Many researchers have been studying welfare to work, but not until recently has the focus resurfaced on the increase number of single mothers who left welfare for work and went back to the welfare system. According to the 2012 U.S. National Census Bureau,” Single mothers are heading more family households and living in poverty. Almost 31% of households headed by a single woman were living below the poverty line—nearly five times the 6.3% poverty rate for families headed by a married couple” ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Without the necessary income, perceived support, childcare resource and training, the move is a downward mobility from welfare independence back into the welfare system.
The most recent statistics which was taken in 2014, showed how single parent households have increased by 80% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). Statistically, “ numbers show that millions of women and children live on the edge of a fiscal cliff: more than one in seven women live in poverty and over half of all poor children are in families headed by women” ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2012) ). With female headed household living in poverty or deep poverty the increase is high for families to meet basic needs. We look for this to increase as more females who have worked quit their jobs and go back into the welfare system as a means of surviving the cliff effect (Harris, 1996).
This paper attempts to answer the questions of whether single mothers who have worked regressed back into the welfare
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,
Can a single mother of three working full time for minimum wage afford to pay ' by herself ' for food, clothing, transportation, childcare, occupational training and medical care? Without government aid, the obvious answer is no. Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), as described by Robert Kuttner, is a government aid program designed 'to help all of the working poor rise out of poverty.' It includes tuition reimbursements, wage supplements, and above all, childcare? (Kuttner). It creates a more equal opportunity for those at a disadvantage to improve themselves and their situation. TANF, 'which limits the time families can remain on welfare, appears to be a smashing success' (Cohn). First, if eligibility were to become stricter, seeking
A great number of those who reside in New York find the current U.S welfare reform to be very exhausting, humiliating as well as fraught. According to New Yorkers, this welfare will fail them. These simply because they are not poor enough, most of the citizens are already working (De Mause & Lewis Pp 1). The centerpiece of this welfare reform demanded that every citizen to work. There is a need that the state should ensure that almost half of the citizens get public assistance from the government. The beneficiaries should be working for at least thirty hours a week since working for more hours is one of the necessary in welfare reform (Eaton 7)
The welfare system first came into action during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Unemployed citizens needed federal assistance to escape the reality of severe poverty. The welfare system supplies families with services such as: food stamps, medicaid, and housing among others. The welfare system has played a vital role in the US, in controlling the amount of poverty to a certain level. Sadly, the system has been abused and taken for granted by citizens across the country. The welfare system was previously controlled by the federal government until 1996; the federal government handed over the responsibility to the states in hope of reducing welfare abuse. However, this change has not prevented folks from scamming the system. The
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.
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.)
"The U.S. Congress kicked off welfare reform nationwide last October with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, heralding a new era in which welfare recipients are required to look for work as a condition of benefits." http://www.detnews.com/1997/newsx/welfare/rules/rules.htm. Originally, the welfare system was created to help poor men, women, and children who are in need of financial and medical assistance. Over the years, welfare has become a way of life for its recipients and has created a culture of dependency. Currently, the government is in the process of reforming the welfare system. The welfare reform system’s objective was to get people off the welfare system and onto the
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.
What would happen if the government made changes to the welfare system? There are approximately 110,489,000 of Americans on welfare. Many people benefit from what the system has to offer: food stamps, housing, health insurance, day care, and unemployment. Taxpayers often argue that the individuals who benefit from the system, abuse the system; however, this is not entirely true. Many of the people who receive benefits really and truly need the help. Even though some people believe welfare should be reformed, welfare should not be reformed because 40% of single mothers are poor, some elderly people do not have a support system, and college students can not afford to take extra loans.
The U.S. government has been trying to move welfare mothers into the labor market for over four decades. According to Kim (2006), two major Welfare-to-Work (WTW) strategies Human Capital Development (HCD) and Labor Force Attachment (LFA) was used to estimate entries, exits, and the transitions of each outcome using event history methods. The effectiveness of both strategies had not been determined.
the unemployed mother who is receiving food stamps and monthly social security unemployment benefits as a serious problem to the welfare system. The program which
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
Mary Smith gets up every day at 6 am and begins to hustle around the house. She rouses her three children from their slumber and forces them to get ready for school. Once the kids are on the bus, she hops in her car and heads off to her job at the local fast food restaurant. After working her seven hours at the restaurant, she goes to her night course at the college in town. The course she is taking will help her get her high school diploma and possibly lead her to a successful career. These two things have been dreams of Mary's for so long, but she hasn't been able to attain them until now. She has been on welfare since the age of eighteen after having her first baby,
President Lyndon Baines Johnson declared a war on poverty, with the stated goal of not just reducing poverty, but eradicating it. Decades and trillions of dollars later, poverty continues to plague our society. Despite the fact that the Federal and State governments have vastly expanded the welfare safety net, the US poverty rate has remained at around 15% for the past three years. As US social programs expand, providing ever more benefits, the chance of dependency increases. Thereby trapping welfare recipients in the very system designed to assist them. The US welfare system should be changed so as to assist and motivate recipients into weaning off of the welfare system and not becoming dependent on the welfare programs. This paper will discuss two welfare programs that may be making the poverty situation worse rather than better and an idea that may be critical
Yvonne Zylan and Sarah A. Soule. (2000). “Ending Welfare As We Know It (Again): Welfare State Retrenchment, 1989-1995”. Social Forces, Vol. 79, No. 2 (Dec., 2000), pp. 623-652.