Broke people, broken rules: Explaining welfare fraud investigators’ attributions

There is a notable contrast between welfare clients’ and welfare fraud investigators’ accounts of rule breaking behaviors. Clients describe some actions (or inactions) that constitute rule violations as accidental, and tend to attribute others to situational factors: program rules’ complexity, the e...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Headworth, Spencer (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Published: 2021
In: Punishment & society
Year: 2021, Volume: 23, Issue: 1, Pages: 24-46
Online Access: Volltext (Resolving-System)
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Keywords:
Welfare
Intent
Fraud
Attribution

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1748353896
003 DE-627
005 20210216121748.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 210216s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1177/1462474520928131  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1748353896 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1748353896 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Headworth, Spencer  |e VerfasserIn  |0 (DE-588)1172005885  |0 (DE-627)1040832431  |0 (DE-576)513944400  |4 aut 
109 |a Headworth, Spencer 
245 1 0 |a Broke people, broken rules: Explaining welfare fraud investigators’ attributions 
264 1 |c 2021 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a There is a notable contrast between welfare clients’ and welfare fraud investigators’ accounts of rule breaking behaviors. Clients describe some actions (or inactions) that constitute rule violations as accidental, and tend to attribute others to situational factors: program rules’ complexity, the exigencies of day-to-day subsistence, and time and energy limitations. Fraud investigators, on the other hand, are comparatively likely to identify rule breaking as deliberate and cite clients’ dispositions to explain the behavior. In part, this disparity reflects the “fundamental attribution error,” the tendency to overestimate dispositional factors’ role in driving others’ behavior. However, evidence from interviews with welfare fraud workers from five US states reveals the impactful administrative and normative factors that encourage them to make and assert attributions of intentionality and dispositional motivation. First, administrative priorities foreground intentional violations: federal authorities financially incentivize deliberate fraud charges, and managers favor these cases, which permit client suspensions and disqualifications. Second, emphasizing internal motivations over situational pressures serves a valuable normative function, establishing punished clients’ blameworthiness and thus defending the legitimacy of both individual fraud workers and the units they compose. These findings demonstrate how policy structures and enforcement practices do not just respond to blameworthy or legally culpable behavior, but help construct narratives of blameworthiness and culpability. 
650 4 |a Welfare 
650 4 |a Intent 
650 4 |a Fraud 
650 4 |a Attribution 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Punishment & society  |d London [u.a.] : Sage, 1999  |g 23(2021), 1, Seite 24-46  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)302467211  |w (DE-600)1491224-7  |w (DE-576)079719708  |x 1741-3095  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:23  |g year:2021  |g number:1  |g pages:24-46 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474520928131  |x Resolving-System  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
936 u w |d 23  |j 2021  |e 1  |h 24-46 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 3855282560 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1748353896 
LOK |0 005 20210216061544 
LOK |0 008 210216||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)KrimDok#2021-02-15#22ECCE44FA789B9C4A2E6163BB5C4401C85DC575 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw