ABSTRACT: The term welfare brings a lot of controversy, for some, it implies that its recipients meaning “poor people” are getting a free ride getting public assistance. For others it is believed to be anti-work, anti-family. Nonetheless, regardless of how one’s felt about welfare, no one can argue that poverty is a social issue that has serious impact on society. Although poverty means different thing to different people, to some, poverty means the some members of society are lazy, not able to take personal responsibility. For others, it means that some members of society are not getting a fair share of the wealth distribution. The point that it remain is viewed as not having enough or lacking enough resource to provide for one’s needs. But many disagree on this definition, because some scholars in the field of sociology agree that poverty transcend money and wealth. Hutchinson (2003) eloquently posits that” poverty influences the ability of parents to adequately meet their children’s basic needs. Understanding human development requires an ecological approach that views the child in a home environment duly placed in a community context, where the family strives to meet their needs and obtain long-term resources” (p.56).

The social problem created by poverty is a much larger than any debate ever address. Its remains an issue of serious social concern, addressing the truthfulness about poverty is crucial to assist in the policy making process. Because ignoring the cause of poverty only obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation of those affected. For example, according to a study conducted by the Casrsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, 2.6 million of America’s children live below poverty level. The cause is believed to be slowing down of the economy and the amount of jobs lost since the recession began in 2008.
Another article written by Slattery and Moore (2012) stated that 19,000 children live in New York City shelter as a result of poverty. While many believe that people are poor because they are lazy, no one could argue that poverty is a social problem that has negative consequences on society as a whole. When a family cannot secure a basic minimum to ensure that their children are feed, properly clothe, and have access to basic health care including elementary education, this alone is a clear picture of poverty. Those of us that embrace the social work profession, devote ourselves, and committed to warrant that every member of society has equal access to those basic human rights (NASW code, 6.04.a). a society that the poor food Mother Theresa once said, “A society that neglect and abuses his children is the poorest of the poor”. The aim of this illustration is to analyze the impact of the Welfare Reform on poor families. Having done my field practice at the Department of Social Services In Rockland County New York, I experienced firsthand the challenge of dealing with poor families as one of the fundamental dilemmas facing social workers on a daily basis. It was clear that many underlying factors such as racism, single parents, teenage mothers and education without a doubt keep poor families trapped in their circumstances. In 1930, during the Great Depression period many families suffered great financial stress and experiences great needs. It was estimated that one-fourth of the labor force was unemployed. To address the crisis created by such an economic downfall, President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt the need to create a program that would help poor children. So the AFDC (Welfare) was created to assist the needs of single mothers and other dependents members of society. Welfare was placed under the federal Responsibility under Social Security act of 1935 (Retrieved Oct. 9, 2012 from www. welfareinfo.org).
What is the goal of this policy? The goal of this policy was to offer some relief to financially struggling families. The United States prior to the great Depression was already accustomed to provide reliefs to various underprivileged members of society. “Prior to 1996, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) gave some low-income mothers an opportunity to attend college by providing direct-cash subsidies to finance living expenses. Under the welfare act, the primary goal of that policy was to offer assistance and alleviate the burden of low income mothers. As welfare rapidly expanded in the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s, it was consistently been misrepresented, and welfare recipients were misrepresented as black and mischievous. The concepts that most Americans held about Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and welfare became a controversy. There was that consensus that the initial welfare programs created in response to the economic conditions faced by the country since the Great Depression was counterproductive to the main goals. It was viewed by the public as anti-work or anti-family. Many feel these outdated welfare programs not only tolerate indigence, but also fosters dependency on the government for financial assistance and services. One attempt to help address the issue was the welfare reform act of 1996.
What exactly is Welfare Reform?
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the historic Welfare Reform Law, a bill designed to help welfare recipients becoming more self-sufficient. According to this bill, anyone receiving welfare benefits would find jobs that would allow them to become less dependent. This bill was put into place as a government's attempt to change the social welfare policy of the country. The main goal of these reforms was to reduce the number of individuals or families dependent on government assistance and to assist the recipients in their efforts to become self-sufficient. These families were to be enrolled to a new program called Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) in which most welfare recipients would be required to participate.
What is the main outcome of the policy?
Doblelstein (2006) demonstrates that many services were affected as a result of the welfare reform of 1996. Welfare reform policy has a direct effect on the recipients. The majority of welfare recipients face substantial barriers to work, such as not having the necessary skills to meet the job market demands, and insufficient and available training programs. There are not enough employment assistance programs to support them, or accessible childcare available to provide quality child care for their children. The focus has not been to move single mothers onto lower benefits for budgetary reasons. As a result, the broader safety net is predicted to shrink.
The major problem is that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act, (PRWORA), of 1996 does not focus on solving the critical problems poor women face but emphasizes instead short-term savings by denying and reducing welfare benefits, setting strict time limits, and focusing only on strategies to quickly immerse welfare recipients into the labor market. The failure to include in successful welfare-to-work strategies such factors as transportation, child care, clothing, and other structural supports often perpetuates a cycle of poor job preparation and a return to a need for public assistance.
The changes surrounding welfare reform, that has taken place over the past 15 years, have failed the poor, particularly single women and their children. Effective welfare reform must be based on equality to protect the vulnerable. It should address the real barriers faced by the disadvantaged. According to the NASW, ”Social workers should promote policies and practices that demonstrate respect for difference, support the expansion of cultural knowledge and resources, advocate for programs and institutions that demonstrate cultural competence, and promote policies that safeguard the rights of and confirm equity and social justice for all people” (NASW Code of Ethics 2006).
The problem causes by poverty is an issue that cannot be looked at separate from the issues of inequalities. The various systems that interact to address the problem, in my opinion only reinforce the cycle. First, the problem resides in the lack of assistance programs, such as educational, training and childcare services. Without these services in the major systems, we as a society reinforce and perpetuate the vicious cycle of poverty. These factors have intrinsically had a grave effect on the ability of single women with children to again access to comprehensive services through governments funded programs. If the government provided free or affordable training, childcare and educational programs, it would address many of the issues regarding poverty and stable employment, by providing individuals with the necessary skills and education to advance and survive in today’s society.
How is it funded? The program “welfare” was created and funded by the federal government as a direct response to the stress created by the great depression. The program continues to exist despite severe scrutiny and was blamed for many social problems such as people not looking for jobs, people not staying married and having multiple children to qualify for more benefits. The program is mean tested, and qualifications were based on many factors such as, medical emergency, homelessness and unemployment. The fund was provided to the state as a “block grant” (TANF) and individual state use the grant as they see fit (retrieved October 22, 2012 from www.welfareinfo.org).
Which individuals, organizations or coalitions might support the policies?
The new welfare law (PRWORA) was a landmark that replaced a 60 year old assistance program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The new program called (TANF) Temporary Assistance to Needy families emphasizes a "work first" approach; which implied a blaming the victims approach. It further assumes a lack of personal responsibility as the principal cause of poverty and unemployment among welfare recipients. Case in point, it has been the motto in this year presidential campaign that people that depended on public assistance lack personal responsibility.
This approach disregards the very real economic and social biases at work-many women are poor in part because social inequality and unequal distribution of resources. The "work first" approach also ignores individual variation, that is, although many welfare recipients will be able to get and maintain paying jobs, others will be so tremendously disadvantaged, medically, personally, and socially, that they have very little hope of being placed in what most would consider an adequate, paying job. Those who advocates for welfare reform strongly vouched for faith-based organizations such as catholic Charity, The Salvation Army and the Jewish foundation to handle the problem of poverty implying that those organization will also focus fixing their deficiencies that cause them to be poor.
Which individuals or organizations might oppose the policy implementation? Historically, interest groups have always played a key role in the legislative process; as eloquently articulated by Dobelstein, interest groups bridge the gap between legislators and their constituents (p.39). In that regard, those who oppose the Welfare Reform (TANF) do so for two reasons. First, there are a group of people that hold negative views of those who fail thru the crack of poverty, their claims are child support are r to blame for poverty. Yet other groups oppose benefits for non-citizens, they argue that restricting easy access to welfare has been a principle of American domestic policy since colonial times. Therefore, their wish is to see the old system reinstituted, regardless of who gets hurts.
As enunciated by the Article 25 of the Human Rights declaration, social inequalities violate the most fundamental rights of an individual, the rights of an adequate standard of living. Social justice is a secular concept that is distinct from religious teachings. In a socially just society the principles of equality of opportunity for all its citizens are greatly valued. It is stated in the UDHR that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection” (UDHR). www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
In conclusion, the new welfare law of 1996 (PRWORA) has done very little to help families move out of poverty. In my opinion, one of the ultimate roadblocks that the policy put on the recipients was the ultimate recipe for failure. Because it is proven to be so difficult to make welfare recipients self-sufficient, there is a growing consensus that more effort should be devoted to preventing dependency in the first place. This means paying attention to a wide range of issues, including declining job prospects for the unskilled. It may have been appropriate that welfare needed to be reformed, but there is less agreement about what exactly needed to be done to make it successful. I cannot agree more that welfare reform penalizes the most vulnerable, because it has not done enough to move family above poverty line.

References: policy
Berman, J. (2012, September 09): One In Four Young U.S. children Living In Poverty, Study Finds. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com).
Dobelstein, A. (2003). "Social Welfare Policy" and "A Framework for Policy Analysis and Development”
Cohen, M. (1998, March). Education and Training under Welfare Reform. Retrieved April 6/2011, 2011, from Publications/edissue.htm
Healy, L. M. (2008). Exploring the History of Social Work as a Human Rights Profession.
Hutchison, E.D. (2008) Dimensions of human Behavior
Person and Environment. 3rd edition. Los Angeles, CA. Sage Publications. Morris, P. A., & Hendra, R. (2009). Losing the safety net: How a time-limited welfare policy affects families at risk of reaching time limits. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 383-400. Doi: 10.1037/a0014960
Morris, P., Duncan, G. J., & Clark-Kauffman, E. (2005). Child Well-Being in an Era of Welfare Reform: The Sensitivity of Transitions in Development to Policy Change. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 919-932. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.919
Slattery, D. & Moore, T. (2012, September 9,). Number of Children in City’s Homeless Shelters hits 19,000. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com).