Welfare Post 1996Essay Preview: Welfare Post 1996Report this essayIntroductionThroughout history, and specifically the twentieth century, the U.S welfare policy has been caught between two competing values. One: a desire to help those who couldnt help themselves. And two: a concern that this type of charity and philanthropy will create a dependency. In 1996, a series of changes occurred that altered the way the Welfare System is operated, requiring people to work more often in order to receive government assistance, as well as only allowing them to benefit from the system for a maximum of five years (Chatterjee, 1999).
Literature ReviewWith the creation of the 1935 Social Security Act also came the creation of what we now know as the “old welfare system” or AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependant Children). This was an entitlement program which meant that families that met the federal criteria for cash assistance had the right to receive it. There was a broad agreement that the AFDC program had failed, but there were many different criticisms of the program. For example, some felt that AFDC failed because it encouraged pregnancies and births outside of marriage, allowed single mothers to stay home while other mothers were out working, and created multiple generations of dependency. Other major criticisms were that low benefits and the withdrawal of those benefits as soon as previous recipients started working kept families trapped in poverty. And, the suggestion that too many decisions best made at the state or local level were, at the time, being made in Washington on a far too general basis (Meyer, 1996).
In 1996, a new act, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, ended standard entitlement and most regulatory oversight of traditional welfare mechanisms in the United States. Also, it separated cash assistance from food assistance and health insurance. This new act reformed the old system in many ways. Perhaps, the most dramatic change is the institution of the TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) program, which replaced AFDC entitlement with TANF block grants. The federal government allocated funds to states on the basis of historic spending levels. Thus, its purpose is to give more decision making power to the states and increase state flexibility, as well as keeping children in their own homes and end parental dependence on government benefits by promoting job preparation and encouraging the maintenance of two parent families/marriages (Caudill, Kunz, & Spera, 1998).
The new TANF program also includes the time specifications that a person can receive cash assistance: sixty months per lifetime. However, this time may be shorter in certain states as the time is set at the discretion of the states. Also, the states may continue benefit beyond sixty months with their own funds if they elect to do so. Another element of TANF is that after two years of cash assistance, recipients are required to get a job. To aid this process, states are required to meet targets for percentage of cases in work activities. If they do not do this they are subject to financial penalties. The final component of TANF is the family cap. That is, states may deny additional benefits when children are born to families already receiving cash assistance (Anderson, 2002).
Other key provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 had to do with immigration, child care, medicaid, child support, food stamps, and supplemental security income. In a nutshell, the reforms have made the primary focus of the welfare system moving recipients into paid work as soon as possible (Bush, 1998).
Unfortunately, it is a statistical fact that employed former welfare recipients are typically employed in positions where they are paid lower wages and are offered few benefits from their employer. To combat this problem, new state and federal programs have been instituted to supplement these people. Two prime examples of this are the EITC, earned income tax credit, and the fact that federal minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.15 in September of 1997. Also, other recent policy changes recast low-income programs including subsidized child care, food stamps, and health care programs in an effort to keep people from needing to go on welfare. To assist in reaching these goals, the new policies have been combined with old ones such as unemployment insurance and family and medical leave (Marsh, 2002).
In concurrence with supporting work, many new policies deny assistance to those who do not work. The work requirements of TANF are clearly much greater than those of the AFDC program. Fewer recipients are exempt from them, and those who dont adhere to the work requirements are subject to financial sanctions (Lens, 2002).
Since the program went into effect, welfare rolls have been cut in half. Many states are reporting that they have been successful at moving people from welfare to jobs. In fact, the nations poverty rate has dropped to 11.3 percent in 2000, which is its lowest level in twenty-one years, but some believe that this only because of the great economic prosperity in the 1990s. So, the declining economy and current recession will define how lasting the impact of welfare reform will be (Lahr-Vivaz, 1997).
MethodologyIn order to gather the answers to questions regarding the efficiency of the Welfare System today, a survey containing eight questions was distributed to twenty-five random individuals. Most of the surveys were collected immediately after completion which took two to six minutes. The majority of those surveyed are eighteen to twenty-two year old members of the Elizabethtown College community. Thirteen of those interviewed were male, and the remaining twelve were female.
ResultsAfter reviewing and compiling the results of the survey, it was found that almost half of those surveyed agreed with the statement that the current Welfare System provides ample assistance to those receiving it. While over half, twenty out of twenty-five, either agreed or strongly agreed that the Welfare System is too often abused. In contrast, the same number of people either agreed or strongly agreed that public housing needs to be improved. Those surveyed, half believed that people are poor do to circumstances beyond their control, while the other half believed that people are poor do to their own actions and choices. One of the most intriguing results of the survey is that almost half agreed with the statement that the Welfare System provides ample assistance to those receiving it, but only seven of the twenty-five surveyed agreed with the statement that the government provides
The Survey of Social Welfare (2013) has been a high-profile project for the Center for American Progress, with some 60 surveys over the past five years conducted in 41 states, including some with a median sample size of only 6. The Center’s 2011 report was the first such report in the past seven years, making it one of the early high-profile projects for the center in an ongoing effort to broaden the scope of the work of the Center and the American Action Forum.
The results are disturbing.
Overall, the Survey of Social Welfare was not able to obtain enough questions to complete all 51 pieces. The survey, which may be limited to a small number of respondents, had more than a 40 percent error, making it very difficult to fill out the required questionnaire. The survey was completed on a random basis, with questions asked in broad daylight, so it could not be taken into account. However, all of its 30 questions were received, and the survey was released with a number of comments and comments in response. The first interview was with Dr. Richard J. Hartwell, President of Sixty-Six Percent who conducted the survey, who said the Survey of Social Welfare is a very difficult work and often takes a long time to complete.[*]
Other Comments From A Survey Of Social Welfare
There are still some concerns with our numbers, however, particularly for questions of economic benefits (e.g., the study finds that Social Security benefits do not have significantly high costs compared to other forms of benefits such as housing), and their adequacy as data sources for estimating economic benefits. Here’s what the data sources say:
In the current study, the study found that of the 5.5 million Social Security recipients who met income and retirement needs for the first time in 2012–13, about 3.7 million (15) had lower means of obtaining additional benefits, and the study concluded that benefits to those who do not meet these needs are small compared to benefits that are needed in other categories of work to pay those needs . Because of the study’s reliance on data available from the Social Security Administration and other government agencies, we are not able to do an accurate assessment of the results.
The Census Bureau’s 2011 census had a “very high mortality rate on the basis of the results of the questionnaire,” which is one of the best measures available of the number of Americans dying within one year of age (the last two months of the year are considered “lost” when calculating deaths that would have been counted).[*]
The Pew Research Center provides a very good estimate of the number of Americans living in poverty in the United States, but with fewer than half the nation’s children.[*]
The United Nations, one of the greatest recipients of social assistance in the world, has estimated that a typical household would only need $12,900 to live in poverty in 2010.
The National Institute on Welfare and International Development notes in its 2010 report that U.S. welfare recipients “need to be included in current U.S. welfare programs to meet economic needs.”
And when asked, “If Social Security and Medicare are fully funded and fully indexed for inflation,” a third of Social Security beneficiaries who were enrolled in Medicaid in 2000 were not receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits at the time of their enrollment.
In their survey of Welfare, the Center found that about four-in-ten (44%) of the survey respondents agree that the welfare program provides enough for the needs of both people and their families.
The survey also found that while the number of