Reducing Welfare Stigma : Recipient-Sensitive Approach to Teen Welfare Recipients in South Korean Middle Schools

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Welfare stigma is an unintended effect of welfare programs. This study proposes that welfare stigma can be countered by an increased recipient participation and especially the same is true for the welfare programs for children. The researcher coined a recipient-sensitive approach with four definitions by summarizing existing studies on children participation: 1) recipient participation, 2) blurring distinction between recipients and non-recipients, 3) close relationship between welfare deliverers and recipients and 4) official recognition of welfare stigma. Analyzed results from the field research in South Korea at four chosen middle schools with the same kind of welfare programs, including participant observation for eight months as maximum, various forms of interviews and a focus group discussion with total of 41 respondents. One significant finding was over time the welfare programs improved in South Korea that helped avoid welfare stigma and the four definitions can be considered as important factors to the improvement. The results confirm that recipient participation help avoid welfare stigma.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Abstract i
• Table of contents v
• List of Tables x
• I. Introduction 1
• II. Literature Review 5
• 2.1 Welfare Stigma 5
• 2.1.1 Major Causes of Welfare Stigma: Process and Product 6
• 2.2 Solution to Welfare Stigma: Recipient-Sensitive Approach 7
• 2.2.1 Recipient Participation 8
• 2.2.2 Blurring the Distinction between Recipients and Non-Recipients 11
• 2.2.3 Close Relationship between Welfare Deliverers and Welfare Recipients 11
• 2.2.4 Official Recognition of Welfare Stigma 13
• 2.3 Welfare Programs for Underprivileged Children in South Korea: School as the Basic Operating Ground 14
• 2.3.1 The Educational Welfare Priority Project 14
• 2.3.2 The Educational Welfare Teacher 15
• 2.3.3 Need for Establishment of Clearer Guideline 16
• III. Methodology 19
• 3.1 Data Sources 20
• 3.2 Replication 22
• 3.3 Limitations and Possible Extent 25
• IV. Findings 26
• 4.1 School A 28
• 4.1.1 Recipient Participation 28
• 4.1.2 Blurring the Distinction between Recipients and Non-Recipients 29
• 4.1.3 Close Relationship between Welfare Deliverers and Welfare Recipients 30
• 4.1.4 Official Recognition of Welfare Stigma 31
• 4.2 School B 32
• 4.2.1 Recipient Participation 33
• 4.2.2 Blurring the Distinction between Recipients and Non-Recipients 33
• 4.2.3 Close Relationship between Welfare Deliverers and Welfare Recipients 35
• 4.2.4 Official Recognition of Welfare Stigma 36
• 4.3 School C 37
• 4.3.1 Recipient Participation 37
• 4.3.2 Blurring the Distinction between Recipients and Non-Recipients 37
• 4.3.3 Close Relationship between Welfare Deliverers and Welfare Recipients 38
• 4.3.4 Official Recognition of Welfare Stigma 39
• 4.4 School D 39
• 4.4.1 Recipient Participation 40
• 4.4.2 Blurring the Distinction between Recipients and Non-Recipients 40
• 4.4.3 Close Relationship between Welfare Deliverers and Welfare Recipients 41
• 4.4.4 Official Recognition of Welfare Stigma 42
• 4.5 Past Practices: Prior To The Educational Welfare Priority Project 43
• 4.5.1 Recipient Participation 43
• 4.5.2 Blurring the Distinction between Recipients and Non-Recipients 44
• 4.5.3 Close Relationship between Welfare Deliverers and Welfare Recipients 45
• 4.5.4 Official Recognition of Welfare Stigma 45
• 4.6 Other Welfare Programs: Wee Class and Regional Children Center 46
• 4.6.1 Recipient Participation 47
• 4.6.2 Blurring the Distinction between Recipients and Non-Recipients 48
• 4.6.3 Close Relationship between Welfare Deliverers and Welfare Recipients 49
• 4.6.4 Official Recognition of Welfare Stigma 51
• V. Discussion 54
• 5.1 Recipient Participation 55
• 5.1.1 Level of Presence and Effectiveness 55
• 5.1.2 Analysis in Terms of Gender, Private and Public and with Religion and without Religion 56
• 5.1.3 Analysis with Welfare Programs having Different Target and Outside of School 56
• 5.2 Blurring the Distinction between Recipients and Non-Recipients 57
• 5.2.1 Level of Presence and Effectiveness 57
• 5.2.2 Analysis in terms of gender, private and public and with religion and without religion 58
• 5.2.3 Analysis with welfare programs with having different target and outside of school 59
• 5.3 Close Relationship between Welfare Deliverers and Welfare Recipients 59
• 5.3.1 Level of Presence and Effectiveness 63
• 5.3.2 Analysis in terms of gender, private and public and with religion and without religion 63
• 5.3.3 Analysis with welfare programs with having different target and outside of school 64
• 5.4 Official Recognition of Welfare Stigma 64
• 5.4.1 Level of Presence and Effectiveness 65
• 5.5 International Applicability: Philippines Case 67
• 5.5.1 Background: The Voucher Program 67
• 5.5.2 School P1 68
• 5.5.2.1 Recipient participation 68
• 5.5.2.2 Blurring the Distinction between Recipients and Non-Recipients 69
• 5.5.2.3 Close Relationship between Welfare Deliverers and Welfare Recipients 70
• 5.5.2.4 Official Recognition of Welfare Stigma 70
• 5.5.3 School P2 71
• 5.5.3.1 Recipient participation 71
• 5.5.3.2 Blurring the Distinction between Recipients and Non-Recipients 72
• 5.5.3.3 Close Relationship between Welfare Deliverers and Welfare Recipients 72
• 5.5.3.4 Official Recognition of Welfare Stigma 73
• VI. Conclusion 74
• 6.1 Policy Recommendation 74
• 6.2 Limitations in Validity and Generalization 75
• Bibliography 77
• Appendices 82
• 1. Detailed Findings per School 82
• 2. Student participant profile – In-depth interview, FGD and Participant Observation 111
• 3. Welfare deliverer participant profile – In-depth interview, Phone interview and Written interview 113
• 4. Observation profile – Field observation and Participant observation 114
• 5. Questionnaire for written interview – for students and welfare deliverers 117
• 6. Questionnaire for in-depth interview – for students and welfare deliverers 121
• 7. Consent form for in-depth interview and FGD (Focus Group Discussion) 123