Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of social workers
What is the role of a social worker
Historic view on welfare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
You both bring up excellent points in regard to the wealthy. It appears policies reflect and benefit the wealthy most times. In addition we the 99% spend a lot of time fighting among ourselves over social welfare programs, that we are lead to believe impact us from making more money or creating more jobs. Furthermore, they bring up legislation like drug testing to stigmatize the poor even more. What was great about learning the history of the welfare system was Trattner (1999) indicated the Social Worker spent at the time time were like activist for the poor and I think that missing currently in our human service field. They created and demanded change during the 1920s and during the new deal (Trattner, 1999). Therefore, I believe working
in this field we have to be advocates of change when it comes to policies on social welfare.
Linda Gordon's article is thoughtful, insightful and highly relevant. As governments slash poverty relief programs at all levels and as welfare-bashing reaches an all-time high, it is instructive to take a step back and look at how the current system developed.
It seems like the Welfare system treats its recipients with disrespect and shame to discourage them from joining the system. The people who made and run Welfare in the 1990s made Welfare into a blame game and forces recipients to solely blame themselves for their poverty. The moral prescriptions in individually getting rid of poverty according to TANF are the Work Plan/Family Plan. The focuses on work and family are contradictory because of how little time there is to get both goals done and each goal perpetuates the idea that it is the most important part of ending poverty. It seems like Welfare is more about getting people off of Welfare than eradicating poverty. There is a difference in the goals and that is reflected in how the recipients are treated and how Welfare is run.
There have been numerous debates within the last decade over what needs to be done about welfare and what is the best welfare reform plan. In the mid-1990s the TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Act was proposed under the Clinton administration. This plan was not received well since it had put a five year lifetime limit on receiving welfare and did not supply the necessary accommodations to help people in poverty follow this guideline. Under the impression that people could easily have found a job and worked their way out of poverty in five years, the plan was passed in 1996 and people in poverty were immediately forced to start looking for jobs. When the TANF Act was up for renewal earlier this year, the Bush administration carefully looked at what the TANF Act had done for the poverty stricken. Bush realized that, in his opinion, the plan had been successful and should stay in effect with some minor tweaking. Bush proposed a similar plan which kept the five year welfare restriction in place but did raise the budgeted amount of money to be placed towards childcare and food stamps. Both the TANF Act and Bush's revised bill have caused a huge controversy between liberal and conservative activists. The liberals feel that it is cruel to put people in a situation where they can no longer receive help from the government since so many people can not simply go out and get a job and work their way out of poverty. They feel if finding a job was that easy, most people would have already worked their way out of poverty. The conservatives feel that the plans, such as the TANF Act, are a surefire way to lower poverty levels and unemployment rates as well as decrease the amount o...
The prospect of the welfare state in America appears to be bleak and almost useless for many citizens who live below the poverty line. Katz’s description of the welfare state as a system that is “partly public, partly private, partly mixed; incomplete and still not universal; defeating its own objectives” whereas has demonstrates how it has become this way by outlining the history of the welfare state which is shown that it has been produced in layers. The recent outcomes that Katz writes about is the Clinton reform in 1996 where benefits are limited to a period of two years and no one is allowed to collect for more than five years in their lifetime unless they are exempted. A person may only receive an exemption on the grounds of hardship in which states are limited to granting a maximum of 20% of the recipient population. The logic behind this drastic measure was to ensure that recipients would not become dependent upon relief and would encourage them to seek out any form of employment as quickly as possible. State officials have laid claim to this innovation as a strategy that would “save millions of children from poverty.” However, state officials predict otherwise such as an increase in homelessness, a flooding of low-waged workers in the labour market, and decreased purchasing power which means less income from tax collections. The outcomes of this reform appear to be bleak for many Americans who reside below the poverty line. How does a wealthy country like America have such weak welfare system? Drawing upon Katz, I argue that the development of the semi-welfare state is a result of the state taking measures to ensure that the people do not perceive relief as a right and to avoid exploiting the shortfalls of capitalism ...
The United States is often referred to as a ‘reluctant welfare state.’ There are various reasons for this description. One of the primary reasons for this is the differences and diversity of the political parties which are the motivating forces that control government. The Liberal Party, for instance supports government safety nets and social service programs for those in need. “Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all.” ("Studentnews," 2006) They believe it is the responsibility of government to ensure that the needs of all citizens are met, and to intervene to solve problems. The responsibility of government is to alleviate social ills, to protect civil liberties and sustain individual and human rights. Liberals support most social and human service programs; such as TANF, including long-term welfare, housing programs, government regulated health care, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and educational funding. Their goal is to create programs that promote equal opportunity regardless of gender, age, race, orientation, nationality or religion, along with many others. Liberals believe that government participation is essential and a means to bring about fairness and justice to the American way of life.
In today’s America, there are many people who would either be disgusted at the very mention of Welfare or be highly grateful for its existence. I believe that in order for welfare to be more effective in America, there must be reform. From the time of its inceptions in 1935, welfare has lent a helping hand to many in crisis (Constitution Rights Foundation). However, at present many programs within the system are being abused and the people who are in real need are being cheated out of assistance. The year after the creation of welfare unemployment was just about twenty percent (Unemployment Statistics). The need for basic resources to survive was unparallel. Today, many people face the same needs as many did during the 30s. Some issues with
The United States is sometimes described as a “reluctant welfare state.” I agree with this statement. Too often there are programs created by our government that, although may be lined with good intentions, end up failing in their main purpose. The government may, and hopefully does, seek to help its citizens. However, by applying unreasonable qualifying or maintenance criteria, or too many restrictions that bar people from even receiving aid at all, they end up with many more problems than solutions. Three examples of policies that do this are: Medicare, No Child Left Behind, and TANF, or the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Welfare has been a safety net for many Americans, when the alternative for them is going without food and shelter. Over the years, the government has provided income for the unemployed, food assistance for the hungry, and health care for the poor. The federal government in the nineteenth century started to provide minimal benefits for the poor. During the twentieth century the United States federal government established a more substantial welfare system to help Americans when they most needed it. In 1996, welfare reform occurred under President Bill Clinton and it significantly changed the structure of welfare. Social Security has gone through significant change from FDR’s signing of the program into law to President George W. Bush’s proposal of privatized accounts.
The poor are everywhere it seems. They are on the street corner, in the local 7 Eleven, and in the plaza. Sometimes I get sick of them and even angry with them when they pester me for money. I ask myself, "Is the best way to deal with poor, to give them money from my pocket?" It's obvious that other people have given them money from their pockets at different times. If no one had ever given them money, then these people wouldn't be standing here asking for money. The fact is, many poor people ask for money because they know they can get money that way. For most of the last 70 years our government has indirectly given the poor money from our pockets, through taxes and welfare. Not surprisingly, people have continued to ask for money. For most of those 70 years welfare fed the mentality that the best way to get money was to ask. I believe welfare as it was first started, failed miserably and created millions of dependents in poverty instead of independents above poverty. The welfare reform of 1996, I believe has helped the poor escape from the trap of poverty and is a more beneficial way of dealing with the poor.
Identify and explain the three major sources of conflict and misinterpretations in social work practice: culture-bound values, class bound values, and language variables.
Welfare programs are an important part of American society. Without any type of American welfare, people will starve, children will not receive the proper education, and people will not receive any medical help simply because they do not have the resources available to them. Each of the three aspects of the American welfare system are unique in their own ways because they are funded differently and the benefits are given to different people. While support for these welfare systems has declined in the more recent years, the support for it when it was created was strong.
This essay will discuss social divisions; social exclusion and social inclusion, of which there are many definitions and interpretations. Social divisions and Social exclusion has been around for many years. Social exclusion was first noticed in France in 1970s in relation to people who fell outside the range of the social insurance system, such as disabled people, lone parents and the young unemployed (Townsend and Kennedy, 2004). Before 1997 Social exclusion was referred to as ‘poverty’, which means where people lack many of the opportunities that are available to the average person (Palmer; 2010). However for the purpose of this assignment, it will focus on homelessness as a social division, the relationship between exclusion and inclusion, and how this relates to social work practice.
Social welfare dates back almost 50 years, but through those years the real question is, what is social welfare? The interesting part of social welfare is that one persons definition or belief may be different from another’s belief. The truth is, not one person is right about the definition or ideology of social welfare. Social welfare programs have grown, shrunk, stabilized, and declined over the years, and today many believe that we are in a period of decline. The text “Ideology and Social Welfare” states that there are four different views to social welfare, all having their unique attributes. Personally, my view is a combination of the reluctant collectivists, the anti-collectivist, and the Fabian socialists view. I strongly believe that government intervention is necessary in order to control and regulate social welfare while keeping ethics in mind, but at the same time, it is not necessary for everyone. People have the ability to change their lives for the better with hard work and dedication. My opinion is just one of the hundreds that exist today, but as proven throughout history, not one person is necessarily right. The three approaches towards social welfare, the reluctant collectivist approach, the Fabian socialist approach, and the anti-collectivist approach, encompass critical points on social welfare and what can be done to avoid inequality.
Among an array of Values from The Code of Ethics (TCE) of social work Value 1 dictates that as social workers we must respect the dignity of our clients and refrain from passing judgement onto them (Canadian Association of Social Work, 2005, pg.7). As a social worker, it is important to follow this value as it prevents the distancing of the client from the worker as the client will have a better chance of opening up to someone who does not instantly tell them what to do or reprimand them for their actions or non-action in their lives. Oppression relates to the TCE in that it says the social work profession’s main purpose is to raise their clients who are vulnerable, oppressed and/or living in poverty (CASW, 2005, pg.7). Taking this into account
Case work is not only the basic practice in professional Social Work but rather, a common practice followed by all. The traditional definition defines case work as “a method of helping individuals through a one-on-on relationship’’. Every individual trained or untrained indulges in case work. The difference is made by theoretical understanding and professional ethics, practices involved in professional case work. Mary Richmond in 1915 explains casework as “the art of doing different things for and with different people by cooperating with them to achieve at one and the same time their own and society' betterment.” Social Case Work can also be defined as “an art in which knowledge of the science of human relations and skill in relationship are used to mobilize capacities in the individual and resources in the community appropriate for better adjustment between the client and all or any part of his total environment”.