Welfare

Welfare COM/220 January 17, 2010 Mickeal M. Donald According to the Child Welfare League, the President’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which includes all 50 states, was $16.5 billion dollars with an additional $319 million of supplemental grants going to 17 states. Even though the last welfare reform act was meant to lower the percentage of people on welfare, government assistance needs a new reform act not only because of the many people who have learned how to bypass limitations to receive assistance, but for the public assistance programs that have failed many people who genuinely need temporary help. While it seems that the federal government tried to lower the welfare deficit, what happened instead was the money was spent on programs related to welfare, for instance child care. President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which is also known as 1996 Welfare Reform Act on August 22, 1996. To put it simply, what the reform means is that instead of receiving a check monthly if you live in poverty, you will now be required to search and obtain job related income within a specified amount of time. Over a six year period $60 billion dollars of funding would be cut from the programs that supply cash assistance and food stamps. Once the reform act was enforced, the entitlement of welfare to the poor ended, a lifetime limit of aid was imposed, and a requirement of finding work within two years or performing community service, both consisting of 30 hours per week and rewarding states that reduce caseloads with financial bonuses was enforced. The foundation of the policy is that the head of the household must be working within two years or lose their benefits. The lifetime limitation of receiving welfare is five years. When the 1996 Welfare Reform Act was passed, the president placed most of the responsibilities within each state to ensure that poverty decreased. A lump sum of federal money was distributed to each state to run their own welfare and work programs. All states had to submit a plan detailed in how they would structure their welfare programs. Although each would run their own welfare programs, there were still basic guidelines that had to be followed. States had to maintain welfare spending at 75 % of their 1994 level. If unable to achieve this, the welfare grant money given by the federal government would be lost. Most families are restricted to a five year limitation, but 20% of cases could be exempted due to hardship. Single parents with children under a year old could be released from the work requirements for 12 months. Legal immigrants who are not citizens would be denied cash aid and have restriction on Medicaid (state funded medical insurance). Most people believe that if an adult would just go get a job, then they wouldn’t need assistance. Unfortunately many jobs do not pay enough for families to make it on their own income. There are many cases that only the children are receiving Medicaid, families are only receiving Food Stamps or the only assistance parents are given are a child care allotment. Many people believe that once a family begins welfare benefits, they will become long-term and repeated recipients of welfare. Welfare does create a dependency for some, but research has showed that an estimated 30 % use the welfare programs for short-term use during emergency hardship. Another myth is that families receiving welfare benefits are large in numbers. The typical family receiving benefits is a single parent with one to two children in the home. And more often than not, the single parent does not receive any child support from the other parent of the children. There are several ways to commit welfare fraud, which is intentionally deceiving the state government to receive benefits. People failing to report income, assets, employment, marital status, child support, or other financial information is the most common activity in welfare fraud. Welfare fraud also includes receiving benefits from multiple states, using multiple identities to obtain welfare benefits, reporting that a parent or child is living in the home when in fact they are not and purposely failing to report a change in eligibility. The penalties for welfare fraud could involvement imprisonment, fines, denial of future benefits and repaying benefits unlawfully obtained. Statistical data from the state of Kentucky shows a large number of recipients still receiving welfare benefits in 2009. In 2009, the number of food stamp cases had risen to 46,862 more cases from 2007. And while the number of K-TAP (Kentucky Transitional Assistance Program) recipients dropped 838 from 2007 to 2009, the amount of monthly allotment was raised $10.55. In 2007, Kentucky spent $5,156,363.42 in cash benefits alone and in 2009 when there were fewer recipients of cash benefits, Kentucky spent $5,174,442.48. Instead of lessening the amount of money spent on cash benefits, Kentucky’s cash allotment rose. Below is a comparison of benefits and the different kinds of recipients of the state of Kentucky from 2007 and 2009. Also provided is a list of the top 15 states with the highest number of recipients. Kentucky State 2007/2009 Comparison | |2007 | |2009 | |Population |4,206,074 | |4,269,245 | |Per Capita Income |$28,272 | |$28,272 | |Percent Below Poverty |16.9% | |16.9% | |Available Child Care |194,969 | |192,617 | |Number of CHFS Employees |7,945 | |7,315 | |Number of Family Resource Youth |820 | |820 | |Serv. Centers | | | | |Annual Family Resource Youth |$55,643,490 | |55,643,490 | |Service Grants | | | | |Number of Public Transportation |153 | |153 | |Providers | | | | |Number of Food Stamp Cases |278,716 | |325,578 | |Average Benefit |$217.46 | |$285.39 | |Total Recipients |623,019 | |723,193 | |Total Monthly Redeemed |$60,608,910 | |$92,916,611 | |Number of K-Tap Cases |21,554 | |20,716 | |Average Monthly Grant |$239.23 | |$249.78 | |Total Number of Adults |10,481 | |10,362 | |Total Number of Children |33,473 | |32,357 | |Total Recipients |43,954 | |42,719 | |Number of Males |957 | |1,054 | |Number of Females |9,524 | |9,308 | |Children Born out of Wedlock |19,358 | |19,506 | |Number of Minority Recipients |12,362 | |12,833 | |Adults Employed |1,835 | |1,287 | |Adults Not Employed But Have Work |7,258 | |7,689 | |History | | | | |Length of Time Benefits have been | | | | |received: | | | | |6 months or less |4,315 | |4,434 | |7 to 12 months |2,926 | |3,111 | |13 to 18 months |2,041 | |1,973 | |19 to 24 months |1,820 | |1,656 | |Over 2 years |10,452 | |9,542 | |K-Tap Cases with: | | | | |0 Parents |5,229 | |5,654 | |1 Parent |14,532 | |13,438 | |2 Parents |1,793 | |1,624 | |Number of Minor Parents |936 | |991 | |Educational Level of K-Tap Adults | | | | |Less than High School or GED |3,922 | |3,802 | |High School or GED |6,455 | |6,429 | |College or Above |25 | |28 | | | | | | [pic] State Number of Recipients Percentage of Population Oregon 58,831 1.55% Pennsylvania 198,666 1.60% Michigan 164,589 1.65% Rhode Island 18,839 1.79% Indiana 116,430 1.83% New Mexico 36,322 1.83% Washington 121,864 1.86% Minnesota 98,028 1.88% New York 373,305 1.92% District of Columbia 11,806 1.99% Vermont 12,543 2.02% Massachusetts 136,033 2.09% Tennessee 133,505 2.15% Maine 31,148 2.37% California 1,212,893 3.30% Even though the nation has grown tremendously since 1996, the welfare systems have not made adjustments to the state government programs that are provided. It seems that all politicians talk of changing the welfare system, but none have since the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. New educational programs need to be implemented to ensure current recipients of welfare continue to strive for better financial security. Education is imperative to helping recipients realize that there are more benefits in developing a career than waiting for the monthly check in the mail and monthly food stamp benefits. Workshops showing the benefits of acquiring a job with health insurance, annual pay raises, and company provided extra benefits, all allowing more freedom in their lifestyles, should be mandatory when a person applies for public assistance. Workshops that teach interviewing skills would also be beneficial to the people receiving welfare. Many people are too afraid to apply for certain jobs because they believe that they could not adequately communicate during the interview process. Training sessions in certain job skills would also allow more confidence in applying for higher paying jobs. Most jobs require typing as a bare minimum requirement and poverty stricken people may not have the resources to learn the typing skills. Along with the people that have been out of the job market or have not ever been in the job market, there is a new group of struggling families who are caught in the middle of not being able to live decently, but also do not qualify for temporary assistance that needs to be addressed. These groups of families do have a member in a job field, but usually don’t make enough money to pay for the necessities, but at the same time make too much money to qualify for cash assistance or food stamp benefits. A lot of times these families are single parent families in which the other parent is not paying child support. The other parent not involved in paying child support is prosecuted for non-payment of child support, but that is only after they are found, by accident most of the time. The other parent could be in prison, passed away, or possibly may not even know about the child. Single parents who are working should receive a monthly child support check that the other parent should have to pay back. If this were to pass into law, the local law enforcement agencies might become more active in finding the other parent. It would also help the single parent provide better living conditions and give the children more opportunities to succeed at school or sports. A separate division of government welfare needs to be created in all states to ensure that current and future applicants are truthful when applying or receiving welfare benefits. Surprise home visits would ensure that the people receiving benefits live where they have said they live, and that the children that they say they have do exist. Visiting workers would be able to see if the home and children are being neglected as well as ensuring all cash assets have been claimed. Random drug testing should be a requirement due to a lot of communities having a drug addiction problem. Many people who receive the cash benefit take the money to go buy drugs instead of the needed supplies to care for the children and home. If the recipients test positive for drug use, then enforcing drug rehabilitation is one option or losing welfare benefits could be the other option. By reforming welfare, not only would the states do away with wasteful spending, but by adding new programs and sub-divisions, agencies would also be providing more jobs for people within their state. New provisions need to be put in place that prevent people from falsely receiving benefits and allowing families who need assistance through hard times to receive them. Education needs to be provided to show people the incentives of being independent of government assistance. Random drug testing should also be a requirement for anyone on public assistance to ensure that money is not being spent on drugs, but instead using the money for the necessities of life. Welfare needs to help families that truly need assistance to ensure children have food in their stomach, clothes for school, and someone to take care of them while parents work, instead of the alternative of hunger, and neglect. Pay checks are taxed all over the country to help pay for these benefits for the poverty stricken people of our country. To be assured that the money is actually helping the people that receive assistance by having the knowledge that hard earned money is being used truthfully and wisely should be a right of anyone contributing. The people of the nation should be able to have a voice in deciding the regulations, eligibilities and limitations of welfare and not just high profile government representatives that most likely have never experienced poverty. Welfare is for the people, and shouldn’t the people be the deciders of what the people need' If at any time the head of household should lose the only income, wouldn’t it be a relief to know that there is short term help available for middle-class families' American Psychological Association. (2009). “Making Welfare-to-Work Really Work”. Retrieved from www.apa.org Anderson, S. (2002). “Insuring the Stability of Welfare-to-Work Exits: The Importance of Recipient Knowledge about Work Incentives”. Social Work Vol.47 Issue 2, p162-170 9p Child Welfare League of American. (1996-2010). “Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TNAF)”. Retrieved from www.cwla.org Kentucky Department of Community Based Services. (2009). Data Source 2009. Retrieved from www.chfs.ky.gov Legalmatch. (2009). “Welfare Fraud Lawyers”. Retrieved from www.legalmatch.com National Conference of State Legislatures. (2009). “The Biggest U.S. Welfare States”. Retrieved from www.cnbc.com Polecolaw. (2005-2009). “How Much Does Welfare Cost'”. Retrieved from www.newsvine.com/polecolaw Waldman, S., Shackelford, & L. (1994). “Welfare Booby Traps”. Newsweek, Vol. 124 Washington, G., Washington, E.T., Sullivan, M. (2006). “TANF Policy: Past, Present and Future Directions”. Journal of Health and Social Policy Vol. 21 pp1-16