Reforming Welfare Reform: A Closer Look at PRWORA

Part I

Dye's (2005) Institutionalism Model describes "policy as institutional output (p.12)." He explains the there is a close relationship between public policy and governmental institutions. Government offers three traits to public policy; they give policy legitimacy; they involve universality; and government monopolizes coercion in society. The federal government gives block grants, for the TANF Program, to the state government, allowing state government the freedom to apply legitimacy to this Policy. How states implement legitimacy to this policy is influenced by federal government and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS issued TANF regulation in April, 1999. The authority of HHS to delegate provisions is limited due to the design of federal regulations. "The federal law expressly provides that HHS will impose penalties if a state fails to comply with requirements of the law in a number of areas (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , 1999)." Improper use or reporting of TANF funds, and failure to meet work-participation rates are all subject to penalty. A particular legal interest is that "states are required to ensure that a set percentage of recipients participate in work activities. The federal law sets forth detailed provisions concerning the types and amount of work activities for which an individual's participation will count toward meeting a state's required work participation rate (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , 1999)." Although the States have creative decision making power, legalities still remain under the influence of federal government. This social policy has universality in that the federal government allows every state a block grant for its programs and creates the minimum standards for all. Coercion is clearly present; "Under the federal welfare law, the base penalty is five percent of the state's adjusted TANF block grant and this penalty increases with consecutive years of noncompliance (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , 1999)."

The systems theory better explores all the components of the PWRORA policy and all the areas of focus it embodies. Systems theory, simply put, is "it is a framework by which one can analyze and/or describe any group of objects that work in concert to produce some result (Wikipedia, 2007)." The major components making up the PWRORA are Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); Immigrants; Child Care; Medicaid; Child Support; Food Stamps and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). By performing a detailed examination of each area the ability to determine the intentions of the reform is made easier.

According to the prior law the TANF program included AFDC, JOBS, and EA. the eligibility of AFDC and Jobs as well as guidelines for EA was established by federal government. The states determined the benefit levels under requirement restrictions. Open ended matched funding was provided for AFDC and EA. JOBS had a capped limit. Entitlements for AFDC were guaranteed to eligible individuals. Eligibility duration was ongoing for as long as eligibility requirements were met. There were work requirements where the state could lose some matching funding for not meeting. There were no penalties for persons convicted of crimes. States had the option of setting requirements on teen mothers living with an adult. Teens under 16 not attending school were required to participate in educational activities. There were no illegitimacy provisions. Family services needed to be offered or the States were penalized 1% AFDC funding. Medicaid Guarantee covered various populations deemed "medically needy".

Alternatively under PWRORA a single capped block grant entitlement is given to the states for all three programs, under TANF. The block grant is received in a fixed amount. Unused amounts can be carried to the next year. There is no individual guarantee on benefits. Cash aid benefits are lost after 5 cumulative years of families receiving federally funded assistance. Work requirements become more stringent with an increase in work responsibility. Additionally the many stipulations are complicated to follow. States are penalized for not meeting rate requirements. After enactment, persons convicted of drug-related felonies risk losing benefits for life. "Unmarried minor parents are required to live with an adult or in an adult-supervised setting and participate in educational and training activities in order to receive Federal assistance (http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/isp/reform.htm)." A bonus of up to $20 million is given to states demonstrating a decrease in out-of-wedlock births and abortions. If less than five states qualify, this amount is raised to $25 million. States may terminate Medicaid eligibility for adults that lose TANF due to failure to work.

Other components such as SSI, Child Support Enforcement, Immigration, Childcare, Child Nutritional Programs, and Food Stamps and commodity disbursement are also affected by the reform. The definition of disability for children was developed calling for re-determination of benefits for those already receiving them. Child Support regulations became stricter giving States numerous enforcement techniques. "States must operate a child support enforcement program meeting federal requirements in order to be eligible for the Family Assistance Program (http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/isp/reform.htm)." Most immigrants, prior to citizenship, will be ineligible for SSI benefits. "States have the option to make most current legal immigrants already in the U.S. ineligible for Medicaid, TANF, Title XX Social Services, and state-funded assistance until citizenship" with the exception of refuges (http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/isp/reform.htm)." Previously guaranteed childcare for program recipients is no longer guaranteed. Single parents with children under six do not get penalized for not participating in employment requirements. Under former policy immigration status did not affect the eligibility for child nutrition programs. Now States can determine eligibility for illegal aliens and certain non-citizens. Food stamps eligibility will deny most legal immigrants.

The intention of policy reform appears to be an effort to move individuals off welfare programs and into employment. Sate governments readily supported this and it lead the privatization of many services and lowering their budget "by contracting for inexpensive and more effective welfare services (Collins, n.d.)." The adverse affect were the working poor, an unintended consequence.

Part II

Barbara Ehrenreich (2001) depicts the unintended adverse consequence in Nickel and Dimed. Some of the themes in her book, that appear to be consequences of the reform, are housing, child-care, and health care. Her experiment showed that without assistance for those three components of the reform, minimum wage workers would fall into a spiraling life of poverty. They would endlessly be attempting to work to afford each thing so that they could work some more. The truth is that minimum wage could not cover these costs. Additionally the cost of not making ends meet is job loss. That is a consequence to inadequate housing, no child care, and poor health.

Ehrenreich discusses some pretty salient points. One is that society attaches growth inhibiting stigmas to the work of these individuals. This really only perpetuates the situation. She experienced what she called self-contained social worlds in each place of employment. These social worlds are little models of the big world. She states that sorting out the "Microsystems" while looking up from the bottom is harder and more necessary than her real life experiences of being on top.

Ehrenreich agrees that important traits for job readiness are inherent through this program. Qualities such as, punctuality, cleanliness, cheerfulness, and obedience are important to the welfare-to-work- programs. She suspects, however, that many individuals already possess these traits but struggle with transportation or childcare. She further addresses the fear of failure (p.199). This is a component that inhibits perseverance and especially for those realistically facing the working poor situation. Additionally the ability of low paid workers to stand up and demand more is not that easy. Without transportation most rely on conveniently located employment. Many of these employees do not know their legal rights or understand policy for that matter.

To keep low wage workers "in their place" Ehrenreich suggests that the power consciously lies within the employer. The team player, profit share approach is just one manipulative plan. Another is to act as if they are working against the odds as well. Finally by taking away the basic "civil rights" and "self-respect" through drug testing and purse searching the employee's sense of entitlement is lost. This all goes left unnoticed by restricting employee interaction. Ehrenreich might be right; she might be a conspiracy theorist. What her point does drive home, though, is our society's innate way of driving a huge wedge between those who "have" and those who "have not".

If Ehrenreich pitched that ball, then Roth (2002) hit it out of the park. Roth explains the growing gap between the "haves" and the "have nots." Although he might be considered an extremist he touches on some points that enhance Ehrenreich's research. When it comes to considering which disabled individuals are "deserving" of services, Roth insists that the number of reported disabled persons rises and falls with good and bad times. He asserts that the focus for welfare reform is on young women having children out of wed-lock.

"When many people hear the word "welfare," they immediately think it means giving federal assistance to these misfortunate girls; and thus, with these girls in mind, welfare was reformed, some even think of these particular young girls whenever the welfare state is mentioned, although these girls are a minority of those receiving government support. More important, such support was a mere fragment of social expenditures, a grain of government spending, a trivial percentage of our gross domestic product (GDP) (Roth, 2002, p.64)."

A common philosophy behind welfare policies and programs is also supported by Roth. That philosophy is that the program must be helpful yet not appealing, in order to encourage these individuals to "want" to work (p.65). Most would agree with this intention for reform. However, most would object to the unforeseen consequences of such stipulations and regulations. Roth explains that the problem lies within that growing gap; the elimination of middle class.

Roth offers a "carrot" and "stick" anecdote as necessary knowledge for any society "where there is radical disparity between the masses and the elite (p.74)." The carrot represents positive reinforcements such as preventative services, and the stick represents negative reinforcements. His theory makes some sense. Combinations of both are generally used and this can work. Carrots are a very good approach but far more expensive and harder to get access of. Alternatively sticks are reusable and cheap. Sticks were used to make individuals receiving benefits work.

According to Roth welfare threatens the middle class. The working poor will be burdened by welfare reform. It creates competition for employment, which depletes jobs and leverage for pay from the working poor employees. He believes that this pins the have-nots against each other. "The use of negative incentives in welfare reform threaten all have-nots (p.76)." In addition, there is no clear evidence that welfare recipients do find good employment under current economy. Roth seems to believe that the working poor are really not an unintentional consequence of the reform, but rather a deliberate consequence of corpocratic government under the control of corporations (p.77).

Part III

This is a complicated conflict and reasonably so. Our society is made up not just of haves and has nots but unique individuals with unique circumstances and varying coping skills and behaviors. The states often work off capped grants. The down-side of this is that regardless to the number of recipients services need to be kept within a certain budget. Appealing services with high cut offs may become abused. It is true that some will take services for granted. The majority of individuals, it seems would rather avoid the stigmas attached to recipients. Those stigmas act as repellant enough. In contrast very unappealing welfare programs increase these stigmas and leave the truly needy fighting to make ends meet and avoiding services. This could result in homelessness and may involve children.

Ideally reform would include a friendlier approach with more "carrots". A good example of this are PELL grants that often take into account living expenses for very low income single parents. Under this service the individual is being rewarded for returning to school with aid in affording both school and the time to apply to it. The individual begins feeling successful and in return succeeds. Using this concept the welfare reform should include services that support success. Success by individuals perpetuates the desire for continued success. It is possible that the majority of people would choose to get off welfare. Currently states can decide whether or not to offer child care programs and to whom. Many states choose not to offer them to individuals in school (http://www.spdp.org/tanf/lowincome1.PDF).

Another plan would be to rethink cut-offs. It is an injustice that cut-offs currently result in the working poor. Tapering services may be a smoother approach. Currently the cutoff acts as a gateway between struggling paycheck to paycheck at risk of losing it all and giving up and relying on support. Under current considerations an individual without services, supporting a family off low income, may lose insurance coverage or just receive very bad medical care, and lose a safe neighborhood to unstable, low income housing. This does not seem to reach the projected goal.

The most crucial change has to be to reduce the gap between the annual salary of low income workers and that of market value rent prices. Currently housing far exceeds that of minimum wage. It is not jus an imbalance it is an injustice. Regulating this is contradictory to the fair trade market though, making it a difficult process. Ideally the market would be open to all income levels rather than further creating a segregated divide.

It is never an easy task for preventative efforts to survive politics. There are seldom means in which the benefits of such programs can be proven. Under the current standards where even low-wage workers will resist potential empowerment tactics of the unemployed, it will prove to be even more difficult. The process model of Dye would be most beneficial to consider. Research must be done depicting an accurate portrayal of current standards. Until individuals are force fed the information in these books and research, they will not realize the details behind the crisis. The media highlights the agendas of politicians who are highly motivated by those powerful enough to motivate them. Under such circumstances most of the population will not see the real result of their elections and voting efforts. The voices that need to be heard will be silenced out of fear that if they are heard that they will be thought of as lazy, failures, or burdens. The only way to get through the bureaucratic tape is to just go through it. The only way to pass these considerations through politics, where they will no doubt be chewed up, is to put big motivators and voices behind it. And when they do not make it through, continue to make a lot of noise and reattempt the process.

Part IV

The responsibility placed on individuals seeking services to obtain and maintain employment comes from an old American social mentality. It derives from the old "pull your self up from the boot straps" philosophy. Americans pride themselves in success and perseverance. Unfortunately they also stigmatize the events that do not portray this. Often though, it is the success of others that create the divide. Big companies need low-paid employees in order to become big. Without the working class the rich could not get rich. It is a matter of fact. The divide will always exist.

Unfortunately the government is left to render unfavorable situations. Rendering one policy area often affects another. The systems theory shows how easily one area can affect another by examining the unique needs of each area. By limiting the potential for success to one group another group prospers. Likewise, by increasing the potential of success for one the latter falters. Careful consideration of possible consequences is necessary for change. Policy makers may counteract the potential for unseen consequences by examining private organizations for success and failures. They may also examine the programs in other countries. The process model explained by Dye addresses such issues.

Ehrenreich gives an undercover depiction of the working poor, a phenomena resulting from adverse affects of a policy reform. In her book she exemplifies the exact individuals that the system should be in place to support and instead displaces. She reminds the readers of issues other than financial assistance for unemployed individuals. There are other considerations and factors to the system. They include transportation, housing, wages, child care, and health care. All of these are considered during a reform, but seem to all be altered to aid in achieving a one track goal. The goal is to discourage dependency on welfare programs. The result was to kick people out of the programs with no guarantee for transitional assistance.

According to Roth this is all part of the plan to keep the haves having and the nots not having. If, of course, there is any truth to that theory then any potential reform that is overloaded with carrots would never be passed. The public opinion of the have nots keeps the majority of society not wanting to support positive treatment towards them. It is difficult to prove that the alternative could decrease the financial support for this group of individuals.

Understanding individualism as "a doctrine advocating freedom from government regulation in the pursuit of a person's economic goals (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2005)" provides consideration for policy application. This theme is apparent in the reform as it focuses on declining a previous flaw in the policy; dependency. By promoting opportunities for individuals to reach the ultimate goal of providing for themselves, the respect for individualism is supported. When a welfare recipient is able to sufficiently and independently provide for his self and family the desired outcome has been reached. This is what welfare is for. This is what the PWRORA intended to support. Unfortunately the regulations and punishment tactics attack those very individuals it was meant to empower.

Community aspects of the policy are far more controversial. The emphasis on encouraging and rewarding marriage sounds like a good community building plan for some and to others a disregard to their civil rights. This is controversial enough, but making even bigger waves are the groups in the community that feel that the reform discriminates against them. The regulations force women back into the work force rather than care for their children, which disregard the importance of caring for ones own. Other community concerns are that "welfare 'reform' is a racist attack; the majority of those on welfare are women and children of color. It denies the work older women and women with disabilities do caring for themselves and others, forces lesbian women to name their father of their kids, forces marriage, puts women at risk of violent relationships, discourages breastfeeding and cuts benefits to immigrant women. It has destroyed what was every woman's insurance policy against complete dependence and starvation (la.indymedia.org, 2001)"

When reviewing the efforts and their affects it appears that they are counterproductive to their efforts. It stands to reason that if accountability is put in place to counteract a group that is not striving toward individualism that it could hinder those who are. Alternatively if the system is made to aide those who will benefit from it in their plight for individualism and self sufficiency, then there will be a group that continues to take advantage of the system. The fact of the matter is that every welfare case has its unique needs. Allowing workers flexibility to determine the individualistic criteria of each case requires a great deal of trust. The guidelines need to be set, the result of which is rigidity. The working poor may be a consequence of the reform but more than likely is something that always existed. Assistance for this population should exist under separate guidelines that support continued upward movement. This would open up positions for those on the welfare program rather then pin them against the working poor in a fight for survival while the rich get richer.

References

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2005, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated 2005. Retrieved on August 19,2007 from http://www.ask.com/reference/dictionary/ahdict/8723/individualism

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (1999). Highlights of the Final TANF Regulations retrieved on August 19, 2007 from http://www.cbpp.org/4-29-99wel.htm

Dye, Thomas R. (2005). Understanding Public Policy eleventh edition. New Jersey 07458

Ehrenreich, Barbara (2001). Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. New York.

Just Harvest http://justharvest.org/wj/pages/reauth.shtml

Roth, William (2002).The Assault on Social Policy. Columbia University Press

Wikipedia, (2007) Retrieved on August 19, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

Additional web references

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/isp/reform.htm

http://www.spdp.org/tanf/lowincome1.PDF

la.indymedia.orghttp://la.indymedia.org/news/2001/07/8642.php