Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 fundamentally changed the cash welfare system in the United States. It cancelled Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) plan, replacing it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). It abolished the entitlement status of welfare, provided states with strong incentives to impose time limits, and tied funding levels to the states’ success in moving welfare recipients into work. It is well known that caseloads plummeted during the 1990s and that employment rates of single mothers--the primary recipients of welfare in the United States—rose almost as fast (Shipler).
TANF strengthened and introduced new behavioral requirements. It requires most recipients to work or participate in so-called work-related activities. It imposes time limits on the receipt of federally funded benefit. It also allows states to use financial incentives to encourage business (Weil). PRWORA also sought to promote marriage, maintain two-parent families, and reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing. To reduce the perceived disincentive to marriage, many states relaxed eligibility rules that made it difficult for married couples to receive welfare. To reduce perceived childbearing incentives, various states imposed family caps, which prevented benefits from rising when new babies are born to mothers already receiving welfare. To reduce the incidence of unwed-teen childbearing, many states required minor parents to live with their own parent or guardian. The states also implemented other measures designed to encourage parental responsibility more generally. At the same time that these dramatic changes in welfare policy were taking place, welfare-related behavior was changing in...
... middle of paper ...
...ss, 2007.
Jeff Grogger, Lynn A. Karoly, Jeff Grogger. Welfare Reform: Effects of a Decade of Change. New York: Harvard University Press, 2005.
Philip Kretsedemas, Ana Aparicio. Immigrants, Welfare Reform, and the Poverty of Policy. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004.
Ridzi, Frank. Selling Welfare Reform: Work-First and the New Common Sense of Employment. New York: NYU Press, 2009.
Sanford F. Schram, Joe Brian Soss, Richard Carl Fording. Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform. Michigan: the University of Michigan Press, 2003.
Sanger, Mary Bryna. The Welfare Marketplace: Privatization and Welfare Reform. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
Shipler, David. The Working Poor: Invisible in America. Vintage, 2005.
Zuberi, Dan. Differences that Matter: Social Policy and the Working Poor in the United. New York: Cornell University Press, 2006.
When speaking about Welfare we try to avoid it, turning welfare into an unacceptable word. In the Article “One Nation On Welfare. Living Your Life On The Dole” by Michael Grunwald, his point is to not just only show but prove to the readers that the word Welfare is not unacceptable or to avoid it but embrace it and take advantage of it. After reading this essay Americans will see the true way of effectively understanding the word welfare, by absorbing his personal experiences, Facts and Statistics, and the repetition Grunwald conveys.
Hays found that initially most welfare workers were optimistic and even excited about the changes. Most workers felt that the Act represented real progress and allowed for positive changes which would positively impact the lives of their clients. Hays spoke to one welfare who said that welfare reform “offered the training and services necessary to 'make our clients' lives better, to make them better mothers, to make them more productive.'” But as she was soon to find out, welfare reform, while it did have a positive impact on the lives of some welfare clients, made the lives of most clients more difficult, not to mention the stress that it caused for the welfare workers who had to deal with the often confusing and illogical new rules.
In the summer of 1996, Congress finally passed and the President signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996", transforming the nation's welfare system. The passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act sets the stage for ongoing reconstruction of welfare systems on a state-by-state basis. The combined programs will increase from nearly $100 billion this year to $130 billion per year in 6 years. Programs included are for food stamps, SSI, child nutrition, foster care, the bloss grant program for child- care, and the new block grant to take the place of AFDC. All of those programs will seek $700 billion over the next 6 years, from the taxpayers of America. This program in its reformed mode will cost $55 billion less than it was assumed to cost if there were no changes and the entitlements were left alone. The current welfare system has failed the very families it was intended to serve. If the present welfare system was working so well we would not be here today.
The prospect of the welfare state in America appears to be bleak and almost useless for many citizens who live below the poverty line. Katz’s description of the welfare state as a system that is “partly public, partly private, partly mixed; incomplete and still not universal; defeating its own objectives” whereas has demonstrates how it has become this way by outlining the history of the welfare state which is shown that it has been produced in layers. The recent outcomes that Katz writes about is the Clinton reform in 1996 where benefits are limited to a period of two years and no one is allowed to collect for more than five years in their lifetime unless they are exempted. A person may only receive an exemption on the grounds of hardship in which states are limited to granting a maximum of 20% of the recipient population. The logic behind this drastic measure was to ensure that recipients would not become dependent upon relief and would encourage them to seek out any form of employment as quickly as possible. State officials have laid claim to this innovation as a strategy that would “save millions of children from poverty.” However, state officials predict otherwise such as an increase in homelessness, a flooding of low-waged workers in the labour market, and decreased purchasing power which means less income from tax collections. The outcomes of this reform appear to be bleak for many Americans who reside below the poverty line. How does a wealthy country like America have such weak welfare system? Drawing upon Katz, I argue that the development of the semi-welfare state is a result of the state taking measures to ensure that the people do not perceive relief as a right and to avoid exploiting the shortfalls of capitalism ...
Swan, Richelle S., et al. "The Untold Story of Welfare Fraud." Journal of Sociology & Social
In today’s America, there are many people who would either be disgusted at the very mention of Welfare or be highly grateful for its existence. I believe that in order for welfare to be more effective in America, there must be reform. From the time of its inceptions in 1935, welfare has lent a helping hand to many in crisis (Constitution Rights Foundation). However, at present many programs within the system are being abused and the people who are in real need are being cheated out of assistance. The year after the creation of welfare unemployment was just about twenty percent (Unemployment Statistics). The need for basic resources to survive was unparallel. Today, many people face the same needs as many did during the 30s. Some issues with
As of 1996, state and local governments were asked to assist many people in gaining their independence after the reform was enacted. (“Welfare Reform”) It is vital to the economy of the United States citizens to have the ability to support themselves as well as their families with no help from the government. Protecting all children and strengthening families were important parts of the reform measure. (“Welfare Reform”) The Welfare Reform Agenda of 2003 was built on the bases of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. The goals of 2003 were to assist families in achieving financial independence from the government. (“Welfare Reform”) The 2003 agenda imposed a lifetime of 5 years of welfare benefits. (“Revisiting Reform”) The agenda also required able bodied adults must go to work within two years of receiving help from the government. (“Revisiting Reform”) Welfare reform can be described as a governments attempt to alter the welfare policy of the
Welfare programs are an important part of American society. Without any type of American welfare, people will starve, children will not receive the proper education, and people will not receive any medical help simply because they do not have the resources available to them. Each of the three aspects of the American welfare system are unique in their own ways because they are funded differently and the benefits are given to different people. While support for these welfare systems has declined in the more recent years, the support for it when it was created was strong.
In They Say Cutback, We Say Fight Back!: Welfare Activism in an Era of Retrenchment Ellen Reese provides a detailed account of welfare policy in the aftermath of the great recession. She specifically examines how welfare recipients and grassroots organizations organized towards creating welfare reform from the bottom-up. After the pass of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996, and after many states started re-organizing their welfare system from an entitlement-based to a work-based one, advocacy groups embarked on efforts to lobby officials at the different government and state levels against some of the most sever cuts and policies that these states started to adapt in the different states. Reese argues that these efforts were more successful when there were broad coalitions that cut across race and class. Similarly, she showed that the level of success of these efforts differed from state to state, and even within the state, based on the already existing labor laws and policies in that given state. The book track these strategies and difficulties in two different states, California and Wisconsin, and it
The myth of “Welfare Queens” is quickly debunked watching Odessa trying to support her four grandchildren on $400 a month and Cheri trying to raise a child and organize a welfare rights group while being unpaid. Odessa Williams, once on welfare in the 60’s, was only allotted $25 more a week for having to feed four other children. That little amount of money is clearly not enough to maintain a household and Odessa results to trash picking as a way to cut down on a shopping budget. On page 64, Zucchino depicts what the typical person receiving welfare benefits looks like—it certainly is not the image Ronald Reagan and the media feeds to the American people. In the state of Pennsylvania, only 32% of recipients were black while 57% were white. The passage describes those using the program AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent
Trattner, Walter I. From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America, New York: Free Press, 1989.
Albelda, Randy. “Fallacies of Welfare-to-Work Policies”. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 577, JSTOR Sept. 2001. 66-78.
O?Beirne, Kate. ?The State of Welfare: An old and tricky question resurfaces.? National Review 54.2 (February 11, 2002): 1--2. Online. Information Access Expanded
Blau, J. (2004). The dynamics of social welfare policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy raised the current welfare payments and renamed the program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Kennedy allowed states to require work in order to receive welfare, but didn’t require it. Kennedy also laid out the new goal for welfare in America, it was to “end poverty, not just alleviate poverty” (Background: Time for a new Approach). Kennedy said welfare should be “a hand up, not a hand out." Welfare continued to change...