1971).Blaming the victim. New York: Pantheon.
Saleeby, D. (1992).The strengths perspective in social work. New York: Longman.
Schlesinger, A. M., Jr. (1986).The cycles of American history. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (2005). Public policy and the social construction of deservedness. In A. L. Schneider & H. M. Ingram (eds.),Deserving and entitled: Social constructions and public policy, pp. 1–28. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Segal, E. A. (1987).Social welfare policy in response to economic change: Fifty years of social security. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Segal, E. A. (2006). Welfare as we should know it: Social empathy and welfare reform. In K. M. Kilty & E. A. Segal (eds.),The promise of welfare reform: Rhetoric or reality?pp. 265–274. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Segal, E. A. (2011). Social empathy: A model built on empathy, contextual understanding, and social responsibility that promotes social justice.Journal of Social Service Research 37(1):266–277.
Segal, E. A., & Kilty, K. M. (2003). Political promises for welfare reform.Journal of Poverty 7(1/2):51–67.
Shipman, P. (1994).The evolution of racism. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (2000).Transforming critical thinking. New York: Columbia University Press.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975).Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Titmuss, R. M. (1968).Commitment to welfare. New York: Pantheon.
Wakefield, J. C. (1988). Psychotherapy, distributive justice, and social work.Social Service Review 62:187–210.
Watson, J. C. (2002). Re-visioning empathy. In D. J. Cain & J. Seeman (eds.),Humanistic psychotherapies: Handbook of research and practice, pp. 445–471. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Weiss, R. (2001). Breaking the human code.Washington Post National Weekly Edition 18(17):6–7.
Wilensky, H. I., & Lebeaux, C. N. (1965).Industrial society and social welfare. New York: Free Press.
Wilson, W. J. (1987).The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
