Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
458 lines (361 loc) · 22.9 KB

PITCHME.md

File metadata and controls

458 lines (361 loc) · 22.9 KB
Raw

Redistributive Justice through the Non-profit Sector?

Access to Benefits Programs in Winnipeg, MB

#HSLIDE

Focus

  • Investigate the program model employed by non-profit-mediated access to benefits programs

  • Assess the potential for these programs to contribute to socioeconomic justice for financially vulnerable community members

  • Problematize government investment in non-profit-mediated access to benefits programs

#VSLIDE

Methods

  • Literature review

  • Key informant interviews with frontline staff and management in Winnipeg, MB

#VSLIDE

Impetus for the Project

  • Scholarly interests

    • Critical and radical social theory
    • Egalitarian social change
    • Non-hegemonic / prefigurative politics

  • Social service practice

    • Financial empowerment programs at SEED Winnipeg

#HSLIDE

The Program Model

#VSLIDE

###The Problem

  • A variety of welfare state benefits are targeted to residents living on low incomes.
  • Low-income community members face systemic barriers that prevent access to these entitlements (Shillington 2011).
  • Lack of access can have severe, negative impacts for those without adequate income prior to government transfers (social and financial exclusion, social determinants of health).

#VSLIDE ###The Remedy: Supported Access

  • Governments, civil society, and the private sector each have a role to play in connecting community members to benefits
  • Non-profit organizations are well-positioned to support financially vulnerable community members

#VSLIDE ###Success (Measured in Outputs)

  • Norquay Building CVITP Clinic (2016 tax season)
    • < 5 staff, approx. 90 volunteers
    • 9,000 tax returns
    • $21 million in tax refunds and related benefits
  • SEED Winnipeg Access to Benefits program (2015/16 fiscal year)
    • 5 staff members
    • 1,046 tax returns
    • $3.5 million in tax refunds and related benefits

#HSLIDE

Research Questions

  • What is the theory of change underlying non-profit access to benefits programs?

  • How can non-profit access to benefits programs contribute to socioeconomic justice?

  • Is government investment in non-profit access to benefits programs a sign of progress towards socioeconomic justice, or evidence of the offloading of public responsibility for social welfare?

#HSLIDE

Key Concepts and Tensions

#VSLIDE

##Socioeconomic Justice

  • What is socioeconomic justice?
  • How can it be attained?

#VSLIDE

###Fraser (1997)

  • Injustice: socioeconomic and sociocultural
  • Remedies: redistribution and recognition
  • Strategies: affirmation and transformation

#VSLIDE ###Noonan (2012)

  • Life-valuable materialist ethics
  • "Life-value"
    • Instrumental: resources and connections to sustain life
    • Intrinsic: development and enjoyment of human capacities

#VSLIDE ###Noonan (2012)

  • Transformation from a system based on money-value to one based on life-value
  • Life-valuable political practice in the here-and-now
    • “the struggle to build a new society is rooted in the life-valuable side of existing social institutions” (Noonan 2012:216)

#VSLIDE ###Implications

  • Need to develop a nuanced perspective that recognizes:
    • Common socioeconomic injustice: poverty, lack of access to benefits
    • Particular experiences vary with identity position / social location

#VSLIDE

  • Which strategies are employed by non-profit access to benefits programs (affirmation / transformation)?
  • Are access to benefits programs the most life-valuable alternative available to non-profits?

#VSLIDE ###Further Reading

  • Delve deeper into Noonan (2012)
  • Open to other suggestions
  • But cautious to not get too immersed in theories of social justice / social change

#HSLIDE

Socioeconomic Justice through the Welfare State

  • Is the welfare state an effective lever for justice and life-value?
  • Is access to the current complement of welfare state benefits sufficient?

#VSLIDE

Marshall (1949) - Social Citizenship

  • Normative statement for social citizenship through the welfare state
  • "the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security" (1950:11)
  • "the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilised being according to the standards prevailing in the society" (1950:11)

#VSLIDE

Liberal Welfare State

  • Does not grant and protect the rights of social citizenship
  • Poor laws / principle of "less eligibility" (Piven and Cloward 1993:34-35)
  • Measures of last resort rather than rights

#VSLIDE

Welfare State as Social Control (Piven and Cloward 1993)

  • Welfare state function: to regulate the supply of labour
  • Expansion in response to political turmoil rather than social need
  • Contraction once order and conditions for accumulation are restored

#VSLIDE

Inequalities within the Welfare State

  • Fiscal welfare vs. social welfare (Abramovitz 1983/2001; Titmuss 1965).
  • Social insurance vs. social assistance (Olsen 2002; Gordon 1994)
  • The latter are:
    • Less generous
    • More controlling
    • Stigmatized in public discourse

#VSLIDE

Axes of Inequality

  • Gender (Gordon 1994; Piven and Cloward 1993; Abramovitz 1988; Morgen, Acker, and Weigt 2009)
  • 'Race' and ethnicity (Piven and Cloward 1993; Quadagno 1994)
  • Indigeneity (MacDonald 2011)
  • Citizenship status and duration of residency

#VSLIDE

Summary

  • Liberal welfare benefits ≠ social citizenship
  • Benefits are insufficient to sustain life
  • Social welfare benefits can subject recipients to disempowering and stigmatizing treatment
  • Structural inequalities endure

#VSLIDE

Implications

  • Contribution of non-profit-mediated programs to social justice will vary according to:
    • benefits accessed
    • demographic groups gaining access
  • Potential for unintended harms resulting from inclusion as benefit recipients

#VSLIDE

Implications

  • If increased access is not enough, also need to work for more equitable redistribution
  • What strategies could be effective in pushing the state to assume greater responsibility for social citizenship?

#VSLIDE

Further Reading

  • Gough, Ian. 1979. The Political Economy of the Welfare State.
  • Offe, Claus. 1984. Contradictions of the Welfare State.
  • Wacquant, Loïc. 2009. Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity.

#VSLIDE

Further Reading

  • Insufficiency of social welfare benefits
  • Guaranteed Annual Income

#HSLIDE

Socioeconomic Justice through the Shadow State

  • Is government and philanthropic investment in non-profit social service provision a promising strategy for increasing access to benefits by financially vulnerable community members?
  • What are the risks and drawbacks of this model?

#VSLIDE

Key Concepts

  • "third-party government" (Salamon 1995)
  • "hollow state" (Milward 1994)
  • "offloading" / "devolution"

#VSLIDE

Potential Benefits

  • Increased availability of social welfare programs and services
  • Greater opportunities for local control and participation in social services
  • Flexibility to adapt local conditions

#VSLIDE

Drawbacks

  • "philanthropic insufficiency" (Salamon 1995)
    • Non-profit sector has marginal reach and capacity compared to the state
    • Problems with securing funding without recourse to taxation (via government contracts, philanthropic funding, business activities, user fees)

#VSLIDE

Drawbacks

  • "philanthropic paternalism" (Salamon 1995)
    • May need to tailor programs to match donor and government priorities rather than local needs
  • "philanthropic particularism" (Salamon 1995)
    • No universal mandate
    • Can cater to particular demographics, specific geographic areas

#VSLIDE

Shadow State (Wolch 1989:201)

a para-state apparatus with collective service responsibilities previously shouldered by the public sector, administered outside democratic politics, but yet controlled in both formal and informal ways by the state.

#VSLIDE

Implications

  • Potential benefits of investment in non-profit-mediated access to benefits programs:
    • cross-sectoral partnerships that leverage the comparative advantages of each sector in service of a common good

#VSLIDE ###Implications

  • Hazards of devolution:
    • Could result in reduction in the status of benefits: from entitlement to charitable aid (Wolch 1989; Roy 2004)
    • "statization" (Wolch 1989:217) and "neoliberalization" (Woolford and Curran 2011:589) of civil society
    • "bureaucratic disentitlement" (Lipsky 1984)

#VSLIDE ###Further Reading

#VSLIDE

Extensions and Applications of Wolch's "Shadow State" Concept

  • Lake, Robert W. and Kathe Newman. 2002. “Differential Citizenship in the Shadow State.” GeoJournal 58(2–3):109–20.
  • Mitchell, Katharyne. 2001. “Transnationalism, Neo-Liberalism, and the Rise of the Shadow State.” Economy and Society 30(2):165–89.
  • Mukhtar, Maria. 2013. Settlement Service Providers in Peel Region, Ontario: Challenges, Barriers and Opportunities in the Shadow State. M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto (Canada), Canada.

#VSLIDE

Extensions and Applications of Wolch's "Shadow State" Concept

  • Trudeau, Dan. 2008. “Junior Partner or Empowered Community? The Role of Non-Profit Social Service Providers amidst State Restructuring in the US.” Urban Studies 45(13):2805–27.
  • Trudeau, Dan. 2008. “Towards a Relational View of the Shadow State.” Political Geography 27(6):669–90.

####Mutual Aid and Community Social Welfare Provision

  • Beito, David T. 2003. From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967.

#HSLIDE

Social Change through Social Service

  • What is the relationship between social service and social change?

#VSLIDE

Separate Processes

  • Liberal and conservative position (Withorn 1984):
    • professional
    • value-neutral
    • focused on client needs
    • apolitical

#VSLIDE

Separate Processes

  • Radical position
    • "non-profit industrial complex" (Incite! 2007)
    • “NGO-ization of resistance” (Roy 2004)
    • Social control
    • Co-opting community leaders
    • Ineffective, individualized approach to addressing broader inequality

#VSLIDE

Connecting Social Service and Social Change

  • Parallel activities
    • Provide services to community members
    • Advocate for and represent community members in public policy and public discourse
    • Example: expose hidden fiscal welfare measures (Abramovitz 2001)

#VSLIDE

Connecting Social Service and Social Change

  • Concurrent activities
    • Social movement services (Withorn 1984):
      • Feminist organizations
      • Civil rights organizations
      • Labour movement
      • Anti-poverty programs and welfare rights movement

#VSLIDE

Connecting Social Service and Social Change

  • Through collective action
    • Connecting service providers, service users, and social movements
    • "mobilizing buffer-zone resources to help people get together" (Kivel 2007:142)
    • Ground social services within broader social movements (Kivel 2007; Woolford and Curran 2013)

#VSLIDE

Implications

  • Do non-profit access to benefits programs integrate social service and social change, or treat them as separate processes?
  • How could access programs become more accountable to grassroots communities of activists and service users?
  • Is it realistic that individualized access to benefits programs could contribute to collective empowerment?

#VSLIDE

Further Reading

#VSLIDE

Social Justice and Social Work

  • Finn, Janet L. and Maxine Jacobson. 2008. Just Practice: A Social Justice Approach to Social Work.
  • Mullaly, Robert P. 1997. Structural Social Work: Ideology, Theory, and Practice.

Policy Advocacy by Non-profit Social Service Agencies

  • Almog-Bar, Michal and Hillel Schmid. 2014. “Advocacy Activities of Nonprofit Human Service Organizations A Critical Review.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1):11–35.

#VSLIDE

Policy Advocacy by Non-profit Social Service Agencies

  • DeSantis, Gloria C. 2013. “Policy Advocacy Experiences of Saskatchewan Nonprofit Organizations: Caught between Rocks and Hard Places with Multiple Constituents?” The Canadian Geographer 57(4):457–73.
  • Schmid, Hillel, Michal Bar, and Ronit Nirel. 2008. “Advocacy Activities in Nonprofit Human Service Organizations Implications for Policy.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 37(4):581–602.

#VSLIDE

Welfare Rights Movement

  • Bailis, Lawrence Neil. 1974. Bread or Justice: Grassroots Organizing in the Welfare Rights Movement.
  • Kornbluh, Felicia Ann. 2007. The Battle for Welfare Rights: Politics and Poverty in Modern America.
  • Nadasen, Premilla. 2005. Welfare Warriors: The Welfare Rights Movement in the United States.

#VSLIDE

Welfare Rights Movement

  • Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 1979. Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail.
  • Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 2011. “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty (Reprinted with a New Introduction by Frances Fox Piven).” New Political Science 33(3):271–84.

#HSLIDE

Methodology

#VSLIDE

Literature Review

  • Theoretical (key concepts and tensions)
  • Historical (welfare rights movement)

#VSLIDE

Key Informant Interviews

  • Between 6 and 10 interviews with service providers and management
  • At least 3 organizations
  • “self-interview” (Kirby, Greaves, and Reid 2006:135)

#HSLIDE

Objectives

#VSLIDE

Scholarly Objectives

  • To produce:
    • a descriptive account of the field of non-profit access to benefits programs in Winnipeg
    • an analysis of the theory of change and intervention strategies that they employ
    • an assessment of their potential to contribute to social and economic justice.

#VSLIDE

Social Objectives

  • To contribute back to the ongoing development of the field reflexively, by:
    • investigating best practices implemented elsewhere
    • researching structural constraints and strategies to address structural constraints
    • identifying an appropriate role for access to benefits programs within broader movements for redistributive justice

#HSLIDE

Prospective and Anticipated Outcomes

#VSLIDE

Prospective Positions

A) Access programs are regressive and antithetical to social justice.

B) Access programs contribute to individual affirmation and help service users improve their well-being.

#VSLIDE

Prospective Positions

C) In addition to individual affirmation, access programs contribute to broader social transformation by empowering service users as political agents.

D) In addition to individual affirmation, access programs contribute to social transformation by securing structural changes in the welfare system.

  • Accessibility
  • Generosity
  • Equity

#VSLIDE

Hypotheses

  • Non-profit-mediated access programs...
    • follow a strategy of affirmation
    • may be the most life-valuable intervention strategy available to non-profits seeking to increase community members' incomes
    • lack the oppositional vision and strategy needed for fundamental transformation of the welfare state
    • function as an "abeyance structure" (Taylor 1989:762)

#HSLIDE

Limitations

#VSLIDE

  • Insider position within the field
  • Theoretical inquiry rather than empirical evaluation
  • Examines strategies and processes rather than outcomes
  • Not generalizable because of small, purposive sample, use of semi-structured interviews, and case study approach
  • Service user voices are not included

#HSLIDE

Work Plan

#VSLIDE

Phase Timeline
1) Literature Review and Preparation Dec 2016 - Mar 2017
2) Data Collection Mar - Apr 2017
3) Analysis May - Aug 2017
4) Writing Jan - Dec 2017
5) Defense and Revisions Dec 2017 - Mar 2018

#VSLIDE

Proposed Chapters

#VSLIDE

  • Introduction
  • Methodology
  • Theory
  • Analysis:
    • The field of non-profit-mediated access to benefits programs in Winnipeg
    • Theory of change
    • Contribution to redistributive justice
  • Discussion and conclusion

#HSLIDE

Discussion

#HSLIDE ###Access to Benefits Interventions

  • Volunteer income tax preparation (CVITP, VITA)
  • Social assistance and social insurance advocacy
  • Staff-driven access to benefits programs
    • Individual casework
    • Building system capacity

#VSLIDE ###Recent Interest in the Issue

  • Funding opportunities from government agencies and charitable donors
  • Ministerial mandate letter from Prime Minister to Minister of National Revenue (2015)