The purpose of this study is to evaluate how service providers, clients, and graduates of a job training program define the term self-sufficiency (SS). This community-engaged, mixed method study qualitatively analyzes focus group data from each group and quantitatively examines survey data obtained from participants of the program. Findings reveal that psychological transformation as a 'process' represents the emic definition of SS-psychological SS-but each dimension of the concept is reflected in varying degrees by group. Provider and participant views are vastly different from the outcome-driven policy and funder definitions. Implications for benchmarking psychological SS as an empowerment-based 'process' measure of job readiness in workforce development evaluation are discussed.

Self-sufficiency (SS) is the epitome of America’s ‘reluctant’ welfare state. It is generally accepted in social welfare policy circles as a concept related to independence and financial stability. Nevertheless, SS is not a term agreed upon in practice by policymakers, researchers, or service providers and is frequently used without a clear common definition. In this sense, the purpose of this study is to explore the extent to which the top-down definition of ‘economic’ SS as the social policy goal is consistent with how the clients of job training programs perceive the term. Using a grounded theory approach, a bottom-up definition of SS was derived from a focus group of low-income jobseekers. The focus group was transcribed for a content analysis from which a client-centered definition of SS was drawn. Findings suggest that SS is a process of developing psychological strength properties and a goal-oriented progression toward realistic financial outcomes. Implications for evidence-based community interventions for client empowerment and workforce development are suggested.

Globalization has become a catchword for the integration of local markets into world capitalism. This article raises social justice concerns in governments shirking their social responsibilities for caring for those who are most vulnerable to the risk of globalization. By structuring the world as a global society where both local and global responses can interact to ameliorate the conditions of global citizens, the article proposes a glocalization approach to social work practice: thinking globally and acting locally (Lyons, 2006). It argues for the formation and growth of global civil society, accompanied by the establishment of a global social policy system and sub-systems.

No abstract

No abstract