Rescuing Children and Punishing Poor Families: Housing Related Decisions

Authors

Corey Shdaimah, University of Maryland

Keywords

Adequate housing, poor families, child welfare, housing conditions, institutional mandates, child welfare professionals

Abstract

Child welfare policy is not self implementing; an understanding of child welfare policy must therefore include the decision making practices by those whom Michael Lipsky (1980) has called "streetlevel bureaucrats." This article reports data from a qualitative study exploring perceptions of child welfare professionals about housing-related child welfare decisions. Interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 18 child welfare lawyers, judges, and masters level social workers from a large city in the mid-Atlantic U.S. All agreed that there is insufficient affordable adequate housing. They held conflicting views, however, on: 1) the standard for adequate housing in the absence of a clear legal definition; 2) who should be held responsible for housing that is deemed inadequate; and 3) the consequences of housing conditions for supervised children and their families. Rationales for decision-making stem from contested understandings of responsibility and the role of the state as protector of vulnerable children. These, in turn, appear to be influenced by a combination of individual factors, including personal values, ideology and life experiences; a response in the face of limited resources and conflicting mandates common to street-level bureaucracy; and professional and institutional mandates that are perceived to proscribe behaviors and activities.

Recommended Citation

Shdaimah, Corey (2009) "Rescuing Children and Punishing Poor Families: Housing Related Decisions," The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 36: Iss. 3, Article 3.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15453/0191-5096.3449
Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol36/iss3/3