Alexandra K-S: Welfare Reform and Its Consequences
Introduction
In August 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) into law. The PRWORA eliminated Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the previous welfare program which provided qualified families with cash assistance. It was replaced with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF is a work-based program that forces welfare recipients to partake in work or work-related activities in order to receive public aid, such as cash assistance. The AFDC was established in the 1930s and was originally created for assisting widows and their children. However, as years went by, the AFDC turned into a program mainly assisting single mothers. Many politicians and taxpayers criticized the AFDC because it was thought that it supported joblessness and out-of-wedlock childbearing. The PRWORA was created to eliminate this encouragement, and instead encourage women to go to work. In his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton promised to “end welfare as we know it.” His PRWORA legislation was the answer for him and for many. The primary assumptions of PRWORA are that most recipients can get jobs and maintain them and that consistent work will provide self-sufficiency. However, many feminists, sociologists and liberals have questioned these assumptions of welfare reform. Is it so easy for welfare recipients, the majority of whom are single mothers, to find work and keep jobs? What are other social barriers that these recipients face that may make it harder for them? Does welfare reform’s new mandates and stricter sanctions encourage women to work, or just make it harder for them to work? Some of the articles address many of these questions and more. Other articles maintain that the PRWORA, after 10 years in law, as been a complete success.
How Welfare Reform is Affecting Women’s Work
By Mary Corcoran; Sandra K. Danziger; Ariel Kalil; Kristen S. Seefeldt
View Article
The authors of this article examine how the new welfare system is affecting work options for welfare recipients, specifically single mothers. First, the article reviews the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 and TANF, and how individual states implement TANF policies differently. For example,
following the federal mandates of TANF, recipients are required to obtain employment within two years of receiving public aid. However, states may set a shorter time period. Over half of the states have done this, many demanding immediate engagement into the work force. According to PRWORA, states must sanction recipients who do not observe program requirements. The majority of states have increased the severity of sanctions—thirty-six states stop benefits completely, either immediately after non-cooperation , or after a period of non-cooperation. The article argues that these stricter sanctions could be an alternative explanation for the reduction of 38 percent of caseloads since the law was passed.
Moreover, the researchers studied welfare mothers’ work behaviors and their economic well-being after the 1996 legislation. Various methods of data were analyzed to examine the consequences of welfare reform. Caseload data and Current Population Surveys (CPS) found that based on two factors, PRWORA is a success: caseloads have reduced, and employment of welfare mothers has increased. However, most research points to the booming economy during the late 1990s and other policy reforms as the main sources of these changes—not the new welfare system. Also, the authors discovered that changes in income and well-being vary. Although more women obtained jobs, research indicates that they have a lot less disposable income: the average disposable income of the poorest 20 percent of single mothers fell by 7.6 percent (252). The authors also looked at state-based leavers studies. Leavers are families who have left welfare or have been sanctioned post-PRWORA (252). The studies found that more than half of employed leavers work 30 hours or more a week, it is not enough to raise families out of poverty. After surveying individual welfare mothers, the authors found that the majority of recipients face multiple potential barriers to work, such as physical and mental problems, domestic abuse, and lack of transportation.
The authors also talked with employers and asked them what qualities they require of new hires, and whether welfare mothers’ possessed the skills and credentials to meet employers’ requirements. Research indicates that there is a large gap between skills employers demand and the skills that welfare recipients can offer. Many welfare mothers have low-literacy skills, and on average, those between the ages of 17-21 read on the sixth-grade level. Furthermore, more than half the potential jobs available to recipients are in the suburbs, but most of the recipients live in cities. The authors emphasize that many of the jobs welfare mothers do acquire are low-paying and are often part-time and unstable.
Making Men into Dads: Fatherhood, the State, and Welfare Reform
By Laura Curran; Laura S. Abrams
View Article
The authors of this article examine revisions in child support and paternity establishment legislation as parts of the PRWORA. They argue that the PRWORA socially constructs fatherhood “through state policies that maintain male ‘breadwinning’ and also through state-supported social service programs that try to shape men’s identities as fathers” (663). Moreover, after studying the policies of the PRWORA, the authors contend child support and paternity establishment conditions control the behavior of both men and women. Whereas AFDC required mothers to cooperate with paternity establishment after deciding the mothers were qualified for public assistance, PRWORA enforces women to observe paternity establishment conditions if they want to even be considered for aid. This reinforces a “gendered distribution of power” because it in forces women to become more dependent on men. Men are defined as the “breadwinners” who women should always rely on. There is also more power over paternal support collections—some fathers can be sent to jail if they do not pay child support. This punitive reason overestimates how much fathers earn; the majority have low-incomes and high-employment rates.
State-supported social programs for welfare fathers try to reshape men’s individual identities. They see men as significant financial supporters and as important “companions and caregivers,” who only supports traditional gender hierarchy. Program assessors say, “the main goal of the curriculum is to help participants redefine manhood” (670). Furthermore, many fathering program providers believe that women are not capable of raising children with inadequate masculinities: “women don’t raise men, they raise boys.” The authors argue that these stereotypes only further socially construct “fatherhood.” Moreover, the authors explain that although the fathering programs may individually help low-income men and men of color, they do not challenge institutional privileges of race and class. Program providers focus changing the individual problems of the fathers, and do not recognize the structural difficulties they face in society that may be the real reasons the men and their families are struggling financially.
Dangerous Dependencies: The Intersection of Welfare Reform and Domestic Violence
By Ellen K. Scott; Andrew S. London; Nancy A. Myers
View Article
The authors of this article study how the goal of self-sufficiency as a part of welfare reform may inadvertently push some women to form “dangerous dependencies” on abusive men. Scott et. al argue that the aim of welfare reform—helping women transition from welfare to work—is full of assumptions about welfare recipients and why they depend on public aid. Welfare reformers assume that women can find and maintain jobs; that the jobs will pay well enough to pick them up out of poverty; and that welfare mothers can easily manage being an active member of the labor market and being an active, nurturing mother. The article explains that these assumptions are “highly problematic” because many welfare recipients are uneducated mothers who lack fundamental job skills and face other obstacles to employment, including domestic violence. Research indicates that over sixty percent of welfare recipients report abuse in the past, and it is more difficult for victims of domestic violence to find and maintain jobs.
With the new policies of welfare reform and stricter sanctions, many women turn to social networks for support during their transition from welfare to work. Relying on social networks is part of welfare reform ideology: the policies are meant to encourage women to find work or depend on social networks (husbands and families) for social and economic help. Many of women’s networks are small, and only include past abusers (husbands, ex-husbands, boyfriends). If welfare mothers do find work, they often rely on these abusive men to help with childcare, transportation, or additional financial assistance. When women are unsuccessful at finding jobs, or lose welfare benefits because of sanctions, or hit the time limit, they too often turn to abusive men.
The authors interviewed 12-15 women on welfare in the Cleveland, Ohio area for 3 years. They found that the majority of women increased reliance on abusive partners to receive help with their children and various practical aids. Wendy is an example of welfare recipients’ growing dependence on abusers. She is a mother of two, including a son who has critical psychological disorders. Wendy also suffers from various health problems, including asthma, anxiety disorders, and foot and back injuries. Her ex-husband is physically and sexually abusive to both Wendy and their younger daughter. Nonetheless, Wendy relies on her ex-husband to watch their children while she is at work, trying to financially support them. The authors also discovered that some very disadvantaged women turned to sex work and drug addiction after facing multiple obstacles to employment.
Leaders: Tough Love Works; Welfare to Work
View Article
The author of this article explains why and how the PRWORA is a reform lesson for other countries. He explains although welfare reform was highly debated in America, it was also highly criticized in other countries in Europe. Many Europeans claimed welfare recipients would have difficulty finding work, and welfare families would be “condemned to destitution.” However, according to the author, these criticisms were proved “spectacularly wrong”—welfare reform was a complete success. The central reason for the sharp drop in caseloads, he argues, is not the booming economy, but the reform itself. Moreover, he says that although the majority of recipients’ jobs are low-paying, recipients for the most part are faring better than they were when they were on welfare.
The success of the welfare reform in America has been “infectious” in some European countries. Britain and implemented a “tough love” program to keep young people from unemployment; the Netherlands and Denmark have also executed strict mandates to get people off of welfare. The author claims even reluctant countries of Germany and France have slowly begun to implement more conditions and less “entitlements.” He argues even more can be done in European countries to emulate the success of America’s welfare state.
How We Ended Welfare, Together; [Op-Ed]
By Bill Clinton
View Article
August of this year, 2006, marked the 10-year anniversary of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. President Bill Clinton wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times addressing the success of the welfare reform he spearheaded in 1996. In the article, Clinton acknowledges his pledge during his 1992 Presidential election to “end welfare as we know it.” He discusses the rift between conservatives and liberals during the construction of welfare reform: conservatives wanted less spending on federal subsidies supporting recipients, whereas liberals wanted more, and believed the work requirements were too severe. Despite disagreements and heavy criticism about the new welfare legislation from many liberals, Clinton claims “the last 10 years have shown that we did in fact end welfare as we knew, creating a new beginning for millions of Americans.” The former President lists statistics of declining caseloads, reductions in the welfare rolls, and the large numbers of women who have found work. He also put into law the “toughest child-support enforcement in history;” increasing child-care funds; and increasing the minimum wage. As a result, child poverty significantly fell, and “100 times as many people moved out of poverty and into the middle class” versus the previous 12 years of his Presidency. He attributes these positive changes not only to the booming economy, but to the welfare reform itself.
Conclusion
After reading these articles, I was angry. As a member of this society, how did I not know about the extreme difficulties many welfare recipients are facing post-PRWORA? I realized quickly that it is because most of mainstream media, which reflects the interests of the elite, is not going to question the existing system, specifically welfare reform. Also, as a supporter of Bill Clinton since before I can remember, I never thought to question any of his policies, including the PRWORA. How many other Clinton supporters or just general society members question laws like welfare reform?
It is clear to me that the PRWORA has some problems. If it were an ideal world, than yes, the PRWORA might really be helping these women. But, it is not. Welfare recipients face so many obstacles in their lives to overcome poverty. How many lawmakers have had a first-hand look at poverty in the twenty-first century? In his Op-Ed piece, Clinton takes pride in created the toughest child-support enforcement in history, but as the “Making Men into Dads” article argues, what does that imply about society’s social construction of fatherhood? In designing PRWORA, there were far too many assumptions about women’s ability to achieve self-sufficiency.
Introduction
In August 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) into law. The PRWORA eliminated Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the previous welfare program which provided qualified families with cash assistance. It was replaced with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF is a work-based program that forces welfare recipients to partake in work or work-related activities in order to receive public aid, such as cash assistance. The AFDC was established in the 1930s and was originally created for assisting widows and their children. However, as years went by, the AFDC turned into a program mainly assisting single mothers. Many politicians and taxpayers criticized the AFDC because it was thought that it supported joblessness and out-of-wedlock childbearing. The PRWORA was created to eliminate this encouragement, and instead encourage women to go to work. In his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton promised to “end welfare as we know it.” His PRWORA legislation was the answer for him and for many. The primary assumptions of PRWORA are that most recipients can get jobs and maintain them and that consistent work will provide self-sufficiency. However, many feminists, sociologists and liberals have questioned these assumptions of welfare reform. Is it so easy for welfare recipients, the majority of whom are single mothers, to find work and keep jobs? What are other social barriers that these recipients face that may make it harder for them? Does welfare reform’s new mandates and stricter sanctions encourage women to work, or just make it harder for them to work? Some of the articles address many of these questions and more. Other articles maintain that the PRWORA, after 10 years in law, as been a complete success.
How Welfare Reform is Affecting Women’s Work
By Mary Corcoran; Sandra K. Danziger; Ariel Kalil; Kristen S. Seefeldt
View Article
The authors of this article examine how the new welfare system is affecting work options for welfare recipients, specifically single mothers. First, the article reviews the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 and TANF, and how individual states implement TANF policies differently. For example,
following the federal mandates of TANF, recipients are required to obtain employment within two years of receiving public aid. However, states may set a shorter time period. Over half of the states have done this, many demanding immediate engagement into the work force. According to PRWORA, states must sanction recipients who do not observe program requirements. The majority of states have increased the severity of sanctions—thirty-six states stop benefits completely, either immediately after non-cooperation , or after a period of non-cooperation. The article argues that these stricter sanctions could be an alternative explanation for the reduction of 38 percent of caseloads since the law was passed.
Moreover, the researchers studied welfare mothers’ work behaviors and their economic well-being after the 1996 legislation. Various methods of data were analyzed to examine the consequences of welfare reform. Caseload data and Current Population Surveys (CPS) found that based on two factors, PRWORA is a success: caseloads have reduced, and employment of welfare mothers has increased. However, most research points to the booming economy during the late 1990s and other policy reforms as the main sources of these changes—not the new welfare system. Also, the authors discovered that changes in income and well-being vary. Although more women obtained jobs, research indicates that they have a lot less disposable income: the average disposable income of the poorest 20 percent of single mothers fell by 7.6 percent (252). The authors also looked at state-based leavers studies. Leavers are families who have left welfare or have been sanctioned post-PRWORA (252). The studies found that more than half of employed leavers work 30 hours or more a week, it is not enough to raise families out of poverty. After surveying individual welfare mothers, the authors found that the majority of recipients face multiple potential barriers to work, such as physical and mental problems, domestic abuse, and lack of transportation.
The authors also talked with employers and asked them what qualities they require of new hires, and whether welfare mothers’ possessed the skills and credentials to meet employers’ requirements. Research indicates that there is a large gap between skills employers demand and the skills that welfare recipients can offer. Many welfare mothers have low-literacy skills, and on average, those between the ages of 17-21 read on the sixth-grade level. Furthermore, more than half the potential jobs available to recipients are in the suburbs, but most of the recipients live in cities. The authors emphasize that many of the jobs welfare mothers do acquire are low-paying and are often part-time and unstable.
Making Men into Dads: Fatherhood, the State, and Welfare Reform
By Laura Curran; Laura S. Abrams
View Article
The authors of this article examine revisions in child support and paternity establishment legislation as parts of the PRWORA. They argue that the PRWORA socially constructs fatherhood “through state policies that maintain male ‘breadwinning’ and also through state-supported social service programs that try to shape men’s identities as fathers” (663). Moreover, after studying the policies of the PRWORA, the authors contend child support and paternity establishment conditions control the behavior of both men and women. Whereas AFDC required mothers to cooperate with paternity establishment after deciding the mothers were qualified for public assistance, PRWORA enforces women to observe paternity establishment conditions if they want to even be considered for aid. This reinforces a “gendered distribution of power” because it in forces women to become more dependent on men. Men are defined as the “breadwinners” who women should always rely on. There is also more power over paternal support collections—some fathers can be sent to jail if they do not pay child support. This punitive reason overestimates how much fathers earn; the majority have low-incomes and high-employment rates.
State-supported social programs for welfare fathers try to reshape men’s individual identities. They see men as significant financial supporters and as important “companions and caregivers,” who only supports traditional gender hierarchy. Program assessors say, “the main goal of the curriculum is to help participants redefine manhood” (670). Furthermore, many fathering program providers believe that women are not capable of raising children with inadequate masculinities: “women don’t raise men, they raise boys.” The authors argue that these stereotypes only further socially construct “fatherhood.” Moreover, the authors explain that although the fathering programs may individually help low-income men and men of color, they do not challenge institutional privileges of race and class. Program providers focus changing the individual problems of the fathers, and do not recognize the structural difficulties they face in society that may be the real reasons the men and their families are struggling financially.
Dangerous Dependencies: The Intersection of Welfare Reform and Domestic Violence
By Ellen K. Scott; Andrew S. London; Nancy A. Myers
View Article
The authors of this article study how the goal of self-sufficiency as a part of welfare reform may inadvertently push some women to form “dangerous dependencies” on abusive men. Scott et. al argue that the aim of welfare reform—helping women transition from welfare to work—is full of assumptions about welfare recipients and why they depend on public aid. Welfare reformers assume that women can find and maintain jobs; that the jobs will pay well enough to pick them up out of poverty; and that welfare mothers can easily manage being an active member of the labor market and being an active, nurturing mother. The article explains that these assumptions are “highly problematic” because many welfare recipients are uneducated mothers who lack fundamental job skills and face other obstacles to employment, including domestic violence. Research indicates that over sixty percent of welfare recipients report abuse in the past, and it is more difficult for victims of domestic violence to find and maintain jobs.
With the new policies of welfare reform and stricter sanctions, many women turn to social networks for support during their transition from welfare to work. Relying on social networks is part of welfare reform ideology: the policies are meant to encourage women to find work or depend on social networks (husbands and families) for social and economic help. Many of women’s networks are small, and only include past abusers (husbands, ex-husbands, boyfriends). If welfare mothers do find work, they often rely on these abusive men to help with childcare, transportation, or additional financial assistance. When women are unsuccessful at finding jobs, or lose welfare benefits because of sanctions, or hit the time limit, they too often turn to abusive men.
The authors interviewed 12-15 women on welfare in the Cleveland, Ohio area for 3 years. They found that the majority of women increased reliance on abusive partners to receive help with their children and various practical aids. Wendy is an example of welfare recipients’ growing dependence on abusers. She is a mother of two, including a son who has critical psychological disorders. Wendy also suffers from various health problems, including asthma, anxiety disorders, and foot and back injuries. Her ex-husband is physically and sexually abusive to both Wendy and their younger daughter. Nonetheless, Wendy relies on her ex-husband to watch their children while she is at work, trying to financially support them. The authors also discovered that some very disadvantaged women turned to sex work and drug addiction after facing multiple obstacles to employment.
Leaders: Tough Love Works; Welfare to Work
View Article
The author of this article explains why and how the PRWORA is a reform lesson for other countries. He explains although welfare reform was highly debated in America, it was also highly criticized in other countries in Europe. Many Europeans claimed welfare recipients would have difficulty finding work, and welfare families would be “condemned to destitution.” However, according to the author, these criticisms were proved “spectacularly wrong”—welfare reform was a complete success. The central reason for the sharp drop in caseloads, he argues, is not the booming economy, but the reform itself. Moreover, he says that although the majority of recipients’ jobs are low-paying, recipients for the most part are faring better than they were when they were on welfare.
The success of the welfare reform in America has been “infectious” in some European countries. Britain and implemented a “tough love” program to keep young people from unemployment; the Netherlands and Denmark have also executed strict mandates to get people off of welfare. The author claims even reluctant countries of Germany and France have slowly begun to implement more conditions and less “entitlements.” He argues even more can be done in European countries to emulate the success of America’s welfare state.
How We Ended Welfare, Together; [Op-Ed]
By Bill Clinton
View Article
August of this year, 2006, marked the 10-year anniversary of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. President Bill Clinton wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times addressing the success of the welfare reform he spearheaded in 1996. In the article, Clinton acknowledges his pledge during his 1992 Presidential election to “end welfare as we know it.” He discusses the rift between conservatives and liberals during the construction of welfare reform: conservatives wanted less spending on federal subsidies supporting recipients, whereas liberals wanted more, and believed the work requirements were too severe. Despite disagreements and heavy criticism about the new welfare legislation from many liberals, Clinton claims “the last 10 years have shown that we did in fact end welfare as we knew, creating a new beginning for millions of Americans.” The former President lists statistics of declining caseloads, reductions in the welfare rolls, and the large numbers of women who have found work. He also put into law the “toughest child-support enforcement in history;” increasing child-care funds; and increasing the minimum wage. As a result, child poverty significantly fell, and “100 times as many people moved out of poverty and into the middle class” versus the previous 12 years of his Presidency. He attributes these positive changes not only to the booming economy, but to the welfare reform itself.
Conclusion
After reading these articles, I was angry. As a member of this society, how did I not know about the extreme difficulties many welfare recipients are facing post-PRWORA? I realized quickly that it is because most of mainstream media, which reflects the interests of the elite, is not going to question the existing system, specifically welfare reform. Also, as a supporter of Bill Clinton since before I can remember, I never thought to question any of his policies, including the PRWORA. How many other Clinton supporters or just general society members question laws like welfare reform?
It is clear to me that the PRWORA has some problems. If it were an ideal world, than yes, the PRWORA might really be helping these women. But, it is not. Welfare recipients face so many obstacles in their lives to overcome poverty. How many lawmakers have had a first-hand look at poverty in the twenty-first century? In his Op-Ed piece, Clinton takes pride in created the toughest child-support enforcement in history, but as the “Making Men into Dads” article argues, what does that imply about society’s social construction of fatherhood? In designing PRWORA, there were far too many assumptions about women’s ability to achieve self-sufficiency.
posted by WelfareAxiom at 4:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home