Welfare systems and social policy frameworks

Sociology - Welfare

THE CONCEPTUAL PROBLEM WITH SOCIAL WELFARE

Organized social welfare is not a new concept, dating to the middle of the 19th century in England and providing financial aid to the economically disadvantaged in the United States for most of the second half of the 20th century (Henslin, 2002 p196). In principle, it is intended to enable the poorest individuals and families in society to improve their lives and their life situations, but critics point out that at least in the U.S., the welfare concept may actually contribute to the opposite result, perpetuating poverty and dependency instead of alleviating it. The American welfare system comprises numerous different types of economic programs and financial aid, but the component that has caused the most social concern and provoked the greatest opposition is the Aid for Dependent Children (AFDC).

In 1996, after decades of debate and counterproposals, Congress enacted the Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act that completely restructured the national welfare system by eliminating direct federal aid and requiring individual states to administrate economic aid pursuant to strict capping limits and mandated enrollment in vocational training programs as a condition of continued eligibility for government assistance (Henslin, 2002 p200; Macionis, 2003 p294).

The Failed Purpose of Welfare:

Critics of the AFDC component of the federal welfare program succeeded in achieving national welfare reform partly by pointing out correctly that the institution into which the social initiative had evolved by the last decade of the 20th century was substantially different from that which it was originally designed to serve a particular social purpose. Specifically, the AFDC aspect of the federal welfare program was originally intended to provide appropriate assistance to children living in one-parent homes by virtue of divorce or the death of a parent; conversely, the AFDC program was not intended to encourage single parenthood or to provide a disincentive to marriage (Henslin, 2002 p200; Macionis, 2003 p294).

However, primarily because one of the eligibility requirements was that a mother be unmarried, the system was inherently flawed in that it penalized poor young people for getting married and, in effect, rewarded them for remaining technically single while having children out of the confines of traditional marriage. In addition to corrupting the social institution and draining public funds for a purpose other than that for which they were actually intended, the welfare system, and the AFDC component in particular, also undermined other important social objectives in the process. Major Criticisms:

By encouraging poor unmarried mothers to remain single, the federal welfare program undermined the objective of providing the most stable home environment possible for poor children. In general, single-parent families are a significant factor in juvenile delinquency (Schmalleger, 2007 p230) and contributes to both increased incidence of public education dropout rates and child sexual abuse (Schmalleger, 2007 p239), as well as to violence, particularly in low-income urban areas (Schaefer, 2001 p208).

In fact, by the time of Congressional action for welfare reform in 1996, the vast majority of the millions of families receiving social welfare under the AFDC provisions did not meet the criteria originally intended to define eligible recipients (Henslin, 2002 p200). Furthermore, the absence of time limitations on welfare benefits eligibility often provided another form of socially destructive disincentive that probably did more to ensure perpetual cycles of unemployment, poverty, and societal dependence on the part of many welfare recipients.

In that regard, many individuals stood to earn even less working at minimum wage jobs than they would sacrifice by giving up their welfare benefits. Naturally, this only encouraged welfare recipients not to seek work because, in their view, it made no sense, which is not necessarily an irrational conclusion, at least for the short-term. The problem is that in the long-term, those individuals who chose not to seek work (or who rejected the only low-paying entry-level jobs for which they were qualified) never entered the workforce where they would have learned and become more skilled laborers and employable workers (Macionis, 2003 p295).

In the long run, one of the primary ways through which poor and underprivileged members of society eventually manage to elevate themselves and achieve a place in society as productive contributors. Instead, the welfare system encouraged perpetual social dependency and provided a reason for poor people not to work at all when the most reliable method of achieving financial independence (besides continuing education) is precisely, to begin working at minimum wage jobs while gradually learning skills and establishing contacts and a record of regular employment that are essential in the long- term goal of qualifying for better work in time (Healey, 2003 p56).

The Need for Welfare Reform:

While elements of government assistance programs are still subject to epidemic abuse (Schmalleger, 2007 p104), the reconfiguration mandated by Congress in 1996 are designed to rectify some of the most glaring problems plaguing the federally administrated programs previously. First and foremost, the new state-run welfare programs must, by federal law, establish caps limiting welfare eligibility to discourage perpetual (even permanent) reliance on public funds as a substitute for making the necessary effort and commitment to seek gainful employment in the long-term (Macionis, 2003 p295). Under federal law, the maximum period of eligibility s two years and many states have rightfully shortened that period even further (Henslin, 2002 p200).

Second, since the 1996 reforms, state-run public assistance programs must also require enrollment in vocational training programs and mandatory adult supervision for unwed teenage parents pursuant to which welfare recipients who fail to participate and unwed teenage parents who fail to accept appropriate adult supervision lose their remaining welfare eligibility. Third, under the new reforms, welfare recipients must accept offers of employment irrespective of their pay scale and may not purposely choose to remain on the public dole instead of working (Macionis, 2003 p295).

Critics of the welfare reforms suggest that terminating welfare benefits and imposing stricter eligibility requirements are inappropriately harsh and disproportionately harmful to the poorest segment of society and prejudicial against racial and ethnic minorities who are over-represented in the poorest neighborhoods. Similarly, opponents of welfare reforms equate financial assistance to poor people with the financial assistance to which working members of society are entitled, such as home mortgage interest tax deductions to homeowners, Social Security benefits to senior citizens, and tax write-offs allowed for corporate entities, referring to such benefits collectively as "wealthfare" (Macionis, 2003 p.294).