End Of Welfare Research Articles

Ensuring poverty: welfare reform in feminist perspective

More than 20 years have elapsed since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) that President Bill Clinton proudly declared would “‘end welfare as...

We Know about Reagan, but Was there a Clinton Effect? Earnings by Race, Gender, Marital and Family Status, 1993 and 2000

Radical and mainstream social scientists still speak of the effect of President Ronald Reagan’s administration on the welfare state and the legacy of Great Society and Equal Opportunity programs, but, as indicated in a search of the American Sociological Review and Critical Sociology, there is less research focused on President Bill Clinton’s plan to end welfare as we knew it. Here we begin with an historical perspective on race and gender gaps, 1955–2016, including a consideration of macro-economic processes associated with postmodernism. Then we compare the effects of marital and family status on earnings, focusing on race and gender effects, at the beginning (1993) and end (2000) of the Clinton era. We find considerable support for the concerns raised by early radical critics, notably, evidence of an influx of low-income black single mothers. We consider the possibility that these are institutional rather than regime effects, in conclusion.

Letter to Hillary Clinton: Let’s Talk About Poverty

We don’t know whether you will run for president in 2016, but whatever you decide, we think that you should step forward now to launch a national debate about poverty and welfare. You are uniquely positioned to exercise leadership in discussing how public policy fails to respond to the needs of the poor. Specifically, we are asking for you to open a conversation about the shortcomings of the 1996 welfare legislation that was passed when you and Bill Clinton were in the White House. Such a conversation is urgent regardless of who might run for president in 2016. Permit us to lay out some of this history—not to blame any of the participants, but to establish the context that influenced them. Bill Clinton campaigned for the presidency in 1992 with the promise “to end welfare as we know it.”

Nina Eliasoph (2011), Making Volunteers: Civic Life after Welfare's End. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. £27.95, pp. 308, hbk.

Nina Eliasoph (2011), Making Volunteers: Civic Life after Welfare's End. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. £27.95, pp. 308, hbk.

Making Volunteers: Civic Life After Welfare's End by Nina Eliasoph

Journal Article Making Volunteers: Civic Life After Welfare's End by Nina Eliasoph Get access Making Volunteers: Civic Life after Welfareʼs End by Nina Eliasoph. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2011. 336 pp. $39.50. Jennifer L. Glanville Jennifer L. Glanville University of Iowa Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Political Science Quarterly, Volume 127, Issue 1, Spring 2012, Pages 168–169, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2012.tb02234.x Published: 25 March 2013

Making volunteers: civic life after welfare's end

Making volunteers: civic life after welfare's end

La fin de la pauvrete? Les experts sociaux en guerre contre la pauvrete aux etats-Unis (1945-1974) (The end of poverty? Social experts in the war against poverty in the United States, 1945-1974). By Romain Huret

Since the 1980s, most studies of the War on Poverty have debated the success or failure of its policies. This historical discourse provided the backdrop for the Ronald Reagan/George H. W. Bush “war on the poor,” Bill Clinton's attempt to “end welfare as we know it,” and the tepid approaches to poverty elimination undertaken to date by the Obama administration. Romain Huret's compact and well-researched book links the origins of the War on Poverty to its long-term effects on U.S. social policy and challenges several long-standing assumptions about the relationship between expertise and political power. He pays particular attention to the internal and external struggles of experts who attempted to translate their ideas into action and to how their largely unsuccessful efforts resulted in the lack of interest in poverty that currently pervades American politics. The first part of the book focuses on the development of “the science of poverty” between 1945–1962, when a secular faith emerged among academics and intellectuals that poverty could be eradicated through the reconciliation of technical expertise and social ethics. A major feature of the ensuing political and intellectual mobilization would be a fight to redistribute resources more equally—to include the poor, especially the working poor, in the nation's social contract.

The Second Phase of US Welfare Reform, 2000–2006: Blaming the Poor Again?

Abstract This article examines the evolution of the programme Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) since 1996. In 1996, the transformation of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) marked a watershed in American social policy. AFDC was the main US public assistance programme for single parents. By the mid‐1990s, it was also the most unpopular social programme in the United States, which explained why Bill Clinton promised to ‘end welfare as we know it’ during his presidential campaign in 1996. TANF ended automatic individual entitlement to public assistance, established a five‐year time limit for receiving cash assistance, and promoted a punitive approach towards welfare recipients, who were in theory increasingly required to work in exchange for benefits. This approach is known as the Work First Approach. Cash assistance was temporary, and granted as a favour to low‐income mothers, who were required to comply with various behavioural requirements. TANF was hailed as a tremendous success on both sides of the political spectrum. This bipartisan consensus explains why the new Republican administration (G. W. Bush became President in January 2001) wanted to build upon the existing programme.

Inhibiting Institutional Inertia: Squaring Iron Triangles While Reforming Welfare

The enduring slogan preceding the passage of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was “to end welfare as we know it.” Common political wisdom is that, measured in caseload numbers and by welfare-to-work efforts, the reform was an unmitigated success. This paper takes a look into what Blank (2002) calls the “black box” of policy adjustments at the level of the welfare managers and the frontline bureaucracy. An analysis of their incentive structure reveals explanations of how the institutional resistance to change was defused. It also implies a specific policy toolbox for situations in which the reduction of the bureaucracy itself is part of the objective of welfare reform. A combination of block-grants, devolution to the smallest feasible structural level and vigorous competition by private sector providers would ensure a higher likelihood of success under this scenario. Power has only one duty—to secure the social welfare of the People. (Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881), British statesman)1 Welfare is hated by those who administer it, mistrusted by those who pay for it and held in contempt by those who receive it. (Peter C. Goldmark Jr, NY State Budget Director, as quoted in the New York Times, 24 May 1977)2

LOOKING FOR “MR. RIGHT”: THE VIABILITY OF MARRIAGE INITIATIVES FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN IN RURAL SETTINGS

Newly-funded initiatives aim to promote marriage among low-income African American women to reduce poverty and welfare dependency. Research indicates that these women have a strong desire to marry, but lack economically secure marriage partners. This research predominantly focuses on urban populations, and little is known about marriage as a strategy to end poverty and welfare dependency among the rural poor. Two case study counties in rural Mississippi were selected to examine if marriage promotion initiatives are a viable strategy for poor rural African American single mothers. Data were collected through semistructured interviews using a life history calendar procedure. The results show that, like their urban counterparts, poor rural single mothers are rarely able to find their “Mr. Right” because of their personal and contextual characteristics.

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Assessing Welfare Reform, Over a Decade Later

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Assessing Welfare Reform, Over a Decade Later

The Changing Face of Welfare during the Bush Administration

Most scholars of American social policy do not associate significant change in welfare policy with the presidential administration of George W. Bush. No major welfare policy initiatives were passed during the first term of the Bush presidency. Welfare cash assistance caseloads have remained fairly constant since 2001. Block grant funding for state welfare programs has remained at $16.5 billion annually. The poverty rate has increased from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 12.6 percent in 2005, but the number of persons in poverty remains below the historic highs of the early 1990s (U.S. Census Bureau 2006b). 1 Compared to the War on Terror, tax cuts, budget deficits, and Medicare drug coverage, welfare and poverty simply have not been prominent issues in the minds of the public or many policymakers. 2 In fact, references to contemporary welfare reform are often associated with the Clinton administration. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), commonly referred to as welfare reform, was a key domestic policy achievement for the Clinton administration and the 104th Congress. PRWORA required work as a condition of assistance, limited lifetime welfare receipt to five years, and expanded state discretion over welfare program administration. Due to welfare reform and unprecedented economic growth, welfare caseloads decreased by 60 percent during the Clinton Presidency and the national poverty rate fell by one quarter, from 15.1 percent to 11.3 percent. The promise to ‘‘end welfare as we know it,’’ has become one of President Clinton’s most lasting domestic policy legacies. Several important shifts in welfare policy, however, have occurred under the Bush administration. Some change in welfare followed explicit policy proposals from the Bush administration, other changes started before 2001 and simply became manifest after President Bush took office. First is arguably one of the biggest changes in the history of American welfare policy: the shift from a welfare system that predominately delivered assistance through welfare checks to

Not working: Latina immigrants, low-wage jobs, and the failure of welfare reform

Acknowledgments Introduction: Latinas on the Fault Lines of Citizenship PART I Neither a Hand Up nor a Handout1 Ending Welfare: New Nativism and the Triumph of Post-Civil Rights Politics 2 Poverty in the Suburbs: Race and Redevelopment Policy in Long Beach PART II Any Job at Any Wage3 Tough Love in L.A. County: The Failure of Welfare-to-Work 4 The Myth of Welfare Dependency: Caught between Welfare and Work 5 It's Not What You Choose, but Where They Send You: Inside Personal Responsibility Conclusion: The Emperor's New Welfare: Reassessing the Success of Welfare Reform Notes Index About the Authors

Religion and Social-political Action: The Catholic Church, Catholic Charities, and the American Welfare State

A few years ago the sociologist Alan Wolfe summarized his observations of the current debates surrounding the American welfare state as follows: ‘With the left on the defensive and unions in declin...

The Disciplinary Apparatus of Welfare Reform

In 1996 President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), to end welfare as we know it. PRWORA, euphemistically referred to as welfare to or simply welfare reform, has fundamentally changed the status of women within U.S. capitalism. Historically, women’s roles in the sexual division of labor have been to reproduce the laborer (cook and keep house) and reproduce the labor force (have children). If women had to work in the formal labor force, then society demanded that they hold jobs appropriate to their gender. There has always been a gender-based social discipline of women whether they were wage earners or homemakers. It is interesting to note that still today beauty contests, sexual harassment, and compulsory use of birth control pills are all forms of discipline enforced on women in many third world factories. Of course, sexual harassment is common in the workplaces of the rich capitalist countries as well. This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website , where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Welfare recipiency and savings outcomes in individual development accounts

The authors examined how welfare recipiency is associated with savings outcomes in individual development accounts (IDAs), a structured savings program for low-income people. They investigated whether welfare recipients can save if they are provided with incentives. Data for this study ore from the American Dream Demonstration (ADD), the first nationwide demonstration of IDAs. A Heckman two-step regression analysis suggests that, after controlling for a variety of program and participant characteristics, welfare recipiency, either before or at the time of enrollment in IDAs, is not correlated with program exits or savings outcomes. The findings suggest that welfare recipiency does not seem to affect savings performance in IDAs. Key words: individual development accounts (IDAs); savings; welfare recipients; welfare reform ********** Welfare recipients accumulate little wealth. or example, in 1994 more than 90% of welfare recipients reported less than $500 accumulated financial liquid assets Hurst & Ziliak, 2001). Welfare recipients may have little wealth because of limited ability to accumulate assets and structural barriers to wealth accumulation. One structural barrier may be their response to disincentives created by means-tested transfer programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, and food stamps. To qualify for benefits, a household's income and assets must be sufficiently low. For example, benefits are cut off in some states if liquid assets in the form of cash and deposits in bank accounts exceed $1,000. Under these conditions, asset limits may limit savings. Also, many nonpoor households have incentives for asset accumulation in the form of home mortgage interest tax deductions, tax deferments on retirement savings, and other tax benefits (Howard, 1997; Seidman, 2001), but few low-income households benefit from these asset-building policies (Sherraden, 1991). We examined the relationship between welfare recipiency and savings outcomes in a matched savings program for low-income people--individual development accounts (IDAs). IDAs are saving programs that provide incentives and an institutional structure for savings for low-income people. Account holders receive matching funds when they purchase assets that promote long-term well-being and financial self-sufficiency such as a home, postsecondary education, or microenterprise. We investigated whether current and former welfare recipients have the ability and willingness to save and whether their savings patterns differ from people who have never received welfare. Our study draws on a general research report by Schreiner and colleagues (2001), with closer attention to welfare recipiency and savings in IDAs. This study may have policy implications for welfare reform. First, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) represents a fundamental change in the delivery of cash benefits to program participants (PRWORA, 1996). PRWORA replaced AFDC with TANF, a work-based program. Major changes under I'RWORA include time limits on receipt of cash assistance and greater control of program rules by states. The stated intent of the legislation was to end welfare dependency and promote self-sufficiency. Yet, very little programming has been developed to help welfare recipients become self-sufficient. Studies show that limited skills for self-sufficiency may prevent many welfare leavers from lifting themselves out of poverty, even if they work full-time (Edin & Lein, 1997; Loprest, 1999, 2001). Helping welfare recipients save and accumulate assets may increase their long-term well-being and self-sufficiency. In contrast to income, which refers to the flow of resources into a household, assets refer to the stock of resources in households. Assets include financial resources such as cash savings and stocks, capital such as homeownership, and business property. …

“Ending Welfare as We Know It” in 1960: Louisiana’s Suitable Home Law

In August 1960, Louisiana terminated welfare benefits for 22,501 children whose mothers were deemed “unsuitable” because of extramarital sexual activity. Coming amid the struggle to desegregate New Orleans’s schools and overwhelmingly affecting African‐American women and children, the Louisiana suitable home initiative was part of a package of prosegregation laws that codified growing anxieties about race, class, and gender stereotypes of poor black women. Ultimately, the Louisiana suitable home law was the catalyst for a series of events that increased the federal role in determining Aid to Dependent Children eligibility. This study illuminates efforts to bring attention to the situation.

‘Ending Consensus as We Began to Know It’: Welfare Reform and the Republicans after 2002

R. Blank and R. Haskins (eds) (2001), The New World of Welfare, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.K. Weaver (2001), Ending Welfare as We Know It, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Welfare Reform: Process, Participation, Discourse, and ImplicationsWorkfare States. Jamie PeckAfter Welfare: The Culture of Postindustrial Social Policy. Sanford F. SchramUnwanted Claims: The Politics of Participation in the U.S. Welfare System. Joe SossEnding Welfare as We Know It. R. Kent Weaver

Previous articleNext article No AccessReview EssayWelfare Reform: Process, Participation, Discourse, and Implications . Jamie Peck . Sanford F. Schram . Joe Soss Workfare States. Jamie Peck After Welfare: The Culture of Postindustrial Social Policy. Sanford F. Schram Unwanted Claims: The Politics of Participation in the U.S. Welfare System. Joe Soss Ending Welfare as We Know It. R. Kent Weaver Mary Ann E. StegerMary Ann E. Steger Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 64, Number 3Aug., 2002 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/jop.64.3.1520120 Views: 13Total views on this site Citations: 2Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 2002 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Fiona Duguid, Karsten Mündel, Daniel Schugurensky Volunteer Work and Informal Learning, (Jan 2013): 17–36.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-233-4_2Daniel Schugurensky, Karsten Mündel Volunteer Work and Learning: Hidden Dimensions of Labour Force Training, (): 997–1022.https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3201-3_53

The Polls—Trends

The passage of welfare reform legislation in 1996 was purported to end welfare as we know it. In this article we ask, What has happened to public opinion over these 5 years of reform? Has welfare reform changed perceptions of poverty and the role of governmeift in providing public assistance in the mind of the American public? Specifically, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC, which originated as ADC during the New Deal) with a new block grant program for the states, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The PRWORA ended the AFDC benefit entitlements and imposed a strict work requirement and a 5year limit on federal benefits. In addition, the law cut immigrants' access to the program, food stamps, and Medicaid. The states were free to provide additional benefits, which were likely to be influenced by national in addition to state economic conditions, as well as what the states have done historically (Lieberman and Shaw 2000). Did public opinion toward welfare and poverty change during the period of prosperity that ended by 2001, even before the September 11,2001, terrorist attack and the ensuing period of national tension? Updating Weaver, Shapiro, and Jacobs (1995), the data presented here show that public attitudes and perceptions did change somewhat, but the jury is still out on whether welfare reform has fundamentally changed the public's disparaging attitudes and opinions toward some aspects of poverty and the plight of the poor. Overall, we see both striking stability in mass opinion along with changes in opinion that do not look fundamentally different from past patterns and cycles of change (see Mayer 1993; Page and Shapiro 1992;