Shelly Arsneault

Views from the Frontline

Abstract Through in-depth interviews, Kentucky welfare case managers compare their experiences working under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) with their experiences working under Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Interviewees unanimously agreed that TANF is more ambiguous, complex, and stressful than AFDC, both for clients and managers. Although case managers embrace the self-sufficiency goals of TANF, the strict work requirements, overwhelming paperwork and limited education and training opportunities create conflicting goals and barriers that frustrate case managers, leading to suggestions of a return to some rules of AFDC while retaining the TANF goal of independence from the welfare system.

Implementing Welfare Reform in Rural and Urban Communities Why Place Matters

This piece argues that the very nature of rural poverty and the communities in which the rural poor live influence the administration of welfare programs that were designed to address urban poverty. Using in-depth interviews with case managers in urban and rural Kentucky along with statisticalanalysis from Kentuckys 120 counties, this study shows the very real challenges faced by administrators and highlights the challenges faced in both rural and urban communities. Importantly for public administration, resource constraints, the number of clientele served, geographic distances, and sense of community differently affect the implementation of welfare policy by place. The author suggests that because of the unique aspects of rural poverty, the welfare poor in rural communities may be best served by rules that emphasize local program variation.

Blurred Lines: Preparing Students to Work across the Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Sectors

This symposium of the Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE), “Blurred Lines: Preparing Students to Work Across the Public, Nonprofit, and For-Profit Sectors,” is the result of on going conversations about the role of the nonprofit sec tor in identifying public policy problems, for mulating policy solutions, and implementing public programs. In Managing Nonprofit Organ izations in a Policy World (Vaughan & Arsneault, 2014), we took up the issue of blurred lines in the final chapter, “Looking Forward.” Due to fac tors such as the dramatic growth in the size and scope of the nonprofit sector, the expanding emphasis on social responsibility within the for-profit sector, and the increasing reliance on these two sectors by government agencies, the lines between the sectors have increasingly blurred. In “Looking Forward” we explored the rise in social enterprise and venture philanthropy that blurs the lines between nonprofit and for-profit endeavors, as well as the growing use of nonprofit organizations to fill public sector gaps in areas as diverse as education, state parks, and information technology for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

A Core Issue: The Inseparable Relationship between Nonprofits and Public Policy

Graduates of nonprofit management and public administration programs face a workplace increasingly dominated by complex relationships between government, nonprofit, and for-profit entities. Nonprofit organizations and public policy cannot be understood independently of one another. To assess the role of nonprofits in the policy curriculum, we reviewed 12 public policy textbooks and 143 syllabi from graduate-level public policy courses taught at Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration-accredited programs to assess the extent to which nonprofits are incorporated. Nonprofit organizations deserve full integration into the core curriculum of Master of Public Administration (MPA) and Master of Public Policy (MPP) programs as essential actors in public administration and the policy process. Their ubiquity as policy partners, from problem recognition and advocacy to policy formation, implementation, and evaluation makes understanding nonprofit organizations crucial to the study and practice of public policy and administration.

The Price of Progressive Politics: The Welfare Rights Movement in an Era of Colorblind Racism

In The Tender Cut, Patricia Adler and Peter Adler present the largest, to date, qualitative sociologically-grounded investigation of the lived experience of a non-clinical population of people who self-injure. Drawing on data from over 135 in-depth life history interviews, the authors go beyond the interpersonal and psychological dynamics behind the ‘‘self-injurer’’ to examine the larger world that situates, provokes, and even reinforces the need to engage in self-injury for people who clearly are not a homogeneous population. The social transformation of the practice of self-injury as it has increased in social acceptability and moved beyond the act of an isolated individual to that of a person embedded in a ‘‘real’’ or cyber community (where they note it is still possible for a self-injurer to feel excluded) is documented, as well as the self-presentation of self-injurers on the internet (e.g., the roles different people take in the groups) and the relationships between people who self-injure. The patience, empathy, and understanding of the authors is also evident as they neither demonize the act, nor stigmatize or alienate those who shared their stories; rather they expose in a dignified manner the turmoil, angst, fear, impulsivity, ritual, stress and pain, among other factors, behind the act of self-injury. The strengths of the book are multifold. Adler and Adler present self-injury (broadly defined to include behaviors such as cutting, burning, hair pulling, picking, and bone breaking) as a way some people cope with the challenges, stresses, and difficulties they experience in life. They explain that there is no typical self-injurer or typical start to the injurious career; the only commonality among many self-injurers is the experience of stress. They note the role of social living and personal experiences or exposure in the instigation of the self-injurious career. The authors also take into account how selfinjuring has moved from a psychological ‘‘disorder’’ into a learned social trend— a ‘‘sociological occurrence’’ (p. 3) situated in subcultures and, even at times, resembling a ‘‘fad.’’ It is established, via sampling a ‘‘sociological population’’ of self-injurers that ranged from youths to persons in their mid-fifties, that self-injury is more common among the population than the authors initially anticipated. They noted similarities and differences between the struggles of self-injurers across all ages and described the increased alienation felt by older selfcutters, as the normative attitude suggests these older self-cutters should have ‘‘grown out of it’’ (p. 34). Theoretically, the manuscript adds support to the feminist critique of the medical model’s ‘‘disempowerment of self-injurers,’’ theoretically addresses the gendered context in which self-injury is framed, and expands interactionist and other theoretical views. Although methodologically strong, the authors do not provide an overview of the demographics of their sample. Given that the experiences of people who self-injure appear, on many levels, to parallel those of people who self-harm through other means or use other negative coping behaviors (e.g., alcoholics, drug users, bulimics, anorexics, etc.) and that some interviewees were noted to practice other negative coping behaviors, extended reporting of demographics could assist the reader to substantiate the sample. Moreover, providing additional information on these explicit factors may clarify what aspects of the self-injurer experience result from their injurious career, or if some part of their experience or motivation to continue to self-injure is more appropriately viewed as a consequence of other negative coping mechanisms. The weakest point of the book is the lack of an explicitly embodied analysis of self-injury. The reader is left wondering how the scaring