Welfare Time Limits - Term Paper Example

Introduction Welfare can be conceptualized as those activities of governments and other s that are aimed at promoting the well-being of those people in the society who are in need. A state that has adopted this system is referred to as a welfare state, like the United States of America. The major aim of welfare is to enhance the financial and economic well-being of the people who are in need. This is after the realization of the fact that the financial status of the individual dictates the quality of the person's life in the society. There are several activities that are undertaken by the state or the institutions to ensure that this goal is achieved. They include improving the employment chances of those people who are in need, giving them direct financial assistance among others. A well conceptualized welfare system should cater for all of the needs of the individual, as much as the financial or economic need is paramount. As such, it is common to find welfare systems that are aimed at enhancing the mental health of the individual. In a society that is not welfare dependent, these needs are provided for by the family members of the person in need. They are only theoretically availed by the government. However, in a welfare state, due to dynamics in the family sector and the society in general, these roles are assumed by the government. Welfare was adopted by the United States of America government-federal government-starting from the Greta Depression. Hitherto, these services did not exist. The state of New York was the first to adopt the system but with time, other states and subsequently the federal government followed suit. Since its inception, various changes have been made on the system. These changes were dictated and necessitated by the dynamics and progression of the society. Some of these changes have had negative effects while others have had positive effects. A case in point is the act that was passed in the year 1996. This act effectively limited the time that beneficiaries of welfare could receive cash benefits. Some of the necessities that led to the adoption of this act were the rise in the number of people that were enrolled for the program. Some of the positive changes that were achieved by this act were the decline in the number of people that were reliant on welfare. A lot of the beneficiaries opted for employment. The act can be viewed as having psychological, sociological and other effects on the society. Objectives of the Study Throughout this study, the writer will be guided by one major objective. This is the analysis of the complex factors that are associated with welfare dependence. This is so that the writer can determine whether the Personal Responsibility and Work Re-Investment Act (herein referred to as PRWORA) of 1996 led to independence for welfare recipients. This is especially so for those welfare recipients who were enrolled in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (herein referred to as TANF) program, which was a resultant of PRWORA. To achieve this major objective, the writer will be guided by several specific objectives. These are as listed below: 1. a background of the welfare system in America 2. changes that have been carried on the program 3. analysis of PRWORA 4. discussion of effects of PRWORA Context of the Study The BIS concentration for which this project was completed is human services. Human services encompass coursework in psychology, sociology and social work. Barriers faced by TANF recipients cross many boundaries; therefore; it is essential to have background in several disciplines. The following are the backgrounds for each of these fields as far as this study is concerned: 1: Psychology Psychology provides knowledge on individual processes including how poverty affects mental health (Schnitzer, 1996) and how behavior analysis might benefit welfare-dependent recipients (Malott, 1998). Learning various ways of understanding mental health highlights how various psychological factors influence our attitudes and behavior. Understanding the effect of psychological influence is important when human service workers are trying to understand individual motivations. In the context of the welfare system, it is important to note the motivations that leads to individuals enrolling for the program, and the psychological effects that the withdrawal of the same has on the individual. 2: Sociology Sociologists are interested in group formations and their influence on one's beliefs and actions. Solomon, Bassuk, and Brook (1996) studied the relationship between demographic and social factors with patterns of welfare use. This includes how people of different backgrounds respond to the welfare system and the effect of the withdrawal of the program in the social sphere of the individual, their family and the society at large. Understanding how these factors might relate to an individuals' use of benefits helps professionals become more knowledgeable about their clients. 3: Social Work Social work professionals apply this knowledge in day to day activities. They work with individuals affected by these issues. Social workers are often in an ideal position to help shape policy because they work with the individuals and families who are directly affected by changes in policy. Given the fact that the social worker has as their client the disadvantaged people in the society, it is not surprising then that the former recipients of welfare ends up being their clients. This is especially the former recipient encounters problems that call for the attention of the social worker, for example family conflicts and depression of the individual. The Relevance of this Study The information from this project will be used to begin discussions with human service agencies, professionals and other interested parties for future program development. The researcher aims at finding out the effects that the PRWORA has had on individuals. These findings will help the stakeholders in the sector who include the agencies hitherto identified and the professionals in making their decisions as far as welfare is concerned. American Welfare System: Background Our country's welfare system began based on the premise that widowed single mothers deserved help in caring for their children. Based on the idea that children should be cared for in their own homes, the cash benefits program allowed women to stay at home to care for their children. As society progressed and ideals began to change, the notion that women needed to be in the home caring for children changed. Policies surrounding this idea changed with these changing ideals. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Re-investment Act (PRWORA) was passed in 1996 (H.R. 3437, 1996). It marked a significant shift in the methods and aims of the cash assistance that was handed out by the federal government to the poor. The act was the brain child of the republicans, who were ruling at that time. It was one of the many facets of the Republican's "Contract with America" (Lacayo, 2004). It was introduced by E. Clay Shaw, Jr., a Republican from Florida. The goal of the act, as aptly put by Bill Clinton as he signed into law, was "(to) end welfare as we know it" (Lacayo, 2004). After decades of offering benefits through Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), cash benefits are now being offered through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (Acs & Loprest, 2004). This system was instituted by PRWORA. It took effect from July 1, 1997 (Lacayo, 2004). TANF effectively replaced AFDC, which was in operation since 1935, when the federal government adopted the welfare system (Behrman, 2007). The system also affected the Job Opportunities Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program which was in operation since the year 1988 (Behrman, 2007). The United States Chamber of Commerce was one of the ardent supporters of this act. They termed as "reassertion of the America's work ethic" (Lacayo, 2004). This is given the fact that the bill addressed the American workfare in a way that the Chamber found to be attractive. Despite the fact that the bill was heralded by many in the society, there were dissenting voices. The critics argued that the bill effectively reinstituted the workhouses culture (Behrman, 2007). They were also of the view that the system will not be effective in getting the masses out of poverty, as envisioned by the original mantra of the welfare system. AFDC, when it was in existent, was an entitlement program offering cash benefits to any family in need falling below a set income level for as long as they needed assistance. TANF places a limit on the amount of time an individual may receive cash benefits. Although states have authority to determine the limits set within their states, the federal lifetime limit is five years (Acs & Loprest, 2004). Once the maximum time limit is reached, recipients are no longer eligible for cash benefits. The TANF provision was reauthorized in 2006 with the Deficit Reduction Act (Lacayo, 2004). The act is set to expire in 2010. As reauthorization nears, the debate surrounding PRWORA heightens and scholars continue to document the outcomes of this policy. Literature discusses levels of economic security, levels of employment, and income levels of recipients since PRWORA (Cancian, 2000: Cheng, 2007: Herrick, 2008: Jones-DeWeever, 2003: Lindhorst & Mankoske, 2006). Noted in much of the research is that former TANF recipients continue to struggle financially after leaving welfare (Cancian, 2000; Herrick, 2008, Jones-DeWeever, 2003). Families depend on public assistance for many reasons. These includes mental health problems, family poverty cycle, and simple unexpected need. PRWORA sought to force recipients into independence by limiting their ability to receive assistance. The rationalization was that if the assistance of the individual was cut short, they will be forced to look for other ways of survival, and such one way is looking for employment. This worked for some, but not for others. It is important to understand that reasons people come to depend on welfare are multifaceted and extremely complex. As such, there is nothing like a universal method that can be used to move all of the dependents from the welfare at the same time. This is where PRWORA failed; it sought to impose a universal solution on the welfare dependence problem. An exhaustive literature review using available literature on welfare, welfare reform, TANF, PRWORA, psychology and welfare, and difficulties with welfare was done to examine how recipients were responding to TANF time-limits placed through PRWORA. Discussions with human service professionals in various roles provided information on local responses to time-limits and offered insight on positive and negative outcomes of TANF implementation. This information was combined to provide implications to improve recipient motivation and further assist individuals with their transitions from cash benefits welfare. History Of Cash Benefits In The United States The federal program offering public assistance in the form of cash benefits officially began in the United States with the passing of the Social Security Act of 1935. The Act started the entitlement program, Aid to Dependent Children, offering cash benefits to poor women with children (Cheng, 2007, Lindhorst & Mancoske, 2006). The program continued and was expanded to include other family members, even if they were not the mother, and subsequently renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), offering benefits to anyone with children meeting income guidelines (Lindhorst & Mancoske, 2006). The requirements for qualification were to have at least one child and to meet income guidelines. Unlike the current PRWORA system, there were no limits on how long one could receive this assistance. Several states had been experimenting with programs offering job readiness services and, in 1988, the government implemented the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills program through the Family Support Act of 1988 (Snow, 1998). The program aimed to help AFDC recipients become job ready by offering basic education, work experience, and skills training (Turner & Barbaro, 1990). Activities available included vocational and occupational skills training, job readiness training, job placement assistance, high school or equivalency education, and English language proficiency education. This program had no time-limit and applied to anyone who qualified for and received AFDC. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Re-investment Act (PRWORA) was signed into federal law in 1996 and replaced AFDC with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (H.R. 3437, 1996). The new program still provided cash benefits, but carried new requirements and limitations. TANF requires adult recipients to participate in work-related activities to continue receiving benefits and placed a federal time-limit on how long an individual could receive benefits (Acs & Loprest, 2004). Work related activities could include working, actively looking for work, and training. Up to 12 months of vocational training is accepted as work-related activity (H.R. 3437, 1996). According to the federal statute, education is not considered work-related activity after 12 months. After PRWORA The focus of PRWORA was ending dependence on public assistance (Brush, 2003; Scot et al., 2007). Clay Shaw and the other proponents of this act identified the major shortcomings of the welfare system as it existed before. These included dependency, children born out of wed-lock, intergenerational poverty and others (Gilliam, 208). The major objective was to implement a "block grant" program. The states, under this act, were given leeway in determining the type of systems that they will adopt. This is on account the states met the requirements that were set down by the act. The following are some of the requirements that the states had to adhere to: 1. bringing to an end welfare system as an entitlement program 2. making the recipients of the new program start working at least two years after starting to receive the benefits 3. imposing a lifetime limit of five years on the benefits that the federal government was responsible for funding 4. encouraging two-parent families by discouraging the practice of out-of-wedlock- births The aim of the act was to move program recipients from welfare to work. Policy makers saw time-limits as a way to force recipients to become independent. The policy was giving recipients five years to receive the grants, after which they were not entitled to the same in their lifetime. the policy makers also aimed at getting the recipients into the workforce assuming that this would make them independent. Effects of PRWORA The years between the 1930's and the 1960's saw an unprecedented increase in the number of people that were enrolled for the welfare program. This is given the fact that the restrictions placed on the availability of financial aid to needy families were generally relaxed. This is especially so for families that were headed by a single parent and those that were headed by a female (Gilliam, 2008). After passing PRWORA welfare caseloads plunged. Many people were leaving welfare for work (Cancian et al., 1999; Cheng, 2007; Jones-De Weever et al., 2003). The number of public assistance recipients in the 1990s had been reduced to half those numbers by 2005 (Herrick, 2008). In some areas, as much as 70 percent of its caseload had become employed Acs & Loprest, 2004; Seefeldt, 2008). In the wake of the new requirements, it appeared that the policy was a success given the number of recipients who left welfare rolls and the numbers of low-income individuals who were working. Studies consistently show a decline in caseload and an increase in employment (Behrman, 2007). After Welfare The economic outcome of families who have left welfare rolls is less clear than is the number of people who have left welfare rolls. Families have become no better off than when receiving public assistance. Many former TANF recipients continue to depend on Food Stamps and Medicaid to support their families (Cancial et al., 2000; Fletcher, Winter, & Shih, 2008). When evaluated based on the income, some situations are worse off. For a single mother of 4, for every dollar earned, her welfare and food stamps fell by $61 and she would pay $7 in payroll taxes (DeParle, 2004). Comparing her income over 7 years shows that in her last 4 years on welfare, she would have had $21,500 in earnings and benefits and for her first 3 years off of welfare, she had $24,900 in earnings and benefits. The chart below will illustrate this point clearly: Figure 1 AFDC/TANF caseloads and welfare dependency rate of single mothers source 1: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/08/did-welfare-reform-work-for-everyone.html'cid=6a00d83451b33869e20120a4cf2b86970b Taking into account the additional expenses associated with work such as child care, transportation costs, and uniforms, she's no better off financially than when she received cash benefits. Barriers The are other barriers that are associated with PRWORA. Some of them are as highlighted below. It is important to note that the list below is in no way exhaustive. 1: Additional Costs Affordable child care and transportation costs pose another dilemma for many former TANF recipients. A case in point is the system that has been adopted in the state of Virginia. Like many other states, the Virginia Initiative for Employment not Welfare (VIEW Program) offers TANF recipients child care assistance *(Fairfax County, 2009). It also provides assistance with transportation costs for former recipients. These programs are transitional programs and are offered on a limited, temporary basis. Child care assistance is provided for children up to age 12. There are no programs offered for children ages 12 and up leaving many mothers concerned about leaving adolescent children at home alone (Seefeldt, 2008). 2: Limited Education As TANF recipients begin to enter the workforce, they do so with limited education and typically lack any formal work experience (Lacayo, 2004). Although some recipients have a high school diploma, some do not. Just after PWRORA, a research study reported that 55 percent of women on welfare did not have a high school diploma (Withorn, 1996). With such little education and limited work experience, the jobs which these individuals qualify for are limited, usually keeping them concentrated in low wage, service sector jobs (Salomon, Bassuk, & Brooks, 1996). These jobs are usually not enough to keep families above the poverty line. Discussion and Analysis The surge in employment and the dramatic decline in caseload has not led to more self sufficiency or less need as initially envisioned. In a discussion with Jamie Bird Smith (Personal Communication, October 17, 2009), a local social worker for 24 years, I find that TANF recipients are reaching out to other Non-government agencies in an attempt to fill the gap left from no longer receiving cash benefits. Mrs. Smith says, "They become crafty in their searches for assistance." Representatives from faith based organizations frequently tell Mrs. Smith of TANF recipients requesting financial assistance. Mrs. Smith tells that the Salvation Army, a local non-profit agency receives 435 calls per day from people requesting financial assistance. Legislation based on the idea that work would promise self-sufficiency has not been entirely successful. Programs such as Michigan's Work First program based on their mantra, "A job, a better job, a career," assume that any job is better than no job and that basic jobs will lead to better jobs. This may be the case for some, but not for many TANF recipients. The barriers they face and the lives they have lived tell a story of extreme complexities which keep many of these individuals trapped in the system. Welfare cycle/Personal Transformation/Forms of Entrapment "Economic hardship due to work interruption is not the same experience as chronic poverty persisting over generations," (McCloyd, 1990). Families have been welfare dependent for multiple generations. They have established rules of normalcy which say it is acceptable to have welfare as a means of survival. Given their long term entitlement to benefits without work, the new routine of working and caring for their families is difficult for many. When you are used to doing something consistently for long periods of time, it can be extremely difficult to change that overnight. At least, there should be a process of gradual change so that with time, people can adapt to the new system. Offering child care and transportation expenses to someone who is not accustomed to the culture associated with these things is not effective. Reagan was a fierce critic of the welfare program. He was of the view that it was an enemy of the freedom of working men and women, "who paid their taxes dutifully" (Behrman, 2007). In effect, the welfare program pitied the poor against the middle class, since the former were dependent on what the latter made. This is why as Californian governor, he was responsible for cutting down on the state's welfare rolls (Behrman, 2007). He opined that these welfare recipients are trapped in a multi-generational cycle of dependency (Lacayo, 2004). This is because members of families which were dependent on welfare are also likely to be dependent on welfare on their adult life too. Majority of the people who are on welfare are second and third generations of families which have been on welfare. A normalcy culture has been evolved where dependency on welfare becomes a way of life. The people are not ashamed of receiving handouts from the government since their families have been receiving the same. Just like poverty has been taken as a way of life fro the blacks for many generations, this is the same case when it comes to welfare. There are some families, both black and white, that are always on welfare, one generation to the other. One of the major reasons why this dependency on welfare persists across generation is the generational cycle of poverty. This is whereby a family line is in poverty for at least three generations down the line. The reason for the persistence of this poverty is the fact that the family members lack resources to lift themselves out of the quagmire. They have no investment, and the poverty is passed from one generation to the other. The same way, welfare dependency will be passed from one generation to the other together with the poverty. Another reason why welfare dependency persists is the psychological disposition of the family members. Since they were young, the family members have seen their parents go for welfare, and they have seen nothing wrong with the practice. A culture of normalcy is created. When they grow up, the members of the family have accepted the fact that the only way to make it in life is through welfare, and they have no qualms about it. Difficulties with Personal Transformation There are difficulties that are experienced when an individual seeks-through design or otherwise-to leave the welfare system. Some of these personal difficulties are psychological while others are social. For example, the person may find it very hard to leave welfare because all his life, he has grown up knowing that welfare is the way of life, he knows no other way of surviving in this life. Another source of difficulty is the poverty cycle that has gone through generations. The individual who has been in welfare has no other way of making a life. He is unemployed, lacks the necessary skills to work and such other factors that are necessary in a competitive world. Conclusion Policies change and people change. Studies based on the outcome of PWRORA often lead to the belief that policies can change people overnight. Not being on welfare does not make one independent. Placing time-limits on receipt of cash benefits removes families from the welfare rolls more than any policy in the past has done. Research shows that fewer people are receiving cash benefits and more people are working. The research does not show however that these families are still in need. Other agencies are taking on the responsibility of providing assistance to former TANF recipients. Salvation Army, a local human service agency receives 435 calls per day from people requesting financial assistance (Smith, 2009). PWRORA did move recipients from the welfare rolls, in some cases it did move recipients from welfare to work. PWRORA did NOT make welfare recipients less dependent or more self-sufficient, it did not change recipients' attitudes or mind sets about the welfare program. All it did is it made them move out of the system and to go out there and suffer. References Behrman, W. I. The Effects of PRWORA to American Single Mother Families. New York: Free Press, 2007. 89-94. Gilliam, Q. O. The American Welfare System: Highlights of Its Highs and Lows. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2008. 289-345. Lacayo, W. Y. Welfare Reform in America. Vermont: Cengen Books, 2004. 48-72. NB: These are the online sources that were consulted for the section. Some of the other books (Lacayo, Behrman and Gilliam) are not available on-line. Presidential silences and symbols: racial politics and welfare retrenchment during the Reagan presidency. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/7/5/2/pages87524/p87524-24.php harms, William (1997). "Welfare reform could break cycle for some families". University of Chicago Chronicle, 16(16). Retrieved from http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/970501/welfare.shtml Read More