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 Head start was launched in 1965 and was originally made to be like a catch-up summer school that would teach low-income children, in a few weeks what they needed to know to start elementary school.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.   

Student believes policy to change SNAP to food delivery program is wrong-headed.

Trump has recently suggested that instead of giving SNAP recipients more cash benefits we should instead cut the amount of food stamps they receive in half and give them a box of food each month. This would provide food for the poor and hungry people along with making it cheaper for the government, but it is not a good idea.

First off, as it stands right now SNAP only provides the equivalent of about $1.45 per meal per person, that means that each person receives only $4.32 to eat each day. For many Americans that is not enough to be able to eat three meals a day, let alone three healthy meals. Buying a full meal for $1.45 that is not fast food is nearly impossible in America. This means that those who receive SNAP are more times than not skipping meals every single day, or are having to skip full days because of this problem. This will cause a lot of health problems as well as other problems such as being able to function properly during the day. If a person does not eat much they will not be able to focus in school or work as well as they would with a full stomach. This loss of productivity may cost the adult their job if they have one, and if they don’t, it may make their motivation to look for one go down. If anything, the government should provide these people with more money so they can sustain healthier, more enjoyable lives. Providing them with more money for food could possible keep their medical bills lower later on, which would save the government more money on Medicaid. It is cheaper to prevent a problem than to treat one later on. Also with more food security they are more likely to become better members of community, because they would be happier, healthier, and more motivated since they are more stable in life. 

The food box would take away family’s rights to self-determination, their rights to choose what food they want. They may feel more like animals being fed than humans since they would not be allowed to choose their own food which is likely to make them more depressed. Along with that the food they would provide in these boxes would not be healthy food at all. The boxes would contain mostly starches because they last the longest which could make these poor people also become obese and have more medical problems in the future along with lowering their self-worth. 

Other problems may be in how they would receive the box. Many poor individuals do not have reliable transportation to go pick up the box every month. If the boxes were delivered what would happen when the poor person moves because they are often moving to stay with different friends and family members of theirs often. If they have their own living space they are at high risk of being evicted since they do not have much money. How would the homeless receive their boxes every month and where would they store all of that food if they are living on the side of the street somewhere?

In conclusion we should be proving poor people with more food security, not less. This can save the government expenses in other areas later on such as through Medicaid. The miserly benefits targeted for cuts are only $1.45 per meal, and that is not enough money for a meal in America, so I believe this amount should be re-determined and the government should provide them with more money for food. With the money they receive now they cannot eat healthy foods, and cutting that money in half and forcing them to eat mostly starchy food will only make matters of health for these people worse. Lastly, the problem of how would the people receive and store their food each month is also something that would need examined.

As this is only a reaction paper, I would not expect you to make a fair and impartial analysis of this policy suggestion.  Your strong negative to the proposal gets some sympathy for me.  You have criticized the idea of reducing spending on food security by reducing benefit levels and transferring some of those reduced benefits to a program where the government selects and provides food rather than allowing recipients to shop for their food in the normal way.  You criticize it on the following grounds:

1) Benefit levels now are insufficient, and ought to be increased, rather than decreased.  The cut in spending on food security cannot be entirely gained by new efficiencies, and must result in fewer benefits and corresponding poorer nutrition and health for poor persons.

2) Benefit programs are already stigmatizing, when in fact the right to adequate food and nutrition is a human right, and securing it for everyone is a way to enhance freedom and health in our society; but changes in the program of food and nutrition benefits that remove autonomy and freedom of choice from the beneficiaries will increase stigmatization and remove human dignity.  Welfare safety net programs such as SNAP ought to encourage autonomy and human dignity, rather than further alienating and infantilizing persons who are experiencing poverty. 

3) The government could not possibly provide the right foods to everyone, and the government-selected non-perishable foods provided in the proposed policy would likely contain foods that were less nutritious or perhaps even harmful to recipients.

There are also many other objections to the policy proposal, but in a reaction essay like this, you are supposed to only allow yourself an hour to write yor paper, so you did not have time to question many other troubling flaws in this policy suggestion.

There are also several reasons to support the policy, or look at aspects of it with sympathy, or fairly present the arguments and then raise doubts about those arguments.  Again, given the limitations of this reaction paper, you didn't have time to do that, and perhaps you weren't inclined to do so.  But, it's worth thinking through why anyone would suggest such a revolutionary policy change with SNAP. For  example, while non-perishable foods might be starchy and unhealthy, current practice by most SNAP recipients may not be very wise or healthy (on average) anyway, and possibly pastas would be better than what people buy now.  Certainly canned or dried beans and rice might be staples distributed in food boxes, and at least with beans you might be helping people change to healthier diets compared to what they eat now. Do the meat industries and wheat farmer interests, as well as the grocery interests prefer the current SNAP arrangement, and might bean farmers, rice farmers, and nut growers benefit from the proposed change in SNAP policies?  

Student reacts to SNAP reform proposal

What caught my attention and I have a strong view on this policy is the SNAP proposal that President Trump has recommended for the 2019 budget.  I have read multiple articles on this policy and I will go through each of them with pros and cons.  

While doing homework over this past week I was looking at one of the UIS sites you have created for this class.  I found a policies website and was looking around at the articles that they had the one that caught my attention was the one about SNAP.  The website is the center on budget and policy priorities and the article I read was “President’s Budget Would Cut Food Assistance for Millions and Radically Restructure SNAP”.  In this article it talks about how the president proposed to alter the SNAP program to save billions of dollars over a ten-year period.  The budget proposes to cut the SNAP program by more than $213 billion over the next ten years   This would cut eligibility to four million people and reduce benefits for others.  The president also wants to reduce SNAP by doing a food delivery program like the Blue Apron program.  Here are some of the cons that I see based on this budget proposal.

1. This proposal does not have dietary restrictions in mind when doing the food box delivery.
2. The next con I see is that he is raising the maximum benefit amount from 49 to 62 which will cause food insecurity to many elderly and disabled persons. The Trump proposal was to raise the age of exemption from time limits from 49 to 62.  Currently, able-bodied persons of sound mind who have no minor children aged 18 to 49 are only allowed to participate in SNAP for at most three months in any 3-year (36 month) period.  Trump thinks that persons aged 39 to 62 should also be subject to this time limitation (when they are able-bodied, of sound mind, and have no minor children). 
3. Third con is that they leave the delivery and costs to each state.  The state is supposed to cover the cost of distribution and delivery of these food boxes.
4. Fourth con is that people who do receive SNAP will not have access to fresh fruits and vegetables. The box of food that the state would ship to the beneficiaries would not have fresh fruit and vegetables, but my understanding is that families would still have a (small) portion of their benefit provided in traditional credits on a sort of "debit" card like our Illinois Link card. 
5. Another con is that the boxes will contain a pre-portioned number of items of all processed food and does not include meat other than canned meat.
6. I feel that this would cause a social stigma for the people who receive these boxes.  It will also cause the delivery of thousands of heavy boxes and what happens if the boxes don’t get delivered or get stolen where does that leave the recipient?
7. This proposal would get rid of SNAP nutrition education.

The next thing I'll list are the pros of this budget

1. This budget could create additional jobs for the packing of boxes.
2. A nutritionist would manage the food going into the boxes and it could mean more healthy and nutrient dense foods.
3. These boxes would be delivered to people’s homes which would help those who are disabled and those that do not have transportation.
4. It could be cheaper with buying the food wholesale instead of each person going to the grocery store themselves.

I see more cons than pros with this budget.  Whether you’re from the left side or the right side there are a lot of issues that are not met with this proposal.  The other thing with this proposal is that the president is trying to make cuts and strict regulations on all safety net programs that help low income people.  

This proposal will be very hard to pass through Congress, and the money that is cut would be used for military.  Maybe the government can come up with a better replacement for the SNAP food box proposal.  

According to an article I read, Maine's governor Paul LePage threated to remove his state from SNAP if the USDA did not allow him to restrict the purchases of sugary food and drinks.  Wisconsin governor Scott Walker wants to drug test any adult who receives food aid.  There is a big social stigma against people who receive SNAP and a lot of people make judgements and stereotype everyone in the same category.  That they are all drug addicts, and lazy people who don’t want to work.  

I am very opinionated when it comes to speaking about things or talking about subjects that are important to me.  These cuts would affect my family with SNAP.  While I’m in school and raising two kids, money is very tight and without SNAP my family would not be able to eat.  I already must choose between which bill is going to get paid first; if I had to choose between bills and food that would be even more stressful.  I am glad for all the safety net programs in the country.  They help a lot of families who otherwise would struggle immensely.

Opposition to welfare

This student has written a paper about the opposition to welfare.

In today’s society, we have many programs that citizens use for receiving assistance. One major assistance program is public assistance, such as: Medicaid, supplemental nutrition program (SNAP and NSLP and WIC), and cash assistance (TANF, EITC, General Relief). There is a current proposal out that attempts to get rid of public assistance for citizens. This proposal to eliminate public assistance could affect families and people in need. According to the policy proposal, the federal government uses a lot of money to fund these programs, and it should not. For example, public housing received $15.8 billion dollars from the U.S federal government in order to fund rental assistance and public housing. Such expenditure seems like a waste of taxpayer money to those who want to get rid of public assitance.  Rather than taking money from everyone through taxes and using billions of dollars to help poor persons, these opponants of the welfare system would prefer to abolish all the welfare policies, and let people stand on their own; if they are too poor to afford housing or food, well then, they had better find a job and work hard to keep that job and earn the money they need. If they are too sick or disabled or impaired to find and hold a job, they must rely on family and private charities, but not on tax dollars taken from “hard working taxpayers” to support their lives.   However, most people support some form of welfare, and defend the public assistance programs, pointing out how these programs give families hope for food, health, and even living. Without such policies, we would be a society with greater illness, greater hunger, more homelessness, and people would even die from exposure or malnutrition or desperation.

Not only is spending all this money on funding these public assistance programs an issue for people who support the proposed policy, but some also feel that people who rely on these public assistance programs become lazy and they get comfortable with being provided for. Therefore, one believes that taking away these assistance programs will drive people to actually learn to provide for themselves. Conversely, people who are in favor of assistance programs claim that the difficulty of finding work and the difficulty of paying medical bills (since the bills can be extremely high at times) require a safety net of public programs to protect peopl from extreme economic hardship.  In particular, costs for low-income persons who have many people depending on their care (perhaps young children, elderly parents, or disabled persons living in their households) need help, since the economic system we have may not provide them with enough resources to survive, even if they do work for wages.  Some people with so many caregiving duties don’t even have time to work for money, since they must care for many children or other persons dependant upon their care.

A possible solution to benefit both sides might be to reduce the spending cost of the public assistance. This would allow the low income and others who are currently on public assistance to still receive help, but at a minimum level, and for some services a co-pay would be in effect. This is the compromise that opponants of the welfare system seek.  They want to lower the costs of Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, Rental Assistance, Public Housing, LIHEAP, SSI, and the EITC.  They know that they cannot abolish these programs, but at least they can cut budgets or change laws to reduce spending or increase fees and co-pays.  Those who defend the welfare state reject the idea that benefits for the poor turn people who are otherwise capable of independence into dependent welfare moochers. These defenders of welfare often want to increase the availability of services and programs, and claim that we need to spend more on programs that support people in poverty.  Such people may want to spend more on welfaer so that our country eliminates hunger and homelessness, and gives people an equal chance to participate in civic and cultural life. The debate between those who want to eliminate welfare and those who want to increase it will continue into the foreseeable future, because the people who support these two opposing sides are both motivated by visions of an ideal society and questions of morality and common sense.  Each side sees that they are right and the other side is wrong.

TANF may help families out of poverty, but it is too limited

Here is another student paper about TANF

For this assignment, we were asked to examine a policy that was related to welfare. I chose to focus on TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). I want to point out the positives, the negatives, and give reasons for why I believe it should become a policy change. TANF is a federally-funded program that is run by the states; it provides limited cash assistance to low-income parents and their children (Family Equality Council, 2016). The program was designed to help families reach sustainability and eventually be able to provide for themselves. In order to receive this assistance there are requirements that must be met.

Since TANF is run by the states, some requirements may be different for who can qualify for this assistance. TANF is temporary, so the requirement of receiving cash assistance from federal funds cannot exceed sixty months. “However, states can exceed the 60 month limit for up to 20 percent of their caseload based on hardship” (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2015). Work requirements are also set for the individual to receive cash assistance. The states are to impose sanctions (reduce or terminate benefits), if the individual is not meeting requirements of work activities. Most states have chosen to create the “full-family” sanctions. This simply means that failure to meet the requirements will result in removing benefits for the entire family.

This welfare program has many positives and many negatives. For instance, it allows for the opportunity of eliminating poverty for families who receive the benefit. Many of the causes of poverty are lack of jobs, inadequate housing, and poor nutrition. This program allows for the family who may be receiving low income, to receive a little extra to feed their children, pay rent and utilities, and get a car fixed up so it can carry a parent to work. This is always a benefit of cash benefit programs compared to in-kind benefit programs.  The TANF program in some states also allows you to meet with caseworkers in order to set goals. These goals include future plans to stop receiving TANF and be able to be stable with finances. The program is just not a free ride for people who do not want to work or be lazy. You must go through meeting requirements, and meet multiple times with your caseworker.

Although it seems that trying to help assist a family financially is great, there are also drawbacks of this program. The idea that you have to prove yourself eligible starts with the assumption that applicants are unworthy or undeserving until they have proved otherwise. Why not start with the idea that the amount of income you receive is not good enough to support a family of three, and this is a program that may help you? The other issue that ought to be disparaged is the time limit. While the time limit may cause the individual to want to get goals arranged for the future, what if this is the only option? For some people, they have tried multiple things and it seems no matter what, they cannot reach their full potential. After their sixty months have run out they will still have no source of income, and they will be unable to provide for themselves or their family.  Consider all the possible cases: persons who don’t quite meet the diagnostic criteria for a cognitive disability, but really have intellectual limitations that make them difficult to employ; persons who don’t meet the criteria for a full disability, so they can’t qualify for SSI or other forms of assistance, but in fact, they are very close to being disabled, perhaps due to mental or physical health problems; persons who have reoccurring health problems that make them not very dependable as workers (they miss too many days), so they lose jobs and can’t find and keep work for more than a year at a time, but over the course of fifteen or twenty years they have used up their five years of TANF; persons who are in fact a little lazy, a little sneaky, or a little unpleasant to have as employees, but they aren’t actually criminal or menacing or belligerent or entirely non-productive, they are just minimally productive.  Society has people like these, but capitalism doesn’t offer much scope for these people to succeed and become self-sufficient. TANF could be a policy that kept these people out of harm’s way, preventing them from ending up in homeless shelters, jails, hospital emergency rooms, and courtrooms.  

With both the pros and cons of the TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Family), I do believe that there should be some policy change. The time limit should be extended to families who need it. As a caseworker, you should be continuously taking into account how a family is benefitting from the program. However, if you notice that a family may almost be to their full potential and needs and extra month, extend their cash assistance. I also believe that there should be a set amount of money to be given to family sizes throughout all of the states. The federal government should be able to provide each state with the same amount of funding so that one family does not receive more than the other. Who says that this parent is not meeting the same requirements, but not receiving the same amount? With these reasons I believe the TANF program does work to help assist families, however could definitely be improved.

References

Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF. (2015, June 15). Retrieved March 1, 2017, from http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-an-introduction-to-tanf

Temporary Assistance for Needy Familes. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2017, from http://www.familyequality.org/get_informed/advocacy/after_doma/tanf/

A student considers the TANF program

A social welfare system provides assistance to needy individuals and families.  The types and amount of welfare available to individuals and families vary depending on the country, state or region.  Examples of social welfare in the United States include Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, food benefits, and Section 8 housing assistance.  

The 1996 welfare reform enacted by the Clinton Administration ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as an entitlement program and replaced the program with a block grant, called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).  TANF is a federally-funded program run by states that provides limited cash assistance to low-income parents and their children.  To be eligible for TANF, individuals must participate in work activity within two years of receiving assistance, and families are limited to a total of five years’ assistance in a lifetime.  If an individual refuses work requirements, states have the option to reduce or shut off assistance to that family.  Another important feature to TANF concerns minors.  Minors who are parents cannot receive TANF assistance unless they are living at home with their parents or in another adult supervised setting.  Minors must attend high school or an alternative educational program as soon as their child is twelve weeks old. 

TANF is funded not only by the federal government, but also by the states.  The federal government gives states a fixed block grant each year.  States that meet specified criteria may also qualify for federal contingency funds.  In 2013, states reported spending about $15 billion of nonfederal money on services intended to meet TANF’s goals. The Federal government spends about the same amount, with about $15.8 billion expected for TANF grants to the states from the Department of Health and Human Services for 2017.

TANF comes with multiple positives and negatives to the program.  Positives to the program include:

1. TANF has helped provide people with food, medical assistance, and other services.  
2. The program helps individuals stay motivated and teaches them to meet their needs.  

Negatives to the program include: 

1. Some people abuse it and do not tell the truth about their status.  
2. Since it is a cash assistance program, individuals who receive the cash can spend it on anything.  Although the money is supposed to go to necessary items such as food, clothing, and rent, some individuals are spending their cash on alcohol, tobacco, and drugs.  
3. There are also people who do not want to be part of the program because they are embarrassed or for other personal reasons. 

Today, there are many different flaws in the TANF program.  TANF only exists on a short-term basis leaving those who depended on it hopeless.  The continuing growth of the human population is making TANF become ineffective because of the insufficient budget.  Another flaw within the program is that while states can set their own time limit policies, they cannot provide cash assistance from federal TANF funds for longer than 60 months to a family that includes an adult recipient.  This leaves individuals without a source of income. 

In conclusion, there are many positives and negatives to TANF today.  TANF over the years has helped low income families stay on their feet, pay for food, and put a roof over families’ heads.  While TANF aims to assist in the prevention of poverty, it only serves to keep its individuals on the brink of poverty.  

Here is another list of benefits and harms of the TANF program:

1) It is a cash benefit.

This is beneficial because it allows recipients to have some autonomy and dignity, as they may manage their own money.  It also maximizes their freedom, because it allows them to use the money for whatever is their most pressing need.

This can be harmful, because some TANF recipients have very poor financial literacy, and they may waste or squander their cash benefit.  Some who suffer from addictions will use their benefits on pursuing their addictions.

2) It offers only very little money.

This is beneficial because the small benefit levels do not attract people to become poor so that they qualify for benefits.  It also is so low that even when people receive TANF, they need more money, and so they will look for work to earn more money, and that will help them become independent and get off of welfare.

This is harmful because even poor persons should live with dignity and have their basic needs met.  During the periods when people need TANF, they need to focus on their parenting, or focus on building their skills, or focus on finding a good job.  If the benefit level is so low that they must hustle around and try to make ends meet, they will not have the energy or time to devote themselves to the tasks that are more important.  Also, the low benefit levels may make it impossible for people to have phones or cars, and so they may miss opportunities to take jobs or study.

3) There are time limits.  If you have not found a job in a certain amount of time, you benefits can be cut.  After five years in of receiving benefits in your life, you may never receive any more benefits.

This is beneficial because it makes it impossible for people to become dependent over a long period of time.  Since people can lose their benefits if they don’t find employment, they will be more willing to enter the labor force and work for an employer. This should make poor people more subservient and diligent in their work, since they will fear being fired, especially if they have no benefits left to gain when they are out of work.

This is harmful because some people may have chronic health problems or mental health issues or other life circumstances that put them in a situation where they need assistance for more than five years, or may take them a long time to find a reasonable employment opportunity.  The time limits will cut off support for the children as well as the parents, so that children with parents who have lost their benefits may suffer. 

4) It can be humiliating and complicated to apply for the TANF benefit, and the regular monitoring of your situation by a caseworker can be an invasion of your responsibility.

This can be beneficial because fewer people will apply for benefits.  Also, people who receive benefits can be closely monitored and coached or encouraged by their caseworkers, so that they will be less able to cheat, and more able to work toward their plans for self-sufficiency.

This can be harmful because the stigma associated with receiving TANF may push families who could use the cash benefit away from gaining it, and they will have even more financial trouble while going through a spell of economic hardship because they have not gained access to the resources that are supposed to help them. The caseworkers may treat TANF recipients with contempt or might try to enforce their own values on the recipients, possibly giving bad advice or generally making clients miserable.

5) the program is generally too small, offers benefits that are inadequate, and is too harsh in its sanctions and benefit limits.

This can be beneficial because it reduces government spending and punishes the poor for whatever behaviors brought them to the point where they have become poor.

This is harmful because it feeds the American hatred of poor people, and punishes people for life circumstances that are usually not their fault, which is unfair.

Student suggests that a Federal Child Allowance could replace the Child Tax Credit

Dear Thomas E. Price, M.D.,

My name is [Student’s Name]. I am writing because I know that you are the head of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and I would like to advocate for a new child tax credit policy and possibly re-introduce a new policy to help the country’s suffering children. Experts who specialize in poverty and child well-being have suggested Federal child allowances and Federal Child Development Accounts, and I think that such policies could cause a large impact on every child in the United States while helping their caregivers as well. 

As of now, our country has the highest child poverty rates among advanced nations. In 2015, 13.1% of American children were food insecure and 19.7% of Americans under the age of 18 were in poverty (“Hunger and Poverty”, n.d.).  Such statistics are evidence that our nation is failing to do everything it can to prevent horrific levels of deprivation among children. However I know that we allocate enormous amounts of money, spending it on child hunger and child anti-poverty programs annually (for example, $23 billion on child nutrition programs, $19.6 billion on child tax credit refunds where credit exceeds liability for tax, a high percentage of the $71 billion we spend on Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program benefits, etc.), but this money is not spent well. The money that goes toward child poverty hardly affects the children who are the very worst off; instead, kids who are higher up on the ladder are getting extra assistance.  The children in the poorest families, where parents cannot get TANF, and may have difficulty getting SNAP, perhaps because they are homeless, as depicted in the recent book $2 A Day, are abandoned and harmed by our present welfare system.

I have been researching, reviewing, and learning about one of the current programs that is to help the kids who are not well off: the child tax credit. I have found that the child tax credit has a hard time reaching the severely poor families. The majority of families who receive this assistance are those who have a moderate and middle income. You would think that the people who have low to zero income would be the ones who would find the most use of this money for the children. Granted, the middle and moderate families need the help too. In fact, almost all of America could use an extra boost to ensure their kids are getting some type of aid. These tax credits help the poor by providing credit up to $1,000 per child who is under the age of 17. One of the first flaws that strikes me is that this child tax credit helps the working family. Does that mean that the people who are out of work or are unable to work do not qualify for this tax credit? Are we excluding the children whose parents are not employed from this financial boost? Also, the fact that a child is no longer eligible once he or she turns 17 can cause a burden as well. I believe that the age should be raised. The child tax credit is also confusing to file for, making it a burden for families who are unfamiliar with the process. There are many additional options that can add onto the original credit, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Additional Child Tax Credit. Lastly, one may be overwhelmed while trying to decide whether or not their child will qualify for the support. The child tax credit is providing some help, but it is seldom working. It does not help everyone—so why not try something new?

I think that the government should provide a monthly check to every child in the country regardless of income or socioeconomic status. The government would get rid of some of the child tax credits completely and instead write a check every month to families with children. Having these allowances will ensure that every single child have an equal starting base. The parents will have cash to provide food, clothing, shelter, school supplies, and other basic needs. The vulnerable will have a floor that will be hard to fall under. They know that money will be provided to help care for their family. The parent will need to claim the number of children they have and a check will be provided to each. It’s a simple process unlike the child tax credit. Obviously children age 17 and under will be able to obtain the check, but I think that the transition years of 18 through 20 should still be given a check unless the child themselves identifies as independent. The reason I think this would be an adequate addition is because at this is a confusing age for many young adults. It is this time that they are trying to go to college, which is expensive! Many students will go to a university close to home so that they can reside at home for a few more years to save a few thousand dollars. This is another two years that they are relying on their guardians to provide meals and a place to sleep. This is another two years that families could use the assistance. By the age of twenty someone tends to start to get a grip on their life and can begin to help with their own finances. This policy will treat everyone equally. No one person will receive more or less money based on income. It will be an easy process of apply and receive. Kids will have a solid base. The positives out weigh the negatives.

One of the biggest concerns will be how expensive this policy will be. I was thinking that each child’s check would be roughly $250 per month, equally about $190 billion a year (Porter, 2016). Yes, at first glance that seems like an outrageous amount, but hear me out. Simply by cutting the child tax credit, the country could pay for half of that already. Also, by giving out these allowances an enormous amount of people could be lifted out of poverty. People will be able to buy more, which will help the economy. According to John Maynard Keynes, the best way to help an economy was to spend more! With less people in poverty, more people will be able to contribute to spending, which will affect the supply and demand of products and boost our economy. Another hesitation is that citizens that don’t actually need the help will still receive a check. In reality, we could all use the help, but the point of the universal access is that everyone is treated equal. There will be zero uproar about someone having access to more money than someone else. It will be a set amount that each and every child will receive.

I hope that this letter has made you think about the current policy and has opened your eyes to a new possibility. The child tax credit does help some children who are in poverty, but there are still many glitches with the idea. I think that having a stagnant cash amount given to each child will provide a steady base for all. Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, 

[Student’s Name]

This is a good example of a student’s letter to a person in the government in which a student analyzes a policy proposal and makes a recommendation, or writes a letter of advocacy.  

In response to the student’s paper, I had a few suggestions to make concerning the proposed policy.  

1. As most children are poor at young ages (poverty rates for children aged 0-11 are far higher than poverty rates of children aged 12-18), the allowance for younger children could reflect this by being larger than the allowance for older children.
2. You could compare this to the guaranteed minimum income.  I know that my idea that every citizen ought to have a guaranteed minimum income is controversial and radical, because most Americans think it is fair to force people into the capitalist labor market by denying benefits to able-bodied working-aged adults who do not or will not take employment.  But, no one expects children to work, and most of us expect that elderly persons should be allowed to retire and rest in their final years.  So, why not provide a guaranteed minimum income for children and the elderly, since we have no objections to their being out of the labor force?  
3. A Federal Child Allowance program can be used as a reward for children who remain in school and avoid problems with the law.  Children who have high rates of being absent without excuses from school or who do not attend school could have their allowances cut or eliminated, and young persons who are convicted of crimes or status offenses could also lose some of their allowance benefits. Students who meet particular academic milestones might get a little bonus with their benefits. 
4. It probably would make most sense to split the child allowance into two accounts; one would be a child development account, and the money in that account could be used to make a down-payment on a home, pay for education-related expenses, pay for health care, or pay for investment in a business. The other income stream would be a “living allowance” for families (very much like a refundable child tax credit), used for child care, food, clothing, housing, school supplies, transportation, and entertainment.  

I would give every child age 0-11 a living allowance (refundable child rearing tax credit) of $4800 per year ($400 per month), and $200 per month ($2,400 per year) for young persons aged 12-19 (provided they were still in school or vocational training programs).  I would give every child a “Child Development Account” of $5,000 at birth, and add $2,100 to that each year ($175 per month or $2,100 on each birthday) up to age 20 (provided the young person was in school and not found guilty of any crime or status offense).  That could be a lifetime benefit of $47,000 for each person born in the USA, and would pay a significant portion of college expenses and also pay for a downpayment on a home or condominium. 

Assuming no one ever lost benefits for dropping out of school, or had benefits reduced for crimes or school absenteeism, and everyone continued getting benefits to the maximum age because of remaining in school or getting vocational training, the total cost per year would be $512 billion. (I have used Census estimates for the American population by age and multiplied by the benefits I've suggested).  But, there could be reductions (considerable reductions) for SNAP, NSLP, Medicaid, Student Loans, and the existing tax expenditures for the child tax credit (which would be eliminated).  I estimate a $16 billion reduction in SNAP spending, a $8 billion reduction in NSLP, a $30 billion reduction in Federal Medicaid, a $4 billion reduction in student grants and loans (and corresponding tax credits associated with loans), and a $5 billion reduction in the child credit tax expenditure (eliminated) and various other tax credits associated with child care.  So, perhaps $60 billion in reductions to existing programs would leave the net cost of this policy at $452 billion.  I would pay for it by transferring $178 billion from the Defense Department budget (cut that budget by about 30%), eliminating the deduction for home mortgage interest (saving $83 billion), and raising $191 billion by increasing income taxes on households earning $50K to 100K by about 2 percentage points (actual income taxes paid would go from 14-15% to 16-17%), increasing income taxes on households earning $100K to $200K by 2.5 percentage points (actual income taxes paid would go from 17.5% to 20%), raising income taxes on households earning $200K to $500K by 3 percentage points (actual income taxes paid would go from 24% to 27%), raising income taxes on households earning $500K to $1 million by 43 percentage points (actual income taxes paid would go from 29% to 33%), and raising income taxes on households earning over $1 million by five percentage points (actual income taxes would go from about 33% to 38%).  I have used the IRS report on tax returns from 2014 (filed in 2015) showing actual incomes earned and taxes paid to calculate these tax rates and the revenue we could expect by these tax increases.

I think we can defend our nation adequately spending $425 billion a year instead of over $600 billion per year on the Defense Department, and I think wealthy people can afford to pay 38% instead of 33% of their income in taxes. The benefits we would gain by having so many children lifted out of poverty with these $4,800 per year spending allowances given to every family would be unimaginably tremendous.  The child development accounts would also have a terrific impact on our society.  Imagine the increase in home ownership, and the decrease in college debt this policy would give us.  Imagine the decrease in crime that would follow from young people having all this money saved up and the decrease in poverty.  

Since I’m worried about overpopulation, I think parents would only get the child allowances for their first three children, and then fourth children and subsequent children would get no further benefits, but there would be no limit on adopted children (and I’m not proposing elimination of the Child Adoption Tax Credit, either).  

Immigrant children would get the benefits after naturalization, but there would be no retroactive bonus of benefits for the child development accounts (you can’t immigrate here when you are five, and then get the $5,000 initial deposit you would have received if you had been born here).  There would also be regulations with the benefits so that they would be paid to parents who were citizens, so if you are visiting here from abroad (you aren’t an American citizen) and your child is born here (your child is a citizen), and then you return abroad with your child, your child would not get the living allowances or additional contributions to the development account while living with you abroad, but they would still get the initial “American citizen born in the USA” benefit of $5,000 in the development account, and allowance benefits for every month they lived here with their parents, and annual development account benefits for every year in which they lived more than half the year in the USA.  The development account benefits could only be spent in the USA (business investment, housing purchase, health care expenses, and educational expenses in the USA are legitimate uses of the development account, but not expenses abroad, aside from study-abroad semesters or foreign language study abroad when permanent residence is in the USA).  

Works Cited

Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2017, from http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html

Porter, E. (2016, Oct 18). Giving Every Child a Monthly Check for an Even Start. Retrieved Feb 26, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/business/economygiving-every-child-a-monthly-check-for-an-even-start.html?_r=3 

Student examines welfare reform from the 1990s

In my social welfare and policy class we study the history of social welfare policy and services. The policies and services are introduced through lecture and text.  We also study the client(s) in relations to policy and services, sometimes as their advocates. One of the text required for the class is “$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America” written by Kathryn J. Edin and H. Luke Shaefer. This informative book spoke on the history of welfare and its reform, formally known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), now known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The book explained the purpose of reform was to keep people from taking advantage of the system and to help those on the program become independent. Edin and Shaefer also gave insight, actual people, dealing with the system and the current effects of the reform. The requirements when you apply consist of an address proving where you reside (lease and rent receipt), your recent pay stubs (if working) or proof of any income (SSI, Disability, retirement child support,..etc), proof of income for everyone living in the household, your checking and savings account statements (cannot exceed $2,000), birth certificate, and social security card. I was a bit curious and decided to search the internet for more information on the welfare reform and came across a research report conducted in 1998 by Michigan State University. “Social Welfare Reforms in the Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio Wisconsin”, written by Dr. Fayyaz Hussain. Dr. Hussain received his Ph.D. from Michigan state University in 1991, his expertise includes: poverty, hunger, social demographics and rural sociology.

Per Dr. Hussain the new policy for food stamps in the state of Illinois states:

1. Food stamps will be given out for only 12 months (can be extended for 12 months if a person in the household is elderly or disabled)
2. People would be found ineligible for any of the following reasons.

 A) refuse to register for employment 

B) refuse to participate in job training programs

C) refuse to accept an offer for a job

 D) quit a job.

I feel the problem with the reform is it has narrowed the requirements so much that people who qualify and benefit from the program the most are denied or do not qualify at all, because of a technicality. I feel the system is not equipped to deal with individual cases that need special circumstances granted to ensure the health and wellbeing of the individual and/or children, mainly because it does not address the needs of the clients as individuals upon initial contact.

 This book read to me like a novel put together of some of my friends and family life experiences. I was born and raised in Chicago and knew stories like the ones in the book all too well. In the book, it shows how the system reformed to help people has put them in more chaos (poverty, hunger, and homelessness). 

The system was set up to serve and provide for the public the basic needs for survival but people’s circumstances and needs vary. The policy requirements can be unrealistic for someone homeless with children. What if a woman finds a job that requires her to be outside past the homeless shelters curfew time. It leaves her with the decision of being homeless with snap benefits and a job but will she be able to keep the job while fighting homelessness. If she quits she in most definitely going to be kicked from the program. An example in the book illustrated a woman and her daughter that was forced to live with distant relatives in which her daughter was sexually assaulted by the family member. The people in the book want what most of middle and upper class people take for granted, a stable home, stable work, and food. I think the system needs to be revised again to better serve the people in need. We all deserve to be fed and safe at night in a home with our loved ones. The US is a rich, powerful, and influential country yet our people are homeless and starving everyday. 

The welfare system in the USA has an assumption that people should be in the labor force.  They must take jobs if jobs are available.  The suitability of the job or the job conditions are not of much significance. This shows that the welfare system serves the needs of the employers, who need a group of desperate potential workers who will take jobs that are low-paying and dehumanizing.  If we allowed people to receive welfare support until they found satisfactory jobs that were suitable for them, our workers would be more selective about the sort of work they accepted.  But this gets at a fundamental problem of how work is organized: to get things made, it seems there are always going to be some jobs that are dirty, difficult, or dangerous.  If this was a society that valued the humanity of workers, we would let workers take those jobs only if they were well-paid, or we would use a system that allowed them to avoid such jobs.  But, as it is, our welfare system and our political ideologies are not oriented toward the well-being of humanity: we are instead most interested in the interests of owners and businesses and employers, and so we have a fairly miserly welfare system.

Student would be more lenient with TANF

In this reaction paper, the student describes the basics about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and points out that sanctions against families where parents have failed to make progress toward independence and self-reliance may harm blameless children.

Temporary Assistance for needy families (TANF) is a program that provides temporary assistance for families with one or more children, and pregnant women. It provides families with financial assistance to help pay for everyday living such as, food, housing, and any other expenses other than medical expenses. For poor families with children, TANF would be one of three or four basic welfare provisions to help the family: Medicaid would help cover medical costs and medical insurance, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program funding, as well as free school lunches, would help with food expenses, and the family could get cash through TANF and the Earned Income Tax Credit (if they were earning some money). There are only certain people who qualify for TANF: In Illinois, in order to qualify you must live in Illinois, you can still qualify even if you are homeless. You must be a US citizen or meet certain immigration requirements, so undocumented residents from other countries don’t qualify.  TANF is for families with children, so you must be pregnant or have children under 19 years of age that still live at home. Some women who are pregnant and have no prior children can still sometimes receive TANF, along with their husbands that live with them. In order for families to keep TANF they must create goals to become self-relient and follow steps working toward those goals. In the TANF programs there are additional transitional services offered to help the families stay on task to reach their goals. A few examples of this would be: 1) GED preparation if the TANF recipient is not a high school graduate, 2) vocational training, and 3) help with childcare. There are more transition services that are offered to help. A person that qualifies for TANF for their family may qualify for medical services through Medicaid, and SNAP benefits, and if they are pregnant or have young children, WIC might also offer help with food and nutritional counseling.  

               I personally believe that TANF is a wonderful way to help out families in need . There are a few things that TANF needs to work on though. There are certain requirements that parents have to meet in order to keep TANF and its benefits, but if these certain requirements are not met—and they must be continuously met—the family is in some way “punished.” I do believe that the parents should keep up on all their goals and requirements all the time to keep TANF, but it’s not fair to the kids if their parents get “punished” and they lose out on meals, and since TANF may help with rent, cutting TANF because of a parent’s failure could mean that children would become homeless. TANF is a great way to get families off of welfare and to get them back on the right track, but there are some unrealistic requirements for families. The parents should be allowed to keep their benefits for the sake of their children so long as they are making a good and honest effort, and have met most of their goals, if not all of them.

You point out an essential issue in all programs of welfare for children.  Children are generally not held accountable for their own behavior, let alone the behavior of their parents.  Children have a right to housing, medical care, and food, and society would like to ensure that all children have these things.  And yet, welfare benefits for children must go through their parents. And, parents can be held responsible for their behaviors. So, what are we to do as a society when a family with children is in a desperate financial situation because of parental behaviors that do not conform to society's expectations?  If we punish or sanction the parents for their failures or transgressions, we are punishing also their innocent children.  If we give the children enough welfare to keep them secure in their housing, well-fed, and maintain their access to medical care, then by extension we must be providing at least housing and adequate food for their parents as well.

In the past we gave an assurance that we as a society would give poor families with children something, and we had a program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) that provided cash benefits to poor families.  In most states those cash benefits were very meager, and insufficient to provide decent housing and a good diet, let along recreational opportunities enjoyed by other children.  Some people claimed that AFDC was creating an incentive for poor young women to have children so they could get the AFDC benefits.  There was some evidence that there was a very, very slight increase in births to young unwed mothers in states where AFDC benefits were the most generous compared to those in states where AFDC benefits were stingy, and of course there was anecdotal evidence of persons who had children without fear of economic consequences because they expected their lives to improve with the ADFC cash benefits and perhaps housing benefits and food assistance they would get by having children. The vast majority of women were not interested in having children and then struggling along with welfare benefits, but for a very few of the very poorest young women, the welfare system was helpful, and this made some people angry.  

So, there was talk of changing AFDC. Some very radical "family values" politicians suggested that we could take poor children away from their poor parents if those parents were reliant on welfare, and in this way we could give benefits to the children (and their foster parents or adoptive parents) while cutting off benefits to their unworthy poor parents.  There was even talk of using orphanages as an alternative to the welfare system, based on the idea that we needed to remove the welfare incentive that encouraged a few poor women to have children (good research showed that this number of women encouraged to have children because of welfare benefits was miniscule, but that didn't matter, the moral problems with providing welfare that encouraged dependence rather than independence were judged to be of primary importance.

In the end, people pointed out that there was a greater moral problem with taking away children as punishment for poverty, so talk of removing poor children from their parents diminished. However, with TANF we did get rid of the idea that the public would always support poor children with some cash assistance.  Now, with TANF, we still assure children that they will have food (through SNAP) and medical care (through Medicaid), but we do not ensure that their families will have cash.  If their parents are chronically ill or in some way incapable of finding and holding a job, and if the parents then use up their TANF benefits or fail to keep on pace toward independence, then we will cut the family off from cash assistance, and the family won't get TANF any more. Thus, poor American children today face a real risk that their parents will not qualify for TANF, and during job loss, poor health, or sudden loss of income when parents break-up, their families will have little or no cash income.  We are now a society that is willing to allow children to live in desperate poverty if their parents are sufficiently poor.  This may only be a problem for the very poorest American children, but for perhaps a million of such children, homelessness is a real risk, and living in a household where cash incomes are below $2 per day per person is what they face.