“就像白天和黑夜”:WIC、SNAP和Medicaid的官僚遭遇是如何不同的

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL WORK Social Service Review Pub Date : 2023-02-07 DOI:10.1086/723365
C. Barnes, Jamila Michener, E. Rains
{"title":"“就像白天和黑夜”:WIC、SNAP和Medicaid的官僚遭遇是如何不同的","authors":"C. Barnes, Jamila Michener, E. Rains","doi":"10.1086/723365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research characterizes public assistance programs as stigmatizing and stressful (e.g., psychological costs) but obscures differences across programs or the features of policy design that contribute to varied bureaucratic encounters. Using 83 interviews with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and Medicaid beneficiaries, and 60 interviews with staff from those programs, we examine how people differentiate their experiences across programs. We find that WIC staff members describe the program as facilitating, rather than constraining, personal interactions with clients. In contrast, SNAP and Medicaid workers report pressure to process clients expeditiously and accurately, leading several caseworkers to express frustration and suspicion of the information provided by recipients. WIC participants in all three programs described positive, supportive interactions with WIC staff and viewed the program as a source of social support. In contrast, participants reported stigmatizing encounters with SNAP and Medicaid staff and inaccessible caseworkers.","PeriodicalId":47665,"journal":{"name":"Social Service Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“It’s Like Night and Day”: How Bureaucratic Encounters Vary across WIC, SNAP, and Medicaid\",\"authors\":\"C. Barnes, Jamila Michener, E. Rains\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/723365\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research characterizes public assistance programs as stigmatizing and stressful (e.g., psychological costs) but obscures differences across programs or the features of policy design that contribute to varied bureaucratic encounters. Using 83 interviews with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and Medicaid beneficiaries, and 60 interviews with staff from those programs, we examine how people differentiate their experiences across programs. We find that WIC staff members describe the program as facilitating, rather than constraining, personal interactions with clients. In contrast, SNAP and Medicaid workers report pressure to process clients expeditiously and accurately, leading several caseworkers to express frustration and suspicion of the information provided by recipients. WIC participants in all three programs described positive, supportive interactions with WIC staff and viewed the program as a source of social support. In contrast, participants reported stigmatizing encounters with SNAP and Medicaid staff and inaccessible caseworkers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47665,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Service Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Service Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/723365\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Service Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/723365","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

研究将公共援助计划描述为污名化和压力(例如心理成本),但掩盖了不同计划之间的差异或政策设计的特点,这些差异或特点导致了各种官僚遭遇。我们对补充营养援助计划(SNAP)、妇女、婴儿和儿童特别补充营养计划(WIC)以及医疗补助受益人进行了83次采访,并对这些计划的工作人员进行了60次采访,研究了人们如何在不同计划中区分自己的经历。我们发现,WIC的工作人员将该计划描述为促进而不是限制与客户的个人互动。相比之下,SNAP和医疗补助工作人员报告称,他们面临着快速准确处理客户的压力,导致一些个案工作人员对接受者提供的信息表示失望和怀疑。三个项目的WIC参与者都描述了与WIC工作人员的积极、支持性互动,并将该项目视为社会支持的来源。相比之下,参与者报告了与SNAP和医疗补助工作人员以及无法接触的个案工作者的污名化遭遇。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“It’s Like Night and Day”: How Bureaucratic Encounters Vary across WIC, SNAP, and Medicaid
Research characterizes public assistance programs as stigmatizing and stressful (e.g., psychological costs) but obscures differences across programs or the features of policy design that contribute to varied bureaucratic encounters. Using 83 interviews with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and Medicaid beneficiaries, and 60 interviews with staff from those programs, we examine how people differentiate their experiences across programs. We find that WIC staff members describe the program as facilitating, rather than constraining, personal interactions with clients. In contrast, SNAP and Medicaid workers report pressure to process clients expeditiously and accurately, leading several caseworkers to express frustration and suspicion of the information provided by recipients. WIC participants in all three programs described positive, supportive interactions with WIC staff and viewed the program as a source of social support. In contrast, participants reported stigmatizing encounters with SNAP and Medicaid staff and inaccessible caseworkers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Service Review
Social Service Review SOCIAL WORK-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Founded in 1927, Social Service Review is devoted to the publication of thought-provoking, original research on social welfare policy, organization, and practice. Articles in the Review analyze issues from the points of view of various disciplines, theories, and methodological traditions, view critical problems in context, and carefully consider long-range solutions. The Review features balanced, scholarly contributions from social work and social welfare scholars, as well as from members of the various allied disciplines engaged in research on human behavior, social systems, history, public policy, and social services.
期刊最新文献
Social Transfer Programs as Non-Spatially-Targeted Methods of Reducing Interregional Geographic Inequality The Effects of Waiving WIC Physical Presence Requirements on Program Caseloads Unconditional Cash and Breastfeeding, Child Care, and Maternal Employment among Families with Young Children Residing in Poverty The Effects of the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) on Child-Care Use and Maternal Labor Supply Increasing Home Visiting Enrollment through Enhanced Outreach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1