Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:47:18.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In the Fair Hearing Room: Resistance and Confrontation in the Welfare Bureaucracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Vicki Lens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores how welfare clients use and experience the fair hearing system, the administrative mechanism for challenging denials or reductions of aid in public welfare bureaucracies. Drawing on data from in-depth interviews with clients, it explores how old-style procedural protections like fair hearings are being used to challenge new-style welfare reforms. This research found that clients use fair hearings as a form of resistance and self-assertion, hoping that it will protect them from a bureaucracy perceived as arbitrary and capricious. Like many citizens, they are as concerned with being heard by their governmental institutions as they are with the outcome of their case and want to find within the machinery of government a forum where they can obtain recompense and respect. However, the legalistic and rule-bound nature of hearings makes it difficult for clients to present their claims, and meaningful participation is often denied them.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , Spring 2007 , pp. 309 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2007 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Anderson, Steven G., Halter, Anthony P., and Gryzlak, Brian M. 2004. Difficulties after Leaving TANF: Inner-City Women Talk about Reasons for Returning to Welfare. Social Work 49 (2): 185–94.Google Scholar
Bane, Mary Jo, and Ellwood, David T. 1994. Welfare Realities: From Rhetoric to Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Daniel. 1974. The Welfare Family and Mass Administrative Justice. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Bell, Alexander W., and Norvell, Todd. 1967. Texas Welfare Appeals: The Hidden Right. Texas Law Review 46:223–53.Google Scholar
Bumiller, Kristin. 1987. Victims in the Shadow of the Law: A Critique of the Model of Legal Protection. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society 12 (3): 421–39.Google Scholar
Conley, John M., and O'Barr, William M. 1990. Rules Versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ewick, Patricia, and Silbey, Susan S. 1998. The Common Place of Law: Stories From Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gilliom, John. 2001. Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, Resistance, and the Limits of Privacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hammer, Ronald P., and Hartley, Joseph M. 1978. Procedural Due Process and the Welfare Recipient: A Statistical Study of AFDC Fair Hearings in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Law Review 1:145–251.Google Scholar
Handler, Joel F. 1969. Justice for the Welfare Recipient: Fair Hearings in AFDC—The Wisconsin Experience. Social Service Review 4:12–34.Google Scholar
Handler, Joel F. 1986. The Conditions of Discretion: Autonomy, Community, Bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Kornbluh, Felicia. 2007. The Battle over Welfare Rights: Poverty and Policy in Modern America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lens, Vicki. 2005. Bureaucratic Disentitlement After Welfare Reform: Are Fair Hearings the Cure? Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy 12 (1): 13–54.Google Scholar
Lens, Vicki. 2006. Work Sanctions under Welfare Reform: Are They Helping Women Achieve Self-Sufficiency? Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy 13:255–84.Google Scholar
Lens, Vicki. (forthcoming). Administrative Justice in Public Welfare Bureaucracies: When Citizen's (Don't) Complain. Administration & Society.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry. 197374. The Management Side of Due Process: Some Theoretical and Litigation Notes on the Assurance of Accuracy, Fairness and Timeliness in the Adjudication of Social Welfare Claims. Cornell Law Review 59:772–824.Google Scholar
Miles, Matthew, and Huberman, Michael. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Miller, Gale. 1983. Holding Clients Accountable. Social Problems 31:139–51.Google Scholar
Miller, Gale, and Holstein, James A. 1996. Dispute Domains and Welfare Claims: Conflict and Law in Public Bureaucracies. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.Google Scholar
New York State Bar Association. October 21, 1999. Report of the Special Committee on Administrative Adjudication. Albany: New York State Bar Association.Google Scholar
Reich, Charles A. 1964. The New Property. Yale Law Journal 73:733–87.Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin. 1990. “The Law is All Over”: Power, Resistance and the Legal Consciousness of the Welfare Poor. Yale Journal of Law & Humanities 2:343–79.Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin, and Kearns, Thomas R., eds. 1998. Beyond the Great Divide: Forms of Legal Scholarship and Everyday Life. In Law in Everyday Life. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Scanlan, Melissa Kwaterski. 1998. The End of Welfare and Constitutional Protections for the Poor: A Case Study of the Wisconsin Works Program and Due Process Rights. Berkeley Women's Law Journal 13:153–94.Google Scholar
Simon, William. 1983. Legality, Bureaucracy and Class in the Welfare System. Yale Law Journal 92:1198–1269.Google Scholar
Soss, Joe. 2002. Unwanted Claims: The Politics of Participation in the U.S. Welfare System. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Soss, Joe. 2005. Making Clients and Citizens: Welfare Policy as a Source of Status, Belief and Action. In Deserving and Entitled: Social Constructions and Public Policy, ed. Schneider, Anne L. and Ingram, Helen M. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Strauss, Anselm. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom. 2006. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
White, Lucie E. 1990. Subordination, Rhetorical Survival Skills, and Sunday Shoes: Notes on the Hearing of Mrs. G. Buffalo Law Review 38 (1): 1–58.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).Google Scholar
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 601–19 (1997)).Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

42 U.S.C. Sec. 402Google Scholar