WELFARE REFORM MORE ROOM FOR CHANGE

Welfare Reform More Room for Change



Welfare Reform More Room for Change

Thesis Statement

Welfare reform of 1996 has not succeeded to attain permanent and meaningful financial independence.

Introduction

Welfare reform is a difficult topic to discuss. Most experts agree that the welfare system did not work prior to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, but the consensus ends there (Haskins & Greenberg, 2006). Opinions on whether or not this was an effective overhaul of the system differ widely, depending on how success is defined (O'Gorman, 2002). While the welfare caseload has decreased significantly, the welfare reform of 1996 has not succeeded in assisting recipients to attain permanent and meaningful financial independence once they leave the system (O'Gorman, 2002).

Analysis

Federal welfare programs first appeared in the 1930s. The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, created in 1936, provided cash assistance to children and their parents, many of whom at the time had found them left destitute by the Great Depression. AFDC recipients, who were often single mothers, would lose their benefits if they began working or married an employed man (O'Gorman, 2002). Because of this, there was little incentive for families to get off of welfare and created a situation where children grew up in families where no one ever had a paying job and… themselves became dependent on welfare as adults. By the time the 1990s rolled around, an astounding 15% of American children were receiving cash assistance, creating an ever-increasing burden on taxpayers. Clearly, the system needed an overhaul.

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran for the presidency on a platform to change the way the welfare system worked, proposing that recipients of AFDC should go to work within 2 years. As president, he signed the PROWRA into law in 1996, replacing AFDC with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in providing cash assistance to those in need (Bruce, D., Barbour, K., & Thacker, A. 2004). Most of the determination regarding eligibility was placed at the state level; however, Congress attached strict requirements to the Federal grant money that helped the states pay for the program. States were required to have 25% of their beneficiaries employed by 1997 and 50% employed by 2002 or risk losing 5% of their federal funding. Congress also dictated that an adult receiving cash benefits could only do so for 24 continuous months, and for 60 months total during the duration of his or her lifetime. Some people were critical of these sweeping changes, criticizing the bill for punishing the poor instead of helping them out of poverty. The Urban Institute predicted that 10% of all families receiving assistance would lose income as a result of the PROWRA, and that the number of people living in poverty would increase by 2.6 million (Clark, Meier, Watson, & Zedlewski, 1996). Others supported the act, asserting that it would break the cycle of welfare dependency by putting recipients back to ...