The Aid For Families With Dependent Children Organization

People generally enjoy working and being productive members of society. The positive effects of the Welfare Reform Act is moving to eventually end poverty in America and promote economic growth. According to the 2005 report measuring welfare dependents “Poverty in 2003 remains much lower than in 1996, the year of passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The official poverty rate for 2003 was 12.5 percent, compared to 13.7 percent in 1996.” ( Gil Crouse, Susan Hauan, Julia Isaacs, Kendall Swenson and Lisa Trivits, 2005 ) States that design welfare-to-work policies that emphasized getting recipients into jobs by shifting to “work-first” welfare systems can modify program rules to allow more earned income,

“The Economic Policy Institute recently reviwed dozens of studies of what constitutes a “living wage” and came up with an average figure of $30,000 a year for a family of one adult and two children, which amounts to a wage of $14 an hour.” (213). According to Ehrenreich, about 60 percent of American workers earn less than $14 per hour. In all of places where Ehrenreich worked paid seven dollars or less per hour, which means those of people who work in those place cannot even afford to have some essentials services such as health insurance and telephone. Since they cannot even struggle to get out, politicians could takee an action; however, they didn't do any works. “The Democrats are not eager to find flaws in the period of “unprecedented prosperity” they take credit for; the Republicans have lost interest in the poor now that “welfare-as-we-know-it” has ended.” (217). And, they also had a catastrophic error. “In fact, very little is known about the fate of former welfare recipients because the 1996 welfare reform legislation bithely failed to incude any provision for monitoring their postwelfare economic condition.” (217). Congressmen need to read this book to realize the problem, and not satisfy themselves by ignoring failures because they have

The effects of the 1996 welfare reform bill helped declined caseloads on the social and economic well-being of fragile families, single mothers, and children. Although, the welfare reform was documented for making several positive changes such as reducing poverty rates, lowering the out of-wedlock childbearing, and formulated a better family structure, it is undeniable that poverty remained high among single mothers and their children. The reality of the matter was that most welfare recipients experienced serious barriers to maintain a stable employment due to their lack of skills, not having anyone available to take care of their young children when they leave for work as well as not gaining long-time employment with decent pay to help foster the family. As a result, most poor women and children were faced with the instability of economic and social future as welfare eligibility exhausted their efforts of supporting their families.

David Zucchino’s captivating book, Myth of the Welfare Queen, sticks to his journalistic roots and reads like an extended news article as it captures two separate yet interconnected stories of women struggling to get by in Northern Philadelphia. Philadelphia was—and is—an impoverished city in many ways, with huge percentages of the population struggling to get by at or bellow the poverty line. Zucchino spent much of 1995 with woman and families on welfare as it was a time when welfare was a particularly hot topic directly preceding the passing of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. Zucchino strove to cut through the stereotypes and misinformation surrounding welfare and those relying on it. In his own words, “this book is the story of

Welfare reform is viewed by many as an attack on poor, single mothers. According to Rebecca Blank, “single-mother families are the largest (and fastest-growing) family type.” They also make up nearly all of the families who receive welfare (only 7% of welfare recipients live in two-parent households and even fewer welfare households are headed by men, according to Hays.) Hays also notes in the book that these single mothers are frequently derided as lazy, promiscuous, and are accused of abusing the welfare system for their ill-gotten gains (which in most cases total the princely sum of less than $500 per month.)

In the U.S., there’s a cycle of poverty and hardship that many Black and Hispanic citizens face. This cycle began when the War on Drugs started. The implementation of mandatory minimums, the predetermined punishments that come with drug crimes, greatly impacted ethnic minorities. The amount of minority single-parent households became more prominent in 1960s, where the War on Drugs was emphasized. Families with a single head are increasingly more likely to be in poverty than those with both parents. In the 60’s, Black families held the highest single-parent household population. Gregory Acs, who has a PhD in social work and specializes in social welfare, found that over 40 percent of single-mother families with children were in poverty. Those who are in poverty are defined as having an annual income lower than $22,000 (Acs, et al). The cycle of poverty ensures that those who are in poverty stay in

As societies evolve, so do the problems they face. As America entered the 1990’s, more single women than ever were struggling to support their children. From 1970 to 1993, the number of recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children increased 91 percent (Hombs 52). Single mothers that had children as a result of a rape or wedlock could not partake welfare programs that demanded job participation because for fearing of leaving their children unattended. The Presidential Election in 1996 was largely influenced by each candidate’s plan to provide single mothers with proper benefits. Upon election, President Bill Clinton radically changed welfare by lowering the requirements for eligibility for programs such as AFDC, increasing the amount of aid a recipient could get, and allowing the recipients to keep more of the wages they had earned (Hombs 7). Unfortunately, these alterations made it easy for recipients to abuse the system by encouraging many to simply rely on welfare checks to sustain them financially. Looking back on Robert Rector’s disturbing study that one third of welfare recipients are taking illegal drugs, something must be done to hold those receiving aid accountable.

This lack of “support systems” is why the poor ultimately fail to advance. Throughout the last decade the federal government has issued billions of dollars into work supports, but due to unorganized tactics they have failed at eliminating poverty, “law makers have poured billions of dollars into ‘work supports’ such as child-care subsidies and employment tax credits. Yet no one in Washington seemed to think about assembling these services in a coherent package that would be accessible and convenient to struggling workers” (The American Prospect). The answer, according to Sharon Parrott, director of welfare reform and income support division at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “says it [policy] would have three components: convenient one stop service centers; streamlined application forms; and generous income ceilings so that a working parent doesn’t lose eligibility for, say, health insurance the minute he or she climbs above the poverty

Great discoveries always begin with great questions. Barbara Ehrenreich asked two great questions, “how does anyone live on the wages available to the unskilled” and “how were the roughly four million women about to be booted into the labor market by welfare reform, going to make it on $6 to $7 an hour” (2001, p. 12). To answer the questions, Ehrenreich embarked upon a journey to discover for herself, whether she could match income to expense as a low-wage worker. In effect, Ehrenreich tested the fundamental premise of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, also known as welfare reform, in order to determine whether those individuals formerly on welfare and largely unskilled, could earn a living wage on the

But federal aid programs have not helped the poor become self-sufficient or reduced the poverty levels. Ever since welfare has been created it has weakened the American work ethic and encouraged out-of-wedlock births. That unfortunate “tradition” keeps getting passed down from generation to generation (DeHaven). An abundant amount of families out there truly need assistance. The troublesome reality is that the number of people trying to take whatever they can get outweighs the number that’s just trying to get back up on their

I believe that everyone has the right to health care, especially if health conditions calls for it. I do not think income level or the type of insurance should dictate the eligibility or quality of care. By using that criteria, we are implying that certain groups of people deserves to be taken care of and have good health while others do not deserve it. I believe healthcare should be accessible to all as a basic human right.

Edin and Lein wanted to discover the surviving strategies of single mothers who are on welfare or work on a low-waged job. They argue “neither welfare nor low wage work gives single mothers enough income to meet their families’ expenses” (253). To find out the set of survival strategies of single mothers to make ends meet Edin and Lein interviewed 379 low income single mothers. They chose their interviewees from different cities, different aged group, and different ethnic background. Most mothers who are on welfare wanted to find a job and be out of the welfare but the primary problem that single mothers face was that “family economics”. With the minimum wage income it was impossible for the single mothers to bring the ends meet. Neither working nor being on welfare was enough to survive therefore mothers who are on welfare supported their budget by generating substantial supplementary income. Edin and Lein states that “welfare recipients generated extra income by working at side jobs, obtaining cash from network members, community groups and local charities”. They also get cash help from the family members, child’s fathers, and from a boyfriend. Because they were afraid to lose welfare benefits they did not tell anyone about the extra income they have. To survive they needed both the welfare benefits and the extra income. It was very difficult to establish a trust with the interviewees in the beginning because they were afraid if they talk about it they might lose the

This paper reveals the facts about Department for Children and Families. It deciphers the role of investigator in saving the children from abuse and the constraints and external pressures catered by him during the entire process. It also reveals the facts about the powerful role of law in impelementing the measures to prevent child abuse of any form.

Wilson gives an example of a mother in a “new poverty neighborhood” that was on welfare even though she wanted to be employed, and she says that, while she was working, she was making only $7 an hour. Since she couldn’t pay the babysitter or get medical insurance for her children, she applied for public aid, and she could not even find a job that her benefits.

assistance to low income individuals and families. An estimate of 1.8 million New Yorkers and a total of 46.3 million Americans participate in the SNAP program. Despite the large number of individuals on food stamp the Census Bureau reports in 2010 3.9 million people were lifted above the poverty line and 5 million in 2012 all because of the assistance from SNAP. However the federal government has threaten to cut back on the budget for SNAP. In January 2014 the Farm bill was proposed which included an 8.7 million cut to the SNAP program for the next 10 years. Obama later signed the bill into law on February 7, 2014 saying that the Bill would help create more jobs, move the economy forward and give Americans more equal opportunity (Resnikoff 1). Despite the government’s reasons for the budget cut 850 thousand households would be losing an average of 90 dollars per month (Resnikoff 1). This is unfortunate because reports have shown that SNAP is not only an effective federal program but it also has a positive outcome for individuals. Even in the previous statistics, going from 3.9 million to 5 million people lifted above the poverty line in only a two year difference is a significant breakthrough for low income individuals. It is often easy to find yourself falling under the poverty line, but harder to pick yourself back up. Many individuals who are against the program believe that being on food stamps makes an individual more government dependent and takes away the drive for