The
Welfare Condition: Helping or Hurting
Don
Sanford
English
102
Leslie
Jewkes
October
17, 2012
Abstract
Many people in the United States are
supporting their families on an income source that is anything but sufficient. In
the midst of rough economic times, a great number of families have to turn to
the government for help. The welfare program is the national platform that
attempts to help these families in need, but does not always succeed in
accomplishing this task. Since 1996, when welfare reform was enacted, there
have been a number of new rules and restrictions added to the program making it
difficult for families in need to receive benefits. Once a family has qualified
to collect benefits, there is a new group of obstacles to overcome. Welfare
recipients have been stereotyped as drug abusers and have been mistreated by
caseworkers and the general population. The welfare program must completely
change to provide the poor an easier road they must travel to obtain financial
assistance. Welfare reform needs reform.
The Welfare Condition: Helping or
Hurting
People throughout the world are living below
the poverty line. Most countries have systems in place to assist the poor
population in transitioning out of poverty. The United States is one example of
a country with one of these programs; this program is called the Welfare System.
In the United States, the welfare program is not working as intended, instead of
providing people with the means to resume self-sufficiency the program is
causing a plethora of problems such as, poor family structure, a negative
perception of those receiving welfare benefits, and not aiding a majority in
need of assistance. Welfare reform has completely changed the inter-workings of
the welfare platform. The welfare program must completely change to provide the
poor an easier road they must travel to obtain financial assistance.
Since
welfare reform, which was enacted in 1996, many changes have been made to the
welfare system. One of the largest changes was the termination of the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the commencement of the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program (Albelda 123). It is easy to deduce
from the name of this new program that there is a set duration of time a family
in need can receive benefits. Anne Daguerre stated in her article The Second Phase of US Welfare Reform,
2000-2006: Blaming the Poor Again?, “TANF created a five-year lifetime
limit for receiving cash assistance and obliged welfare recipients, 90 percent
being single mothers, to find paid employment as quickly as possible” (363). This
new time limit and job requirement caused an influx of new problems. Families receiving
assistance before welfare reform could continue to receive benefits in harsh
economic times when attaining a low paying, non-stable job was all that was
available for most recipients. Under the new program TANF, as stated in Randy
Albelda’s article Welfare-To-Work, Farewell To Families? US Welfare
Reform And Work/Family Debates, “both state and
federal welfare laws now require the group of women who traditionally made the
least in the labor market, and do not have reliable family income sources to raise
their children, to find alternatives to cash assistance” (121). Entering the
job market and locating a replacement for welfare, in the now harsh economic
times, is more difficult than one may think.
The
welfare recipient’s task of obtaining a job that pays enough, in itself, to
move over the poverty line is not easily accomplished by most. The skill level
of a majority of the poor is not adequate enough to acquire a position that
pays more than minimum wage. According to the U.S. Census Bureau the 2011
poverty level for a family of three is $17,595, additionally, the federal
minimum wage in 2012 is $7.25 per hour. Therefore, a single mother of two could
hold a full-time job at minimum wage and gross $15,080 annually, $2,515 below
the poverty level before taxes (49). In a majority of the cases, leaving
welfare due to acquiring full-time employment is a step backward in aiding
families return to self-sufficiency. For welfare to work more effectively, work
training programs that prepare individuals for work that will pay enough to
place them above the poverty line will need to be utilized more. On another
hand, due to rough economic times, well-educated individuals are losing their
jobs and having to step into the realm of welfare. The state of the economy
plays a large part in job availability and the number of welfare applicants.
When
TANF was enacted in 1996, an abundance of new guidelines and regulations
appeared. One of these new guidelines gave the state government more
flexibility with how they used the funds given to them. With the economy
booming in the 90’s, there was a drastic reduction of people filing for welfare
benefits. Due to this small demand for welfare, states had a pool of money not
being used and saw the opportunity to fund other projects with the excess money
(Trisi and Pavetti 2). Diverting funds
intended for a specific program is never a good idea. The demand for welfare
benefits is intimately linked to the state of the economy. States did not
prepare for tough economic times, as Danilo Trisi and LaDonna Pavetti state in
their article TANF Weakening as a Safety Net For Poor Families, “However, when the economy slowed and the need for cash
assistance substantially increased, states were unable to reclaim those dollars
to help the growing number of families that needed it; instead, they responded
by cutting TANF benefits and tightening eligibility rules, often by shortening
or tightening time limits” (2). More federal
restrictions need to be put in place to regulate the local state government’s
ability to alter these programs.
An example of a local government
altering the federal policy was revealed during an interview conducted with
Shane Leach of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare - Information
Management Unit he stated, “TAFI or Temporary Assistance for Families in Idaho
has a lifetime limit of 24 months, which is cash assistance of 309 dollars per
month, at the federal level this program is called the TANF and the lifetime
limit is 60 months or five years”. States have the ability to change the
maximum amount of time a family can receive benefits. This power the states
have over the program can dramatically decrease the amount of people who need
benefits. A family that extinguishes their time limit for benefits will have an
extremely hard time if they ever have the need for additional benefits in that state.
Later in the interview with Leach, he states “The goal of our welfare program
is self-reliance which is the name of our program here in Idaho, the purpose being
to move people who are currently having challenges to become more self-reliant
by providing a variety of forms of assistance such as SNAP (food stamps) and
TAFI (Temporary Assistance for Families in Idaho).” This goal is the same throughout the United
States welfare system. Unfortunately this is not happening in most cases. Sandra
Morgan and Jeff Maskovsky do a good job explaining this in their article The
Anthropology of Welfare "Reform": New Perspectives on U.S. Urban
Poverty in the Post-Welfare Era, “ … many of those affected by
welfare “reform” experience quite the opposite: intensified surveillance,
punishment, and ultimately the abrogation of their citizenship rights” (329).
The U.S. welfare system needs to be reevaluated to address these serious
issues.
Since welfare reform, noticeable
decreases in applicants for assistance have been present. Despite this downward
trend in demand for benefits “… the number of families with children in poverty
increased by 17 percent over this period [1995-2010], from 6.2 million to 7.3
million, and the number of poor children climbed by 12 percent or by 1.7 million
children”(Trisi and Pavetti 1). The
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that only one in six
federally eligible children receive child care subsidies. Just over 14.5
million children are eligible to receive child care subsidies, but only 2.5
million children are actually receiving aid for child care costs (see table 1
below for exact numbers).
Table 1: Number of
Children Potentially Eligible and Percent of Eligible
Children Receiving Child Care Subsidies, Average Monthly,
2006
|
Children
Potentially
Eligible for
CCDF Under
Federal
Parameters
|
Children
Receiving
Subsidies
|
Percent of
Potentially
Eligible
Children
Receiving
Subsidies
|
Ratio of
Potentially
Eligible
Children
Receiving
Subsidies
|
All Children
|
14,574,000
|
2,506,000
|
17%
|
1 in 6
|
(Data from the Department of Health and
Human Services ASPE Issue Brief)
New eligibility
requirements are scaring people who need assistance from completing the
application. One of these requirements steering away potential needy families
from obtaining assistance is the incorporation of a drug test. Arthur Sulzberger writes in his New York Times article States
Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare, “As more Americans turn to government programs for
refuge from a merciless economy, a growing number are encountering a new price
of admission to the social safety net: a urine sample” (para 1). This is just
one of many examples of how the government and society stereotype welfare
recipients. This negative perception implies that everyone is a drug user, now
requiring normal people who have been laid off from their job due to rough
economic times to take a drug test if they wish to move forward with the
process of receiving benefits. Someone that has been laid off from a corporate
job would not be too keen on taking a drug test, and why should they be? This person is a hardworking citizen that
shouldn’t be forced to take a drug test because he or she lost their job due to
the state of the economy. Not all states have passed this type of legislation,
however a number have generated support for drug testing welfare recipients.
Individuals receiving
welfare benefits have to live with this “negative perception”. Recipients often
report that their caseworkers disrespect them and treat them unfairly. Karen
Seccombe writes, “Women repeatedly described many
problems [with the welfare system]: they complained that the system is far too
impersonal, caseworkers are unhelpful; the push is on to find a job, any job,
regardless of the quality of it; there should be more one-on-one help; child
support payments should be more closely enforced and monitored; and the
delivery of medical services through the Public Health Unit were problematic” (qtd.
in Swarts 39). Drug users who receive benefits are also perceived negatively by
the public and government. The common misconception
exists that an overwhelming majority of people on welfare are abusing their financial
assistance using the money to support their drug habits. “Some [women]
mentioned that every time they met their caseworker, they were threatened with
loss of their benefits” (Luck, Elifson, and Sterk 119). United States social
workers need to help people in situations like this and not chastise them for
having a problem. Finding addicts treatment options would be far more beneficial
than simply judging and treating them with disrespect. “A number of women gave
the food stamps to relatives who were caring for their children, although some
women who were heavily involved in drug use admitted using food stamps to buy
drugs. However, the latter are the exception, not the rule” (Luck, Elifson, and
Sterk 119). There are many reasons that welfare recipients have obtained such a
bad reputation. This negative attention frustrates individuals receiving
benefits and families end up dealing with the unneeded stress of not knowing
how their next appointment with their caseworker will turn out. In a study done
by the National Poverty Center (NPC) they found that “psychiatric disorders,
especially major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, are more
prevalent than drug and alcohol dependence among welfare recipients” (Jayakody et al. 2). Drug use is not
at the top of the list for personnel issues who are on welfare, but still
welfare recipients are widely known as “drug users”.
The
welfare recipients family structure is easily affected, welfare benefits bring
with them a certain lifestyle. From all the negative feedback from caseworkers
and society to not being able to buy groceries because they do not receive
enough money from welfare, families easily find themselves in a bad environment
in and outside their home. Smoking, which is fairly common in the United States,
also shows a significant presence in the realm of welfare among youths. Danielle
Fettes and Gregory Aarons state in their article Smoking Behavior of US Youths: A Comparison Between Child Welfare
System and Community Populations, “CW-involved youths had significantly
higher rates of lifetime smoking (43% vs 32%) and current smoking (23% vs 18%)
than did youths in the community population” (2342). The current welfare system
is setting up families for failure. Not providing them structural support when
families need help. Not providing them with this structural support causes many
of them to find the support themselves, via smoking or robbery or theft. The
living conditions for children in homes of welfare recipients is too commonly a
negative environment, with the intervention of the welfare system, by providing
counseling to show the parents of these children ways to deal with being laid
off from work and not taking these hardships out on their families.
In
summation, the welfare system has many issues and is in need of re-evaluation. There
have been many changes to the welfare system in the last twenty years. The
largest of these changes was welfare reform which took effect in 1996. This
replaced AFDC with TANF, which placed a time limit on benefits (Albelda 123). Most
families living in poverty find difficultly in acquiring a job that pays enough
to bring them out of poverty status. Welfare reform granted states the power to
move funds intended for welfare recipients, in addition states could mold their
programs. States could shorten the lifetime limit a recipient could receive
benefits. Another change some states initiated is incorporating a drug test
into the requirements to acquire benefits (Trisi and Pavetti 2). The addition
of these requirements and limits has caused some people in need of benefits not
to apply for them. When a family finally qualifies for benefits the stress is
not over. Caseworkers and a majority of the public look down on welfare
recipients, often treating them with disrespect. Drug users, in a majority of
the cases are not abusing the welfare program, using benefits to provide for
their children, but are still treated as being inferior and insignificant (Luck,
Elifson, and Sterk 119). Smoking is more prevalent in children of families
receiving welfare benefits. Family structure plays a large role in the
upbringing of children. Children of welfare families are often in an
environment that is anything but ideal (Fettes and Aarons 2342). Individuals
eager to become actively involved in changing the welfare system can write a
formal letter to the United States House of Representatives or their local
senator describing concerns about the program. The welfare system is flawed,
but if policy makers listen to welfare recipients’ complaints and read scholar’s
thoughts of the program, then there may be hope to fix this broken system.
Works Cited
"Estimates of Child Care Eligibility and
Receipt for Fiscal Year 2006." ASPE
: Issue Brief. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 22 Apr. 2010.
Web. 29 Sept. 2012. <http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/10/cc-eligibility/ib.shtml>.
Albelda, Randy. "Welfare-To-Work, Farewell
To Families? US Welfare Reform And Work/Family Debates." Feminist Economics 7.1 (2001):
119-135. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 19 Sept. 2012.
Cecilio Morales. Welfare: Opposing Viewpoints.
Ed. David M. Haugen and Andrea B. DeMott. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2008. Print.
Daguerre, Anne. "The Second Phase of US
Welfare Reform, 2000-2006: Blaming the Poor Again?" Social Policy & Administration 42.4 (2008): 362-78. Print.
DeNavas-Walt, Carmen D. "Current Population
Reports." Income,
Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011. U.S.
Census Bureau, Sept. 2012. Web. 27 Sept. 2012.
Fettes, Danielle, L., and Gregory, A. Aarons.
"Smoking Behavior Of US Youths: A Comparison Between Child Welfare System
And Community Populations." American
Journal Of Public Health 101.12 (2011): 2342-2348. CINAHL with Full Text. Web. 19 Sept. 2012.
Jayakody, Rukmalie, Sheldon Danziger, Kristin
Seefeldt, and Harold Pollack. "Substance Abuse and Welfare Reform." National Poverty Center.
University of Michigan, Apr. 2004. Web. 30 Sept. 2012. <http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief02/>.
Leach, Shane. Telephone interview. 21 Sept. 2012.
Luck, Philip A.Elifson, Kirk W.Sterk, Claire E.
"Female Drug Users And The Welfare System: A Qualitative
Exploration." Drugs: Education,
Prevention & Policy 11.2 (2004): 113-128. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
Collection. Web. 19 Sept. 2012.
Morgen, Sandra, and Jeff Maskovsky. "THE
ANTHROPOLOGY OF WELFARE "REFORM": New Perspectives On U.S. Urban
Poverty In The Post-Welfare Era." Annual
Review Of Anthropology 32.1 (2003): 315-338. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 Sept. 2012.
Office Of The Assistant Secretary For Planning
And Evaluation Office Of Human Services Policy. "Table 1: Number of
Children Potentially Eligible and Percent of Eligible Children Receiving Child
Care Subsidies, Average Monthly, 2006." ASPE
Issue Brief: U.S. Department of Health And Human Services, 2010. Web. 30
Sept 2012. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/10/cc-eligibility/ib.pdf.
Seccombe, Karen. Welfare. Ed. Katherine Swarts.
Detroit: Greenhaven, 2008. Print.
Sulzberger, A. G.
"States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare." The
New York Times, 11 Oct. 2011. Web. 19 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/us/states-adding-drug-test-as-hurdle-for-welfare.html?pagewanted=all>.
Trisi, Danilo, and LaDonna Pavetti. "TANF
WEAKENING AS A SAFETY NET FOR POOR FAMILIES." Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities. N.p., 13 Mar. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view>.
Annotated
Bibliography
Albelda, Randy. "Welfare-To-Work, Farewell
To Families? US Welfare Reform And Work/Family Debates." Feminist Economics 7.1 (2001):
119-135. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 19 Sept. 2012.
This
source discusses how welfare reform is hurting poor people who require assistance
by requiring that they have jobs and leave the welfare program after five years.
It continues to cover how after recipients are “kicked” off welfare they will
not make enough to cover their day to day living expenses. “Both state and
federal welfare laws now require the group of women who traditionally made the
least in the labor market, and do not have reliable family income sources to
raise their children, to find alternatives to cash assistance. Most often this
means getting a job, usually in the low-wage labor market. In the US, jobs in
this sector typically have minimal flexibility (for workers) and few
“family-friendly” benefits” (Albelda 2001 PG 121). This quote will help me
address some of the issues with the welfare reform. In general many families
are worse off after they leave the welfare system.
Fettes, Danielle, L., and Gregory, A. Aarons.
"Smoking Behavior Of US Youths: A Comparison Between Child Welfare System
And Community Populations." American
Journal Of Public Health 101.12 (2011): 2342-2348. CINAHL with Full Text. Web. 19 Sept.
2012.
This
article compares children whose families are receiving welfare benefits and
children whose families are not receiving welfare benefits smoking habits
between the ages 12-14. “The prevalences of lifetime and current smoking are
significantly higher among CW [Child Welfare] involved youths than among
community population youths. Youth smoking has a strong influence on adolescent
and adult physical and emotional health, so the higher rates of smoking among
CW-involved youths are particularly distressing. The relative lack of evidence
regarding the causes of those higher rates highlights the need for further
research to improve the long-term health of youths and to reduce the
tobacco-related burden on the health care system (Fettes and Aarons 2012). This
excerpt from the article helps support my claim that the current welfare system
is setting up families for failure. Not providing them structural support when
families need it. Not providing them with this structural support causes many
of them to find the support themselves, via smoking or robbery or theft. The
living conditions for children located in homes of welfare recipients is too
commonly a negative environment, with the intervention of the welfare system,
providing counseling to show the parents of these children ways to deal with
being laid off from work and not taking these hardships out on their children.
Luck, Philip A.Elifson, Kirk W.Sterk, Claire E.
"Female Drug Users And The Welfare System: A Qualitative
Exploration." Drugs: Education,
Prevention & Policy 11.2 (2004): 113-128. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
Collection. Web. 19 Sept. 2012.
This
article discusses the common misconception that an overwhelming majority of
people on welfare are abusing their financial assistance and using it to
support their drug habits. It also states that most women were on welfare
longer than they were using drugs. “Additionally, the women reported negative
experiences with social or caseworkers who, on occasion, treated them
inappropriately and with hostility. Some mentioned that every time they met
their caseworker, they were threatened with loss of their benefits. The women
stated that they might have been treated with disrespect by the social workers
because of their drug use” (Luck, Elifson, and Sterk 2012 PG 119). This
enforces the fact that people on welfare are being treated in a negative way
instead of trying to help addicts overcome their drug problem. Our countries
social workers need to help people in situations like this and not chastise
them for having a problem. Finding addicts treatment options would be far more
beneficial than simply judging and treating them with disrespect. “A number of
women gave the food stamps to relatives who were caring for their children,
although some women who were heavily involved in drug use admitted using food
stamps to buy drugs. However, the latter are the exception, not the rule”
(Luck, Elifson, and Sterk 2012). Drug users more commonly give their assistance
away than use it to acquire drugs.
Trisi, Danilo, and LaDonna Pavetti. "TANF
WEAKENING AS A SAFETY NET FOR POOR FAMILIES." Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities. N.p., 13 Mar. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view>.
This article analyzes the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families program, indicating that the program is not reaching a great deal of
families in need of assistance. The article includes statistics that show the
decline in requests to enroll in the program despite an increase in poverty. Many
useful statistics are present in this article. I will be using some of these
statistics in my essay. “TANF caseloads declined by at least 27 percent in
every state and by more than 50 percent in 36 states. Meanwhile, the number of
families with children in poverty increased by 17 percent over this period,
from 6.2 million to 7.3 million, and the number of poor children climbed by 12
percent, or by 1.7 million children” (Trisi and Pavetti 2012). I think this
quote will aid in placing the current welfare condition into perspective for my
readers. “Since TANF’s inception, states have taken advantage of the
block grant’s flexibility. When TANF caseloads declined in the late 1990s as
the unemployment rate fell to 4 percent, they shifted TANF funds to other
purposes. However, when the economy slowed and the need for cash assistance
substantially increased, states were unable to reclaim those dollars to help
the growing number of families that needed it; instead, they responded by
cutting TANF benefits and tightening eligibility rules, often by shortening or
tightening time limits“ (Trisi and Pavetti
2012). This quote will help show how the states have been handling their power
over the budget allotted for the TANF program given by the latest welfare
reform policy.
Sulzberger, A. G.
"States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare." The
New York Times, 11 Oct. 2011. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/us/states-adding-drug-test-as-hurdle-for-welfare.html?pagewanted=all>.
This
source covers the recent addition of passing a drug test to the eligibility
requirements to receive welfare benefits in some states. It also contains
information about states that are pushing legislation to make this a
requirement and statistics about drug use and employment. “As more Americans turn to government programs for
refuge from a merciless economy, a growing number are encountering a new price
of admission to the social safety net: a urine sample” (Sulzberger 2011). This is one example of how the government has
generalized welfare recipients as “drug users”. This negative perception
implies that everyone is a drug user, now requiring normal people who have been
laid off from their job due to rough economic times to take a drug test if they
wish to move forward with the process of receiving benefits. I know that
someone laid off from a corporate job would not be too keen on taking a drug
test, and why should he? He is a
hardworking citizen that shouldn’t be forced to take a drug test because he or
she lost their job due to the state of the economy.
Morgen, Sandra, and Jeff Maskovsky. "THE
ANTHROPOLOGY OF WELFARE "REFORM": New Perspectives On U.S. Urban
Poverty In The Post-Welfare Era." Annual
Review Of Anthropology 32.1 (2003): 315-338. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 Sept. 2012.
This article has an abundance of information on welfare
reform, including the new requirements applicants must meet to receive benefits.
This article discusses the government’s notion of welfare dependency, how most
receiving welfare aid are not abusing it or depending on it but are “staying
afloat” with it. “Welfare reform claims to empower the poor by bringing them
into the mainstream of society, i.e., the workforce. But many of those affected
by welfare “reform” experience quite the opposite: intensified surveillance,
punishment, and ultimately the abrogation of their citizenship rights” (Morgen
and Maskovsky 2003). This quote will help me explain my point of the difficulty
to acquire and continue to receive benefits.
Engdahl, Sylvia, ed. Introduction. Welfare.
Detroit: Greenhaven, 2011. 14-17. Print.
This book talks about some of the major court
cases involving welfare. Most of these cases involve protecting the welfare
recipient’s rights; others cover states action to minimize traveling welfare
cases, which is when a welfare recipient moves to a state offering a higher
monthly benefit than their current state (Engdahl 2011). “Conflicting opinions
about the role of the government in reducing poverty are based in a deeper
conflict between differing political philosophies, and can therefore never be
wholly resolved. The nation’s welfare policy has changed over time and will continue
to change. The aim must be to find the best possible balance between opposing
views” (Engdahl, 2011 PG 17). Since welfare’s inception there has been a
constant disagreement in how the welfare program should be run and therefore
changes have been made in policy fairly regularly.
Haskins, Ron, and Cecilio Morales. Welfare: Opposing Viewpoints.
Ed. David M. Haugen and Andrea B. DeMott. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2008. Print.
This book is a very useful resource because it
discusses welfare issues like many other articles and books, but this one has
opposing viewpoints. This book has the views of professionals for and against
certain welfare related issues. ”Between 1994 and 2004, the caseload declined
about 60 percent, a decline that is without precedent. The percentage of U.S.
children on welfare is now lower than it has been since at least 1970” (Haskins
2008 PG 25). “According to a federal estimate, for example, 14.7 million
children in low-income families are eligible to receive subsidies for child
care, but only 1.5 million actually receive them (Morales 2008 PG 33). These
opposing views on welfare reform will help me display multiple viewpoints for
my readers.
Mead, Lawrence M., and Premilla Nadasen. Welfare. Ed. Cynthia A. Bily.
Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2009. Print.
This is another source that has multiple
different views on specific welfare issues. “The overall poverty rate fell from
14.5 percent in 1994 to 11.3 percent in 2000, before rising to 12.6 percent in
2005” (Mead 2009 PG 38). “[In July 2006] a full time worker at the current
federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour earns $10,700 annually, $5,000 below the
poverty line for a family of three” (Nadasen 2009 PG 43). These quotes will
help incorporate different views on welfare topics. The latter will assist in
my discussion that just because a welfare recipient leaves welfare upon
obtaining a job they are still earning below the poverty line.
Seccombe, Karen. Welfare.
Ed. Katherine Swarts. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2008. Print.
This source examines the issues with welfare. This
book contains statements from actual welfare recipients, describing how hard it
is to live and how they are treated as welfare recipients. “Women repeatedly
described many problems [with the welfare system]: they complained that the
system is far too impersonal, caseworkers are unhelpful; the push is on to find
a job, any job, regardless of the quality of it; there should be more
one-on-one help; child support payments should be more closely enforced and
monitored; and the delivery of medical services through the Public Health Unit
were problematic” (Swarts 2008 PG 39). The negative image portrayed about
welfare recipients is clear through this quote. This quote will assist me in
describing this image to my readers.
"Estimates of Child Care Eligibility and
Receipt for Fiscal Year 2006." ASPE
: Issue Brief. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 22 Apr. 2010.
Web. 29 Sept. 2012. <http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/10/cc-eligibility/ib.shtml>.
This source gives statistics of estimates for the
number of children that are eligible to receive aid and the number of children
that are actually receiving assistance. The numbers discussed in this article
are very sobering. Such a small amount of children eligible for aid are
receiving it. The U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services estimates that only one in six federally eligible children
receive child care subsidies. Just over 14.5 million children are eligible to
receive child care subsidies, but only 2.5 million children are actually
receiving aid for child care costs (1). This paraphrase will assist me in
showing the gap between children eligible and children receiving assistance.
Daguerre, Anne. "The Second Phase of US
Welfare Reform, 2000-2006: Blaming the Poor Again?" Social Policy & Administration 42.4 (2008): 362-78. Print.
This article discusses the progression of welfare
reform since it was enacted in 1996. Welfare reform has made some important
changes to the welfare program. One of these changes is the replacement of AFDC
with TANF. TANF brought with it some new big changes, “TANF
created a five-year lifetime limit for receiving cash assistance and obliged
welfare recipients, 90 percent being single mothers, to find paid employment as
quickly as possible” (363). This quote will assist me in portraying some of the
restrictions when receiving welfare benefits.
DeNavas-Walt, Carmen D. "Current Population
Reports." Income,
Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011. U.S.
Census Bureau, Sept. 2012. Web. 27 Sept. 2012.
This report lists the poverty threshold for 2011.
In reading this source one can see how little money people in poverty make and
are required to survive on. U.S. Census Bureau the 2011 poverty
level for a family of three is $17,595, additionally, the federal minimum wage
in 2012 is $7.25 per hour. Therefore, a single mother of two could hold a
full-time job at minimum wage and gross $15,080 annually, $2,515 below the
poverty level before taxes (49). This paraphrase will show that individuals
working full-time at a job that pays minimum wage are still earning under the
set poverty line.
Jayakody, Rukmalie, Sheldon Danziger, Kristin
Seefeldt, and Harold Pollack. "Substance Abuse and Welfare Reform." National Poverty Center.
University of Michigan, Apr. 2004. Web. 30 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief02/>.
This source discusses the relation of substance
abuse and welfare recipients. There is a common misconception that all welfare
recipients are drug abusers. This article states that
“psychiatric disorders, especially major depression and post-traumatic stress
disorder, are more prevalent than drug and alcohol dependence among welfare
recipients” (Jayakody et al. 2).
This quote will help validate my claim that everyone receiving welfare benefits
is not addicted to drugs. These stereotypes need to be broken for the welfare
program to function more smoothly.
Office Of The Assistant Secretary For Planning
And Evaluation Office Of Human Services Policy. "Table 1: Number of
Children Potentially Eligible and Percent of Eligible Children Receiving Child
Care Subsidies, Average Monthly, 2006." ASPE
Issue Brief: U.S. Department of Health And Human Services, 2010. Web. 30
Sept 2012. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/10/cc-eligibility/ib.pdf.
This
table is from a previously annotated source. See “Estimates of Child Care Eligibility and Receipt for Fiscal
Year 2006.”
Leach, Shane. Telephone interview. 21 Sept. 2012.
Shane Leach works at the Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare where he is the supervisor of the Information Management
Unit. During the interview Shane said, “TAFI or Temporary
Assistance for Families in Idaho has a lifetime limit of 24 months, which is
cash assistance of 309 dollars per month, at the federal level this program is
called the TANF and the lifetime limit is 60 months or five years”. Later in
the interview he states, “The goal of our welfare program is self-reliance
which is the name of our program here in Idaho, the purpose being to move
people who are currently having challenges to become more self-reliant by
providing a variety of forms of assistance such as SNAP (food stamps) and TAFI
(Temporary Assistance for Families in Idaho).”
These quotes will assist in defining some of the Idaho specific
restrictions and policy attributes.