Open Journal Systems

Stricter Welfare Rules Are Not The Solution To Poverty

Leah Hamilton

Article ID: 687
Vol 7, Issue 1, 2022, Article identifier:

VIEWS - 501 (Abstract) 290 (PDF)

Abstract

Over the past three decades, American welfare policy has moved towards ever more restrictive eligibility criteria, reflecting a growing belief that generous benefits encourage dependence. In this essay, I argue that harsher welfare rules actually make it more difficult for low income families to support their children, transition to work and maintain long term financial independence. In some cases such as drug testing, these rules represent an unconstitional intrusion into the lives of citizens and are ultimately a waste of government resources. Moving towards a model of support rather than punishment for families in need would be an ultimately more effective method of poverty alleviation.


Keywords

Poverty; Welfare; Financial Incentives

Full Text:

PDF



References

1. Alvarez L. Court Strikes Down Drug Tests for Florida Welfare Applicants. The New York Times 2017; Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/us/politics/court-strikes-down-drug-tests-for-florida-welfare-applicants.html

2. Alvarez L. No Savings Found in Florida Welfare Drug Tests. The New York Times 2012; Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html

3. Cancian M, Meyer DR, Wu CF. After the revolution: Welfare patterns since TANF implementation. Social Work Research2005; 29(4):199–214.

4. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF 2008; Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-an-introduction-to-tanf

5. Cherlin AJ, Fomby P. Welfare, work and changes in mothers’ living arrangements in low-income families. Population Research and Policy Review 2004; 23(5/6): 543–565.

6. Connolly LS, Marston CE. Welfare reform, earnings, and incomes: New evidence from the Survey of Program Dynamics. Contemporary Economic Policy 2005; 23(4): 493–512.

7. Hamilton L. Incentives in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program: A review of the literature. Poverty & Public Policy 2016; 8(2): 141–149.

8. Lim Y, Coulton CJ, Lalich N. State TANF policies and employment outcomes among welfare leavers. Social Service Review 2009; 83(4): 525–555.

9. National Conference of State Legislatures. Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients and Public Assistance 2017; Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/drug-testing-and-public-assistance.aspx

10. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. 42 601 42 USC 601 (1996). 104–193.

11. Pollack HA, Danziger S, Seefeldt KS, et al. Substance Use among Welfare Recipients: Trends and Policy Responses. Social Service Review 2002; 76(2): 256–274.

12. Smith N. State Welfare Reforms: TANF Time Limits by the Numbers 2016; Retrieved June 13, 2018, from http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/content/state-welfare-reforms-tanf-time-limits-numbers?nopaging=1

13. Swann CA, Sylvester MS. The foster care crisis: What caused caseloads to grow? Demography2006; 43(2):309–335.

14. Wallace GL. The effects of family caps on the subsequent fertility decisions of never-married mothers. Journal of Population Research 2009; 26(1):73–101.

15. Zedlewski SR. Welfare Reform What Have We Learned in Fifteen Years? Washington, D.C: Urban Institute 2016;Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/research/publication/welfare-reform-what-have-we-learned-fifteen-years


DOI: https://doi.org/10.18063/esp.v7.i1.687
(501 Abstract Views, 290 PDF Downloads)

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Leah Hamilton

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.