A Conceptual Paper on Factors That Affect Public Perceptions of Welfare
This is a conceptual paper to study the effects of external factors on public perceptions of social welfare. The study reviews literature on the history of social welfare during the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and William Clinton. The paper goes on to analyze three factors that play role on perceptions. These factors are values, environmental factors (economics and politics), and the media. Studies and surveys from Gilens, Gilliam, Los Angeles Times, and the National Election study were analyzed and discussed throughout the paper in the context of factors that influence perceptions. The factors outlined in the paper are analyzed using the theoretical framework of symbolic-interactionism. Symbolic-interactionism states that people act toward things based on the meaning those things have to them; and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation (Blumer, 1969).The model is appropriate for this inquiry because it allows the reader to understand how public perceptions are influenced. Minimal biased methods were used for acquiring literature for the paper. A number of databases in fields such as sociology, social sciences, psychology, and economics were used to acquire literature on the topic. Methods for conducting future research on the effects of experience on perceptions and attitudes towards welfare are provided. The findings of the paper include the types of factors that play a role on perceptions (values, environmental factors, and media), what factor appears to be most influential (media) and whether public perceptions of welfare has changed over time. Conclusions from the literature are drawn that states that living in society plays a key role in how perceptions are made, but the individual’s interpretation of the information should be taken into consideration. The paper ends with recommendations on future research on how experience with welfare affects perceptions and attitudes towards welfare; and future research to better public perceptions of welfare. Introduction
From Welfare to Work: What the Evidence Shows
he American public has made clear that work by welfare recipients is a defining goal of state and federal welfare laws, the pursuit of which deserves the highest priority in social welfare policy. One of the four goals listed by Congress in the 1996 welfare reform legislation was to encourage job preparation and work. Work among welfare recipients is widely regarded as part of the social contract—a quid pro quo for the provision of income support—as well as a source of self-esteem and self-reliance among single mothers. This in turn is thought to increase the mothers’ chances for long-term economic improvement for themselves and their children. Now that five years have passed since the 1996 reforms were enacted, the evidence shows that while much success has been attained, there are remaining concerns that Congress should debate during reauthorization. This policy brief reviews both the evidence and the concerns.
Families Sanctions and Case Closings for Noncompliance : Who Is Affected and Why
W hen the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) was enacted, public attention focused on its time-limit provisions. PRWORA established a five-year lifetime limit on the use of federal funds to provide a family with welfare benefits. It also allowed states to set even shorter time limits, and 20 did so. But relatively few families have as yet reached their limits. Far more families, it turns out, have had their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits reduced or cut off because the welfare office determined that they were not following the rules of the program. And these families, our study suggests, tend to be more disadvantaged and vulnerable than families that leave welfare for other reasons. The withholding of all of a family’s TANF benefits because they have not complied with the rules can take two forms. The first is to close the case. A common example is closing a case because a recipient failed to meet with her caseworker periodically to determine continuing eligibility for benefits. We will call this type of penalty a “procedural case closing.” (In contrast, non-procedural reasons for closing a case would include stopping benefits because a recipient found a highpaying job or because she married a man with a stable income.) The second form is known as a “full-family sanction,” in which Summary Seventeen percent of a sample of current and recent welfare recipients in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio reported that their benefits had been reduced or stopped because the welfare office said they weren’t following the rules. These penalties resulted from both partial and full-family sanctions as well as from case closings for procedural reasons. Recipients reported that the most common reasons were missing an appointment or failing to file required paperwork. Only 12 percent of the penalties were imposed for failing to take a job or to show up for a job-related activity. Individuals whose benefits were reduced or stopped were more disadvantaged than other recipients in many respects, such as education, health, financial difficulties, housing quality, and neighborhood quality. Former recipients who reported leaving the welfare rolls because of sanctions or case closings had substantially lower employment rates and earnings than did those who left for other reasons. These findings suggest that agencies and organizations may wish to give more attention to families at imminent risk of sanctions or case closings to help them come into compliance. They also suggest that families who leave welfare due to noncompliance may need more assistance in finding and retaining employment. by Andrew Cherlin, Linda Burton, Judith Francis, Jane Henrici, Laura Lein, James Quane, and Karen Bogen