Deserving Poor Case Study

Deservingness The Successful Women’s Outfitters website proudly claims that, “Our concern is not where our clients have been, but where they are going.” And yet, “where clients have been” – or, more specifically, the social service organization from which they were referred – predicted clients’ uneven access to symbolic and material resources. Service interactions between Personal Shoppers and clients were shaped by notions of which clients were “deserving vs. undeserving” and “easy vs. difficult.”; it was assumed that certain organizations referred “deserving poor” while others referred “undeserving poor.” As explained to me by a long-time volunteer before my first time serving as a Personal Shopper, “I can tell who will be picky based on the organization that sent them.” Clients perceived as difficult and/or undeserving were treated with less patience and were less likely to receive complete interview outfits. Personal Shoppers

The solution, I learned, was that interns were instructed to schedule all of the TANF referrals on the same day, and were told to fill slots such that appointments were often double- or triple-booked. “They’re no-shows so often that I have to book four at a time if I want to have two!” Brandi explained. Of course, this meant that if all of the appointments did show up, the boutique would have more clients than dressing rooms, and usually more clients than volunteers as well. Sometimes clients were asked to wait for up to an hour and a half, or asked to “come back in an hour.” Other times TANF clients were asked to share fitting rooms by taking turns dressing/undressing, while being assisted by one Personal Shopper between the two of them. This led to less attentive service, and less happy clients; it seemed that the priority when dealing with TANF referrals was efficiency rather than client