This paper argues that the United States welfare system requires comprehensive reform beyond the changes made under the 1996 Clinton-era legislation. Drawing on scholarship by Soss and Schram, Zilliak et al., Grogger and Karoly, and Hurst and Ziliak, the paper examines how macroeconomic conditions—rather than policy changes—drove reductions in welfare caseloads, how demographic skewing undermined the TANF framework, and how current asset limits and time restrictions shape recipient financial behavior. The paper also addresses the political barriers to reform, including race-coded poverty politics, and contends that shifting public opinion is a prerequisite for enacting a more efficient, equitable, and fiscally responsible welfare system.
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 reflect the changes and growth that had occurred since the inception of the system and since the last major overhaul. 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 contributing to the United States' social safety net. The sanctions, welfare-to-work transitions, and time limits all need to be reviewed and updated to bring about real and positive change for the Americans currently receiving this assistance.
As far as public policy shaping public opinion on the subject, Soss and Schram (2) point out that the political landscape of the United States 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 public policy outcomes, and if there were a more favorable general attitude toward welfare recipients and reform, the public would be better equipped to invest in anti-poverty efforts. Politically, Democrats have historically held 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 possibilities. Either the economy grew and fewer families with dependent children required government welfare assistance, or the welfare system does not reflect the actual needs of these families and is grossly underserving them. While the economy certainly grew from 1993 to 1996, evidence at the time of the Ziliak et al. publication (4) pointed to the latter being true. Results collected from government entities show a major decline in social worker welfare caseloads involving families with dependent children during the period between 1993 and 1996. Ziliak et al. (4) note that as the decline in these caseloads became apparent, economic conditions were simultaneously improving at the macroeconomic level. This helps demonstrate that much of the caseload reduction during this period was not attributable to the 1996 welfare reform, but rather 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 affected general parental responsibilities showed greater declines in caseload than those states with waivers that made working more attractive (Duncan and Brooks-Gunn, 190). The Ziliak 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" (Ziliak et al., 4). In other words, the prevailing economic winds obscured the social reality that struggling families were given less assistance and fewer opportunities during this period and even after the 1996 reform.
The global economic recession has also created major impetus for an overhaul of the welfare system. With more Americans than ever on welfare and other government assistance programs such as unemployment insurance and rent assistance, the need for a welfare system that properly addresses the specific needs of the United States within a contemporary time frame is substantial. Waiver-based reform, according to Grogger and Karoly (106), has held promising results in the decade and a half since the last major revision. The authors argue that a modification of the current system of waivers and work credits — specifically in states severely affected by economic downturns — would be an effective way to re-tool the system. Currently, the relationship between work requirements and the benefits of not working tilts in favor of welfare recipients who remain unemployed (Hurst and Ziliak, 55). Since each state and economic region varies considerably, it makes sense to tailor the welfare system to specific and local needs.
"Skewed TANF samples underserved key demographic groups"
"Time limits must change complacency-inducing welfare conditions"
Without a doubt, the United States welfare system needs to be reformed to reflect changes in not only the demographics of the nation but also the economic and political landscapes that have shifted since 1996. The current form of welfare is inefficient and could be re-tooled to reflect a far more financially intelligent and socially helpful model. The evidence presented by multiple authors and scholars supports this conclusion. The first step in such a reform would likely be to convince the American public and elected officials to begin changing the way welfare is perceived in the United States. A shift in public opinion could be quickly and effectively followed by moves in public policy to support a better, more effective, and more efficient welfare system.
You’re 57% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.