From Welfare to Poverty

On August 22, 1996, “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act” was signed into law. The governments plan was to “end welfare as we know it” (“The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,” par. 34). The bill contained strong work requirements, stating that single parents must participate for at least 20 hours per week for the first year (par. 2). By fiscal year 2000, the single parents must be working at least 30 hours a week (par. 2). The government provided $14 billion in child care funding to help more mothers move into jobs (par. 3). Recipients were required to participate in unsubsidized or subsidized employment, on-the-job training, work experience, community service, 12 months of vocational training, or provide child care services to individuals who are participating in community service (par. 4). The bill also placed a five year limit on welfare; after those five years, or less if your state chose so, the parents would be ineligible for cash aid (par. 5). States were allowed to create jobs by taking money used for welfare checks (par. 8). After leaving welfare for work, women would receive at least one year of transitional Medicaid (par. 3).

Even though the Clinton Administration thought “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996” was a good idea, I believe it gave single parent families less aid and sent already them deeper into poverty. Today, we will examine how “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996” changed the welfare system, how it pushed people further into poverty, and discuss what can be done to help end poverty.

In 1998, after the welfare reform, 13.3 million children were living in poverty in the U.S. The welfare reform policy devastated millions of U.S. families. Recent Changes in the Impact of the Safety Net on Child Poverty, a 1999 report, reported that “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996” caused an increase in extreme poverty and little improvement overall for the majority of children in low-income families (“Welfare”, 4). In 2000, TANF, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, provided less monetary aid to single parent families than they had received in 1996 under AFDC, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Lyter, Sills, and Oh, 3). The share of extremely poor children receiving TANF had decreased from 59 to 31 percent (Lyter, Sills, and Oh, 3).

According to Children in Single-Parent Families Living in Poverty Have Fewer Supports after Welfare Reform, family income for extremely poor children decreased. For children under the age of 6, family income fell from $380 to $301 per month; the family income for school-aged children declined from $419 to $379 a month (Lyter, Sills, and Oh, 5). James Haley says in his article, Welfare-to-Work Programs Harm the Disadvantaged, 3 out of 5 welfare recipients were employed, working an average of 34 hours a week, making just above $6 an hour. “Perhaps it was a great victory for reform that 60% of welfare moms had found jobs? Not really, because their lives had, if anything, gotten worse” (“Welfare-to-Work”, 13). 50 percent of former welfare recipients stated that they were currently behind in paying their rent and/or utilities compared to 39 percent of current welfare recipients (“Welfare-to-Work”, 13). Children living in poverty with a single parent had a greater risk of going with out health care (Lyter, Sills, and Oh, 6). 14 percent of former recipients could not pay for medical care and only 3 percent of current recipients had that problem (“Welfare-to-Work”, 13), even though “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996” guaranteed that women on welfare would continue to receive health care coverage for their families (“The Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996, par. 3).

“Why do policy-makers insist that poor single mothers—women who already shoulder a double burden parenting—must work outside home” (Boris and Mink, 10). By law, single parents had to work at least 20 hours the first year. In Welfare-to-Work Programs Harm the Disadvantaged, James Haley talks of a California woman he calls “Joyce.” Joyce had two children, ages 1 and 3. “I took a terrible job because my worker told me if I didn’t he would cut me off benefits. I have been sexually harassed at this job… I told him I could not keep dealing with this kind of thing. He said it was my decision. I could quit and lose my benefits or keep the job” (4). The women who participated in the welfare-to-work programs left welfare quicker, but they returned at the same rates as before (“Welfare-to-Work”, 9).

Some women participated in long-term education, such as college. These women stayed on welfare longer, but earned more, for more time, though they had a slightly lower return rate (“Welfare-to-Work”, 9). Though education would have been a better route for these women, “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996” discouraged long term training and/or education; if the states wanted, they could prohibit this from counting towards their work activities (“Welfare-to-Work”, 5).

After examining how “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996” pushed people further into poverty, I have a very specific suggestion for fixing what this bill did to the U.S. First of all, the government could set up a better welfare program to help end poverty. The welfare program should promote and help the single parents get a better education. With a better education, people are more likely to stay above the poverty line. While these single parents are in school, they should be able to receive food stamps, child care services, health insurance, and a specific amount of money based on the hours they go to school. The fewer hours they attend school, the less money they get. They should also set up a better teen pregnancy prevention program, teaching these teenage girls the consequences of their actions. Teenage girls are having children more often at younger ages. Most of the time the girls will drop out of school and depend on the welfare check to make ends meet. They should only receive the check if they stay in school to better themselves. Child care services should be provided as long as they stay enrolled in school.

Education is the key to ending poverty. If we give those who lack an education a better education, we are giving them an opportunity to succeed in the world without having to depend on the government. The government is not there to support the U.S., it is there to help us help ourselves. If we help each other, we can end poverty and not have to worry about ending welfare.

Work Cited

Boris, Eileen, and Gwendolyn Mink. “Welfare Reform Threatens Poor Families.” Opposing Viewpoints: The Family. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Green Haven Press, 1998. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Cisco Junior College. 29 Oct. 2007. .

Lyter, Deanna M., Melissa Sills, and Gi-Taik Oh. "Children in Single-Parent Families Living in Poverty Have Fewer Support after Welfare Reform." Research-in-Brief. Sep. 2002. Institute For Women's Policy Research. 28 Oct. 2007 .

"The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996." . 22 Aug. 1996. 28 Oct. 2007 .

“Welfare Reform Harms the Poor.” Opposing Viewpoints: Poverty. Karen Balkin. San Diego: Green Haven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Cisco Junior College. 29 Oct. 2007. .

“Welfare-to-Work Programs Harm the Disadvantaged.” Opposing Viewpoints: Work. James Haley. San Diego: Green Haven Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Cisco Junior College. 29 Oct. 2007. .