TANF Policy Analysis
The number of adults on welfare has dropped dramatically since its reform in 1996. As of March 2015, a little over 1 million families on average remained on welfare in a typical month, this being down from about 4.6 million at the crest of the program in the early 1990s. As these numbers plummeted, the number of single mothers joining the workforce or returning to it grew at rates that were largely unexpected. For these reasons, welfare reform has been deemed a success. In order to determine the level of success or failure of the 1996 welfare reform, a comprehensive analysis of its goals is compulsory. TANF has four main intentions: assist families in need so that children can be cared for in their own homes, reduce
…show more content…
One of the key reasons for block granting the TANF program was to give states greater flexibility to help cash assistance recipients find and maintain work so they would no longer need assistance. The idea was that if states had more flexibility, they could take the funds they previously used to provide cash grants and use them to help recipients find jobs and to cover the costs of work supports like child care and transportation. While states modestly increased spending in these areas in the early years of TANF, they have not sustained the …show more content…
Three of the four policy objectives focus on reducing the prevalence and instances of single mothers. Certainly there is a possibility that a family could benefit from another adult earning money for the rest of its members, but there is no guarantee that another member would not cause more problems, such as higher expenses, frivolous spending, and domestic problems that could outweigh the extra earnings. Besides thinking in a strictly monetary sense, does the government hold the power to take away a person’s freedom to decide which family situation is most suitable simply because they are poor? The government does not impose fines on single people who live with romantic partners when they make $100,000; imposing penalties on people who make $10,000 seems like discrimination. Considering that the national divorce rate is roughly 50%, and marriages that are placed under the strains of poverty fair even worse, is it even possible to require people receiving TANF to seek marriage as a freedom from poverty? It would appear that the promotion of a traditional family for TANF receivers is more of an attempt to spread one ideological belief than it is to reduce poverty or to better one’s
Hays found that initially most welfare workers were optimistic and even excited about the changes. Most workers felt that the Act represented real progress and allowed for positive changes which would positively impact the lives of their clients. Hays spoke to one welfare who said that welfare reform “offered the training and services necessary to 'make our clients' lives better, to make them better mothers, to make them more productive.'” But as she was soon to find out, welfare reform, while it did have a positive impact on the lives of some welfare clients, made the lives of most clients more difficult, not to mention the stress that it caused for the welfare workers who had to deal with the often confusing and illogical new rules.
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...
In the summer of 1996, Congress finally passed and the President signed the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996", transforming the nation's welfare system. The passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act sets the stage for ongoing reconstruction of welfare systems on a state-by-state basis. The combined programs will increase from nearly $100 billion this year to $130 billion per year in 6 years. Programs included are for food stamps, SSI, child nutrition, foster care, the bloss grant program for child- care, and the new block grant to take the place of AFDC. All of those programs will seek $700 billion over the next 6 years, from the taxpayers of America. This program in its reformed mode will cost $55 billion less than it was assumed to cost if there were no changes and the entitlements were left alone. The current welfare system has failed the very families it was intended to serve. If the present welfare system was working so well we would not be here today.
... objective was to pull out people from poverty as the poor migrates to the urban were duly attracted to the incentives provided by the welfare. Not only has it reduced the amount of federal spending it also provides the welfare to be more efficient as the people are only allowed to receive federal support with a limited time span.
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
I feel that TANF is a useful program, because it allows people to have access to things that they would not generally have. It also allows for the opportunity to receive actual help in bettering other people’s lives. I wish more programs like this existed and offered not only monetary support, but also childcare and education assistance. If more programs like TANF existed there would be more opportunity to better one’s self and less of a sense of being trapped in a poor economic condition.
This mini-paper will discuss the social welfare system. The mini-paper includes a discussion of welfare Policy, residual and institutional approach, and what is Social Welfare and Social Security. Midgely, (2009), pointed out that social welfare systems deliver services that facilitate and empower our society, especially to those persons who require assistance in meeting their basic human needs. The goal of social welfare is to provide social services to citizens from diverse cultures, and examples include Medicare, Medicaid, and food benefits. Midgley,( 2009).
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program was developed to help needy families become self-sufficient.¹ The TANF program was created by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996.² TANF was created by The Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) out of the preexisting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which itself was created by Congress in 1935 as part of the Social Security Act.² There were some notable differences between the PRWORA and the TANF when it was created, the most noted differences were that the TANF allowed states to use TANF dollars to support child care, for job search support, social services,etc. and there were no requirements on how much could be spent on cash aid directly.² Also, the entitlement aspect of the PRWORA ended and states were not required to serve all eligible families/individuals.²
TANF and AFDC differ in many ways: 1) TANF provides a block grant to individual states, 2) there is no longer a guarantee of cash assistant to all eligible individuals, 3) recipients may receive benefits for no more than five years over a life time, 4) recipients must adhere to work requirement to receive benefits, and 5) current and future legal immigrants are denied benefits until citizenship (O’Campo & Rojas-Smith 421). The fact that TANF is restricted for a maximum of five years has adverse consequences for the needy. Five years is often too short for recipients to gain independence.
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.
In 60 months an individual, that intends to improve their circumstances, has the ability to increase education, search for employment, have children enrolled into school, and make changes. I do not agree with the amount of TANF that is provided to the families that are in need of cash benefits to make ends meet. According to Gene Falk, Specialist in Social Policy, the maximum benefit amount of TANF for a single parent and two children in each state varies greatly with Alaska benefits being $923 a month at the highest and Tennessee at the lowest with a maximum benefit amount at $185 (Falk, 2014). I understand the cost of living varies, but this is an extremely large difference. If we expect individuals to become self-sufficient their basic needs need to be met so that their energy can be focused on actions that will allow self-sufficiency to be obtained rather than using their energy to meet the basic
Welfare can be defined as “systems by which government agencies provide economic assistance, goods, and services to persons who are unable to care for themselves” (Issitt). The United States welfare system is an extremely complex and unique entity that encompasses ideas and concepts from an abundance of different places. Many people believe the current system is an excellent resource for the population, while others believe the current welfare system requires reform and budget cuts to become effective.
Being raised in a single-parent lower class home, I realize first-hand the need for welfare and government assistance programs. I also realize that the system is very complex and can become a crutch to people who become dependent and complacent. As a liberal American I do believe that the government should provide services to the less fortunate and resources to find work. However, as able-bodied citizens we should not become complacent with collecting benefits and it is the government’s job to identify people who take advantage of the system and strip benefits from people who are not making efforts to support themselves independently. I will identify errors that exist within the welfare system and several policy recommendations to implement a change that will counteract the negative conditions that currently exist.
Millions of people in the United States today are on some type of public assistance. Some Americans are on Medicare, which provides to the people who cannot afford private health insurance and for those 65 or older. Another type of public assistance is TANF, which many families are on; an organization that helps needy families with some grants and guidance provided by the government. Some states are taking all obligatory measurements to make sure that the taxpayers’ money for public assistance is being used properly by those people who actually need the help and not to buy drugs and alcohol. These public restrictions are put in place, so the people who actually need the help to survive and who wish to live their lives with the American dream in mind, may have a chance.