Welfare to Recovery Pwora vs  Research Paper

Excerpt from Research Paper :

It is at this point when new ideas will be studied and analyzed as part of the process. This will ensure that a variety of perspectives are taken into account by government officials. (Bardach, 2000)

In the case of the PRWORA, this process means looking at the impact of these changes on recipients. Over the last several years, many officials are realizing that more people need the help of these programs to deal with the lingering challenges from the stagnant recovery. This has resulted in some of the provisions receiving greater amounts of scrutiny (i.e. The TANF). (Lichter, 2002)

As a result, actuaries are examining the lasting impact of these changes by reducing the number of people who are a part of the programs. While at the same time, it is concentrating on how these shifts are hurting those that are most vulnerable in society. Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Lichter (2002). He found that some kind of balance and flexibility must be taken when looking at alternatives with him saying, "Our study reveals many positive changes including: reduced poverty rates, lower out of-wedlock childbearing, greater family stability and little indication of more spouse abuse or child neglect. But it is too early to claim success and many questions remain unanswered. Poverty remains high among single mothers and their children, welfare recipients experience serious barriers to stable employment, and poor women and children face an uncertain economic and social future as welfare eligibility is exhausted and the economy wanes. With the welfare debate shifting to family and child well-being, sociology has an important policy role to play." (Lichter, 2002)

This showing how there are contrasting impacts of potential solutions on different stakeholders. The key for public officials is to reduce the negative effects that certain changes will have on various segments of the population. The different provisions of the PRWORA are demonstrating how it is having positive and adverse consequences on recipients. (Lichter, 2002)

In most situations, this is leading to changes in attitudes about personal responsibility. However, these shifts have not reduced the poverty rates. Instead, these numbers have been increasing since the law was first enacted. As a result, one could argue that these transformations are having positive and negatives effects on recipients. (Lichter, 2002)

Selecting Criteria

Selecting the criteria is when officials will determine what standards must be applied to any kind of regulations. As far as the PRWORA is concerned, these challenges resulted in the federal government and the states imposing the TANF and JOBS provisions. This is designed to increase accountability and ensure that there are greater amounts of transparency. (Bardach, 2000) (Lichter, 2002)

Moreover, officials were concentrating on reducing the total number of people who are on state welfare caseloads. This helps to show that the government is reforming a program which was known for waste and inefficiency. Yet, over the course of time, the criterion is continually evolving. This is because officials realize that states need greater amounts of flexibility in adjusting these programs to economic conditions. In 2010, there were waivers provided to in order to give them more control over the process. These elements are illustrating how officials will determine eligibility based upon their current needs. In the future, this can change resulting in new policies to improve flexibility. (Bauer, 2010)

Projecting the Outcome

Projecting the outcome is when different government officials and stakeholders will evaluate the long-term impact of new proposals on everyone. During this process, there are intense discussions and predications about potential effects. This is designed to improve everybody's understanding of the issue and see how it will impact them over the long-term. (Bardach, 2000)

In the case of the PRWORA, the law was first enacted in response to the total number of recipients who were taking advantage of the system. The new reforms were a part of the campaign promises made by President Bill Clinton and the Republicans to transform it. This led to shifts in who was eligible for assistance and how long they could receive benefits. (Zubri, 2006)

As a result, many proponents feel that these shifts are improving accountability by ensuring that everyone is responsible for their own well-being. However, opponents argue that these changes are hurting working families, the poor, the disabled and immigrants. This is because these guidelines are applying general restrictions as to when assistance will no longer be provided. For many people, this is challenging as these shifts are coming at a time when they are dealing with fiscal problems from the stagnant economy. This is hurting their standard of living and quality of life for the middle class segments of society downward. (Zubri, 2006)

These contrasting views are showing the lasting and potential changes in the PRWORA. In either case, the different sides will use this as a way to demonstrate how these changes will harm stakeholders at some point in the future. While others will claim, that these adjustments are necessary in order to deal with new challenges that are emerging. (Zubri, 2006)

Confront the Trade Offs

Any kind of changes will involve tradeoffs. This means that certain stakeholders will benefit from them. Whereas others, will lose some kind of advantage or benefit they are receiving. The key with confronting these kinds of tradeoffs is to show how a particular policy is hurting society and the economy. This will create the need for reforms to occur in order to address these issues. (Bardach, 2000)

For public officials, they must confront the different sides and show them how the trade off will benefit everyone in the future. This means that certain parties will realize short-term challenges in order to enjoy these long-term benefits. Once this occurs, is the point when policy decisions can be enacted that will prevent non-compliance and help to improve support for them. (Bardach, 2000)

In the case of the PRWORA, this occurred when the law was first implemented. As various recipients and opponents felt that the TANF provisions would harm the most vulnerable in society. To account for these issues, officials claimed that it and the job training program increased accountability and transparency. This is when everyone will take greater amounts of personal responsibility by understanding that this is a second chance (not an entitlement). (Zubri, 2006)

However, the stagnant economy and higher number of unemployed means that more people need the assistance of these programs. This has led to a confrontation between the different sides about leaving the TANF in place (versus offering select waivers). These contrasting views are demonstrating the various ideas about how the different provisions should be implemented. (Zubri, 2006)


Deciding is when public officials will make choices about how, when and where to implement the changes in the policy. This requires them setting a date as to when they will occur and the practices that must be utilized by stakeholders. Once this happens, is the point that they have examined the different viewpoints, outcomes and the potential impact. (Bardach, 2000)

In the case of the PRWORA, there were changes that occurred in 2010. This is when waivers were given to the states from the TANF provisions (provided they meet predetermined conditions). In this aspect, these adjustments were taking place by offering greater amounts of flexibility. These transformations were considered in response to the challenges many working families were facing from the one size fits all approach (under the old guidelines). (Zubri, 2006) (Bauer, 2010)

As a result, this policy decision was reached by determining the effects of economic issues on stakeholders. Then, officials are making slight adjustment to these regulations. This is leading to a program that is more responsive and has high levels of transparency. In the state of Illinois, these provisions are providing officials with more flexibility in addressing critical issues with the state's welfare program. (Zubri, 2006) (Bauer, 2010)

Tell Your Story

Telling the story is when officials will visit with stakeholders about how these transformations are helping to address critical challenges. This adds to the support of various provisions by demonstrating that they are effective. It is at this point when any kind of adjustments contrary to them will result in fierce amounts of anger and animosity. (Bardach, 2000)

As far as the PRWORA is concerned, this is taking place through different studies that are conducted (which are analyzing the long-term impact of the law). For example, Lichter (2002) found that there are contrasting aspects of a story. In a research study, he determined the effectiveness of the law. As he found that there were positive and negative effects with him saying, "Rural poverty among female-headed families with children has declined since 1996 welfare reforms. Moreover, the income of female-headed families has increased, while income from earnings has more than offset declines in public assistance income. Rural single mothers nevertheless continue to experience higher poverty rates than their urban counterparts, and a higher percentage are working…

Online Sources Used in Document:

Cite This Research Paper:

"Welfare To Recovery Pwora Vs " (2013, February 28) Retrieved August 22, 2017, from

"Welfare To Recovery Pwora Vs " 28 February 2013. Web.22 August. 2017. <

"Welfare To Recovery Pwora Vs ", 28 February 2013, Accessed.22 August. 2017,