Welfare Reform: Necessary and Prudent

Welfare Reform: Necessary and Prudent

The United States Welfare system exists as a financial safety net for millions of people without work or who have recently met with hard times. In 1996, under the Clinton Administration, the welfare system was reformed to help reflect the changes and growth that had occurred since the inception of the system and the last major updates and overhauls. As beneficial as the 1996 reforms were they still left many loopholes and policies in place that actually hurt those on welfare as well as those people contributing to the United State's social safety net. The sanctions, welfare-to-work transitions, and time limits all need to be reviewed and updated to help cause real and positive change for the Americans currently accepting this assistance.

As far as public policy shaping public opinion on the subject, the Soss and Schram article (2) points out that the political landscape of the U.S. has been relatively hostile toward a massive and necessary restructuring of the welfare system. The race-coding of poverty politics plays a large role in determining the public policy outcome as far as politics are concerned, and if there were a more favorable general attitude towards welfare recipients and reform, the public would certainly be better equipped and aligned to invest in anti-poverty efforts. Politically, the Democrats have always had the upper hand in the poverty vote relative to an electoral liability. A shift toward a reformed, improved welfare system would also help to loosen the ties that bind that particular political party to specific anti-poverty action, creating an assistance-friendly and more understanding populace and political environment.

Federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) has fallen since the 1996 reforms, signaling one of two events. Either the economy has grown and fewer families with dependent children need government welfare assistance, or the welfare system does not reflect the needs of these families and is grossly under serving them. While the economy certainly grew from 1993 to 1996, and at the time of the Zilliak, et. al. publication (4), evidence pointed to the latter being true. This comes from results collected from government entities that show a major decline in social worker welfare caseloads involving families with dependent children during the period between 1993 and 1996. Authors Zilliak, et. al. (4) point out that as the decline in these caseloads became apparent the economic conditions were improving on the macroeconomic level. This, in turn, helps to prove that much of the reduction in caseload during this time frame was not due to the 1996 welfare reform, but resulted from more favorable economic conditions.

The evidence suggests that the 1996 reform was not as successful as previously thought, and that it did not go far enough in reaching the families and individuals who were truly in need. States with welfare waivers that impacted the general parental responsibilities showed greater declines in caseload than those states with waivers that made working more attractive (Duncan and Brooks-Gunn, 190). The Zilliak, et. al. model predicts that, "had it not been for the influence of economic factors, welfare reform would not have led to any decrease in aggregate caseloads." (Zilliak, et. al., 4). In other words, the prevailing economic winds obscured the social truth that struggling families were given less assistance and opportunity to help their cause during this time and even after the 1996 reform.

The global economic recession has also led to some major impetus for overhaul of the welfare system. With more Americans than ever currently on welfare and other government assistance programs like unemployment and rent assistance, the need for a welfare system that properly addresses the specific needs of the United States within a relatively short and contemporary time period is great. Waiver-based reform, according to authors Grogger and Karoly (106), has actually held promising results in the past decade and a half since the last time it was revamped. The authors point out that a modification of the current system of waivers and work credits, specifically in states that have been severely affected by economic downturns, would be a great way to help re-tool the system. Currently, the amount of work and the benefits to not working are in favor of people on welfare who are currently not working (Hurst and Zilliak, 55). And since each state and economic region varies, it makes sense to vary the welfare system according to specific and local needs.

Another main point that authors Grogger and Karoly point out is the fact that the samples used to help build and implement the 1996 welfare reform, specifically the TANF legislation, were skewed in their representation of specific demographics (66). As the need for welfare affects different groups, the need for reform grows out of the necessity to better serve the populations in need. As the 1996 welfare reform events fade further into history, the need to revamp and reform the system grows. As with any government assistance program there are going to be individuals who abuse it and improper fitting of certain demographics. Without a doubt, the political and economic landscapes have changed so much since 1996 that a reform is necessary. Another key point that quickly becomes relevant when talking about the proposed fiscal austerity of most major world economies in the wake of the global economic recession is the fact that as the U.S. begins to tighten its budget it will undoubtedly look for ways to trim the inefficiencies out of many government programs. This will have the effect of saving money but also of helping those who need federal assistance most to receive that aid.

Another major consideration that must be examined in light of the need for welfare reform is the fact that as certain demographics begin receiving assistance; they also begin to change their financial behavior. This can occur early on after receiving assistance or later after the individual or family has been receiving aid for quite some time. Authors Hurst and Zilliak (50) suggest that modifying the amount of time that a person or family can receive assistance is key in modifying these financial behaviors for the better. Many people, when faced with the fact that they are going to have to request special government assistance just to subsist, feel as though they will never be able to save their money or work their way out of the financial hole they are in.