Equal-Treatment at the Frontline? Typology of Frontline-Workers Engagement with Clients in Californias Wtw Program

Background: Previous literature shows that street-level bureaucrats in welfare offices use discretion when it comes to WTW sanctioning or service delivery. Recent evidenced-based reforms in California’s WTW program (CalWORKs 2.0) grants even more discretion and flexibility to frontline-workers to base decisions on the “client’s needs”. Until now, there is a lack of knowledge in how frontline-workers’ discretion in interaction with specific assumptions potentially lead to unequitable treatment of clients. Drawing on theories of street-level bureaucrats and social equity, we aim to further the knowledge on how frontline-worker in welfare offices can enhance equity in the treatment of clients.

Methods: This study triangulates three major data sources: 1) participant observations of 13 frontline-workers in interactions with clients in intake-interviews and WTW-workshops (seven in Bay-County and six in Central-County); 2) 13 semi-structured interviews with the same frontline-workers after the observation; and 3) 16 interviews with WTW clients (eight from each county). Both frontline-workers and clients were selected based on a qualitative sampling plan ensuring a variation across race, ethnicity and gender. All interviews and observations were, with informed consent, recorded and transcribed for analysis using the qualitative data analysis software, MaxQDA. The data is first case-by-case analyzed based on a content analysis and secondly a typology is developed out of the case analysis.

Findings: The analysis of clients interviews reveal that many clients have experienced unequal treatment e.g. based on race. For instance, before getting assistance from street-level bureaucrats, several homeless black mothers had to prove their homelessness while nonblack clients were believed from the start. However, in the view of most clients a strict “equal treatment” by “going by the book” is not a fair treatment either. Based on a triangulation of the frontline-workers interviews and observations, we develop an engagement-typology of the frontline-workers style ranging from very strict rule-based, e.g. in giving WTW-sanction or WTW-exemptions versus flexible, client-centered and empathetic. The later type generally tries to prevent WTW-sanctions and grant WTW-exemptions, if possible. We show that both types risk reproducing inequities. While the rule-based type of worker does not address the specific needs of severely disadvantaged clients, the flexible type risks exercising flexibility different towards different groups of clients, based on stereotypes and assumptions. We find for example the narrative of some more engaged workers, that younger, American-citizen, clients, try to trick the welfare system. Therefore, these workers tend to treat such client-groups with less empathy than other groups of clients, such as older clients or immigrants and give sanctions faster to young citizen than to others.

Conclusion & Implications: Our typology displays a high variety in the types of frontline-worker engagement with clients. Hence, the type of frontline-worker a clients is assigned to influences strongly how the client will be treated. Our findings indicate that different types of worker engagement style have particular risks of reproducing inequities. Therefore, introducing more discretion at the frontline should be accomplished by clear equity guidelines and training, to minimize unintended side effects of discretion.