000			01598naa a2200181uu 4500
001			8101319385910
003			OSt
005			20190211164339.0
008			081013s2007 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aLENS, Vicki _935653
245	1	0	_aAdministrative justice in public welfare bureaucracies : _bwhen citizens (don't) complain
260			_aThousand Oaks : _bSAGE, _cMay 2007
520	3		_aOne of the few avenues open to citizens to dispute mistakes in the administration of public welfare programs is administrative hearings ("fair hearings"). However, recipients rarely use them. This has important implications for social equity, as government is obligated to ensure its process for distributing benefits is fair and equitable. Drawing on data from 28 qualitative interviews with recipients who were sanctioned for violating the work rules, this study explores why recipients appealed, or did not appeal, their work sanctions. The findings indicate that nearly all of the recipients believed they were wrongfully sanctioned and were aware of their right to appeal. For recipients who did not appeal, the fair hearing system was indistinguishable from the rest of the agency, which they viewed as inflexible and intractable. In contrast, those who appealed viewed fair hearings more favorably, and unlike the nonappealers, had been encouraged to appeal by social networks
773	0	8	_tAdministration & Society _g39, 3, p. 382-408 _dThousand Oaks : SAGE, May 2007 _xISSN 00953997 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20081013 _b1938^b _cTiago
998			_a20100719 _b1640^b _cDaiane
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c27634 _d27634
041			_aeng