The Pros And Cons Of The Work Programme

The basic principles of the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601 were “local investigation and administration of relief, work as a component of all assistance, and categorization of the poor into three groups: the able-bodied poor, the impotent poor, and dependent children” (Day & Schiele, 2013, p. 104). Basically, creating a welfare system to help assist the poor, implementing programs to get people working, and categorizing the poor as worthy or unworthy poor. Examples of this in the present social welfare system are TANF, unemployment insurance, Social Security, SSI, and SDI. Within the TANF and unemployment program, there is a job search requirement to encourage people to find work. Also, much like the Elizabethan Poor Laws, people are categorized to receive specific benefits based on whether they can work or not, like SSI, which is for people who are currently unable to work because of old age or disability.

Changes within the welfare system as a result of policy shifts and by new thinking, more generally in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), have had many methods, but the one that seemed most important, was that welfare recipients were required to do much more to justify their income support payments than before. The foundation of this new idea is that income support programs should allow individuals to maximise their participation in work. Due to the general shift in welfare administration, the number of activity test requirements an individual in Australia must meet in order to receive unemployment benefits, has expanded significantly since the early 1990s. This complex, overly bureaucratic process means that disadvantaged individuals cannot access the income support payments they require.

This paper will analyze the welfare reform system. Through my analysis I will examine several areas of concern in the welfare reform system. First, as an overview, I will look at the Personal Responsibility & Work Opportunity Act. Second, I will look at the Welfare to Workfare program. We will then examine how welfare recipients with disabilities will be handled under this new reform and finally this paper will examine how the federal government plans on if at all ensuring job retention occurs.

Trepidations pertaining to young people, being unable to fulfil their educational goals, being involved in antisocial activities, expelled from mainstream schools because of truancy and other disruptive transgressions or out of work, reinforce the obligation to the end child poverty ingenuity implemented by the Coalition Government in 1999. Equally, in their manifesto, the Conservatives avowed to enhance the emphasis on assisting families and vulnerable young people. Subsequently, this is trailed by the government’s enactment of pertinent policies to try and refine the life probabilities of young people who have numerous concerns. Likewise, this has prompted the invention of more initiatives, including the advent of the targeted youth programs.

Maybe by providing stricter guidelines, such as job search requirements, along with proof of the job search, welfare would not be as attractive and recipients will be more likely to get a job. Newt Gringrich, a Former speaker of the House of Representatives, wrote an essay titled “Renewing America” “The welfare system has sapped the spirit of the poor and made it harder to climb the first rung of the economic ladder.” (usnews.com). Sucha system has placed an unfair burden on the hard workers who are forced to pay for these programs. Gringrich states, “Why should taxpayers be forced to take fiscal responsibility for those who do not take responsibility for themselves? He continues to say “As individuals,we are responsible for our own actions and their consequences.” If people do notcare about their own well being then why should I be forced to care? As Gringrich sees it, “If society is responsible for everything, then no one is personally responsible for anything. With that said, without responsibility, are we truly free? Welfare should be used for the right purposes; to help those who are truly in need get on their feet and become successful. But because of the excessive misuse, welfare has now developed a stigma, and should be reformed to its original notion, and that is for its help and not

For most of America’s history, farmers, entrepreneurs or shop owners could live their entire lives without getting any assistance from the federal government except maybe mail. But those days are long gone. In 2012 the total number of Americans on government assistance or welfare reached 4,3000,000. Many of which are 4th or 5th generation Welfare recipients. For whatever the reason, we have become a culture of dependency in which poverty is a trap. Long-term recipients loose job skills, work habits as well as work contacts. For this reason the government should require recipients to work as much as they can. It could be called “workfare” and could help recipients increase potential long-term earnings.

A beneficial change that has been proposed for the Welfare program is a time limit on how long people are allowed to be on welfare. When putting a time limit into place, new job programs will emerge in order to help find the individuals a place of employment (Molander). Job programs would provide training and assistance in helping the individual find employment. These “job programs” would be instated for the purpose of helping those people on welfare get off as soon as possible (Molander). In turn this would back up the time limit, because the job program would be created in a way in which encouragement to find a job would be fully incorporated (Ybarra). “Activation programs” would be the official term and they will help the unemployable

The short article cut from “America’s New Working Class”, by Kathleen R. Arnold, depicts the failure of the American’s federal welfare system. It seems like mostly Americans agree that the propose of federal welfare programs is to provide economic assistance such as food stamps to people who need it. However, Arnold states that the real propose of welfare programs is to maintain a supply of cheap labor in order to make them to have obedient adaptive function and closely keep watch on those welfare recipients. For example, the bad treatment for parole people will only lead them go back the prison; and for those noncompliance workfare recipients, the bad treatment and poor support will lead them to become homeless and malnourish, which make them become much more poverty.

All results did show a steady, if small, inclination of progress throughout the decades. Several reasons for WTW program stagnation is due to a steep learning curve of WTW administrators to run their programs, the WTW sites’ placement (some welfare sights are placed in districts where jobs are more fruitful than others), and the increase in use of WTW programs significantly saturated the program and the results of unemployment numbers. Despite all of the setbacks in unemployment numbers, analysis concluded more HDC run programs were able to hold better jobs for longer durations than LFA run programs (p. 911-919). Greenberg’s research was conducted from 76 experimental WTW programs throughout the US. With feedback such as this it is hard to retort that HDC methods aren’t worth the time and money put into them to get individuals educated, focused and on the right path to provide for their families.

Poverty is an ever increasing issue in the UK and is perceived as a major social problem due to the consequences that it brings with it .The term ‘social problem’ refers

Welfare has been a major controversy in the realm of social policy for many years. Welfare has become a fundamental part of everyday life for many families. The present state of Welfare does not encourage job growth, reduce poverty, or reduce dependence on governmental aid in the United States despite its work relief elements and large governmental programs. Currently the United States’ Welfare system is being abused by its members and it should be monitored and revised to cut back on people misusing the benefits.

The aim of this essay is to discuss and compare the British Welfare system with Germany and Sweden’s welfare systems. A welfare system is the structure of welfare provisions and services that provide a specific social need, but it is not only provided or organised solely by the government (Blakemore, 2001). It is a view that is rooted in individual exchanges between five organisations (State/Government, Market/Private Sector, Family/Kin networks, Local Communities and Civil Society). It reflects the history and cultures of different countries around the world (Haralambos, 2012). It is these providers that assume principal

This essay will consider whether the welfare state has eliminated poverty. It will examine what poverty is and how the definition varies from societies. The essay will look at the aims of the welfare state from conception and how it has changed to present times. The welfare state being analysed is the welfare state in the United Kingdom. It will discuss the nature of the social democratic welfare state and liberal criticisms of the problems this type of state brings. The recent changes to the welfare state will be reviewed and what the consequences of the changes may be. It will then look at recent statistics to determine whether the welfare state has eradicated poverty.

This essay will explore three contemporary issues in relation to social policy, whilst supporting these issues with legislation and economic context for each issue.

Some governments used employer subsidies and promoted entrepreneurship while some additional measures have been taken to address the issue of undeclared work. Many Member States continued to introduce changes to their employment protection legislation to address the balance between flexibility and security and address the segmentation of the labour market.