Why Stigma Ties Into Social Welfare

Woodard (2005) demonstrated that egalitarianism is a condition that esteems distributive fairness in society in terms of property, economy, politics and public institutions. That means population must have equal amounts of public welfare, allowance, liberty, and political rights to maximize their life quality. On the other hand, Nathan (1983) discussed that egalitarianism’s idea is about giving priority to disadvantageous persons in a society and contribute them opportunities of education and employment. The society should include people such as elders, indigenous groups, handicapped persons, immigrant, single parents, and people who live under low socioeconomic status. The political systems let the citizens share national resources and public services such as information and transportations That would make smaller gaps between rich and poor (Miller, 2005; Landesman, 1983). Therefore, egalitarian society could be defined as a society that seeks equity among population, over the individual social position giving access in obtaining wealth, education, employment, political rights, civil rights, and public

Chappell, R. (2010). The Functions of Social Welfare. In Social Welfare in Canadian Society (p. 5). Toronto: Nelson Education.

The number of Americans taking part in the welfare system today has hit 12 million, an all-time high, proving its significance in government. Americans not on welfare complain about the unfairness it causes, but have yet to propose a better plan. Changing these government assistance programs sounds easier than it really is, because while it may rid of those who take advantage of the free money, it also leaves plenty of helpless Americans to fend for themselves. In a society where Americans are compensated for idleness through government social programs, there exist many ecclesiastical institutions striving to reclaim dependent Americans by teaching self-reliance using more organized and functional welfare programs, from which the United

The government has placed the responsibilities of housing, child care, education, retirement and much more on the individual. With all of the stress and responsibility placed on individuals, the Canadian government continues to make cuts to public expenditure on government aids. Depriving citizens of any safety nets and blaming them for being unable to acquire these underfunded social services.

According to the National Council of Welfare, The majority of those who rely on social assistance in Canada tend to be women, children and people with disabilities, it is noted that government policy focus on getting them into the paid workforce without adequate supports such as childcare, housing, and money for basic expenses, these policies are considered to be unrealistic and create much misery for the Canadians that are forced to live under these policies (Women, 2007). According to Census 2000, the average annual pre-tax income of women from all sources including government transfers was $22,885 or 62% that of what men receive. In Canada, female lone parent families have by far the lowest average total incomes among families. Although women continue to be among the poorest of the poor in Canada, they make up a disproportionate share of the population with low income 2.4 million women in 2001 compared to 1.9 million men (Work, 2004).

Beginning in the Elizabethan Era, unworthy poor was a label placed on able bodied people that appeared to choose to not work. They were often treated harshly and in extreme cases, put to death (Shelly, 2011). In today’s society such treatment would be unheard of. The act of even labeling this group of people or other groups is discouraged and even against the NASW’s The Code of Ethics (2008). When faced with the multi billion dollar price tag of welfare, we need to make a distinction of who is worthy or unworthy to receive government assistance. The question arises on how this can be done without impeding the rights of the

A second cause is the disunity among Canadian national and provincial jurisdictions which have made reforms very difficult. This disunity has been encouraged by neo-liberalism which in turn has moved Canada away from a “more universal, social-insurance, rights-based approach, toward a more targeted, welfare, individualist needs-tested approach” (Albanese 81). This breakdown of shared goals means the National and Provincial Governments do not always see eye to eye. Provinces, in particular, are given most of the power to create and enforce most social welfare programs. The biggest losers in this case are the poor families and children within these families. Co-operative federalism once existed in Canada but is now replaced with individualism

Income Assistance rates in British Columbia have been stuck at a paltry maximum of $610 for a single employable individual for the past 10 years. Although the cost of living has steadily increased, Income Assistance rates have remained stagnant. The current social welfare policies adopted by the Canadian Government in general and the provincial Government of British Columbia in particular are reflective of the strong liberal political ideology that has taken root in Canadian society. A political belief system that puts profit and economic growth above social equality and prosperity for all, is one that is in desperate need of repair. The current policies that govern

Imagine if you were deprived of power, security, choices, resources, and capabilities that allows everyone to live life heartily? Sounds terrible, and impossible right? Unfortunately for every group of seven people in Canada there is one person who knows this isn’t impossible at all; it’s their reality, and it’s called poverty. Being one of the eight richest and highly industrialized countries in the entire world, and apart of the G8 countries, Canada is still the only one that hasn’t devised a national anti-poverty plan or even a housing plan. Which is absurd, because according to a 2010 report by the Wellesley Institute titled Precarious Housing in Canada between 150,000 –to 300,000 people are homeless in Canada, and up to another 900,000 are part of the ‘hidden homeless’; these are people who live in poor living conditions/ overcrowded housing. In Canada, 546,000 children across the country live in conditions of poverty, almost 1 in every 5 households experience serious housing affordability issues, and overall 4.9 million people in Canada live in poverty, while the government fails to address the huge, growing issue. It’s absolutely shameful. The federal government of Canada needs to consider the human rights and wellbeing of all the people suffering from poverty, and devise a national anti-poverty plan, which they can definitely handle.

When it comes to matters that have to do with homelessness, it can be said that compared to the U.S., Canada is more focused on dealing with the issue to eliminate it rather than appeasing the guilt through creating smaller programs. Author’s Tompsett, Fales, and Toro (2007) express this by stating that “Compared to U.S. respondents, Canadians felt homelessness was a less serious problem in the nearest city and nationwide, were more likely to favour increases in Federal spending to combat homelessness, and were more supportive of rights for the homeless.” (p. 76). Canadians also felt that it was the government’s responsibility to help those who are homeless and because of these attitudes, it was found that Canadians took a more interventionist

This paper was prepared for Social Welfare Institutions and Program, SWK, 639, Section 81, taught by Professor Yvonne Johnson

Americans all across the nation have become blind to the fact that the welfare system has created a sense of comfortable distress amongst them; Americans feel safe with knowing that they have benefits to turn to when in need but are also distraught about the actions and well-beings of the welfare system in future times because they are so comfortable with the system. With so many bad effects outweighing the good effects that welfare programs bring to the table, there is a need to say that these programs are temporarily helpful but not valuable towards society. The current welfare programs that are established are not beneficial towards the progression of society because the programs deprive the independence of individuals, allow continuous poverty to still be an economic issue, and intensify the fraudulent cases of criminal activity.

As described by (Reismann,2001) ‘Stigma mean a loss of self-respect and personal dignity, a sense of guilt, of shame, of personal fault or failure’ Reismann states that there is stigma felt in relation to the means test used for those who require state provided social assistance payments in order to give access to those who are most in need they must be segregated from the rest of the population in

Social welfare entails non-profit functions operating at a voluntary, public or societal basis. The functions’ clear aim is to alleviate poverty and distress among populations, as well as ameliorate poverty and distress among casualties at societal levels (Boyd, 2013). In another study, Chamblis and Schutt (2010) affirmed that social welfare constitutes social interventions seeking to maintain or enhance the people’s social functioning in entirety. Indeed, the assertions indicate that social welfare arises when government and voluntary agencies engage in organized activities for preventing, alleviating or contributing towards problem solving for emergent and existing social issues. In addition, the affirmations imply that social welfare aims

There are many stigmas, or misconceptions and misperceptions in our society which need to be shattered. I believe that one of the worse possible effects of stigma is that it causes those affected by psychological disorders, or mental illness, to crawl more deeply into themselves because it provokes a sense of shame. Stigma thrusts those suffering with mental illness into a sense of isolation, social exclusion, and discrimination. “Stigma can lead to discrimination … It may be obvious or direct … Or it may be unintentional or subtle…” (Staff). Stigma is often as big as the illness itself and I confess to having been a perpetuator of this dreaded thing, although not consciously aware and without the intent of furthering the harm of someone.