JVER v27n2 - Going to Work: An Examination of the Meaning of Work In Welfare-to-Work

Going To Work: An Examination of the Meaning of Work in Welfare-to-Work

James H. Adams
Mississippi State University

Abstract

With the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (P.L. 104-193) of 1996, also known as the Welfare-to-Work Act, Aid to Families with Dependent Children was abolished and replaced with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). A new system of block grants to states for TANF was created, changing the nature and provision of welfare benefits in America. Many have declared this legislation to be a sweeping success, although a few have called it a failure. Quantitative statistics seem to indicate unparalleled success, while qualitative analysis seems to question this widely held assumption. This study focuses attention on the realities of some recipients of the Welfare-to -Work legislation in hopes of gaining a better understanding of how this new legislation affects them, the ones with the most to gain or lose. This case study examines how welfare recipients in one welfare-to-work program in a midwestern state understand the meaning of work.

The original Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) legislation was passed as a component of the Social Security Act of 1935 with its original mission to provide financial aid to children not being supported by a parent. By 1940, one million recipients were receiving funds, and by 1994 this figure had risen to more than 14.2 million or 5.5% of the entire population ( Abramovitiz, 2000 ). Under AFDC, cash assistance was provided for a diverse population of Americans, which included Caucasians, Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans, and immigrants with great emphasis on educational opportunities such as Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) to help transition welfare recipients into the workforce.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (P.L.104-193), more commonly known as the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill, halted many of these educational opportunities. A new system of block grants to the states for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) was created, changing the nature and provision of welfare benefits in the United States. "Work First" initiatives were enacted in most states with the primary focus being centered on getting welfare recipients to go to work-any type of work as exemplified by Kirk Fordice, the Republican governor of Mississippi, who stated, "The only job training that welfare recipients need is a good alarm clock" ( Abramowitz, 2000 ). Opponents of the emphasis on work over training and education note that over one half of all single mothers on welfare have a prior work history, have worked while receiving benefits, and left welfare rolls within two years in response to the availability of decent paying jobs with adequate transportation, child care, and health benefits. They further argue that if individual financial self-sufficiency is the goal for welfare reform, educational opportunities that enhance future earning potential should be maximized. Critiquing the "Work First" initiative, McCallum (1998) asserted that the current Welfare-to-Work legislation benefits business and corporations while discriminating against minorities and women. "This policy choice not only provides the market with cheap labor, but it also continues a racial and gendered history of denying education and providing minimal financial compensation for women, especially women of color" (p. 53).

Explaining the ideological differences of these two sides, Cohen (1998) pointed out that the new legislation is a shift away from the human capital approach to a "Work First" approach.

Some welfare experts and policymakers advocate providing education and training to prepare welfare recipients for jobs that will eventually help them leave poverty-often called the human capital approach. Others advocate placing welfare recipients immediately in jobs whenever possible, even if these jobs pay wages below the poverty level. These "Work First" proponents argue that welfare recipients learn more from an actual job than from any educational program. (p. 1)

The success of the new legislation continues to be a source of debate. For example, Newman (1999) cited evidence to indicate that since 1996 welfare benefits have been greatly reduced as people moved off welfare rolls into work. Abramovitz (2000) stated that

between 1994 and December 1998 the welfare rolls plummeted more than 40%. A 1999 evaluation of the Greater Avenues For Independence (Gain), the Los Angeles welfare-to-work program, stated that the job-search-first philosophy raised employment and earning and decreased welfare payments. This study stated that job-search-first programs could work for recipients who lack education credentials, and that education and training are not the sole road to success. ( Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1999 )

Yet, others have argued that these figures are misleading because they say little about how people's lives (both economically and personally) have changed for the better or worse since the new legislation. As studies have documented ( Abramotivz, 1996 ; Kincheloe, 1999 ; Newman, 1999) , these supposed success stories of people moving off welfare to work do not reveal the grim reality that most have yet to leave poverty behind. For example, a study conducted in 2001 by the Manpower Development Research Corporation documents that, although it is noteworthy that many current and former welfare receipts achieved high employment stability, the majority of jobs were low-wage jobs with earnings that put their family below the official poverty level. Furthermore, only 2 out of 5 jobs held any type of fringe benefits. The study concluded that nearly all women face barriers to employment, which included their own or child's health problems and mental depression.

Albelda (1999) pointed out, after the passage of the welfare-to-work legislation three out of every five former welfare recipients in South Carolina were working an average of 34 hours a week at a rate of $6.34 an hour. This annual wage of less than ten thousand dollars still leaves these recipients well below the level of poverty. Critics of the legislation point out that attempts to eliminate welfare must have the concomitant commitment to eliminate poverty.

This study extends preceding research pointing to the need for critical analysis of the success of welfare-to-work. Central to this study is the imperative to reframe the question of success from "What is the success rate in moving people from welfare-to-work?" to "What is the success rate in moving people from welfare to good work?" Toward that end, I describe and analyze the meaning of work as perceived and enacted by welfare recipients involved in a TANF program in the midwestern United States. This study is significant because it addresses a gap in the welfare-to-work literature about the meaning of good work and the implications of the meaning of work in the welfare-to-work legislation on the lives of welfare recipients. Welfare-to-work programs need to take seriously the kind of work being espoused in recent legislation. Such an examination can contribute to a better understanding of how to create a more socially just democratic society in which all members have the opportunity to engage in good work and hence have an opportunity for a good life.

Conceptual Framework

This study is grounded in a critical theoretical orientation. Paramount to any study grounded in such a tradition is the need to (a) make visible the dominant social constructions and the interests they represent, (b) understand and analyze societal forces and practices with the goal of transforming them, and (c) empower people to free themselves from oppression and domination ( Anderson, 1989 ). In particular, I drew from Kincheloe's (1999) critical analysis of work in a capitalist society. Kincheloe's differentiation between work and job is important in understanding the meaning of work in the welfare-to-work initiatives. He asserted "a job is simply a way of making a living; work involves a sense of completion and fulfillment. In a job, items are produced for consumption, whereas work produces items that are put to use in people's lives. An individual's purposes and meanings are engaged in work, but they are repressed in a job" (p. 64). According to Kincheloe, good work means more than simply the attainment of a job. The idea of good work is particularly relevant to any discussion about the recent welfare-to-work legislation, which has adopted an uncritical use of the word work. Typically, when used in the context of this legislation, work simply means a job, even if it is a job that perpetuates a person's impoverished status.

Method

Since 1996, welfare caseloads nationally dropped more than 30%, a remarkable decline. State agency heads, local caseworkers, and TANF recipients now realize that the business of welfare is work, not checks. ( Thompson, 1998 , p. 37)

Oh yeah, McDonald's is hard work for low pay. I've got friends that work there, and she said you're looked at like a little cockroach. [Lilly, age 24]

The two quotes juxtaposed above exemplify a primary problem with current research about welfare-to-work. The first quote, like much of the research being published, touts the legislation as a huge success. Nationwide statistics indicate that people are moving off welfare into work. Welfare caseloads have dropped nationally 47% since January 1994 ( Newman, 1999 ). However, Lilly's quote problematizes the success and points to the problems with relying solely on statistical data to draw conclusions about the success of any reform including welfare-to-work. To understand the social implications of welfare-to-work, one must delve into the lived realities of these numbers. This study, involving one welfare-to-work program and 13 people whose lives are impacted on a daily basis by welfare reform, provides a glimpse into realities not mentioned in statistics.

The site of this qualitative interpretive case study was one of 22 vocational schools in a midwestern state that administered a TANF program. Data for this study was collected over a nine-month period extending from Summer, 1999 through Spring, 2000. Data collection consisted of four methods: one-on-one interviews, group interviews, participant observation, and document analysis. In order to understand the meaning of good work from multiple perspectives, participants were solicited from three categories: TANF recipients involved in the program, teachers in the program, and administrators. Members from all three groups participated. However, for the purpose of this article, data gathered only from TANF participants is presented. The 13 TANF recipients interviewed for the study were representative of the larger population of TANF recipients at this site. Thus, their participation was elicited through a typical sample, defined by Merriam (1998) as reflecting "the average person" (p. 62).

Participants

All of the individuals involved in the TANF program at this site were women with children. Of 13 TANF participants, nine were white, one was Hispanic, and three were African-American. They ranged in age from 18 to 41 years. One was 18 years old, five were between the ages of 20 to 30 years, six were between the ages of 31 and 40 years, and one was 41 years old. The ages of their children ranged from three months to 17 years of age.

Interviews

Interview data were collected through semi-structured, open-ended interviews with both individuals and small groups. Over the course of the study, one formal interview was conducted with each of the 13 TANF recipients at this site. Interviews lasted from 30 minutes to two hours. Interviews were conducted on site, in the break room and available classrooms. Each interview was audio taped with the participant's permission.

In addition to one-on-one interviews, three group interviews were also conducted. The first interview was conducted with five TANF participants with the purpose of discovering obstacles that led to failure in the workplace. The second group interview was conducted with seven students and the job coordinator during one of the class periods. The topic of the interview was barriers to employment and how to overcome these barriers. The third interview was with two of the participants that had been interviewed earlier. They asked to be interviewed together. All group interviews were audio taped. Additional data was collected from informal interviews conducted with participants before classes, in the break room during lunch, at a Christmas party, and during class discussions.

Participant Observation

Observations of the TANF program began on the third day of the new orientation session. Over the next three months, observations took place three hours a day two days a week. For the following six months, observations took place one day a week for three hours. During the nine months of observation, I moved from a passive observer, sitting quietly in the orientation sessions and remediation classes to an active participant, taking part in group discussions, role playing, and group sharing of personally reflective exercises. As able, copious on-the-spot notes were taken, which were later written into extended field notes. Often, however, because of participant activity, notes had to be written at the end of each day. A separate field journal for recording personal thoughts, emerging themes, and ethical decisions was also maintained.

Document Collection

In addition to interviews and observations, data was also collected through document analysis. Documents included the Hard Choices curriculum, student handbooks, attendance contracts, orientation agendas, information guides, course catalogs, financial aid applications, special project applications, information specific to this TANF program, Spring break activities booklet, statistics reports, academic calendar, GED information packet, informational data about welfare-to-work, student writings, and numerous handouts given to students. A total of 63 documents were examined, analyzed, and categorized.

Data Analysis

The data analysis technique used in this study was based on Marshall and Rossman's (1995) five step procedures of analysis: (a) organize the data, (b) generate categories, themes, and patterns, (c) test the emergent hypotheses against the data, (d) search for alternative explanations of the data, and (e) write the report. I began the process of data analysis by organizing data into manageable chunks. This entailed reading the transcripts, field notes, and documents repeatedly so that an in-depth understanding of the content was gained. Interviews were then organized into two stacks: TANF participants and teachers and administrators. Field notes were kept separate, and all documents were gathered into a central box.

In developing coding categories, salient themes were identified in two ways. After reading the transcripts, field notes, and documents several times, key terms and repeated phrases were highlighted and categories were formulated in the right-hand margin. In particular, coding categories were developed based on six of Bogdan and Biklen's (1992) list of coding families: perspectives held by participants, participants' ways of thinking about people and objects, activity codes, strategy codes, and pre-assigned codes. Based on this first round of coding, 76 themes, ranging from GED testing to drugs to welfare stereotypes, were identified.

In the second step of the coding process, the 76 themes were collapsed into 23 taxonomies: bad work, good work, good workers, bonding, self-esteem, testing, TANF legislation, orientation, Hard Choices , description of site, drugs and abuse, expectations, past work experiences, family life, vocational classes, remediation, children, fears, DHS, prejudice, obstacles, and attitude.

In the third step of analysis, data was evaluated in terms of asking how the emergent data related to the purpose of the study and research questions. When holes were discovered, original interviews, field notes, and documents were returned reviewed for clarification, and in some cases, I returned to the site for further clarification from my participants.

In the fourth step, I had to "engage in the critical act of challenging the very pattern that seems so apparent" ( Marshall & Rossman, 1995 , p. 116). This step of the process was very important for it forced me to reexamine my own biases against the recent welfare reform and analyze in a new light the perspectives of my participants.

The data in this article is presented by highlighting participants' perspectives and allowing their viewpoints to provide the framework for the report. Many direct quotes rather than summaries of their quotes are included. This is important so that readers gain an understanding of their tone and use of language rather than reading my interpretation.

Discussion of Findings

In this section, I describe and analyze the meaning of work as perceived and enacted by TANF participants themselves. In particular, their understanding of the meaning of "good work" versus "bad work" is presented.

The Meaning of Work

The 13 women involved in this study displayed varied realities concerning the meaning of work, job, and career. While some may argue that it is simply a case of personal definitions, it is important in the fact that these women are all involved in a welfare-to-work program which is manifested in a "Work First" agenda and how they define work is central to the way in which they view the opportunities for their individual lives.

For several women, work meant making money-even if the work is meaningless, low-paid, and low-skilled. For these women, work typically meant waged work which was perceived as something imposed on an individual with little personal rewards. Eveyln illustrated this point,

Work is something that you do to get money but you are really not happy at it. You may do it to make somebody else happy. Work, it seems to me, is pushing you to do something you really don't want to do.

However, most of the women echoed the sentiments of policymakers that work (regardless of the kind of work) enhances TANF participants' self-esteem in that they know they are responsible, productive citizens. Most of the women defined work as something that would make them feel better about themselves, and thus, make them happier people:

[Work means] supporting your family that you have not supported for so long on your own. Do it yourself and keep the job. It is something you want to do. I've never had a job. Everyone tells me that when you get that first check you will be so happy. [Sue]

[Work means] 8 to 5 job Monday through Friday. Good job, get a paycheck, bills get paid and Oh, we got a little bit of money we can do something this weekend … I want a house, a car, and a horse. If I get all that, I will be happy although you do have to have clothes for a job. [Sally]

Although many of them thought having money earned from their job would make them happy, missing from their discussion of work was the belief that work could and should be enjoyable. In fact, Katherine was the only TANF participant who equated work with an enjoyable endeavor. This is not surprising since the majority of these women have not experienced prior work experiences as being something they liked. Katherine, however, had a positive work experience in her former job as a factory worker. She explained,

Work is "a place to go." Work to me is a place to have fun and work at the same time. Like doing factory work, you can have fun doing that plus it's work. I love to work with my hands, if I can't work with my hands then there ain't no point in working.

This notion of enjoying one's self came up most readily in discussions about the differences between job, work, and career. Most of the women felt that a job or a career was something one could enjoy. Work was something one had to do, but it was not enjoyable. Sally explained that "a job is something that you enjoy doing. You say, 'I have a good job [as opposed to] I got to go to work today.' I had a good job as a travel agent but got fired because I got pregnant." Similarly, Evelyn stated,

A job is something you like doing, good at it, and makes you happy. You are supposed to love your job and like what you are doing and feel good about it and the people around you.

Camille distinguished between work, job, and career in the following way:

Work and profession are different. Profession is something you enjoy doing, something you pick for yourself. A job is where you work, and a profession is a step over a job and work. I am here looking for a profession.

A career was seen by many of these women as something one can choose as a means of attaining a future of life-long work. For example, Kippy defined career as having a skill that makes you marketable, and Sheena explained career in this way,

Well, having work is, you know, it'll take care of you, your household, but if you don't have the kind of job that you are looking for to maintain, then you're still gonna be struggling. A job could be any job, and a career would make the difference between that job. Like you pick a career that's gonna better yourself.

All of these women expressed the desire to have jobs that required them to do more than simply flip burgers, but the message that they are given repeatedly is "any work is better than no work." One way the TANF legislation perpetuates this belief is through Job Search, one of 13 allowable work activities available to TANF clients. Job Search requires a client to document that she has spent 30 hours a week looking for work. If offered a job, the TANF client is required to take it regardless of the type of job. If the person declines she can be denied benefits such as Medicaid, TANF checks, and food stamps. There are, as the administrator at this site explained, "loopholes." For example, a mother of school age children could put restrictions on her availability by saying that she has to be at home from 3:00 p.m. until midnight. If offered a job during this time period, she would not have to take it based on restrictions on her availability.

In many ways many TANF clients have internalized the belief that any work is better than no work. More than half the women in this study were grateful for the opportunity to engage in honest work so they could become self-sufficient, productive citizens. They believed that taking on personal responsibility for supporting their families would enhance their self-esteem. From a critical perspective, these women are operating under "false consciousness" which Marx (cited in Ritzer, 1977 ) argued is part of the hegemony of capitalism which dupes workers into believing they are autonomous, free-thinking individuals who deserve the work that capitalists give them. Many would argue that based on these women's perceptions of work, the welfare-to-work legislation is a successful mechanism for disciplining workers for the workplace by developing "personal demeanor, modes of self-presentation, self-image, and social-class identifications which are the crucial ingredients of job adequacy" ( Bowles & Gintis, 1976 , p. 131).

Welfare recipients certainly have differing opinions about the meaning of work, and in most cases, the connotation of work is a negative one. This leads one to ask if welfare-to-work might eventually be changed to welfare-to-career in much the same way as school-to-work has been changed to school-to-career. Since the major focus of the welfare-to-work legislation has been on work, these differing understandings and negative connotation present an obstacle in light of the fact that work is never defined in policy statements. Without a clear and agreed upon meaning of work and the purpose of the legislation in terms of people "going to work," how can success really be determined?

The Meaning of Good Work

Kincheloe (1999) asked, "In a democratic society …what constitutes good work? Socially beneficial work? Just work? Fulfilling work? Democratic work?" (p. 64). Kincheloe asserted that good work is possible in a capitalist, post-industrial society and lists 10 characteristics of good work. These characteristics include among others, the belief that good work is self-directed, is not monotonous, offers opportunities for learning and contributing to the social welfare, incorporates the virtue of play, and pays wages that lessen the disparity between workers and managers. However, Kincheloe's research does not focus on the lives of workers themselves. Hence, one purpose of this study was to compare and contrast perceptions of the people who live good and bad work on a daily basis with Kincheloe's analysis.

One of the most important factors of good work, according to 11 of the 13 interviewed, was making a decent hourly wage. Typically, a decent wage was considered to be anywhere from eight to ten dollars an hour.

To be financially stable without any help. I don't want help from the state or anything like that. Right now I could make it at $6.50 an hour you know and that would be tough so making $8.00 as the base pay will be pretty comfortable for me right now. [Camille]

$9.00 to $10.00 an hour, which is good. You know, it is a lot more than I ever made working at McDonalds. [Evelyn]

Because these women have struggled financially for most, if not all, of their lives, the stability of a paycheck offers them one less worry in their life. Thus, good work is work that relieves stress . Sheena and Shilea explained,

Good work means I wouldn't be worrying about if the rent's going to be paid this month. If rent's gonna be paid that month. You know, bills, stuff like that. If I had a good job where I could maintain. No worry, no stress. [Sheena]

I want to be in a good working place with benefits, insurance, you know, things like that. I'd like to have a better car than what I have now. I ain't gonna say worry free, but less worry, less stress. [Shilea]

Sue astutely recognized that perhaps her definition of good work is based on her impoverished life and her lack of having any experience with good work. She said, "Maybe my knowledge will go up and I'll think something different, but now it is just money."

More important than pay, however, was that good work involved doing something enjoyable. All 13 women were unanimous is saying that good work would be something that they enjoyed doing as explained by Lilly and Candy:

Getting the job done is important, but it is more important to be happy where you are at. That is just how I am. I don't want to be unhappy, I already did that before. [Lilly]

I worked at Covergirls [a local strip club]. Most people can't make $1400 in one day, but I did, but I hated it. So, I am not there. If I liked it, I would still be there, but I hated it. I've got to like what I'm doing to be happy. [Candy]

Part of enjoying what one does is having a healthy work environment, and several of the women pointed out that good work meant having an environment in which co-workers and bosses were likeable and the atmosphere at work was non-stressful.

Good work means friendly people where everyone gets along good. It is comfortable and relaxed. Dress comfortable and everybody just gets along with each other. [Katherine]

Good work would be a small dental office, very nice boss, and the other employees nice and easy to get along with and short hours. [Candy]

I would not want to work around anyone that was rude, or had apprehension about trying to train me because they feel like they are top dog and they don't have time for you. I would like to work in a fun atmosphere, kind of laid back. [Kippy]

In many ways good work was connected to their responsibilities as mothers; yet, unlike middle-class women who might see good work as work that allowed them flexible hours and flexible work sites so they can spend time with their children, good work for these women meant being able to provide for and support their family. It must be remembered that all of these women are the primary care givers for their children; most of them are single mothers, so the immediate need of taking care of their children financially seemed to take precedent over time spent with children.

I want to be able to work and make the money, you know, to be able to get my kids what they need or want, some things they want, but not everything. [Katherine]

I need something that can support me and my three kids and if that is nine months of school here to get me a good job when I get out, fine. I bite my tongue, and find the strength to do what I've got to do. [Sue]

Candy, who is married, was the only one who stated that a key feature of good work to her was having some time off (e.g., Wednesday and Friday afternoons) so that she could spend time with her son.

For about half the women, good work meant having benefits. Here, benefits related solely to medical insurance. Not one of the women mentioned retirement benefits, paid vacations, life insurance, or any other commonly thought about components of job benefits. Since several women suffered from various health problems, medical insurance was a number one priority. Evelyn, who has Chrones' disease, was very vocal in her having to have benefits for a good job:

I will not take a job if there are no benefits. I don't care if it pays the highest salary in the world, if it does not have medical … I don't care about paid vacations or any of that. It could pay $1000 a day but if it does not have medical, I am not taking it. If something happened to my children, where would I be. If they did not have workers comp, I would not take it. My health and my children's health are more important than the highest paid salary because without that, the job is just not worth it.

Good work also meant having some kind of skill that would make one marketable, thus leading to stable work. Having a skill meant that if fired, she could get another job because she had a skill that was needed in the workplace.

I want a skill, something to make me feel proud of myself like I know a little more than most. [Kippy]

I want to do something, something good, something meaningful. I don't want to work at McDonalds or Wal-Mart. I want to have a job that I have skills in that I can go and find another job if I lose that job. Where I can make money to support myself and my children. [Lizze]

Interestingly, Janice, who desired to be a drug counselor, was the only woman who felt that having a college degree was imperative for good work.

I would hope to be sitting in my own office with my degree up on the wall for counseling and have made it through this school and to get my counseling degree will definitely be more school. At least 4 more years.

Sally felt that having some marketable skills meant the difference between having a "pity job" (which someone just give you to help you out) and a job where employees were in a more reciprocal relationship with their employer.

Just give me something to do. You got those files, then I will do it. You want these phone calls made, I can do that. Just make sure that I have something to do. Make sure that you are not just giving me this just to give me something, that I am doing something that will help you.

A few of these women felt that the particular skill that was needed in order to get good work was technological skill. For example, Sheena felt that having the word technology in her job title would enhance people's perceptions of her. She stated, "I like it because of the title, technology. It'll make me feel important, technology. What do you do? I work in technology." Similarly, Janice believed that computer literacy was imperative for good work.

I don't know of any job from flipping hamburgers to attorney's office that they do not use computers and with any field I choose to go into, which I want to get my counseling degree, you need to know about computers.

She goes on to talk about how being computer illiterate put her at a disadvantage in her previous job situation. She believed that having computer skills would enhance her self-confidence:

When my life started going downhill was when computers were first coming out into the work field and that is kind of when I walked away from work, from a job. Any kind of job, work, it is hard, you know , without computers. So, I am just trying to get the basics, just understand the computer and get as much education in computering as I can.

A few equated good work as having some kind of power or authority. Lizze explained that she wanted to be a juvenile probation officer because of the power, "I want to tell them, you got to do this. Some people, it would make me feel good. Kind of like DHS. They have the power." Similarly, Evelyn asserted,

I want my own office by myself in a nice setting and nice salary. Not like a secretary, like a business manager. Not at like McDonalds, any kind of company like a travel agency, having that authority, I don't know…more like an assistant manager.

Sally reflected an understanding of good work that seems typified in such movies as "Baby Boom" and "Working Girl" in which the woman executive wears the power suit and has some authority while still retaining her good looks. "A good job would be to put my hair up…with my business suit. Be one person at work then get off and be another."

Most of these women, in talking about their prior work experience, stated that they had never actually experienced good work as described above. Only Sherry talked about a personal work experience that she felt was an example of good work. This was her experience working in a factory in which she experienced several components of what others have talked about being good work: decent pay, personal satisfaction, and the respect of co-workers. She explained,

If the machine didn't tear up as much as it did, I would have probably could have done it for years and years with the money going up. So, if the money kept going up and up and up, and my health wasn't bad, I would have been still there. I put my headphones on, nobody bothered me, I was to myself all day, and do my job, and that was it. They liked me, they respected me very well, because nobody else wanted to do the job, and I was the fastest one at doing the job. I felt good at doing the job.

Bad Work

Throughout the study-in interviews, field observations, and focus groups-work at McDonald's or "flipping burgers" was used as a metaphor for bad work. This is interesting in light of the fact that service sector jobs, like at McDonald's, are the fastest growing segment of employment in this country ( Apple, 1998 ). Yet, women in this study did not view McDonald's type of work as desirable. They felt it epitomized bad work because it was low-pay, low-skill, and menial:

I want to do something, something good, something meaningful. I don't want to work at McDonalds or Wal-Mart. [Lizze]

I would be bitter too, if I worked at McDonalds. [Candy]

I am grateful for this opportunity. This has given me the time to get my life back on track. If I went to work, I just, I mean anybody can go to McDonald's and flip hamburgers. That is not what I want for myself and my daughter. [Jancie]

I don't like McDonalds and all them people. You don't get paid that much to put up with all that crap. It's hard work for low pay. I've got friends that work there, and she said you're looked at like a little cockroach. [Lizze]

Bad work would be some type of hard labor or McDonalds or a Burger King. I would feel like I wasted my time if I got a job like that. I wouldn't belong there. I like to have some people contact, but I don't like to feel like I am waiting on them. [Evelyn]

Not surprisingly, responses about bad work were often centered on issues of low pay. For example, Katherine stated, "I need to make $5.00 or $6.00 an hour. They still give minimum wage for low paying jobs. I can't live on, say, $3.00 an hour. I can't live on that. I can't raise any kids on that, there just ain't no way." Similarly, Lizze asserted, "I thought I would be able to make it on my own, but $5.50 is not anything with kids."

However, a hostile work environment was cited more often than low pay as being indicative of bad work. Unfair bosses, petty co-workers, unhealthy work, and long hours were all factors that lead to a job being categorized as bad work.

Bad work is bad pay, bad boss that is mean to you, long hours [weekends or nights], other people at work are hard to get along with. Just something where you dread getting up and going. [Candy]

Bad work is working with people that don't like you. I don't know what kind of job. I don't think there is a bad job. If you need a job you are going to take it. [Sue]

Get $5.50 an hour, everybody fights and talks behind everybody's back and no one gets along and someone is stealing in the office. I would consider that bad work. [Lizze]

Many of these women had resigned themselves to the fact that bad work was an inevitable part of their life as explained by Shilea, who talked about the job she currently has as being bad work but as essential to her livelihood and something about which she has little choice.

I've done too much of that [bad work]. Like right now, I'm making too much of bad work, but it's helping pay my bills. Rent and stuff, and it's taking care of the babies. I work at a janitorial service. I go at night and I clean this building. I clean the outer side. Somebody cleans the inside, and if they're not there, I do their part.

Although many supported of the welfare-to-work legislation might argue that bad work eventually leads to good work if the individual is motivated and hard working, these women did not express the belief that bad work can lead to good work. This was probably due to the fact that in their own experiences working at various jobs they never moved into good work. Rather, more often than not, they lost their jobs long before they could prove they had the right stuff to deserve the chance to experience good work. Sue, for example, was working in a travel agency, which she liked. However, when she became pregnant she was fired. Later, she was hired at a tanning salon but soon lost her job when her child became ill. Although Tracy, the job coordinator for the LOW program, contends that "we are all captains of our own ships," most of these women do not feel so optimistic. As Sue poignantly commented, "I don't think there's a bad job. If you need a job, you are going to take it." Obviously, the luxury to choose a job based on whether it is good or bad work is not one that many TANF clients have.

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to define the meaning of good work from the perspectives of TANF clients. Kincheloe (1999) speaks of the need for such definitions, "If schools and workplaces are to contribute to the reinvention of democracy and challenge the antidemocratic tendencies of the contemporary era, good work must be carefully defined and pursued" (p. 65). According to women in this study, good work includes the following five characteristics:

1. Self-sufficiency and a decent wage
2. Intrinsic value
3. A healthy work environment and workmate cooperation
4. The ability to care for one's children
5. Benefits

As articulated by TANF participants, good work must include the principle of being able to live life without financially struggling. All participants agreed that good work meant decent pay. Kincheloe (1999) , in his 10 characteristics of good work, placed "better pay for workers" as his tenth characteristic. He noted, "Obviously good work cannot tolerate the obscene differences between management and worker pay" (p. 69). He then discussed corporate profits and managerial slashing of labor costs. No other mention is made of the basic premise that good work means good pay. For women in this study, living day-to-day without knowing if rent can be paid or clothes for their children can be bought is part of their lived reality. Thus, they are in search of jobs with decent wage.

A second principle articulated by study participants is that good work must be personally satisfying. TANF clients spoke of such things as being happy with what they were doing and being good at what they do. Kincheloe (1999) did not talk directly about good work as being work that is personally satisfying, but he did allude to an element of enjoyment and happiness in several of his characteristics of good work. For example, he noted that good work should incorporate elements of play. However, his notion of play centers on freedom and fairness rather than play as something that is enjoyed and makes one happy. He also noted that good work should allow for expression of self. He particularly talked about good work as involving creativity, but he goes on to say that "a critical definition of output would not be complete until it included concerns with the intrinsic satisfaction of work, the economic security of workers, and the role of work in the workers' pursuit of happiness" (p. 67). Clearly, the participants in this study believe that at the heart of good work is that it fulfills their intrinsic needs as well as extrinsic needs.

A third principle of good work is that good work means being involved in a healthy work environment where people work with each other rather than against each other. Kincheloe (1999) agreed that one characteristic of good work is that of workmate cooperation. Whereas Kincehloe saw this as a group of workers putting aside their own needs and engaging in the intellectual process of "sit[ting] down together, exchange[ing] information, and discuss[ing] the nature and purpose of their work" (p. 66), women in this study view a healthy work environment as one in which people are comfortable with one another.

A fourth consideration is that good work is integrally connected to being able to care for both the physical and emotional needs of one's children. Unlike Dr. Laura and others who view good work as taking care of one's children at home, participants did not talk about good work in terms of actual time spent with their children. Rather, they spoke of good work as giving them power to care for their children in terms of basic needs such as clothing, medical care, health benefits, and a few luxuries (e.g., a bike). Deprez (1998) articulated this contradiction.

It seems particularly odd to me that at the same time welfare for poor women and their children is getting the old heave-ho, right-wing papers such as the Wall Street Journal are on a crusade to encourage middle class women to stay home and take care of their kids because it is good for the children to have a mother at home for the first few years. And also because it is a "natural instinct" for women to care deeply about their children. Well, I guess they think poor kids and poor women are exempt from these realities. Perhaps they think it is perfectly okay for poor children to come home to an empty house, but rich kids and nannies are in danger. (p. 26)

Kincheloe (1999) made no mention of the connection of good work and children. However, for these women, the primary providers for their children, good work is tied to their children, albeit in different ways than the middle class.

The last characteristic of good work is having benefits, particularly medical insurance. Many of the women in this study suffer from poor health. Thus, they recognize the importance of being able to care for their own and their children's immediate health needs. Again, Kincheloe (1999) makes no mention of good work being tied to access to benefits. Since these women are the primary care givers for themselves and their children, taking care of the physical needs of their family is paramount to considerations of good work.

Most of the characteristics of good work espoused by Kincheloe (1999) were missing in TANF recipients' and their teachers' and administrators' understandings about the meaning of good work. Kincheloe asserted that good work means being one's own boss or being free from the "tyranny of authoritative power" (p. 67). None of the participants expressed a notion of good work as being free from the "humiliation of supervision that holds them under suspicion and surveillance" (p. 65), although three women did note that good work meant having some power and authority. Typically, however, this power was conceptualized not as being the boss per se but as being the bosses' secretary. One might propose that because TANF clients are so indoctrinated into the idea of being a good worker (i.e., taking orders from someone else) that they cannot imagine themselves as people with power.

Also absent from their discussion of good work is the idea that the workplace is a place of learning and that good work should contribute to the public good. One could certainly argue that Kincehloe's (1999) explanation of contributing to the social good is very much reflective of a white liberal position in which one has the luxury to think about work in terms of such questions as "Do the goods being produced serve human needs?" and "Do they [goods produced] meet the criteria of permanence, healthiness, and artistic and creative integrity" (pp. 66-67). The TANF women I studied have struggled their entire lives to satisfy the most basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing, and do not view good work as serving the more abstract principle of service to the common good.

Kincheloe (1999) talked about bad work in terms of esoteric ideological assumptions that include such principles as bad work as "the supremacy of systems-efficiency and cost-benefits analysis models, or the effectiveness of standardized inputs in the quest for agreed-upon outputs" (p. 71). Women in this study responded much more concretely when explaining their perceptions of bad work. Bad work was the opposite of all the characteristics of good work. To put it succinctly, working at McDonalds epitomizes bad work. Bad work is low skilled, low level, low paying, and unsatisfying work in an unhealthy, stressful, contentious environment. Unfortunately, as much of the research on welfare reform is telling us, McDonald-type jobs (i.e., low paid, low skilled) are the most prevalent kinds of work welfare recipients are finding.

Implications for Vocational and Adult Education

Under the new legislation, education and training for welfare recipients consists primarily of short-term training programs and brief on the job training sessions ( Hayes, 1999 ). Hence, education becomes a secondary consideration. The focus for preparing people for work in a short time has now fallen to vocational technical schools and adult education centers; thus, adult and vocational educators must take a lead in implementing educational programs that promote "good work." This involves working diligently with policy makers to ensure more time for TANF recipients to spend gaining the education they need for good work.

Additionally, adult and vocational educators involved in TANF educational programs must challenge the banking model of education by formulating curriculum and practices that encourage students to be reflective thinkers, critical and ethical decision makers, and community builders. This will entail, in many instances, changing pedagogical approaches. Grubb (1996) indicates that there are two dominant pedagogical approaches in teaching workplace literacy. The most common approach is a teacher-centered, teacher-directed approach. This approach has a long-standing tradition in U.S. education. Certainly, when workers were organized around Frederick Taylor's theory of scientific management, this type of didactic instruction might be rationalized as an appropriate way of inducting students into a culture of work. However, as Grubb pointed out, worksites are slowing changing, and with the influx of "Work First" workers coming into the workplace, a different way of teaching needs to be employed. The second way of teaching workplace literacy seeks to accommodate the changing worksite by offering instruction based on a student-centered, constructivist model of pedagogy. Yet, constructivism void of the purpose of social change is limiting. Adult and vocational educators involved in TANF programs must take seriously Dewey's (1916) assertion that "it is the aim of progressive education to take part in correcting unfair privilege and unfair deprivation, not to perpetuate them" (p. 13). The challenge then for adult and vocational educators is to assist TANF recipients in attaining not only the technical skills needed for good work but also the critical skills needed to participate in a true democratic citizenship. Adult and vocational educators face many challenges in trying to integrate critical literacy with the skills needed to perform a particular job. Curriculum planners for TANF programs must be able to demonstrate how the teach of liberatory skills will benefit employers in ways in which they can understand, such as lower absenteeism, higher morale, and increased productivity.

Public dialogue is essential if we are going to be a country that believes all must and should engage in good work rather than simply work. Such dialogue, however, must include TANF recipients themselves. Research such as that cited in this study adds to this dialogue by not only including the voices of TANF recipients who have much to say about welfare-to-work, but also problematizing the meaning of work so that discussions surrounding welfare reform might shift from welfare-to-work to welfare-to-good work.

References

Abramovitz, M. (1996) . Regulating the lives of women . Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Abramovitz, M. (2000) . Under attack, fighting back: Women and welfare in the United States . New York: Monthly Review Press.

Albelda, R. (1999) . What welfare reform has wrought? Dollars & Sense , 221, 15-17.

Anderson, G. (1989) . Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new directions. Review of Educational Research , 59, 249-270.

Apple, M. W. (1998) . Teaching and technology: The hidden effects of computers on teachers and students. In M. Apple & D. Noble (Ed.), The curriculum: Problems, politics, and possibilities (pp. 314-336). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Agron, J., & Kennedy, M. (1999). Bridging the digital divide . American School and University.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992) . Qualitative research for education . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976) . Schooling in capitalist America . New York: Basic Books.

Cohen, A. (1998, July 13) . Dressed for success. Time (2), 38-39.

Dewey, J. (1916) . Democracy in education . New York: The Free Press.

Deprez, L. (1998) . Classist conceptions of dependency and conservative attacks on poor women with children. In K. Rhoades & A. Statham (Eds.), Speaking out: Women, poverty, and public policy (pp. 23-34). Madison: University of Wisconsin System Women's Studies Librarian.

Freedman, S., Mitchell, M., & Navarro, D. (1999, July). The Los Angeles work first GAIN evaluation: First-year findings on participation patterns and impacts . MDRC.

Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed . New York: Herder & Herder.

Gregson, J. (1994). From critical theory to critical practice: Transformative vocational classrooms. In R. Lakes (Ed.), Critical education for work (pp. 161-180). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hayes, E. (1999) . Policy issues that drive the transformation of adult literacy. In L. Martin & J. Fisher (Eds.), The welfare-to-work challenge for adult literacy educators: New directions for adult and continuing education . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kincheloe, J. (1999) . How do we tell the workers: The socioeconomic foundations of work and vocational education . Boulder, CO: Westview.

Lakes, R. (1994). From critical theory to critical practice: Transformative vocational classrooms. In R. Lakes (Ed.), Critical education for work (pp. 161-180). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

MDRC. (2001) . Is work enough: The experiences of current and former welfare mothers who work .

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1995) . Designing qualitative research . Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCallum, H. (1998) . The ideological foundations of the TANF welfare rules. In K. Rhoades & A. Statham (Ed.), Speaking out: Women, poverty, and public policy (pp. 45-56). Proceedings of the 23rd Women's Studies Conference. Madison: University of Wisconsin System Women's Studies Librarian.

Merriam, S. (1998) . Qualitative research and case study applications in education . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Newman, K. (1999) . No shame in my game: The working poor in the inner city . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ritzer, G. (1977) . Working: Conflict and change . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Schultz, K. (1997) . Discourses of workplace education: A challenge to the new orthodoxy. In G. Hull (Ed.), Changing work, changing workers: Critical perspectives on language, literacy, and skills (pp. 43-83). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Thompson, T. (1998, September 21) . Don't punish success. USA Today , p.22.

Acknowledgement

I would like to acknowledge Dr. James A. Gregson for all of his support and help in preparing this publication.

JAMES H. ADAMS is Assistant Professor, Department of Instructional Systems and Workforce Development, Mississippi State University, P. O. Box 9730, Mississippi State, MS 39762. e-mail: jadams@colled.msstate.ed