Welfare Does More Harm Than Good - Essay Example

Welfare Does More Harm Than Good? The structuring of the current U.S. system of welfare was intended toease the circumstances of poverty for single-parent households. However, in its present condition, a credible argument can be made the system does more harm than good. Though the welfare system does help to provide greatly needed assistance for low-income persons and their children, it also has brought unintended outcomes for example births to unmarried women have increased as a result and many believe that welfare acts to discourage recipients from obtaining employment. This discussion examines the U.S. welfare system including the issues surrounding it, documents the failures and successes which have resulted and attempts to appreciate the cultural aspects regarding the reasons ethnic groups are more likely to receive welfare benefits. Additionally, the U.S. welfare system is compared to those of other developed countries in an effort to contextualize the subject. Partly in response to widely held concerns that welfare was simply a handout by tax payers to those that refused to work and pay taxes, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) was enacted in 1996. Its objectives were to provide monetary aid to impoverished families; end the generation to generation cycle of welfare dependency by encouraging marriage, job training and employment; reducing the number of children who are born out-of-wedlock while encouraging family units that contain two parents. TANF “tightens benefit eligibility criteria by implementing a five-year lifetime limit on receiving benefits, invoking stricter work and education requirements to qualify for benefits and strengthening the enforcement of child support obligations” (Keng, Garasky & Jensen, 2000). TANF and the welfare system as a whole has been the subject of much debate for many years regarding not only how, but if it should be implemented. If on no other political subject, all seem to be able to agree that the current welfare system is not working as well as it could. State governors criticize the current welfare law as being excessively regulatory in nature and have expressed a willingness to exchange a reduction of federal funding for fewer regulations on how to spend it. Most citizens are of the opinion that welfare is generally a give-away of their tax dollars to those unwilling to work and supports the proliferation of non-traditional families’ situations. However, polling data demonstrates that most people support further welfare reform but in a way that doesn’t punish children. Those receiving welfare would rather find employment than collect a check from a system that humiliates, degrades and demoralizes them. According to various studies, welfare payments of all types in 48 of the 50 states haven’t lived up to the promise of slowing the escalation of families living in poverty (Committee on Ways and Means, 1994). Some suggest that the states already have considerable flexibility in deciding the allocation of federal grant money they receive and that the regulations and guidelines could be further relaxed so as to allow the states to better serve their citizens. Others argue that block grants only encourage further social inequities and can encourage corruption at the state level because of an inadequate means of public scrutiny. By funding job training facilities and sponsoring educational programs, the federal government encourages welfare recipients to secure employment. Without such assistance, economically disadvantaged citizens would have great difficulty locating and retaining employment thus be forced to remain on welfare. Not all are of this opinion, however. They argue that the best method of putting welfare recipients to work is to stop their checks. That would force them to either become employed or starve and given that choice, they would somehow find work without assistance from the government. This point if view is not based on situational evidence such as in Michigan where the State’s statistics showed that more than 60 percent of those persons removed from General Assistance remained unemployed. Most women that receive welfare conceived their first baby as a teenager. The pregnancy is usually unintended and occurred outside of wedlock. Welfare is normally the result and not the cause of this though and there is insufficient empirical evidence to show that by denying this group benefits prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies from decreasing in number. Research does demonstrate that a slight increase in the number of abortions is more probable. Removing a greater number of children from the depravations of poverty necessitates a combination of occurrences. Minimum or low-wage earners must be supplemented not only with the Earned Income Tax Credit but also with health insurance and child care in addition to the children receiving financial support from both parents. Because of federal budgetary constraints, the safety net of welfare benefits and programs such as Medicare that assist impoverished children is expected to diminish. The welfare system as it stands today is lacking in resources and innovative methods by which to alleviate child poverty. “Measured against the objectives of providing adequate flexibility to the states, encouraging work, strengthening the family, and reducing poverty, most current proposals are found wanting” (Sawhill, 1995). TANF requires that welfare recipients be employed in order to obtain monetary grants from the federal government. This fundamental feature of the reform legislation is not an innovative concept. The Welfare Incentive Program of 1967 applied the same policy as did the 1988 Family Support Act. However, the funding for sufficient job training and childcare, an essential factor in the program’s success, is woefully inadequate. “Motivational and job-search sessions constituted the extent of training. Childcare funding never matched need and the wages of welfare lagged behind rises in the cost of living” (Boris, 1998, p. 30). TANF, however well-intentioned, increased welfare recipients’ employment obligations but did not provide sufficient federal funding so that the program could be properly implemented. Several programs which had provided those receiving welfare vocational education and training have either been cut dramatically or eliminated altogether. The current welfare system’s insufficient job training programs serves only to further saturate a low-income labor market. This greatly diminishes the earnings thus buying power for many thousands of poverty-stricken women, a considerable sector of the work force. Current federal welfare strategies essentially disregard unemployed men with regard to their needs for vocational education. One of the only federal programs that addressed unemployed family men was the Community Work and Training Program of 1962. Since that time, legislators have not renewed nor considered this type of program. The prison system is one of the only facilities in the U.S. that provides impoverished men employment or counseling for mental health issues, an unfortunate comment on the values of society. Incarceration in prison and welfare programs which do not adequately address the needs of women and ignore men altogether are interrelated because of these failed federal policies. “Similar to the poor houses of the past, which combined work with imprisonment, today’s welfare and criminal justice policies represent a division of labor between different managerial agencies, with jails and prisons primarily containing unemployed men, and welfare agencies primarily regulating unemployed women and their children” (Wimberly, 2000). Both the welfare and prison systems exploit immigrants, minorities and poor persons of all ethnicities. Of those women on welfare, a disproportionate percentage is African-American. Approximately 12 percent of all African-American males in the 25 to 34 age-range are currently incarcerated. Impoverished women have incurred the added indignity of an increased rate of imprisonment and a decline of welfare benefits over the past two decades, a not so subtle coincidence. Between 1985 and 1997, the number of women in prison has increased three-fold, the vast majority from impoverished backgrounds. The number of women incarcerated in the U.S. exceeds the number in the U.K., Spain, Germany and France combined (Wimberly, 2000). The current welfare system limits a woman’s capacity to obtain federal financial aid for higher education purposes. It also forces many to work many miles away from home and imposes stringent ‘moral’ requirements. Women in the middle and upper classes, however, have the ability to more readily choose to combine family obligations and employment, freely practice their individual sexual orientations and to have an abortion. Impoverished women subsisting on welfare do not have control over these life, or lifestyle issues. The policies of the current welfare system are intended to force poor women to adjust their life choices so that they match with the prevailing view of ‘morality’ of those writing the legislation and to force an increasing number of women into low paying, esteem lowering jobs that provide little or usually, no benefits at all. The policy of most states, given their new discretionary powers, is and will continue to be to ‘persuade’ women off welfare roles and to work outside of the home, many times well outside the home, with no regard as to their families’ needs. “Substituting work outside the home for family labor denies the value to the labor that poor single mothers already perform for their families and demands that they leave their children as a condition of welfare” (Boris, 1998, p. 41). Welfare reform has transformed what was a federal hand-out program into more of a help-up system. It has decreased the number by half of those on the public dole and has enabled many to secure employment which not only alleviates child poverty but stimulates the economy as well. It accomplished this by instituting incentives for welfare recipients to seek employment including the requirement to work, ending the financial incentive to have more children and putting a time-limit on the period of payments so the program is a temporary stop-gap for families instead of a lifelong occupation. A work-oriented program, TANF is unlike the previous welfare system that was designed during the Depression to assist single mothers but grew into a massive entitlement program. The evidence of its success lies in the incredible decrease of persons participating in the welfare system. More than five million families participated in the AFDC just prior to the enactment of the TANF. This number decreased to approximately two million by the end of 2004 (Tanner, 2003). Though some predicted that single mothers would be adversely affected by welfare reform, statistics prove otherwise. The Urban Institute was one of the critics of the reform but according to its own study, more than two-thirds of single mothers that ended their participation in 1999 had secured employment. Additionally, less than one-third of teenage single mothers were employed in 1992. By 2000, half were employed and this number is steadily rising. However, these statistics do not consider the many thousands of women who would have added to the welfare system between those comparative years. Though it is true that many women accepted jobs that offered low pay, with the Earned Income Tax Credit factored in, they made a livable wage which certainly paid better than welfare payments did. More often than not, those women that left the welfare system were being paid at a rate higher than the minimum wage. According to the Urban Institute, the average wage for past recipients was close to $8 per hour. Furthermore, the poverty rate amongst single mothers has steadily declined since reforms were enacted (Tanner, 2003). Factors that influence the numbers of those that leave the TANF program then return include many varying individual circumstances including the reliability of child support, amount of income, whether children are present and whether or not the parents are married among others. The longer a person stays off benefits, the less chance for recidivism. The total amount of income coming into the family budget such as child support and/or wages is the major determinant in the level of success for leaving and not returning to the welfare system. This is especially important during the first few months of non-participation. Studies have shown that “greater non-wage income, higher wage rates, more years of schooling, fewer children, good health, and being white are related to lower participation rates and higher exit rates” (Moffitt, 1992). Welfare dependence is commonly defined as the length of time a person participates but is only measured by one length of stay at a time. The definition does not take into account recidivism rates among recipients of welfare. The majority of studies conducted on a national basis were performed or use information from before welfare reform became law. Typically, close to one-third of those leaving the system return within a year, approximately half returned within two years (Meyer & Cancian, 1996). Studies completed after the reforms were enacted show a slight drop in those figures but are statistically insignificant. Few studies take recidivism into account therefore it is problematical to determine an accurate rate of those returning to welfare nationally. In addition, many studies that limit their investigation to recidivism measure varying lengths of time that individuals have stayed off TANF (Cancian et al, 1999). Seasonal employment such as agricultural work in rural areas is another factor that influences studies and skews statistics regarding recidivism. Those employed in seasonal work may go on and off welfare depending on the time of year. This affects not only the statistics but also has a possible negative impact on an individual’s eligibility when applying for benefits. “The five-year lifetime limit for welfare receipt may have different and more serious implications for recipients living in areas where job markets expand and contract seasonally” (Brady et al, 2000).  Seasonal employment is one reason for recidivism but is only one of many. A study conducted by the Iowa Family Investment Program (FIP) discovered that living in rural areas increased the probability of recidivism into the FIP. It also found that, as in urban areas, increased income decreases the recidivism rate. Another finding by the study was that those individuals that accepted Food Stamps were less likely to return to FIP. Also, the rate of recidivism was unaffected by the unemployment rate. In conclusion, the study suggested that the rate of recidivism could be reduced if government officials begin addressing “policies directed toward enhancing human capital (e.g., formal education, job training), enforcing the payment of child support, and ensuring the continued availability of food assistance will be the most significant policies for helping families achieve economic self-sufficiency” (Jensen, Keng & Garasky, 2000). Numerous comprehensive changes in welfare policy include noteworthy significances to people of color. Current studies have provided sufficient evidence which raise concerns regarding these changes and how they could lead to a potentially negative outcome for recipients of color seeking TANF and their efforts to progress from indigence to financial solvency. The nation’s most needy families, a disproportionate amount being of minority ethnicity, no longer are covered under the federal umbrella of financial aid in the same way they were by AFDC. In addition to being limited to five years of support and subject to ‘morality’ laws, benefits for immigrants have been severely curtailed. Large sectors of the nation’s poor immigrants cannot obtain Food Stamps and the majority are not eligible for welfare benefits until after they have been in the country for five years. In addition, individuals convicted of a felony involving drugs are denied TANF and Food Stamp benefits (Levin-Epstein, 1996, p. 5). The welfare system’s transition from an entitlement program to the current TANF system revokes the security of a continual financial ‘safety net’ for poor families. “Given the ‘status’ disparities that have existed between racial and ethnic communities and their white counterparts prior to welfare reform, this dilution of federal policy may potentially expand the widening socioeconomic divide between races” (The Scholar Practitioner Program, 2001). Additionally, there are a number of varied circumstances involving culture, language and intrinsic discrimination which immigrants and ethnic minorities are faced with which present further roadblocks to self-sufficiency. These circumstances seem to have not been a consideration of policymakers. According to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report, the number of families receiving assistance from TANF decreased by approximately 44 percent from 1996 to 1999. Though all racial groups experienced declines in the overall numbers receiving welfare, the different groups, black, white and Hispanics have experienced very different outcomes by percentage. The percentage of white persons receiving TANF benefits dropped by approximately eight percent from 1996 to 1998. During this same time period, the percentage of blacks increased by nearly five percent and Hispanics by a just over seven percent. Apparently, the white recipients exited the welfare rolls more quickly and/or entered at a slower pace than did blacks and Hispanics. Several explanations either separately or combined account for these variations including many that are related to the job market. Minorities living in inner cities have limited job opportunities because of the decline of these areas over the past several decades. They also are likely to be less skilled and have less education and work experience and are much more likely to encounter discrimination from prospective employers (Savner, 2000). In the U.S., a long-standing and irrefutable correlation has existed and still exists between a person’s status as a minority and the poor economic conditions in which they live. Children of both Black and Hispanic descent have a greater propensity to be impoverished than are white or Asian children. Almost one third of black and Hispanic children, 30 and 28 percent respectively, live below the poverty line but the rates for whites and Asians are decidedly lower at 10 and 12 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001). Welfare reform affects poor families exclusively thus, based on these statistics, the effects on ethnic minorities are far greater than for whites. Despite the extensive welfare restructuring in the U.S. and its continued expansion from the time of the New Deal through the Civil Rights Movement, it would be a gross understatement to declare that the U.S. welfare system does not compare to European countries. Social assistance programs in Sweden and Germany, for example, realistically act to lessen the effects of poverty in those countries.  Unlike the TANF, both of these countries’ programs are unconditional and unlimited.  The U.S. welfare system is not designed to lessen the effects of poverty for its citizens. It is designed to give poor families employment opportunities in hopes that this will breed financial success (Alesina et al, 2001, p. 10). Europeans, in contrast to Americans, tend to affiliate the poor persons in their countries as members within their group. Americans consider the poor as a different group than themselves. It is a natural human phenomenon to perceive those in the ‘out group,’ especially in this situation, as inferior. Citizens in the U.S. are unified more by language than ethnicity. Europeans are much more inclined to be of the same ethnicity therefore social expenditures are greater in those countries. Europeans are more inclined to think of the poor as merely unfortunate and thus more eager to help them whereas Americans are far less eager because they perceive the poor as lazy and should work harder to achieve the successes of the white middle class. Americans believe people can ‘work their way’ out of impoverished conditions therefore they have little or no interest with financing welfare as a safety net for the disadvantaged. The criticisms of the current welfare system are primarily four-fold. States are not given adequate flexibility; the system does little to encourage employment, is the primary cause for the collapse of the traditional two-parent family and has not reduced poverty. It is a cruel irony. The U.S. is the most powerful economic society in the history of the world yet is not willing to ease the miseries of those in desperate poverty residing within its own borders. The U.S. implementation of welfare reform as a method of giving people a hand up may be well intentioned but the results give other countries the impression that America is the land for the rich and home of the bigoted and uncaring. Combined with other events currently unfolding in the world, the U.S. hardly needs another reason to be ridiculed and despised. Perhaps, instead of waving the flag and spouting ‘we are number one’, Americans could look to examples set by other countries more successful welfare programs and not simply in terms of welfare reform although it might be a good start. References Alesina, Alberto; Glaeser, Edward & Sacerdote, Bruce. (2001). “Why Doesn’t the United States have a European-style Welfare State?” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Boris, Eileen. (1998). “When Work is Slavery.” Social Justice. Vol. 25, N. 1. Brady, H.; Sprague, M.; Gey, F. & Wiseman, M. (2000). “The Interaction of Welfare Use and Employment Dynamics in Rural and Agricultural California Counties.” Paper presented at the conference, Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform: A Research Conference on Poverty, Welfare and Food Assistance. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. May 4-5. Cancian, M.; Haveman, R.; Kaplan, T.; Meyer, D. & Wolfe, B. (1999). Work, Earnings, and Well-Being After Welfare: What Do We Know? Institute for Research on Poverty. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Committee on Ways and Means. (1994). “Overview of Entitlement Programs: 1994 Green Book.” U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 366. Retrieved February 21, 2008 from Jensen, H.; Keng, S. & Garasky, S. (2000). “Location and the Low Income Experience: Analyses of Program Dynamics in the Iowa Family Investment Program.” Paper presented at the conference, Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform: A Research Conference on Poverty, Welfare and Food Assistance. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. May 4-5.  Keng, Shao-Hsun; Garasky, Steven & Jensen, Helen H. (July 2000). “Welfare Dependence, Recidivism, and the Future for Recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.” Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. Retrieved February 21, 2008 from Levin-Epstein, J. (1996). Teen Parent Provisions in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy, p.5. Retrieved February 21, 2008 from Meyer, Daniel R. & Cancian, Maria. (1996). “Life after Welfare.” Public Welfare. Vol. 54, pp. 25-29. Moffitt, Robert A. (March, 1992). “Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System: A Review.” Journal of Economic Literature. Vol. 30, pp. 1-61. Savner, Steve. (July/August 2000). Poverty and Race. Poverty and Race Research Action Council, Vol. 9, N. 4, p. 3. Retrieved February 21, 2008 from Sawhill, Isabel V. (May 1, 1995). “Welfare Reform: An Analysis of the Issues.” Urban Institute. Retrieved February 21, 2008 from Tanner, Michael. (April 1, 2003). “Welfare Reform Less Than Meets the Eye” The Cato Institute Retrieved February 21, 2008 from (The) Scholar Practitioner Program. (December 2001). “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Era of Devolution: A Persistent Challenge to Welfare Reform.” A Report of Research Findings from The Scholar Practioner Program of the Devolution Initiative. The W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Produced by The Scholar Practitioner Program African American Leadership Institute, Academy of Leadership University of Maryland College Park United States Bureau of the Census. (2001). Poverty Statistics. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved February 21, 2008 from Wimberly, Catherine. (Dec., 2000). “Deadbeat Dads, Welfare Moms, and Uncle Sam: How the Child Support Recovery Act Punishes Single-Mother Families” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 pp. 729-766 Read More