ARE YOU BEING SERVED?

A DSHS REPORT CARD

2009-2010
 An Independent Report Card for
Community Organizations in Washington State:

Customer Service, Accessibility and Confidentiality at

DSHS Community Service Offices

March 2011

Prepared by:

Dr. Rose Ernst, Seattle University

Linda Nguyen
Kamilah C. Taylor
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................3

2. METHODS............................................................................................................................5

3. GENERAL FINDINGS..........................................................................................................8

4. OFFICE SPACE: ACCESSIBILITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY..........................................9

5. PHONE SERVICES: ACCESSIBILITY AND INFORMATION..........................................16

6. CUSTOMER SERVICE: INFORMATION AND TREAMENT...........................................20

7. IN PURSUIT OF RESPECT AND DIGNITY: RECOMMENDATIONS...........................33

8. APPENDIX: RESEARCH PROTOCOLS............................................................................36

9.EXPLANATORY NOTES.....................................................................................................39

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................41

1
 Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services
•Excellence in service
•Respect
•Collaboration and partnership
•Diversity
•Accountability

2
1. INTRODUCTION

Washington State residents are facing hard times. Programs for the most vulnerable in
Washington State are being slashed by state government at the very moment that they
are most urgently needed. During a rough economic period, it is easy to be thankful for
any services provided by the government. We believe, however, that this is precisely the
time to ask the hard questions about the ways in which “the people” are treated by their
government: when they are most vulnerable. One of the most important government
institutions in this regard is the Department Social and Health Services. According to
DSHS, “over 2.1 million people—one‐third of the state’s residents—receive services from
DSHS” (2010). Given its mandate and size, DSHS represents one of the key ways our
state government is supposed to serve the people.

According to DSHS, “over 2.1 million people—one‐third of

the state’s residents—receive services from DSHS”

We ask a series of questions in this report designed to study if DSHS enacts its own
core values in regards to the point at which all residents can access its services. When
you walk through the doors of a local Community Service Office, the main point of
physical entry for those encountering DSHS, what is your experience? Are you treated
with dignity? Are you given the information you need in order to make the best choices
for you and your family? Are you treated differently because of your perceived racial
identity? If the residents of this state are not able to answer in the affirmative to these
questions, then we have to ask if the state is being accountable to its citizenry. This re-
port card offers a starting point for this discussion. We also offer specific recommenda-
tions at the end of this report.

3
For Communities
Our hope for the results of this report is twofold. First, we offer this report to all of
the communities working for racial, economic and social justice around the state. We
know that every community knows its needs the best, but we hope this will shine a
light on the most basic right to human dignity and access to services in our compari-
son of offices in different regions of the state. We hope this report will be useful to
you in advocating for better treatment and services from local and state government
and will provoke conversations about the role of state agencies such as DSHS in help-
ing or hindering community social justice efforts.

The conditions we describe in this report demand action on the part of

state officials and DSHS administrators.

For Administrators and Elected Officials

Second, we hope that state officials, from DSHS administrators, to the Governor, to
the state Legislature, take this report to heart. The conditions we describe in this re-
port demand action on the part of state officials and DSHS administrators. Our
report indicates that DSHS is failing to enact its own core values in regards to
Community Service Offices. While we know times are tight at DSHS, we argue that
many of the most pressing issues around fair treatment will cost the state very little.
Therefore, in the conclusion to this report, we offer specific suggestions for addressing
these failures.

4
2. METHODS
This report includes different ways of measuring the overall experience of people entering CSOs for
services and information, as well as differences between individuals and DSHS regions. The follow-
ing is a sample of the questions we used to understand what individuals experience when they try to
access services and information at all DSHS CSOs:
CSO Accessibility and Information
• Is this office easily accessible by car and/or public transportation?
• Is the office accessible by wheelchair?
• Does the office have required DSHS informational materials? Is this information provided in
more than one language?
• Are there clear instructions about how to get assistance? Is this provided in more than one
language?
• Is the office designed so individual-staff interactions are confidential?
• Is there a way for you to provide confidential feedback about their experience at the office?
• Are you able to ask for information without a social security number?
• Are office hours clearly posted? Are there drop boxes for confidential forms (after hours)?

COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICE LOCATIONS, 2009 &

TANF CLIENT DENSITY, 2008

Source: Modified DSHS TANF client map (DSHS, 2008)

5
Staff-Individual Interactions
• If you ask for information about services provided by DSHS, how much and what kind of
information do you receive?
• Are staff members professional, patient and willing to explain services?1
• Do staff members explain your rights and responsibilities as a client of DSHS?
• Do individuals of different racial and/or ethnic backgrounds experience any of the above
interaction questions in a different way?
• Do non-native English speakers and/or those who do not speak English experience any of
the above interaction questions in a different way?
• Do staff members understand individuals’ limited access to internet and computers for ap
plication of services?
Phone Services
• Is it possible to call your local CSO? Are you able to leave a message there to ask a general
question? Are there any non-English options?
• What information do staff give over the phone about what services are available for adults
and children who are undocumented?
The first two components of the project include visits to all 542 CSOs in Washington State between July
2009 and December 2009, in addition to the phone survey in 2010.3 We used an “audit” study, com-
monly used to track differences between treatments of individuals based on race, to collect data about the
second component about staff-individual interactions at the office. DSHS was not notified of these visits
in order to protect the integrity of the data collected. These data were collected in two different stages that
we explain below:
• Four women, African American, Asian American, Latina4 and White American visited
all of the offices together, though at spaced intervals.
o We each asked for information about programs/services provided and instructions for application
to programs.
o We were often able to witness one another’s interaction with staff.
o We independently wrote our observations about the information provided, questions asked of us,
and the general tone of the interaction.
o After finishing these notes, we collectively discussed the interactions we witnessed in order to cali-
brate our observations and look for possible patterns (if any) between office visit interactions.

• These four co-investigators also sat in the CSOs and collected data about other staff-
individual interactions, noting the following:
o General tone of interaction (e.g. level of voice, body language)
o The race and/or ethnicity of the individual asking for help—when we could determine this. These
data, while less precise than those gathered in the investigator interactions above, provided a larger
data set of interactions.
6
 FEDERALLY RECOGNIZEDTRIBES AND DSHS REGION MAP

Data Limitations
The goal of this study is to provide information about the ways in which residents of the state of Washing-
ton experience DSHS. The data collected about accessibility are easily verifiable through office visits. The
other two components of the study, individual-staff interactions and phone services, are obviously taken at
a particular point in time, and reflect many different variables not considered in this study. Nevertheless,
when we aggregate the data we collected, there are certain patterns that emerge in terms of the perceived
identity of individuals asking DSHS for assistance. While we recognize the necessary limitations of this
study (for example, one visit to each office), we hope this data will provoke much-needed discussion about
the ways in which CSOs treat individuals who, by virtue of living and paying taxes in the state of Washing-
ton, pay DSHS employees’ salaries.
Report Card Methodology
For ease of comparison, we use a “report card” method5 to “grade” regional offices and DSHS services in
general. We use a standard grade scale to convert percentages into letter grades. For example, if 70% of of-
fices in a particular region offer transportation information, we give that region a grade of a “C” (or aver-
age). This provides an efficient way to view the data and look for places for improvement.
Report Card Grades
A 90-100%
B 80-89
C 70-79
D 60-69
F Below 60

7
3. GENERAL FINDINGS

There is significant variance between DSHS regions in terms of accessibility. These

findings, however, do not erase the fact that the overall grade on a range of measures
included in this report card is an ‘F’. The highlights include the following: parking accessibil-
ity and the ability to ask a question without a social security number.6 Required materials, general
accessibility, confidentiality, quality/quantity of information received and general treatment were
among the areas that need immediate attention.

There is significant variance between DSHS regions in terms of

accessibility. These findings, however, do not erase the fact that the
overall grade on a range of measures included in this report card is an
‘F’.

Table 1. REPORT CARD: GENERAL FINDINGS

Grade

Accessibility
Traveling to the Office D
Offices Meeting Physical Navigation Requirements F
Offices Meeting Navigation Requirements F
Offices with Basic Language Requirements F

Confidentiality
Confidentiality Assured F
Able to Talk to Staff without Social Security Number D

Information and Treatment

Professional Demeanor D
Received information about Cash, Food and Medical F

8
 4. OFFICE SPACE:
ACCESSIBILITY & CONFIDENTIALITY

The Final Grade for Office Space: F

How accessible are CSOs to individuals without cars? How accessible are they for the physical-
ly challenged? How do individuals figure out how to access information once inside? Does the
potential client have an expectation of confidential conversations based on the organization
of the office? These are some of the questions we asked about the physical spaces of Community
Service Offices in Washington. We broadly divide our findings into two categories: accessibility and
confidentiality. The former represents the majority of the data collected. We provide an overview of
these findings below.

Table 2. Composite Score for All Accessibility Categories

Percentage Grade
Region 1 36.6% F
Region 2 70.9 C
Region 3 50.5 F
Region 4 48.8 F
Region 5 47.0 F
Region 6 46.2 F
Average 50.0 F

Final Grade for Office Space: F

9
DSHS CLIENTS BY REGION, 2008

Source: DSHS, RDA, 2010

10
 Accessibility
1. Traveling to the Office: Grade D

This category includes the factors over which DSHS has control in terms of office accessibility.
Because bus accessibility is not fully under the control of DSHS, we evaluated whether or not a
CSO had information about transportation available at the office (if the office was accessible by
public transportation).7

• 91% of offices had parking (including disabled) available near the office
• 93% of offices (55 total) were accessible by some form of public transportation
• 20% of offices that had transportation available had information available about
transportation options8
• Table 3 combines the above three measures

Table 3. Traveling to the Office: Accessibility Composite Score

Region Percentage Grade
Region 1 58.0% F
Region 2 77.8 C
Region 3 83.5 B
Region 4 63.7 D
Region 5 73.3 C
Region 6 61.9 D
Average 69.7 D

2. Physically Navigating the Office: Grade F

49% of offices were fully wheelchair-accessible, defined broadly by maneuverability and an
appropriate counter-height available for approaching the front desk (does not include bath-
room accessibility).
Table 4. Offices Meeting Physical Naviation Requirements
Region Percentage Grade
Region 1 15.4% F
Region 2 83.3 B
Region 3 75.0 C
Region 4 88.9 B
Region 5 40.0 F
Region 6 28.6 F
Average 55.2 F
11
 3. Navigating the Office for Assistance: Grade F
This section includes the resources needed to make an office visit successful from the perspective of
potential clients.
44% of offices have clear directions about
how to proceed once you enter the office.
Table 5. Offices Meeting Navigation Requirements
Region Percentage Grade
After Hours Options
Region 1 43.1% F • 67% have office hours posted outside the office (6%
Region 2 60.0 D have signs in Spanish)
Region 3 41.3 F
• 87% had a “drop box” for client paperwork inside
Region 4 29.1 F and/or outside the office
Region 5 45.1 F
• 45% have clearly marked drop boxes both inside and
Region 6 48.6 F
outside the office (accessible after hours)
Average 44.5 F
Customer Satisfaction Surveys Sign-in Procedures
(Required by DSHS) • 44% have clear directions about how to proceed once
• 2% of offices (1 office) had a survey form for this and a you enter the office
box in which to put the form
• 31% have clear and complete sign-in instructions in
Spanish
• 18% of offices had some combination of either a survey
(but no confidential box) or a box to place the survey, but • 18% have partial sign-in instructions in Spanish
no forms
• 5% have clear and complete sign-in instructions in
Russian
• 20% of the offices provided a venue for confidential
client feedback • 49% have sign-in instructions in a language other
than English

DSHS Required Materials Family Friendly?

• 78% had “Justice For All” poster in office
• 29% had a “civil rights” brochure about non-discrim-
ination policy (13% of these were only in English, the
remainder had brochures available in at least one other
language)
• 65% did not have the “touch” language poster for non-
English speakers
• 18% had “touch” language poster in a visible area • 85% offices have clear directions to the restroom
• 47% had “touch” poster in office, but not placed in a
visible or easily accessible area
• 36% of offices had at least one of the following: clean
toys, an area for children and/or a TV program playing
for children
• 20% were family friendly (had more than one of the
above)
• 58% had something for children to do while waiting
in office
Cleanliness and Hygiene
• 76% of restrooms had accessible diaper changers
• 65% of restrooms were generally clean (did not have
noticeable odors, dirt, dirty stalls or debris strewn in the
restroom)

12
 4. Language Navigation: Grade ‘F’

Immigrant Population (Percentage in Parenthesis & Change in Population of People of Color, 2000-2008

Source: Northwest Federation of Community Organizations, 2010.

Table 6. Offices Meeting Basic DSHS Alternative Lanugage Requirements

Region Percentage Grade
Region 1 35.9% F
Region 2 66.7 D
Region 3 27.8 F
Region 4 21.2 F
Region 5 26.7 F
Region 6 46.2 F
Average 37.4 F

Table 7. Types of Alternative Language Arrangements

Region Sign-In Instructions in Other Language Language Poster Language Poster visible
Region 1 30.8% 61.5% 15.4%
Region 2 66.7 100.0 33.3
Region 3 50.0 33.3 0.0
Region 4 9.1 54.5 0.0
Region 5 0.0 60.0 20.0
Region 6 38.5 64.3 35.7
Average 32.5 62.3 17.4

13
Confidentiality
1. Overall Confidentiality: Grade ‘F’
This is one of the most important aspects of physical office organization. Potential clients often have
highly sensitive information about domestic violence, child custody, income, assets and personal
identification information that may be revealed in their interactions with staff at the front desk.
In addition, the method of “sign-in” to get assistance may reveal sensitive information, including
names and social security numbers.

a. Staff-Individual Interactions: Grade ‘F’

Sometimes, clients were denied confidentiality simply because the waiting room was too small to
provide the space for confidential conversations. Other times, it was simply due to poor planning
on the part of office design. As our findings indicate, this area needs urgent attention.

Table 8. Complete Confidentiality Assured

Region Percentage Grade
Region 1 15.4% F
Region 2 50.0 F
Region 3 33.3 F
Region 4 0.0 F
Region 5 20.0 F
Region 6 7.1 F

Potential clients often have highly sensitive information about domestic

violence, child custody, income, assets and personal identification information
that may be revealed in their interactions with staff at the front desk.

Table 9. Levels of Confidentiality

Region No Confidentiality Partial Confidentiality Complete Confidentiality
Region 1 61.5% 23.1% 15.4%
Region 2 33.3 16.7 50.0
Region 3 33.3 33.3 33.3
Region 4 54.5 45.5 0.0
Region 5 60.0 20.0 20.0
Region 6 64.3 28.6 7.1
Average 60.0 29.1 16.4
N=55

14
 b. Social Security Identification: Grade “D”
When individuals enter the office, they must “sign in” to get assistance. This sign-in takes a number
of different forms, ranging from taking a number and waiting until it is called, to a relatively elabo-
rate computer sign-in procedure. Computerized sign-in procedures were by far the most common
and we expect them to become even more widespread in the future.
While the computerized sign-in has obvious benefits to staff (more knowledge about an indi-
vidual and what they might want), we actually found that from a potential client’s perspective,
it was not only more confusing (see previous discussion of this), but actually more problematic
from a confidentiality perspective and from an informational perspective. Here were the four
options for sign-in in different offices (sometimes a combination of these):
•Computer sign-in
•Take a number
•Sign a carbon copy slip of paper with information about why the individual is in the office
•Walk up to desk (in very small offices)
Obviously, the fourth option is the most helpful from an individual’s perspective. We recognize,
however, given the volume of people who visit the office every day, especially in urban areas, that
this is not possible. The “take a number” system, is more advantageous because:
(1) individual names are not called out over the loudspeaker so everyone in the office can hear,
and
(2) you do not accidentally get channeled into the wrong system because you did not under-
stand the sign-in options (this happened to us quite frequently, as discussed above) and
(3) you do not have to enter your social security number or “client ID number” (which we did
not have because we were new to the office). This last point is the most important for confiden-
tiality and access for services.
Table 10, below, indicates the number of times an individual could sign in without providing a so-
cial security number (often signaled by telling individuals that they could enter a series of zeros into
the computer.

Table 10. Able to Talk to Staff without Social Security Number

Region Percentage Grade
Region 1 46.2% F
Region 2 83.3 B
Region 3 16.7 F
Region 4 81.8 B
Region 5 80.0 B
Region 6 84.6 B
Average 66.7 D
N=54

15
5. PHONE SERVICES:
ACCESSIBILITY & INFORMATION
Many individuals access DSHS through the phone, either as a supplement to an office visit, or just
to receive basic information about programs. Phone contact is critical for those who are unable to
access the office or do not have internet access.
The data gathered for this portion of the study should be viewed as supplemental to the office audit
study in the preceding pages. We gathered information (between May and August 2010) about:
(1) Ease of access and ability to speak to a member of staff;
(2) Information provided;
(3) Language accessibility.
DSHS has a number of different levels of phone service. We did not attempt to assess the level of
service once a client already had an open case in the system. Similar to our study in the offices, we
wanted to assess the ‘typical’ experience of an individual trying to access basic information about
programs and eligibility. Therefore, we only assessed two phone system levels:
(1) Direct local CSO service and
(2) General customer service hotline (attached to clusters of offices).

Accessibility by Phone
• Are you able to speak to a member of staff if your question is not answered by prerecorded
messages?
• Are you able to leave a general message if no one is able to take your call?
• Is the phone system easy to understand?
• How long do you have to wait to speak to someone?
Information Provided by Phone
• What are you told when you ask what services are available if you are an
undocumented individual?

Language Accessibility by Phone

• How many phone services are accessible in Spanish?
• How many phone services are accessible in Russian?
• How many phone services are accessible in other
languages?
• Are there different wait times for different languages?

16
 Accessibility by Phone
1. Local CSOs
There was a wide variance in CSO phone systems. At some rural CSOs, caseworkers would pick up
the phone immediately. In most areas, however, each CSO had a phone menu that customers had
to access before speaking to an individual. While there were generally a number of choices, there
was often no ability to ask a simple question if the individual calling did not have an assigned case-
worker. Sometimes, one could not even leave a message. Occasionally, one would become caught in
a phone “loop” which either ended in continual replaying of options or a disconnected call.

There was a wide variance in CSO phone systems.

Table 11. Direct Calls to Local Community Service Offices

Percentage
Spoke with staff at Local CSO number (N=55) 20.0%
Unable to leave a message or obtain general information 50.5
Disconnected 5.5

2. Call Centers
Call centers all have the same phone menu. On average, it took three to four minutes to get to the
correct phone menu option in order to be put on hold to speak to an individual member of staff.
This system favors those who already have a high degree of previous knowledge about DSHS pro-
grams. It was not possible to receive any general information through the general menu. As a result, one
had to select a random program in the hopes of eventually being connected with a member of staff. This
is very problematic as the call center numbers exist in order to provide access to an array of services,
and specifically services/information for those who do not have an existing case (the “Answerphone”
is designed for those who have an existing case).
A total of 91 calls were placed to local CSOs and call centers. Table 11 below indicates the range of
outcomes of these phone calls. Most of the local offices (45) did provide numbers for the call center
for further information.

It was not possible to receive any general information through the

general menu. As a result, one had to select a random program in the
hopes of eventually being connected with a member of staff.

17
Information Provided by Phone
In order to gauge the quality and consistency of information provided across local CSOs and
the call centers, we asked the following question when we were able to speak to a DSHS repre-
sentative: what services are available for people who are undocumented (14 responses total)?9
This question was selected because we have a substantive interest in the answer, but also because it
is a clear, simple question that should not provoke different responses from region to region.10 Table
12 indicates the range of responses given by DSHS representatives.

The most consistent answer we received was about the eligibility of children for medical care. Most
of the other responses, however, reflect deep confusion among staff about the answer to this basic
question about DSHS services.

Table 12. Fourteen Inquiries about Undocumented Persons’ Eligibility

Phone Calls: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Total
Told eligible for food X X 2
Told NOT eligible for food X X 2
Told NOT eligible for medical X X 2
Told eligible for emergency medical X X X X X X 7
Told children eligible for medical X X X X X X X X 9
Told eligible for pregnancy medical X X X X 3
Told eligible for cash X X X 2
Told eligible for all services X 1
Told not eligible for anything X X X 3

18
Language Accessibility by Phone
We also measured the accessibility of phone services by language. As with the other data presented,
we measured this by testing the availability of information through direct CSO contact as well as
the DSHS information call centers.

Only 32 of the offices had direct phone menu availability (five offices picked up the phone imme-
diately without a menu, so we were unable to test this and all the other offices had an automatic
transfer to a call center; does not include those menus that said “press X for Spanish” in English
rather than Spanish). Of these offices, five offices picked up the phone immediately (no menu
available), so we were unable to test these services, leaving us with 27 offices total to include in the
sample.

• 17 of these 27 offices had a Spanish-language option on the phone menu

• 13 of these 27 offices had a Russian-language option on the phone menu

One consistent problem emerged in the area of language options for the
call center. Even when one followed the call center menu in Spanish or
Russian, the members of staff who answered the call after waiting on hold
answered in English. In the case of Russian, the menu would transition at
various points to English halfway through the choices.

19
 6. CUSTOMER SERVICE:
INFORMATION & TREATMENT
As noted in the methodology section of this report, a major component of this study was an “audit”
of customer service provided by those working at the front desks in the lobby areas of CSOs.11 The
goal of our study is not to “call out” individual employees of DSHS. It is, rather, to gather a
summative view of what people experience when they encounter the state through DSHS. We
recognize that receptionists often have difficult and sometimes dangerous jobs. That does not mean,
however, that treating individuals in a degrading manner is acceptable. The fact that we sometimes
had sharply different experiences with the same receptionist attests to the fact that there is a great
deal of bureaucratic discretion in this area. Furthermore, this interaction has many fewer constraints
than those that are typically studied: the actual provision of services. We believe that both individu-
als and the state have responsibility for these interactions, although the burden is clearly on the state
as they are the ones who set guidelines and enforce rules about appropriate client-staff interactions.

We recognize that receptionists often have difficult and sometimes dangerous jobs. That does
not mean, however, that treating individuals in a degrading manner is acceptable.

Audit Procedures
Here is an overview of a typical office visit:
Upon entering, we tried to sign in—sometimes unsuccessfully—so that we could be seen to ask
our questions. The systems offices had to “sign in” varied from elaborate computer options to taking
a number to simply walking up to the front desk.
When we were called up to speak to the receptionist, we asked a variation of the question/state-
ment: “I’d like find out about welfare (sometimes benefits)—what kinds of programs are there? Can
you explain them to me?” Depending on the situation, the receptionist would sometimes probe
further to obtain detailed information about us. We told receptionists that we “just wanted general
information” and if they pushed further, we told them that we “might be applying for different
people” or that “it’s a complicated situation.”
In addition to asking them to explain the general programs on the general intake application
(cash, medical and food), we asked them how to apply and what would happen after we applied.
This was another point at which they could provide information.
We then asked what we should do if we or the people we were applying for had questions or were
confused.
Finally, we took turns asking one additional question to see if we could gather any further infor-
mation about the programs.12
Once our interaction was complete (or immediately preceding it if we had to wait to see a recep-
tionist), we would sit in the office and unobtrusively observe other client-staff interactions in the
office.

20
How much information did we receive? How were we treated?
We measured our interactions at two levels: treatment and information received.
The informational component included the quantity and type of information provided upon
our inquiries about welfare. Did they provide full information about the available programs?
Did they skip over or refuse to explain certain aspects of the application? Did they provide a
full list of documentation required? Did they provide a way to get further help if we needed
it? These were just a few of the informational questions we asked ourselves in measuring staff re-
sponses. The treatment category included the quality of our interactions. This is, obviously, a sub-
jective measure, but is equally important compared to the informational measure. For example, if
a receptionist provides two people the same information but raises her voice with one client so that
everyone in the office can hear her confidential information, these two clients will have a different
experience. Fortunately, we were frequently able to observe each other’s interactions so that we were
able to compare our own perceptions with one another. We first discuss the informational results.

Information Received
Following each interaction, we noted whether the following programs were explained to us: cash,
medical and food. These three programs were located at the top of the application, so it was easy to
point to them.

• In almost all of the offices, we had to prompt the receptionist to explain these programs to
us. In most cases, the receptionists would explain the eligibility requirements for the pro-
grams, not what the programs actually provided. If we pushed them further on this point,
the most common response we encountered was “cash is cash, medical is medical and food is
food.” Occasionally, a receptionist did take the time to explain the actual benefits one would
receive, but this was rare.

• We also took note of descriptions of subsets of the general programs included on the ap-
plication. For example, “cash” benefits include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) and General Assistance Unemployable (GAU). The first program is generally for
adults with children while the second is for disabled adults. Medical includes different pro-
grams for children and adults. As these are important distinctions within the general pro-
gram categories, we noted if receptionists explained these programs, however briefly, as they
are at the heart of the application process for benefits.

21
In terms of general information about the programs, we were told most often about the cash and medical
programs, and less about food stamp programs (Table 13 and 14). This is somewhat unexpected, as the eli-
gibility requirements for food are the least stringent of all of the programs, so one would expect reception-
ists to mention this program more often. It may be, however, a simple case of an assumption on the part
of the receptionist that “food” is much more self-explanatory than the other two programs. If this were the
case, however, we would expect this low frequency of explanation to be the same across racial categories.

Table 13. Total Number of Program Explanations by Race of Investigator

African American Asian American White Anglo American
Cash 37 42 40
TANF 20 19 28
GAU 12 18 21
Medical 31 41 34
Children 9 21 18
Adults 5 20 17
Food 17 35 38
Drug & Alcohol 1 2 6
Rights & Responsibilities 2 2 1
Note: N=54

The strongest finding is about the food program. The African American and Latina investigators were told
only 31.5% and 47.4% (N=19) of the time, respectively, about the food program (Table 14). The White An-
glo American investigator’s experiences in this area may provide a possible explanation: she was often told that
TANF or cash programs in general were for “low, low income” people, which implied that she would not qualify.
As the food program has the least stringent income requirements for eligibility, receptionists may have
simply assumed that she came to the office only for food benefits (and that would be all she would qualify
for). Both the White Anglo American and Asian American investigators were often assumed to be college
students (the receptionists mentioned roommates or work-study), which may also help us understand this
disparity in explanations of programs.

[The White Anglo American] was often told that TANF or cash programs in general were for
“low, low income” people, which implied that she would not qualify.

Table 14. Percentage of Program Explanations by Race of Investigator

African American Asian American Latina White Anglo American
Cash 68.5% 77.8% 73.7% 74.1%
TANF 37.0 35.2 31.6 51.9
GAU 22.2 33.3 26.3 38.9
Medical 57.4 75.9 63.2 63.0
Children 16.7 38.9 26.3 33.3
Adults 9.3 37.0 10.5 31.5
Food 31.5 64.8 47.4 70.4
Drug & Alcohol 1.9 3.7 10.5 11.1
Rights & Responsibilities 3.7 3.7 5.3 1.9
Note: N=54. Latina, N=19
22
The Bottom Line: White Anglo Received the Most Complete Information
In almost every category (with the exception of general explanations of medical benefits), the White
Anglo American investigator received the most information about all of the programs available
through the CSO (Table 15). This is particularly apparent when we combine the data into a “Non-
Anglo White” and “White Anglo” categories (Table 15). Interestingly, she also received the most
unprompted descriptions of drug and alcohol treatment available.

When compared with the African American investigator, the White Anglo and Asian American in-
vestigators received information about all three basic programs (cash, food and medical) 62% of the
time, while the African American investigator received this basic information only 28% of the time.

In almost every category (with the exception of general explanations of medical

benefits), the White Anglo American investigator received the most information
about all of the programs available through the CSO.

Table 15.Non-Anglo and White Comparison of Program Explanations

Non-Anglo, Non-White American White Anglo American
Cash 73.3% 74.1%
TANF 34.6 51.9
GAU 27.3 38.9
Medical 65.5 63.0
Children 27.3 33.3
Adults 18.9 31.5
Food 47.9 70.4
Drug & Alcohol 5.4 11.1
Rights & Responsibilities 4.2 1.9

The other puzzling finding is that she received the fewest explanations of a client’s “rights and re-
sponsibilities” a form that was sometimes included in the application packet that describes the legal
relationship the person is undertaking once they apply for benefits. Even though there is a differ-
ence in the number of times we were told of our rights and responsibilities, the most important
finding in this case is the general finding: on average, we were told of our rights and responsibilities
only six times total out of 181 interactions (3%) with staff.

23
 Individual Interactions: Treatment
In the discussion that follows, we are fully aware that we cannot actually experience what the aver-
age person does when they walk through the doors of a CSO, precisely because we are not actually
applying for services. In other words, the description of our experiences is, in many ways, the best-
case scenario, as we purposely try to remain neutral throughout the process. The inability to chal-
lenge them, while frequently disempowering, did give us a general sense of what it might be like to
be fearful of challenging the authority figure in front of us.13

Types of treatment recorded:
• Professional demeanor
• Impatient or frustrated
• Hurried (fast talking)
• Use complicated language
• Dismissive or rude demeanor
The results of the first measure (Table 4) indicate that there were racial differences in our treatment
at the offices. In all of the categories, the White Anglo American investigator experienced better treatment
than the other three investigators. In particular, the African American investigator had the most num-
ber of dismissive or rude experiences—38.89% compared to the White Anglo American investiga-
tor’s 25.93%. The White Anglo American investigator also received significantly different treatment
in terms of impatient and hurried treatment. This was often combined with the use of overly com-
plicated language in the receptionists’ explanations of the programs. A cursory look at the applica-
tion itself reveals the complexity of the language of benefit programs. The White Anglo American
investigator often had to stop the receptionists to explain “annuities” or “gross income” or “TANF.”
We also asked them questions about certain programs listed, such as, “in-home care” or “401k”
“CD” or “IRA.” The receptionists often gave us incomplete explanations or sometimes even incor-
rect explanations of the programs. In any case, they often assumed a very high level of both written
and verbal skill.

In all of the categories, the White Anglo American investigator

experienced better treatment than the other three investigators.

Table 16. Types of Treatment Received by Race (1)

African American Asian American Latina White Anglo
Professional demeanor 66.7% 63.0% 68.4% 75.9%
Impatient or frustrated 18.5 25.9 15.8 38.9
Hurried (fast talking) 25.9 31.5 10.5 37.0
Use complicated language 5.6 9.3 10.5 40.7
Dismissive or rude demeanor 38.9 31.5 26.3 25.9
Note: N=54. Latina, N=19

24
If we combine the experiences to see a Non-Anglo, Non-White/Anglo/White divide, the diver-
gent experiences are even more pronounced (Table 17). The “professional demeanor” was a fairly
easy requirement for receptionists to meet: they had to interact with us as one might expect to
interact with someone working in a department store, which means that (a) they did not make
inappropriate jokes (i.e., “cash benefits—good times!”), or (b) they did not yell or otherwise act
overly aggressively toward us. Moreover, it was possible for a receptionist to be both professional
and impatient, for example. They may have started with a professional demeanor but become
progressively exasperated with the fact that we wanted to ask questions.

Table 17. Types of Treatment Received by Race (2)

Non-Anglo, Non-White Anglo/White
Professional demeanor 66.0% 75.9%
Impatient or frustrated 20.1 38.9
Hurried (fast talking) 22.6 37.0
Use complicated language (assume that you understand) 8.5 40.7
Dismissive or rude demeanor - both 32.2 25.9

25
The second measure of our interactions involved a ranking of our treatment at the office. Our
rankings do not reflect whether or not we received respectful treatment or not. For example, we
may have all had a bad experience at one office, but one of us may have received even worse treat-
ment than another. In other words, it is a relative scale of treatment. If, for example, only one of us
received noticeably better treatment than the three others, the three others received the same rank
under the first (e.g. 1, 2, 2, 2).
This measure is particularly helpful because it helps us understand comparative treatment
at a particular office rather than across all offices. Moreover, it is for the same type of interaction:
we all requested the same information. There were 14 offices where we all received essentially the
same level of treatment (this says nothing about the quality of the treatment, but rather, the equal-
ity of treatment). If we examine just the offices where we did experience different types of treatment
(Table 18), there is, again, a notable racial difference in terms of treatment.

Table 18. Relative Level of Treatment: Most Favorable

African American Asian American White Anglo
Most favorable treatment of the four investigators 2.5% 5.0% 27.5%
Most favorable: others may receive the same treat- 17.5 30.0 60.0
ment as well
Note: The second category includes those instances where two or more investigators receive the same “most favorable”
treatment among the four of us. The totals for the Latina category is not included the N is too small. The total N for
this table is 40; at the other 14 offices we experienced similar treatment amongst the four of us.

Table 19. Relative Level of Treatment: Least Favorable

African American Asian American White Anglo
Least favorable treatment of the four investigators 22.5% 17.5% 5.0%
Least favorable: others may receive the same treat- 52.5 35.0 10.0
ment as well
Note: The second category includes those instances where two or more investigators receive the same “least favorable”
treatment among the four of us. The totals for the Latina category are not included the N is too small. The total N for
this table is 40; at the other 14 offices we experienced similar treatment amongst the four of us.

26
Examples of Types of Treatment:

• As noted elsewhere, the African American investigator (and to a lesser extent the Asian American
and Latina investigators) sometimes had interactions with receptionists where the level of voice
(and tone) was raised significantly above the others. This often took a form of shaming—that is,
our individual questions were “broadcasted” to the office.
• The White Anglo American investigator sometimes experienced, for lack of a better term, a “conspira-
torial” interaction with the receptionist. This took the form of either implicitly or explicitly allying
themselves with the White Anglo American investigator against the other clients in the office.

o For example, in one office, the White Anglo American investigator asked what a “401K,
IRA or CD” was (listed on the “resource” section of the application). The receptionist replied
that it was “like a trust fund.” When the White Anglo American investigator replied that she
would not be in the office applying for benefits if she had a trust fund, the receptionist told
her that she “would be surprised” about what clients tried to get away with, motioning to the
other people in the office. In other words, the White Anglo American investigator was drawn
into a relationship where she was treated, more or less, as an “equal” with one receptionist, an expe
rience which the other three investigators had infrequently, and almost never if the White Anglo
American investigator had the same interaction.

[T}he White Anglo American investigator was drawn into a

relationship where she was treated, more or less, as an “equal” with
one receptionist, an experience that the other three investigators had
infrequently, and almost never if the White Anglo American
investigator had the same interaction.

There were a few puzzling results from this section, but the overall message is clear: the White American
woman received more information about programs and, in general, received better treatment than her
African American, Asian American and Latina and counterparts. In the next section, we explore two
patterns that emerged during the course of the research that were not necessarily anticipated in the
design of the original project: assumptions about work and citizenship.

There were a few puzzling results from this section, but the overall
message is clear: the White American woman received more
information about programs and, in general, received better
treatment than her African American, Asian American and Latina
and counterparts.

27
 Citizenship and Work
Citizenship, in the formal legal sense of the term, is a critical eligibility criterion for many social
services. Thus, it is not surprising that DSHS requires documentation of this for enrollment in
many of its programs. We do not dispute the necessity of this as a legal mandate the agency must
follow. What we did find, however, is a completely uneven implementation of this in practice, at
least at the initial stages of contact between the potential client and the state.

Two types of questions were asked by receptionists about citizenship status:

1.The first was to simply ask us about our citizenship status. For example, the Asian American
investigator was asked, on different occasions, the following questions: “Legal or illegal?” “Docu-
mented or undocumented?” “Are you a citizen?” “I assume everyone in the household is a citizen,
right?” These inquiries were overwhelmingly directed at the Asian American investigator
(Table 20). The White Anglo American investigator, on the other hand, was never asked such
a question.14

[T]he Asian American investigator was asked, on different occasions,

the following questions: “Legal or illegal?” “Documented or
undocumented?” “Are you a citizen?” “I assume everyone in the
household is a citizen, right?”

2. The second, more subtle way of directing question about citizenship was through our inquiry
about what documentation we would need once we set up an interview to determine eligibil-
ity for services. After we finished inquiring about general information about the programs, we
would ask, “what happens after I turn it in?” They would tell us that we would most likely need
to have an interview. Then we asked, “Do I need to bring anything with me?” At this point, the
receptionists gave us different answers, which often depended on their assumptions about who
we were and what we might be eligible for in terms of services. The lists could include any of
the following: identification, social security number, shelter costs, landlord statement, income
statements, pay stubs, employment verification, and a birth certificate, among others. This list
could also include “citizenship status” or “proof of citizenship.” Again, the Asian American
investigator was told to bring in this much more frequently than the White Anglo American or
African American investigators.

28
The Bottom Line about Citizenship: Asian American Singled Out

The receptionist asks, “What is [your family’s]

citizenship status?” I say, “they’re citizens!” She says,
“Well, they should be able to read some English.”

• When the two measures are combined, we find that receptionists implied the questionabili-
ty of the Asian American investigator’s citizenship at 40.7% of the offices, compared to 7.4%
for the African American investigator and 3.7% for the White Anglo American investigator
(Table 20).

Table 20. Questions about Citizenship and Work by Staff

African American Asian American Latina White/Anglo American
Citizenship
Asked a question directly by staff 1.9% 29.6% 10.5% 0.0%
Told to submit for interview 5.6 20.4 10.5 3.7
Any citizenship question/mention 7.4 40.7 21.1 3.7

Work
Asked a question directly about work 11.1 29.6 10.5 1.9

• These not so subtle hints about the questionable citizenship of Asian Americans is, while
disappointing, not surprising, given the long history of the racialization of Asian Americans
by White Americans as “immutably foreign” (Kim 1999, 107). Again, we do not dispute the
need to for DSHS to determine citizenship status. According to our research, however, this
is not what DSHS is doing. They are targeting one group (and possibly two—Latinas) for
inquiries about citizenship status.

29
 Observations of Other Client-Staff Interactions
In addition to gathering information about our own interactions with staff at welfare offices, we
also collected data about other client-staff interactions we observed at each office. These observa-
tions, while necessarily subjective, did allow us to remove ourselves from the immediacy of our
own interactions with staff. They also provided the addition of an important element to any inter-
sectional analysis: gender. Finally, they gave us a breadth of data not available through one-on-one
interactions: we collected a total of 427 individual client-staff observations.15

1. Observations of Treatment of Potential Clients by Gender and Race
The greatest number of observations was neutral or undetermined (Table 21). This is not surpris-
ing as most interactions between receptionists and clients are relatively mundane: a client checks
in for an appointment, drops off paperwork, or asks a simple question. If we disaggregate the data
by gender and eliminate the neutral/undetermined category, there is a noticeable split between the
interactions men and women had with the receptionists (Table 22).16

Table 21. Observations of Interactions by Type of Treatment

Positive Negative Neutral/Undetermined
Total 130 86 211
Percentage 30.4% 20.1% 49.4%
Note: N=427

Table 22. Observations of Interactions by Type of Treatment: Gender

Positive Negative Neutral/Undetermined
Percentage
Women 32.6% 24.0% 43.4%
Men 27.8 13.0 59.3

Percentage (Positive/Negative Only)

Women 57.7% 42.3%
Men 68.2 31.8
Note: There were 108 observations of men in first section, 288 observations of women in first section. There were 44
observations of men in second section, 163 observations of women in second section.

30
As we pay special attention to race in this study, we further disaggregated the data by race alone and
then by race and gender. The Non-Anglo/White American and Anglo/White American compari-
son reveals that there an approximate 8% point difference in their positive interactions (Table 23).
When we further disaggregate this by race and gender, the differences become more pronounced.
There were a number of subcategories by race and gender that we could not include because of the
very small N (e.g. American Indian/Native American men). Therefore, we included the four largest

Table 23. Observations of Interactions by Type of Treatment: Non/Anglo White

Positive Negative
Non-Anglo White 56.1% 43.9%
Anglo White 63.5 36.5

Of the four categories included, Anglo/White American men had the

most positive interactions, while African American women had the
least positive interactions. In our own discussions of notable
interactions in the offices, this trend in the treatment of White men
was most noticeable.

Table 24. Observations of Interactions by Type of Treatment: Race and Gender

Positive Negative Undetermined/Neutral
African American women 32.8% 31.1% 36.1%
Latinas 35.4 27.1 37.5
White/Anglo men 29.9 13.4 56.7
White/Anglo women 34.2 19.7 45.4

Only Positive/Negative
African American women 51.3% 48.7%
Latinas 56.7 43.3
White/Anglo men 69.0 31.0
White/Anglo women 62.7 36.1
Note: First section: African American women, n=61, Latinas, n=48, White/Anglo American men, n=67
White/Anglo American women, n=151. Second section: African American women, n=39, Latinas, n=30, White/An-
glo American men, n=29, White/Anglo American women, n=82

31
The Bottom Line: DSHS Grade for Customer Service: ‘F’
We combined the level of professionalism we experienced with the provision of information about
basic DSHS programs for the total grade for customer service.17

Table 25. Observations of Other Client-Staff Interactions

162 Interactions (for all offices) Percentage Grade
Professional Demeanor 68.5% D
Received information about Cash, Food and Medical 50.0 F
Total Average 59.3 F
The totals for the Latina category are not included; the N is too small.

DSHS Grade for Customer Service: ‘F’

32
7. IN PURSUIT OF RESPECT AND DIGNITY:
RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of this study indicate that DSHS Community Service Offices are failing to give
residents of Washington the respect and information to which they are entitled. In this sec-
tion, we provide specific recommendations. As we note in the introduction to this report, many of
these recommendations require little, if any, money. Instead, it requires a rethinking of the way
in which DSHS administration trains and “sends messages” to those who are the first to come into
contact with people entering the office. In particular, we want to highlight two points.

1. The problems we observed are not unique to a particular office, or a

particular member of staff: they are endemic to the structure of DSHS
CSOs.
2. The solutions to most of the problems are inexpensive or free.

REPORT CARD: GENERAL FINDINGS

Grade

Accessibility
Traveling to the Office D
Offices Meeting Physical Navigation Requirements F
Offices Meeting Navigation Requirements F
Offices with Basic Language Requirements F

Confidentiality
Confidentiality Assured F
Able to Talk to Staff without Social Security Number D

Information and Treatment

Professional Demeanor D
Received information about Cash, Food and Medical F

33
Recommendations that require few resources:
Accessibility
• Include public transportation options/directions on phone menu
• Streamline call center and local CSO phone menus
• Ensure Spanish and Russian phone options are coherent and consistent
• Ensure free transportation information to and from the office is available in the waiting room
(free as this is from the transportation provider)
• Ensure at least one counter is low enough for people of short stature and those who happen to
be in a wheelchair
• Remove carpet from offices to ensure wheelchair accessibility
• Ensure hours of operation are posted outside the office
• Ensure secure, opaque drop-boxes for client documents are located inside and outside the office

Confidentiality
•Direct staff to lower voices when speaking to people at front desk, especially when discussing
private information
• Reinstate “take a number” system to ensure confidentiality (this will save resources)
• In small offices, confidentiality can be improved by rearranging chairs away from front desk

Information and Treatment

• Issue official statements from DSHS administrators reminding staff that they are to treat
clients with respect, regardless of race, ethnicity, language, nationality, ability, gender iden-
tity, sexual orientation or religious affiliation. Ensure there are clear penalties for non-com-
pliance.
• Place confidential customer service surveys at front desk and place confidential box for surveys
in office
• Direct security guards to act professionally with women entering the office18
• Reconsider current customer service training programs for staff.
• Require all staff to enroll in a dismantling racism training program (not cultural compe-
tency) as a condition of employment at DSHS
• Require front desk staff to read and explain the “rights and responsibilities” section of every ap-
plication form.

34
 The results of this study indicate that DSHS Community Service Offices
are failing to give residents of Washington the respect and information to
which they are entitled.

Final Thoughts
We did not include the many recommendations that cost a great deal of money. These suggestions
would require a complete restructuring of DSHS as an agency; they would fundamentally alter
the relationship between the people and the state. We hope that this “big picture” conversation is
sparked by the findings of this study.

35
 8. APPENDIX: RESEARCH PROTOCOLS

1. Physical Office Observation Form

Office Name:_____________________________ Date Visited:__________

1. Once a person enters a CSO, is there clear signage with directions for how to proceed? Yes No
Languages other than English? Yes No List languages:___________________________________
2. Drop Boxes: prominently placed drop boxes outside and inside all CSOs with a sign telling clients they can
use the box to drop off documents.
3. The Limited English Proficiency poster, “Point to Your Language” is posted.
4. The “And Justice for All” civil rights poster is posted.
5. Civil Rights brochure 22-552.
6. The waiting area or reception area is clean. Overall: Yes No
Dirty (actual dirt/dust) on the floor Debris (e.g., paper) Waiting area chairs are dirty, broken or
torn
7. Is the reception area sensitive to families? For example, are there toys for the children to play with while waiting?
Overall: Yes No
Toys
Other:
8. Is there easy access and obvious directions to rest rooms? Yes No
9. This facility is easy to navigate in a wheelchair. Yes No
10. How many writing surfaces are in the lobby? #___________
11. There is sufficient space between clients being served and folks in the waiting area to allow confidential
conversations. Yes No Explain answer:
12. General notes about office: (number system, other attributes of physical space)

ADDITIONAL NOTES:
13. The CSO is on a bus line. Number of bus lines: _________________________ Bus
numbers:____________________________
14. There is parking set aside for disabled people.
15. The parking is located near the office. Is the restroom clean?
Overall: Yes No
Toilets clogged Toilet/stall area clean Sink/general area clean Faucets operate
Odor
Number of stalls___________
Customer Service Satisfaction Survey
1. Office uses standard Customer Satisfaction Survey
2. Is it available in waiting room?

36
2. One-on-one Interaction Form
1. Approach the counter: “Hi, can I get information about how to apply for welfare? What should I
do?”
2. Take form; flip through it and say: “Could you tell me about these different kinds of programs?”
(point to line about cash, food, and medical)
Ask about different sections: (see below)
3. After explanation is complete, ask what you need to bring to the appointment.
4. Ask them “what should I do if I need more help?”
1. WAITING SYSTEM: Take a number Punch in your SS and name ( Sign about 000
posted) Walk up to desk
2. WAIT TIME (from time you sign in/take a number until you are helped):________________
3. QUESTIONS ASKED OF YOU AS SOON AS YOU ASK FOR INFO ABOUT WELFARE:
4. YOUR ADDITIONAL QUESTION:
What’s “in-home care”? (box in first section)
What is a “household”?
What is an IRA, CD or 401K? (section on assets)
What are SSI and L&I? (benefits section)
5. INFORMATION PROVIDED TO YOU BY STAFF
Cash is explained (with prompt from you)
TANF
GAU
no difference made between the two
Medical is explained (with prompt)
children
adult
no difference made between the two
Food is explained (with prompt)
Drug and alcohol is explained
With prompt from you
Without prompt from you
Rights and responsibilities are explained (without prompting)
Rights and responsibilities form is included in your application packet (form 14-113)
6. WHAT DO THEY TELL YOU TO BRING WITH YOU FOR YOUR APPOINTMENT?
7. OTHER QUESTIONS STAFF ASK YOU: (e.g. “do you have access to a computer?”; are you a
citizen?)
8. NOTES ABOUT YOUR INTERACTION (check all that apply; for example, they may be patient
at first, but then get impatient):
Professional demeanor
Impatient or frustrated
Hurried (fast talking)
Use complicated language (assume that you understand)
Dismissive or rude demeanor
Investigator is told to return to the office at a later date
Investigator is told to find help from someone else (e.g. friend or family member)
Investigator is told to make an appointment with a caseworker

37
 Co
OBSERVATIONS
Initial_______
Office_______

For each interaction, observe the following:

STAFF CLIENT
Gender (performance) Gender (performance)
Woman Woman
Man Man

Race Race
African American African American
Latina/o Latina/o
Asian American Asian American
Native American Native American
White American White American
Non-White (unknown, but not white) Non-White (unknown, but not white)
Unknown Unknown

Hijab? Yes No Hijab? Yes No

Over 40? Yes No Over 40? Yes No

ESL? Yes No Maybe Children? Yes No

How many?

General demeanor of staff ESL? Yes No Maybe

Professional, but not friendly
Smiles or laughs General demeanor of client
Calm Calm
Patient Agitated (voice or body language)
Impatient Neutral
Dismissive Smiles or laughs
Voice raised (negative)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________

General interaction between client and staff

Postive (e.g., smiles, calm, helpful, laughter)
Undetermined/Neutral (neither positive nor negative)
Negative (e.g., voices raised, sighing, agitated hand gestures)

Make general notes if either the client or receptionist had specific reactions during the interaction

38
 9. EXPLANATORY NOTES
1. We use the terms “staff” and “receptionists” inter- available, we included this as a form of transportation to
changeably throughout the report. We fully recognize the office. An office was defined as accessible if there was
that “receptionist” is not the job title of those working at a drop-off point within seven minutes walking distance,
the front desk, but we use it for two reasons: (1) it accu- measured by Google Maps.
rately conveys their role in terms of potential client-staff
interaction and (2) sometimes the staff we met at the 8. This percentage only includes those offices that were
front desk were social workers or other staff in the office, accessible by public transportation. Informational phone
simply filling in for the usual person in that position. menus did include driving directions, but not public
transportation directions.
2. At the time of this project there were actually 56
CSOs in Washington State. We did visit all 56, but did 9. One researcher conducted the phone survey so that
not include two offices for the two different reasons. In there would be complete consistency between phone
the first case, one of us knew a receptionist at one of the calls.
offices, so we did not include this office in the interac-
tion data. The second office located on a reservation, 10. According to DSHS, undocumented persons
was physically completely different from all of the other may be eligible for the following programs: Pregnant
offices. Although we had the best interaction of all at Women’s Program, Children’s Health Program, Alien
that office, we did not include it in this study as it is Emergency Medical (AEM) Program, and the Consoli-
significantly different in terms of its structure, budget dated Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP). CEAP
and mission from the other offices. “[p]rovides state funds to pregnant women and families
with children for specific emergent needs such as food,
3. The Appendix includes a detailed outline of the pro- shelter, clothing, and medical. CEAP is available once in
cedures used to gather this data. a 12‐month period and recipients must be ineligible for
other state or federally funded benefits” (DSHS, “Pro-
4. The fourth researcher, who is Latina, was unable to grams That May Assist” 2009, p.2).
complete all the office visits with us due to logistical
challenges. She visited 19 of the 54 offices. The data she 11. See also the appendix for more information about
collected is interspersed throughout the analysis where procedures.
appropriate and comparable with the data the three of
us collected. Therefore, all data comparisons for Latinas12. At each office, we took turns asking one of the fol-
should be made with caution. lowing questions (about an item listed on the applica-
tion): What is “in-home” care? What is a “401K, CD or
5. This is a popular method of assessing the performance IRA”? What is a “household”? What is “L&I and SSI”?
of government entities. We were inspired and guided
in this enterprise by the Children’s Alliance’s Room to
Improve (2002) report, the Northwest Federation of
Community Organization’s Facing Race: 2009 Legisla-
tive Report Card on Racial Equity (2010) and the Welfare
Rights Organizing Coalition’s past annual report cards
on DSHS performance.

6. Unfortunately, the trend toward replacing an anony-

mous number system with a computer sign-in system
means that fewer offices will have this option in the
future.

7. If “dial-a-ride” public transportation services were

39
 EXPLANATORY NOTES
13. Our findings, as noted above, are necessarily subjec-
tive. We have partially mitigated this problem by (a)
observing each other’s interactions while in the office
and (b) discussing our interactions and comparing expe-
riences (recorded on a voice recorder after each office).
This recording of reactions also allowed us to look at our
experiences as a whole: our perceptions at the begin-
ning of the visits were sometimes different from those
toward the end when we had more knowledge about
what to expect from the offices. We developed two ways
to measure the treatment we received. The first are those
that are noted immediately following the one-on-one
interaction. We made these notations before any general
discussion with each other about our perceptions of one
another’s interactions. The second measure was adaptable
by collective comparison of our experiences immediately
following the visit to the office. We discussed our percep-
tions of who was treated differently from one another at
the office. Throughout this, we were especially cognizant
of a tendency to attribute “better” interactions to the
White Anglo American investigator. In other words, we
continually tried to question our possibly unconscious
tendency to note that people of color received less than
equal treatment. If we take these two measures together,
we can get a full picture of our general interactions at the
office.
way, though we really tried to focus on the reaction of
the receptionist to the situation.
16. The total number does not add up to 427 because
observations where couples (men and women) interacted
together with the receptionist were excluded.
17. Some offices had statements of “Client Rights and
Responsibilities” attached to the regular application
forms. The regular application also has a section titled
“Declaration and Signatures” that informs the client of
the penalties for false statements. It was rare for a re-
ceptionist to explain either of these important sections,
much less point them out as an important section to
read before completing the application. This is disturb-
ing because clients need to be aware of their rights and
responsibilities before entering this type of contract with
the state.
18. At one office, a security guard told one of us, as we
were walking into the office, that she was “a very pretty
girl.” This is inappropriate behavior for any security
guard.

14.It is difficult to discern if this pattern applies to

Latinas, as the Latina investigator only visited 19 of the
54 offices. She was asked this question at some of the
offices, however.

15. We were unable to make observations at every of-

fice: some offices simply had very few clients to observe.
The observational data we did collect, however, noted a
number of relevant demographic characteristics about
both the receptionist and the client(s). We examine a
few of these characteristics, namely race and gender, in
relationship to the type of treatment we observed. It is
important to note that we always tried to err on the side
of caution in these observations; that is why there are
a number of observations that are “neutral or undeter-
mined.” We labeled the interaction based on the tone
and level of voice, body language, laughter, tears, shout-
ing as well as certain substantive comments by reception-
ists (e.g. shouting someone’s personal information loudly
so everyone in the office can hear it). We did make a
note if a client approached the receptionist in a hostile
40
 10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blank, Rebecca M., Marilyn Dabady and Constance Forbes Citro. 2004. Measuring Racial Discrimination. Washington, D.C.:
National Academies Press.

Brodkin, Evelyn Z. 1997. “Inside the Welfare Contract: Discretion and Accountability in State Welfare Administration.” The
Social Service Review 71(1):1–33.

The Children’s Alliance. 2002. Room to Improve: Customer Service at Offices of the Washington Department of Social and Health
Services. Seattle, WA: The Children’s Alliance.

Coulton, Claudia, Younghee Lim, Thomas Cook and Nina Lalich. 2003. “Did Welfare Leavers’ Employment Levels and Job
Characteristics Change during TANF Implementation: An analysis using SIPP 1996-2000.” Cleveland, OH: Center on
Urban Poverty and Social Change.

Fraser, Nancy. 1989. “Women, Welfare, and the Politics of Need Interpretation.” In Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and
Gender in Contemporary Social Theory, ed. Nancy Fraser. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Pp.
144–60.

Fraser, Nancy, and Linda Gordon. 1994. “A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the US Welfare State.” Signs 19
(Winter): 309–36.

Gilliam, Franklin D. 1999. “The ‘Welfare Queen’ Experiment.” Nieman Reports 53 (2): 49–52.

Gilliom, John. 2001. Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, Resistance, and the Limits of Privacy. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Gooden, Susan Tinsley. 2004. “Examining the Implementation of Welfare Reform by Race: Do Blacks, Hispanics and Whites
Report Similar Experiences with Welfare Agencies?” The Review of Black Political Economy (Fall): 27–53.

Goodsell, Charles T. 1977. “Bureaucratic Manipulation of Physical Symbols: An Empirical Study.” American Journal of Political
Science 21(1): 79–91.

Goodsell, Charles T. 1980. “Client Evaluation of Three Welfare Programs: A Comparison of Three Welfare Programs.” Admin
istration & Society 12: 123–136.

Goodsell, Charles T. 1984. “Welfare Waiting Rooms.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 12: 467–477.

Gordon, Linda, ed. 1990. Women, the State, and Welfare. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Gordon, Rebecca. 2001. Cruel and Usual: How Welfare Reform Punishes Poor People. Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.

Hasenfeld, Yeheskel. 1985. “Citizens’ Encounters with Welfare State Bureaucracies.” The Social Service Review 59(4): 622–635.

Keiser, Lael R., Peter R. Mueser and Seung-Whan Choi. 2004. “Race, Bureaucratic Discretion, and the Implementation of
Welfare Reform.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 314–327.

Kim, Claire Jean. 1999. “The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans.” Politics & Society 27: 105–138.

Lieberman, Robert C. 1998. Shifting the Color Line: Race and the American Welfare State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universi-
Press.

Lipsky, Michael.1980. Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York : Russell Sage Founda-
tion.

41
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lower-Basch, Elizabeth. 2002. Leavers and Diversion Studies: Preliminary Analysis of Racial Differences in Caseload Trends and
Leaver Outcomes Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human
Services, December 2000. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/leavers99/race.htm.

Massey, Douglas S. and Garvey Lundy. 2001. “Use of Black English and Racial Discrimination in Urban Housing Markets:
New Methods and Findings.” Urban Affairs Review 36: 452–460.

Nelson, Barbara J. 1981. “Client Evaluations of Social Programs.” In The Public Encounter: Where State and Citizen Meet, ed.
Charles T. Goodsell, 23-42. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Northwest Federation of Community Organizations. 2010. Facing Race: 2009 Legislative Report Card on Racial Equity. Seattle.

Office of the Federal Register. 2008. “2008 Presidential Election: Popular Vote Count Totals.” College Park, MD: U.S. Na
tional Archives. http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/ electoral-college/2008/popular-vote.html.

Page, Devah and Hana Shepherd. 2008. “The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing,
Credit, and Consumer Markets.” Annual Review of Sociology 34:181–209.

Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 1993 [1973]. Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. New York: Vin
tage.

Quillian, Lincoln. 2006. “New Approaches to Understanding Racial Prejudice and Discrimination.” Annual Review of Sociology
32: 299–328.

Soss, Joe. 2000. Unwanted Claims: The Politics of Participation in the U.S. Welfare System. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Yinger, John. 1995. Closed Doors, Opportunities Lost: The Continuing Costs of Housing Discrimination. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.

United States Census Bureau. 2009. United States Population Clock. United States Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/.

Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. 2008. “ESA Program Briefing Book 2008.” http://www.dshs.
wa.gov/esa/esbriefingbook.shtml#esa

Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. 2009. “Programs That May Assist Undocumented Aliens.” http://
hrsa.dshs.wa.gov/News/fact/FS009-009UndocumentedAliens-ProgramsavailableMarch2009.pdf

Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. 2009. “Services We Offer.” https://fortress.wa.gov/dshs/f2ws
03esaapps/onlinecso/services.asp.

Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. 2010. “2008 Diversity Counts.” http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ms/
rda/research/11/152.pdf

Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Division of Child Support. 2011. “Federally Recognized Tribes of
Washington State.” http://www.dshs.wa.gov/dcs/tribal/map.asp

42
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the following individuals for their advice and/or comments in the plan-
ning, research and preparation of the report: Selene Barnes, Angelique M. Davis, Mako Fitts,
Bridget Donovan, Diana Meña, Ángela Ortez, Gary K. Perry, Hoa T. Pham, Andrea Y. Simpson
and Grace M. Taylor. We would also like to express our gratitude for generous support for this proj-
ect by Seattle University’s Endowed Mission Fund.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Questions? Comments? Please contact Rose Ernst via email.

Dr. Rose Ernst

Assistant Professor
Political Science
Seattle University
901 12th Ave
Seattle, WA 98122
ernstr@seattleu.edu

43