Cover

Chapter 5: Social Justice for Marginalized and Disadvantaged Groups: Issues and Challenges for Social Policies in Asia

Chapter 7: Not by the Numbers Alone: The Effects of Economic and Demographic Changes on Social Policy

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If legal, accounting, medical, psychological or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. In all instances where John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is aware of a claim, the product names appear in initial capital or all capital letters. Readers, however, should contact the appropriate companies for more complete information regarding trademarks and registration.

For general information on our other products and services please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.

Wiley publishes in a variety of print and electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e-books or in print-on-demand. If this book refers to media such as a CD or DVD that is not included in the version you purchased, you may download this material at http://booksupport.wiley.com. For more information about Wiley products, visit www.wiley.com.

Social Work and Social Policy : Advancing the Principles of Economic and Social Justice / Ira C. Colby, Catherine N. Dulmus, Karen M. Sowers.

ISBN 978-1-118-17699-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Social service. 2. Social policy. I. Colby, Ira C. (Ira Christopher), editor of compilation. II. Dulmus, Catherine N., editor of compilation. III. Sowers, Karen M. (Karen Marlaine), editor of compilation.

Social welfare policy can be true magic in the sense that outcomes have the potential to dramatically change lives, open new possibilities, strengthen communities, and, ultimately, realize social justice for all people. However, social welfare policy can also be an agent of oppression that stifles growth, perpetuates myths and prejudices, and leads to institutional discrimination (see Table 1). American history is filled with failed policies as well as successful initiatives. Yet we are perplexed when what we see as being valued and needed is viewed by others as repressive and beyond the scope of government.

No one policy text can provide a complete or full picture detailing the complexities of the social policy world. This text, however, brings together several significant social policy experts to share their unique perspectives. Purposefully, this work does not reflect a traditional policy textbook approach. Yes, many additional social issues could have been included, but our purpose is that the reader consider key issues that face policy makers (e.g., elected officials and agency administrators), and from there develop strategies to create fair and just social policies.

This book is designed as a beginning social welfare policy textbook for undergraduate and graduate students in social work programs. The text provides a broad overview of social welfare policy in the United States and an introduction to global policy issues. This book addresses the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) required competencies for accreditation. Specifically, the book addresses the following required accreditation competencies:

We are struck that many of the confounding issues that are discussed today are similar to those that plagued social services 100 and 200 years ago. We also see the influences of the ever-changing technological world. Today we speak of a global community, not an international world; global implies more evening between nation states in the north, south, east, and west; geographic borders are diminished as people are able to communicate directly with each other in real time. Clearly, technology continues to take on a more dominant role in social services. Although we are excited about what seems to be the daily new version of a laptop, iPad, iPhone, or software, we are equally perplexed with the unexpected ethical issues that result in a world of social media. How do we ensure that our privacy and rights are protected, in particular in this post-9/11 world?

Each chapter begins with a reflective piece in which the editors share their thoughts and poses general, overarching questions. Of course, the reader is encouraged and expected to develop his or her own additional questions. Questioning opens the door for critical thinking and building different “what if?” scenarios. At the end of each chapter, there are suggested key terms, online resources, and discussion questions. Again, these are simply tools to encourage you to build on the author's particular thesis: Search through various websites, do your own data mining, open yourself to diverse opinions, form your own opinions, and propose policy solutions.

First and foremost, this work is not meant to be a politically correct text, nor is it written with the expectation that the reader will agree with each and every point or position taken. The editors and authors expect you to develop your own positions, although they should be built from a critical thinking frame of reference; commentary rooted in and constrained by political ideology leads nowhere and results in dysfunctional policy development.

Policy work requires the practitioner to be as fully versed as possible in the issue at hand. Understanding differing perspectives is essential if one hopes to find a solution or at least a workable compromise. As you read these chapters, try a simple exercise—visit divergent think tanks, such as the Cato Institute (www.cato.org) or the Hoover Institute (www.hoover.org), comparing their findings with those of the Brookings Institution (www.brookings.edu) or the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities (www.cbpp.org); understanding differences will help clarify and solidify your own perspective on an issue. Using think tanks in such a way creates your personal point-counterpoint debate.

We firmly believe in the power of ideas, perspectives, and philosophies. We recognize that there are many ways to climb a mountain, but the selection of the best path requires that we seek information and plan the best route. We recognize that in the current political, ideological hardened environment, finding common ground is difficult. As we have seen in the U.S. Congress since 2010, politically rooted intransigence yields minimal results; the idea of finding common ground through compromise is lost. We expect you and all of our social work colleagues to lead a new way in policy thinking and work, one that will result in positive change firmly rooted in the basic precepts of social justice.

Ira C. Colby, DSW, is Dean of the Graduate College of Social Work at the University of Houston, in Houston, Texas. Dr. Colby has served on, chaired, or held elective positions in several national social work associations, including past president of the Council on Social Work Education, and he serves on several journal editorial boards. Dr. Colby has served as principal investigator on many research projects, accumulating approximately $8 million in external funding; he has authored more than 60 publications and presented more than 70 papers at national and international forums. He has been recognized with several awards, including an Honorary Doctorate of Humanics from Springfield College, his baccalaureate degree institution, induction as a Fellow into the National Academies of Practice, the Distinguished Alumni Award of the Virginia Commonwealth University, and an Honorary Professorship at the East China Technological University in Shanghai.

Catherine N. Dulmus, PhD, LCSW, is Professor, Associate Dean for Research, and Director of the Buffalo Center for Social Research at the University at Buffalo and Research Director at Hillside Family of Agencies in Rochester, New York. She received her baccalaureate degree in Social Work from Buffalo State College in 1989, a master's degree in Social Work from the University at Buffalo in 1991, and a doctoral degree in Social Welfare from the University at Buffalo in 1999. As a researcher with interests that include community-based research, child and adolescent mental health, evidence-based practice, and university-community partnerships, Dr. Dulmus' recent contributions have focused on fostering interdependent collaborations among practitioners, researchers, schools, and agencies critical in the advancement and dissemination of new and meaningful knowledge. She has authored or coauthored several journal articles and books and has presented her research nationally and internationally. Before obtaining the PhD, her social work practice background encompassed almost a decade of experience in the fields of mental health and school social work.

Karen M. Sowers, PhD, is Dean and Beaman Professor in the College of Social Work at University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She is the University of Tennessee Beaman Professor for Outstanding Research and Service. Dr. Sowers received her baccalaureate degree in Sociology from the University of Central Florida and her master's degree and doctoral degree in Social Work from Florida State University. Dr. Sowers serves on several local, national, and international boards. Dr. Sowers is nationally known for her research and scholarship in the areas of international practice, juvenile justice, child welfare, cultural diversity, and culturally effective intervention strategies for social work practice, evidence-based social work practice, and social work education.

Ira C. Colby, DSW, ACSW, LCSW

Graduate College of Social Work

University of Houston

Houston, Texas

Bruce Jansson, PhD

School of Social Work

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, California

Joseph Kin Fun Kwok, RSW, PhD, BBS, JP

Hong Kong, China

Robin Sakina Mama, PhD

Department of Social Work

Monmouth University

West Long Branch, New Jersey

Paul R. Raffoul, PhD

Graduate College of Social Work

University of Houston

Houston, Texas

Michael Reisch, MSW, PhD

School of Social Work

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Elizabeth A. Segal, PhD

School of Social Work

Arizona State University

Phoenix, Arizona

Stan Stojkovic, PhD

Helen Bader School of Social Welfare

University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Jody Williams

Nobel Peace Laureate

International Campaign to Ban Land Mines

Graduate College of Social Work

University of Houston

Houston, Texas

Chapter 1

Social Welfare Policy as a Form of Social Justice

Introduction

Social justice is organized on a continuum of philosophies that range from conservative and individualistic in nature to the liberal, communal viewpoint. In other words, just as President Barack Obama subscribes to a particular model of social justice, so too did former President George W. Bush. We must recognize that we may disagree with one particular philosophy, but that does not negate the fact that every person has her or his particular perspective of social justice. A social policy is a direct, public expression of the dominant, accepted model of social justice. For example, the maximum SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, aka “food stamps”) payment was $526 for a three-person family between October 2011 and September 2012; this translates to approximately $17 per day. Do you feel this is a fair and just amount? Or, is this too much financial support that only encourages dependency? Or, is this amount too low given the costs to purchase a basic nutritionally sound diet? Can the United States afford to increase funding to SNAP? Some might say “no” because of the growing deficit and national debt. Yet others might say “yes” because we are choosing to fund SNAP at a lower level while funding other programs at higher levels. In other words, policy outcomes involve choices made through political decisions based on the dominant values.

The core mission of the social work profession is the promotion of social, economic, and political justice for all people. Communities built on the principles of justice provide its members with opportunities to fully participate and share benefits in a fair and equitable manner. Although this is a noble ideal, the reality is very different, as disparities continue to plague people and nations around the world.

In 1978, more than 130 nations met under the leadership of the World Health Organization (WHO) at the International Conference of Alma-Ata, and addressed one global social issue—health care. The group envisioned that by the year 2000 a global effort would result in health care for all people. The conference's report forthrightly stated, “Inequality in the health status of people, particularly between developed and developing countries, as well as within countries, is politically, socially, and economically unacceptable” (Declaration of Alma-Ata, 2006).

In 2000, the United Nations adopted the Millennium Declaration that resulted in eight development areas with the ultimate purpose to eliminate extreme poverty, hunger, illiteracy, and disease by 2015 (United Nations, 2000 and United Nations, 2011a).

Clearly, there have been—and continue to be—significant global efforts, with laudable goals, to close the gaps between the rich and poor. Even so, the gulf that separates the so-called haves and have-nots remains wide and deep, reported as follows:

The human, economic, and societal costs of ill health and poverty are immense. Millions of people unnecessarily die prematurely from preventable and curable diseases, while poverty continues to anchor people in social ills that are unimaginable. With relatively little costs for simple interventions, people could live longer, more productive lives. But for millions of people worldwide, in the north and south, in the east and west, justice and fairness remain unattainable and are mere abstracts in their world. Data on many indicators, such as poverty, educational attainment, literacy, safe housing, clean water, life expectancy, and violence, lead to a common conclusion: True justice is far from being realized.

Social workers confront horrific problems on a daily basis that reflect the broad range of social issues that plague and threaten the lives of people and weaken our civil structures. Central to the social work profession's mission is its work with and on behalf of the most vulnerable, at-risk, and marginalized persons in our communities. Reamer (1993) writes that social workers confront the most compelling issues of our time by working with clients, and from these individual and collective experiences a unique perspective grows (p. 195). Social workers are able to translate this practice wisdom into a powerful tool to influence public policy. Simply stated, practice informs policy by shaping its form and structure. By including policy practice in one's work, according to Hagen (2000), social workers are able “to serve clients more effectively and to promote justice at all government levels” (p. 555).

Policy creates a community's context of justice in how it approaches the provision of social services. Public and private organizations, nonprofit and voluntary associations implement policies, which in turn are “experienced by individuals and families” (Jansson, 1999, p. 1). Similarly, policy is vital to the social worker by specifying the type and level of service the practitioner is able to provide. Policy is a formal statement articulating rules and regulations that reflect values, beliefs, data, traditions, discussions, debates, and compromises of the body politic. Policy carries out multiple functions, ranging from crafting the broad framework in which a program or service evolves to detailing the available services.

Social welfare policies, which are a subset of the broader social policy arena, focus on issues that are controversial and the epicenter for many debates. Discussions on radio call-in shows and television panel shows are replete with welfare matters, ranging from immigration and border issues to women's health care and reproductive rights. The 2012 presidential primary race was filled with attacks on social issues and policies directed to amend the growing inequalities faced by the young and old and, in particular, women. Sadly, the tenor of the arguments and controversies themselves are not new. Throughout American history, political leaders have staked out their positions relating to welfare, such as the following:

The social work profession, through its professional membership associations, has a long history of engaging in policy development to provide justice-based social welfare policies. As Haynes and Mickelson (2000) write, “although social workers have been influential in the political arena, politics has not consistently been a central arena for social work practice. Consequently, a historic and ongoing dynamic tension exists” (p. 2). A common refrain among social workers is that “I just don't have the time for policy work.” This is certainly understandable for the individual who is assigned a caseload of 30 clients in a public agency or in a setting that is underfinanced and underresourced.

For some, the primacy of their work is the client's immediate situation, and time is not available to inform and advocate for justice-based social policies. There are others who feel that policy practice has little to do with their daily work. Policy is viewed as irrelevant and with little connection to the client's life situation. This unfortunate perspective hinders the social work profession's efforts to create positive social change, leading to a just society for all people. The growing practice wisdom and accumulating evidence goes untapped and, as a result, creates an unnecessary barrier for policy practice. For whatever reason, many trees seem to get in the way, but the commonly held belief among social workers that policy work belongs elsewhere is a self-planted tree that must be cut down.

Social Welfare Policy Defined

There is no one overriding definition of social welfare policy that scholars, policy makers, or practitioners refer to on a consistent basis. The lack of one agreed-upon definition results in frustration and a pessimistic perspective, such as Popple and Leighninger (1990), who believe that welfare is a very difficult concept to clearly define as “it is difficult, confusing, and debated” (p. 26). There are numerous sources for definitions, however, the most common reference materials including the Social Work Dictionary (Barker, 2003) and various editions of the Encyclopedia of Social Work (see, for example, Dear, 1995 and Morris, 1986). Textbooks and journal articles also offer a variety of definitions. A sample of the various definitions illustrates the diversity in the definitions, ranging from all-encompassing to narrowly focused descriptors.

These definitions reflect a specific philosophy or view of welfare. Close examination reveals three common themes:

1. Social welfare includes a variety of programs and services that result in specific, targeted client benefit.

2. Social welfare, as a system of programs and services, is designed to address the needs of people. The needs are wide-ranging; on the one hand, they may be all-encompassing, including economic and social well-being, health, education, and overall quality of life; conversely, needs may be narrowly targeted, focused on one issue.

3. The primary outcome of social welfare policy is to improve the well-being of individuals, groups, and communities. Helping those people address their specific needs benefits society at large.

The Relationship Between Justice Theory and Social Welfare Policy

All welfare policies are extensions of justice theories and reflect particular principles on the human condition. David Miller (p. 1, 2005) poses the central question related to justice and welfare:

What constitutes a fair distribution of rights, resources and opportunities? Is it an equal distribution, in which case an equal distribution of what?… Or is it a distribution that gives each person what they deserve, or what they need? Or a distribution that gives everyone an adequate minimum of whatever it is that matters?

Miller's questions focus on distributive justice—that is, how will benefits be allocated to a community? Will they be equal, disproportional, or possibly need-based? The key issues in distributive justice are often framed by moral and legal positions, which can polarize groups to support or oppose a particular policy. The potential answers to Miller's queries rest within specific justice theories.

Reflecting an individual's, group's, or organization's values and beliefs, justice theories create a rationale to support particular policy initiatives. Recognizing and understanding the various, often competing justice theories is central in creating a successful policy change strategy; such understanding requires the social work profession, as Morris writes (1986), “to take into account not only its own beliefs and values, but those held by a large number of other non advocate citizens” (p. 678).

John Rawls' (1971) theory of justice most closely reflects the principles and beliefs of the social work profession, but the core premise regarding resource distribution and property ownership expressed by Robert Nozick (1974) is counter to the profession's values.

Rawls (1971) believes that birth, status, and family are matters of chance, which should not influence or bias the benefits one accrues; true justice allows a society to rectify its inequities, with the end result yielding fairness to all its members. All social goods—liberty, power, opportunities, income, and wealth—are to be equally distributed only if the unequal distribution of these goods favors the least-advantaged members of a community. Rawls contends that the inequality of opportunity is permissible if it advantages those who have been set aside. For example, a university's admission criteria that benefits one racial or gender group over another is acceptable if that group has been or remains disadvantaged. Rawls' theory proposes a minmax approach that essentially maximizes the place of the least advantaged. Using the concept of the “veil of ignorance,” Rawls reasons that if a person would not know the impact of a policy on him or herself, then one will not advantage one group over another. For example, two people really like the same piece of cake, and one is asked to cut it so each person may have a slice. Not knowing which slice one may receive, he or she will probably make the slices as even as possible. To do otherwise, the person may end up with the smaller slice. The dual beliefs that a transaction's result is for the greater good while advantages and set-asides for those who have been marginalized are appropriate reflect core social work values.

Nozick (1974) argues a free-market libertarian model that advocates for individuals to be able to keep what they earn. Redistribution of social goods is not acceptable and violates a key premise that a person should be able to retain the “fruits of their labor.” Taxation is not tolerable and forces workers to become slaves of the state, with a certain amount of their work-related benefits going to the state for its use. For Nozick (1974), “the less government approach” is the best model and asks, “if the state did not exist would it be necessary to invent it? Would one be needed, and would it have to be invented” (p. 3)? Libertarianism asserts that the state's role should be confined essentially to security and safety issues—police/fire protection, national defense, and the judicial system. Matters related to public education and social welfare, among others, are the responsibility of the private sector. Faith-based organizations, nonprofit social services, nongovernmental organizations, and private for-profit groups should provide welfare services. Services would be structured within a free-market model to encourage efficiency and effectiveness and eliminate redundancy and fiscal waste. The government's role is minimal at best, with individuals left free to do as they wish with their own lives and property. No formal institution can or should interfere with an individual's control of his or her life; the role of the state is to protect from and retaliate against those who use force against an individual (Roth, 1997, pp. 958–959).

Rawls' theory supports the development of a progressive and active welfare state. Policies create a system of redistribution of resources and advantages for those who have been historically and currently set aside. Nozick's minimalist approach provides only for welfare in the mindset of safety and security for the individual. The government should not be involved in meeting basic human needs or providing any system of support and care; these activities are left to the private, voluntary sectors.

Social Work Values and Policy

The importance of policy is viewed in the profession's organizing documents. From ethical codes for practice to accreditation standards, various national and international bodies clearly spell out the domain of social policy being central in the curricula. For example, the American-based Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) and the National Association of Social Workers and the major international associations—International Association of Schools of Social Work (IA), International Federation of Social Workers (IF), and International Council on Social Welfare (IC)—each through their respective accreditation and/or practice protocols, direct attention to steadfastly embrace content around policy's central role in the profession's life (Council on Social Work Education, 2008; International Association, 2012; International Council, 2012; International Federation, 2012).

The 2008 Council on Social Work Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS), the organizing document for baccalaureate and master's-level social work education, identifies 10 core competencies for social work practice. Although some of the competencies support policy practice through research and critical thinking, Educational Policy 2.1.1 specifically states that social workers “Engage in policy practice to advance social and economic well-being and to deliver effective social work services” (Council on Social Work Education, 2008, p. 6).

The National Association of Social Workers' Code of Ethics (1999) notes in its preamble, “Fundamental to social work is attention to the environmental forces that create, contribute to, and address problems in living” and specifically directs its members in Standard 6.02 to “facilitate informed participation by the public in shaping social policies and institutions” (NASW).

The joint Code of Ethics for IA and IF states that social workers have a duty to bring to the attention of their employers, policy makers, politicians, and the general public situations where resources are inadequate or where distribution of resources, policies, and practices are oppressive, unfair, or harmful (International Federation).

Inclusion of social welfare policy in education and practice extends to social workers and programs around the world. The International Council on Social Welfare, for example, specifically promotes worldwide activities on policy advocacy and research (International Council). In nation-states worldwide, there are numerous examples of policy work advocated by the International Council. Canadian social work education, for example, requires the study of Canadian welfare policy in accredited social work programs (Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work, 2004, p. 9); an “accredited social worker” in Australia must have knowledge and the ability for analysis of and impact with policy development (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2004, p. 3); in 2004, the International Association of Schools of Social Work and the International Federation of Social Workers adopted the “Global Standards for the Education and Training of the Social Work Profession,” which includes social policy as a core area of study (IASSW, 2012, p. 7).

Worldwide, the promotion, development, and cultivation of effective policy in micro and macro arenas cross geographic borders and cultural divides. Social welfare policy is envisioned to be a powerful tool that can realize the aspirations of an entire society as well as the dreams and ideals embraced by a local community group, family, or individual.

Macro social welfare policy provides a framework and means to strengthen larger communities. As an instrument of change, social welfare policy can reduce or eliminate a particular issue that impacts at-risk and marginalized population groups, such as children, families, seniors, and people of color. Conversely, social policy may exacerbate or penalize a particular population group.

Micro social welfare policy directly influences the scope of work provided by the practitioner. Program eligibility, the form of services provided, a program's delivery structure, and funding mechanisms are outcomes of micro social welfare policy. Ineffective social policy creates frustrating practice obstacles. Typical of the barriers created by policy are eligibility criteria that limit client access to services, regulations that do not allow for case advocacy, and increased caseloads supported with minimal resources and capped time limits.

The Traditional Conceptual Framework of Social Welfare

Social welfare policies are outgrowths of values, beliefs, and principles, and they vary in their commitments and range of services. For example, the primary public assistance program targeting poor families, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), is time-limited and does not include full, comprehensive services. Social Security retirement, however, provides monthly retirement income that is based on the worker's lifelong financial contributions through payroll deductions. Essentially, TANF reflects the centuries-old belief that the poor are the cause of their life situation, and public assistance only reinforces their dependence on others. Retirees, who worked and contributed to the greater good through their payroll taxes, are able to make a just claim for retirement benefits.

The range of social welfare policies is best conceptualized through the classic work of Wilensky and Lebeaux (1965), Industrial Society and Social Welfare, in which they attempt to answer a basic question: Is social welfare a matter of giving assistance only in emergencies, or is it a front-line activity that society must provide? Their analysis included two important concepts that continue to frame and influence social welfare discussions: residual social welfare and institutional welfare.

A cautionary note is in order: Not all programs and services are easily classified as one or the other; some programs have both institutional and residual attributes. The Head Start program, for example, is institutional in nature but is means tested and restricted to a particular segment of the population. One solution is to expand the classic residual–institutional dichotomy to a residual–institutional continuum. A program's position on the continuum is determined by its eligibility criteria and the breadth and depth of its services.

The dichotomy between residual and institutional welfare imitates the inherent differences found in justice theories expressed by Rawls and Nozick. Effective policy practice requires understanding and assessing the various justice theories that interact with and influence the development of a policy position.

Residual Welfare

Residual welfare views social welfare in narrow terms and typically only includes public assistance or policies related to the poor. Residual services carry a stigma; are time-limited, means-tested, and emergency-based; and are generally provided when all other forms of assistance are unavailable. Welfare services come into play only when all other systems have broken down or proven to be inadequate. Public assistance programs reflect the residual descriptions and include, among others, TANF, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, General Assistance, and Medicaid.

The residual conception of social welfare rests on the individualistic notion that people are responsible for themselves and government intervenes only in times of crisis or emergency. Eligibility requires that people exhaust their own private resources, which may include assistance from the church, family members, friends, and employers, and requires people to prove their inability to provide for themselves and their families.

Social services are delivered only to people who meet certain defined criteria. The assessment procedure, commonly referred to as means testing, requires people to demonstrate that they do not have the financial ability to meet their specific needs. A residual program also mandates recertification for program participation every few months, typically three or six months. The recertification process is designed primarily to ensure that clients are still unable to meet their needs through private or personal sources.

People who receive residual services are generally viewed as being different from those who do need public services and are part of the majority group. These recipients are viewed as failures because they do not emulate the ideals of rugged individualism, a cornerstone ideal of American society, which asserts that people take care of their own needs, they are self-reliant, and they work to provide for themselves and their families. Clients in residual programs are often stereotyped by the larger society. They are often accused of making bad decisions, requiring constant monitoring because of their inherent dishonesty, and being lazy. In short, people in residual programs carry a stigma best described as “blaming the victim,” which Ryan (1976) writes is applied to most social problems and people who are “inferior, genetically defective, or morally unfit; the emphasis is on the intrinsic, even hereditary, defect” (p. 7).

Institutional Welfare

The second conception of social welfare described by Wilensky and Lebeaux (1965) is institutional social welfare. This definition of social welfare is much more encompassing than the residual definition and extends to services that support all people. This framework recognizes the community's obligation to assist individual members because the problems are viewed not as failures, but as part of life in modern society. Services go beyond immediate and basic need responses to emergencies. Assistance is provided well before people exhaust their own resources, and preventive and rehabilitative services are stressed.

Therefore, an institutional program, as opposed to a residual program, is designed to meet the needs of all people. Eligibility is universal, no stigma is attached, and services are regular front-line programs in society. Institutional programs are so widely accepted in society that most are not viewed as social welfare programs at all. Social insurance programs, veterans programs, public education, food and drug regulations, and Medicare are institutional by nature.

Broadening the View of Social Welfare Policy

Richard Titmuss (1965) argued that social welfare was much more than aid to the poor and in fact represented a broad system of support to the middle and upper classes. In his model, social welfare includes three separate but very distinct pieces: fiscal welfare—tax benefits and supports for the middle and upper classes; corporate welfare—tax benefits and supports for businesses; and public welfare—assistance to the poor. Titmuss ostensibly was arguing that social welfare reflects an institutional perspective.

Abramovitz (1983) applied the Titmuss model to American social welfare and identified a “shadow welfare state” for the wealthy that parallels the social service system that is available to the poor. She concluded that the poor and wealthy alike benefit from government programs and tax laws that raise their disposable income. In other words, were it not for direct government support—whether through food stamps or through a childcare tax exemption—people would have fewer dollars to spend and to support themselves and their families. As with Titmuss, Abramovitz extended social welfare well beyond services to the poor to encompass a wide range of programs and services that support the middle and upper classes.

The Titmuss and Abramovitz position requires accepting the premise that corporate and fiscal welfare are the same as public welfare. If this position is accepted, then all activities are considered institutional. The belief is that welfare, no matter its form, provides a direct subsidy that benefits the individual with secondary positive benefits extending to the greater community. For example, homeowners are able to claim a tax deduction for interest paid on home loans. The deduction encourages home ownership (e.g., by lowering an individual's net taxable income) and supports the home-building industry by encouraging the construction of new housing stock, which in turn requires suppliers to provide goods for the new construction. As more homes are built, more people are hired to build the homes, more supplies are needed, and the cycle continues. Rather than providing a tax deduction, the government could just as easily write a monthly or annual check to the homeowner to subsidize their housing. Titmuss and Abramovitz would argue that the tax deduction is every bit a welfare expenditure, just as a Section 8 housing voucher is for the poor.

One could also argue that corporate and fiscal welfare requires a direct financial and work input from the recipient; that is, the benefit is determined on the amount and degree of effort invested by the individual. The argument continues that public welfare recipients are not required to make a similar contribution. This position reflects an “equity and privilege” model—what one receives is directly related to and proportional to what one contributes or invests. The resulting subsidy is a privilege extended only to those who participate in the program and supports the greater good. This position would argue that a homeowner should receive a tax benefit because purchasing a home supports the greater good; conversely, Section 8 housing does not contribute to the greater good and a community's economic base.