Student likes the Head Start Program, but expresses skepticism about many other programs

I like the Head Start program. It is a program that provides early childhood education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to low-income children and their families. This program is designed to foster stable family relationships, enhance children’s physical and emotional well-being, and establish an environment to develop storing cognitive skills. Head start was launched in 1965 and was originally made to be like a catch-up summer school that would teach low-income children, in a few weeks what they needed to know to start elementary school. Then there was a head start act in 1981 that expanded the program. Head start is one of the longest-running programs attempting to address the effects of systematic poverty in the United States. 

I just really like Head Start because it is a way to provide education to children who may not be ready for elementary school but cannot afford pre-school.  This system has been helpful to many children. If this program was not offered, then I believe that many children would have a harder time in school. When they are put to right into elementary school, their parents may not have had enough time with them to teach them everything they needed to know to start school. This original eight-week program has grown throughout the years to help many children. 

I know this sounds bad, but I do not really like any social welfare policies that I know of. I think they could all use some work. I know they are all government funded and that there is going to be cuts and more cuts and more, but everything has cuts and everything has raises. I think that more of the policies should be given a ending time, or at least a period where we will give you this federal money and in six months it will stop then you can reapply but you have to wait two months in order to start collecting money again. For this temporary suspension and reapplication I think it should apply in such programs such as: TANF, SNAP, maybe some Housing Voucher programs as well. Or, instead of making a two month waiting period between termination of the initial period and start-up of the second period, maybe we can cut the costs given to people and instead pay someone to go out and check up on these people receiving benefits. I believe more people abuse the system than don’t, and if we could find those people abusing the system then we could give the money to someone who really needs it. 

Another thing, someone who is literally homeless and that doesn’t have an address cannot apply for government assistance. These people are the ones who really need the help, they are living on the streets. Maybe there should be a program that if you are really living on the streets that you could give the IDHS people the address of the post office that you think you are going to be closest to. Then when you apply you can just go to the post office every day and instead of having to pay for a P.O. box they can just set aside any mail into a bin that one can use. Another idea, would be having part of the program would be have a P.O. box for these homeless people. 

It seems that you have the following concerns about welfare programs:

1) People who need services should get them, but those who don’t need them shouldn’t.

2) People who abuse the system of welfare services should be stopped from abusing it. You think many people are abusing it.

3) People must accept that government programs ebb and wane, and sometimes there will be increases of funding and sometimes decreases, depending upon the priorities of the elected government and the public they represent.

4) Welfare safety net programs should usually be temporary, and people should keep in mind that the assistance they receive is temporary, until they can achieve independence and self-sufficiency.

5) It is important that there be an exchange between people who receive public help and the public who pay for that help; and one legitimate point is that those who supply the support (the tax-paying public) should be able to control some behaviors of those who receive the support (enforcing conformity to some standards of expected behavior, ensuring that people follow the rules).  

6) You are also concerned that the persons who are in greatest need for help (such as homeless persons who live in shelters or live rough on the streets) should get it.  Actually, that issue you raise of providing such persons with a way to have an address (to facilitate their receipt of resources and help them secure employment) was a topic for a group of students in this class a year ago.

Your use of the example of persons who are homeless and living rough brings to mind the other sorts of persons who are in need of services.  There are persons with severe and chronic mental illness, and they are not really likely to be able to support themselves.  There are persons with physical impairments or limitations related to health, injury, birth defect, disease, and so forth, where the impairments are so severe that every reasonable person would agree that we as a society cannot expect them to support themselves.  Likewise there are persons with a variety of brain conditions, ranging from persons with severe or serious cognitive disabilities or developmental disabilities to persons with mild disabilities, and few of us expect those persons to provide for their own material well-being.  Most people no longer think that we as a society should require children to work to provide for their own sustenance, at least not in the USA.  And, most of us would like to have our society give elderly persons some years before their deaths in which they could relax without the burdens of providing through labor for their own economic well-being.  So, one question to ask yourself is how many of the persons receiving welfare benefits are in these categories where you probably do not expect the recipients to get out and find a job to support themselves. 

I think everyone is inclined to agree with your preference that persons who really need services get the services they need, but you are concerned that persons who do not really need services are crowding the system and draining resources.  For example, you write that, “ I believe more people abuse the system than don’t.” I’m not sure what your idea of “abuse the system” is, but no doubt it’s something bad, and I think everyone would be opposed to allowing lots of abuse of the welfare system.  But, your impression that more than half of persons receiving welfare services and supports are abusing the system is really a perception about a matter of fact, and we can look at research and fact-checking and determine what a plausible estimate of abuse is within the various welfare programs, and also see what sort of persons are committing the abuse.  The counts and results will depend much on how we define “abuse,” but I think it is important to investigate this conjecture and see what proportion are abusing the services.  You’re raising an important issue.  Even those who are far more liberal in their attitudes toward benefits would share your concern that persons who abuse the welfare system are likely to erode public confidence in those programs, and thus damage support for policies that help those who really need the services.

Are persons with significant disabilities and low incomes and few assets able to abuse programs?  How many persons receiving benefits could be fairly characterized as having “significant disabilities” and few financial resources?  Are persons aged 17 and younger (children) capable of abusing the welfare programs that provide them housing and food and perhaps help their households pay bills?  That’s another question we must consider.  

For adults without children who have sound bodies and healthy minds, they may of course be thrown into a period of poverty and desperation due to some drastic change in circumstances (they may flee from an abusive and controlling partner who provided all the household income; they may lose their job and be unable to pay debts; they may become ill, lose their jobs, and then recover from their illness in a situation where they are impoverished and unemployed, etc.), and perhaps in those circumstances they really deserve the benefits of a welfare system.  But, I think you raise a legitimate question about how long they ought to receive such benefits before we as a society expect them to work and support themselves.

There are also different ideas about “self-support” and freedom and liberty involved with welfare policies, and the ideas may shape how we consider abuse.  Some people will look at a situation where a family relies on a social welfare safety net for many years, and no disabilities are present, and call the situation “parasitism” or “welfare dependence” or “abuse of the system” on the assumption that everyone ought to work and earn their own way in life, if they are capable of doing so.  Yet, other people may look at a situation like that and say that once a society achieves a certain standard of wealth and abundance, the needs of human liberty and freedom require that workers and potential workers be given a welfare safety net that provides them with the sort of financial security that maximizes their autonomy and freedom, so that they will only work in jobs that are worthwhile and dignified, and only work through their free will, and not because the threat of poverty works like a whip to drive them into whatever job will offer them a chance of survival. From such a perspective, if a society can afford to do so, it ought to give everyone a dignified and secure material life whether or not they are involved in economic activities to pay their own way through life.  That’s not your perspective, but it is a perspective that seems to me to have just as much moral authority (on the basis of maximizing human liberty) as your perspective based on a sense of fairness and justice (which makes the reasonable demand that people contribute to their own maintenance if they can, and not live off the labor of others unless such reliance is a last resort and ideally temporary).

There are other perspectives as well.  Some people prefer a sort of Social Darwinism in which people must look out for themselves or rely on private charity and family support.  Those who have great need and cannot secure adequate support from family or charity are doomed, and that is acceptable to such a perspective.  There is also a perspective that may admit that it is a moral problem when people depend on the support from others, and it is vexing to have people live off the public when they could be earning their own keep; but this other perspective claims that if you weigh all the benefits of eliminating poverty and the eradicating the many injustices and harms and problems rooted in poverty by providing everyone who is poor with enough support to bring them out of poverty—if you eliminate poverty—then the benefits and gains to society, and all the blessings a society reaps when it eliminates poverty outweigh all the harms of welfare dependence and people who prefer to live off the labor of others at some modest minimum level rather than working.  That is, you are right that it is a problem and injustice for people to abuse the system, but the continued existence of poverty in a society as wealthy as ours is an even bigger problem and injustice, and the gains we take if we have a generous welfare policy that eliminates poverty will be so good that we can overlook the many harms we do to people by allowing them to stagnate in a situation of parasitism and welfare dependence.

These are all things people should consider, and some of these ideas must be rejected if you are going to endorse other ideas.  But when we make our choices about what we prefer, we must be aware of what we are rejecting.   

Cuts in social welfare spending are harmful

There are opposing views on social welfare.  Not one person is right about the definition or ideology of social welfare. Social welfare programs have grown, shrunk, stabilized, and declined over the years.  Many want to eliminate programs because they think that millions are taking advantage of them.  The sad part is that thousands need these social welfare programs to survive.  

As a social worker there will be obstacles and clients that will make things difficult, but a great social worker will gather those resources to help clients reach their goals.  The majority of government officials and the general public feel that the majority of people on public aid are taking advantage of the programs. What is interesting is that the general public, who once were part of the middle class find themselves in the same situation as the poor and they may now understand that there are some who need those welfare programs   

  If they do get rid of welfare programs, where will these people receive assistance?  This is dehumanizing the life of another human.  This bothers me and I want to get others to understand that not all recipients of welfare programs put themselves there.  Our own country did this by eliminating jobs and outsourcing to foreign countries to save money. Groups of people need to be educated and learn that some people do not want to be on these programs but circumstances play a role.  

I strongly believe that government intervention is necessary in order to control and regulate social welfare while keeping ethics in mind, but at the same time, it is not necessary for everyone. People have the ability to change their lives for the better with hard work and dedication, but I also know that in some cases that people cannot help themselves or get ahead regardless of how hard they work.  They need the assistance to get by.

So far, there have been several topics talked about in class that affect me personally. Poverty and discrimination affect me directly and I can empathize with others in similar situations.  Being a social worker will be a difficult job, struggling to find the necessary resources out there to better help clients that I will come into contact with.  Cuts in funding have affected all the areas of the economy, especially education and social welfare programs that affect the poor, disabled, and others who have lost jobs, homes, and families.  

  Simply getting into college is a challenge for everyone. The difficulties do not end once you have received that much hoped for college acceptance letter. The truth is that many students with skills, qualifications and a desire for a college education are stopped short in their quest for knowledge and better employment opportunities by the high costs of tuition and student living expenses. Unless a tuition-needy student wins the lottery, his or her most realistic options for getting a college education are interest-consuming college loans or scholarships. Most scholarships are difficult to find or they do not apply to certain groups of people.  One of my biggest problems with education is that our government wants to give free education to immigrants, but most are here illegally and I struggle with the fact that they are offered a free education when one of my children has loans and no job to pay them back.  

In response to this financial need, many corporations, government agencies and civil groups have instituted scholarship programs that give students more of a fighting chance in the high competitive race for financial aid. This aid is going to be affected by the education funding cuts. These cuts would decrease the number of professionals that are going to graduate in the future, which at the same time would affect the technological and scientific growth of the country, fields in which the United States holds first place in the world. Also, this reduction in education funds would reduce the options for young people making them even more confused about what life has to offer them and what they can do in the future. In some cases this situation can confuse the student so much, putting them in a situation which can destroy their view of the American Dream.  But, even in today’s society having a college degree does not guarantee a job in these economic times.  I think the schools should look at the careers that are promising and offer degrees that can potentially lead to a job.  There are many degrees that are offered through many colleges that do not pertain to any job that is out there, leaving millions of students with loans that they cannot pay back.  Colleges need to stop giving out degrees that will not land a student a job after they have worked so hard.  This type of scenario leads young adults down a path of destruction, possibly depression or other destructive things in their lives which could potentially put them in a social welfare program that also is being affected by cuts within our local, state, and federal governments.

Cuts in social welfare programs are affecting other people like children, seniors, the disabled, mental patients who cannot do anything to support themselves. This will create bigger problems, because we would have more homeless people and more crime, pushing the economy to fall even more. All this together would decrease the standard of living of the country and would leave a very difficult situation for future generations. There are ways to fix the state of Illinois’s budget issues if everyone would work together to make a better situation for everyone involved.

You make a very important point when you observe that people prefer not to receive assistance.  Surely 96% to 99% of all adults would rather be self-sufficient and independent with their finances while enjoying a decent life compared to the alternative of needing to rely on the charity of others or government programs to provide them with the resources to survive.  The question is what prevents people from being independent and self-sufficient.  Some people have disabilities or health problems or mental health issues or developmental disabilities that would make it difficult for them to be financially independent, but policies can enhance their autonomy.  Also, on one hand, we probably expect too little of many people with these problems, and we fail to create workplaces or economic roles where such persons could thrive and contribute.  Yet, on the other hand, we are also probably guilty of sometimes expecting too much, and demanding things of persons when there is no reasonable way for those persons to meet the expectations we place upon them. 

   Among those who are dependent, some will have developmental disabilities or physical disabilities that would make it difficult for them to find employment, but we are making progress in finding ways to remove barriers and prejudices and human-imposed limitations on many persons with disabilities or developmental issues.  Others in the population of persons who are dependent probably cope with serious health problems or severe mental health problems that make economic productivity difficult or impossible for them.  It is generally a good idea to help these people feel they are contributing, and help them to get routine in their lives, and give them things they can accomplish, or ensure they have opportunities to have meaning in their lives.  Yet, it may be the case that the free market doesn’t provide such things, and we may need to be creative and find ways to include persons with such problems in our economic life without giving them a sense that they are parasitical or worthless simply because they don’t make significant economic contributions. 

Others who are dependent may have personality disorders, or addictions, or other behavioral issues that make it difficult for them to find and hold a job. For these people we ought to have treatments to help them change and become healthier and enhance their functioning, and until we provide such services, many of these people will not be able to thrive in the labor market, and they will be dependent.  Most people who are dependent on welfare are just going through a phase in their lives where they are temporarily down and poor.  They will naturally work their way back into more prosperous circumstances, and their temporary dependence should really be of no concern to us.  Naturally there will also always be a group of unemployed persons who would be employed if we created an economy with full employment, but our free enterprise system depends on their being a threat of poverty and destitution as a spur to make workers accept bad jobs with low pay, so there will always be healthy and capable people who can’t find work, and temporarily need help while they continue looking for some way to get back into the economic life where they can earn their livelihood.  Finally, there must be a group of persons who are sturdy and healthy and quite capable of functioning well, and they could work, but they refuse to do so, and prefer to use the welfare system. But how many of the dependent Americans really fall into this category?  I think if we guessed 2% or even 1% we would be exaggerating their numbers by at least tenfold. 

Once people see things as you and I do, they will hesitate to cut welfare and human services.  As things stand now, there is a narrative of moral deviance and the poor.  People who use welfare programs are dehumanized and described as reprehensible and lazy.  

But one thing I’m not so certain of is your claim that universities must cease offering degrees that lack vocational direction.  Certainly vocational training has its place in higher education, but colleges are not tools of the capitalist system with a function of producing good workers.  Rather, universities produce citizens, scientific research, gains in knowledge, and graduates who have a set of skills and moral frameworks that ought to make them better people.  They ought to have improved their communication and thinking skills in ways that will make them better friends, better family members, better citizens, better neighbors, and also better workers.  Most college students will probably not find employment in a field closely related to their major or academic concentration, and that is fine.