Is Welfare a necessity for poor women and children, or is the government wasting its money on this program? In the article Poor Women and Children Need Welfare, Betty Mandell tries to prove her point that it is a necessity. Michael Tanner, who wrote the article Welfare Should be Eliminated, believes welfare is a waste of government spending. Both of the articles make vale judgments and factual points to prove their argument.
In the article by Mandell, she says the idea of the Republicans then and now is to destroy the idea that the government owed anything to people. Mandell believes that ?taking away the economic life-line of poor women and children will only make their lives vastly more miserable than they already are.
Prices start at $12
Prices start at $11
Prices start at $10
Tanner believes that the welfare system waste money and is unfair to all Americans. Tanners proof that welfare has a link to crime, Out of wedlock births, and job training being ineffective, makes him and others believe that government policies cannot improve the behavior of welfare recipients.
One reform both Mandell and Tanner believe is a ridiculous one is the Personal Responsibility Act of 1994. The PRA is a two-year time limit for welfare eligibility, during which recipients would receive job training. At the end of the two years, those individuals removed from welfare would be required to obtain work in the private sector or perform public service jobs.
The Republicans want to convert AFDC into the PRA. It would turn the program into a federal block grant and would have fixed funding for the next five years. Mandell believes the PRA is ridiculous for many reasons. One reason is because no children would be assured of receiving help in times of need, regardless of severity of the poverty or parents willingness to work. Tanner also thinks that this is a ridiculous Act.
Tanner says that 80% of teen mothers are high school dropouts, and doesnt believe that two years of job training is very likely to prepare them to obtain work in a competitive private sector. Mandell makes another argument about the PRA, and doesnt believe it is fair.
She says that the PRA suggest a broader effort to pressure all women on welfare into a repressive sexuality, limited reproductive choices and conventional family arrangements.? She also believes that it pressures women to depend economically on men with in a traditional marriage whether or not the women wants to.
Even though Mandell doesn?t like the Personal Responsibility Act, she does believe in welfare. She feels like welfare is necessary for women in poverty to survive. She also suggest that welfare is not about being lazy, and not wanting to work, it is about needing the help, and she believes that the public and government are and should be responsible for supplying this help.
She believes the general public is ignorant about welfare because the media helps to stereotype ?welfare moms.? She proves that contrary to the belief that women have babies for the extra money is a myth. She says that studies have found no link between the two.
The births are no more frequent in high benefit states with rising grant levels than in states with flat or falling AFDC payments. Tanner agrees that maybe women do not get pregnant to receive welfare, but when a young unwed teen sees that her neighbors and relatives that are also young and unwed with children, are receiving help, then that doesn?t exactly help stop her from becoming pregnant.
Even though Mandell doesn?t believe that welfare would look more appealing than having a real job with higher paying wages and benefits, Tanner disagrees. He says, ?the choice of welfare over work often is a rational decision based on the economic incentives presented.? Here is talking about the combined tax free value of welfare benefits is roughly equal to the income that can be earned at many entry level or low paying jobs.
An individual earning welfare may have to forfeit medical and childcare benefits if they were to give up welfare. Mandell feels like there should be no tax credits for people on welfare, they should just get paid more and have to pay the same amount of taxes as everyone else. While it would be nice to increase the wages of entry level employees to where the wages would be higher than welfare, the government has no way of doing so.
Mandell also believes that Welfare recipients should be given cash and not food stamps. She thinks that by giving food stamps it stigmatizes welfare recipients by embarrassing them when its time to use the stamps. This is why Tanner says that AFDC, Food Stamps, subsidized housing, and other assistance programs cannot be reformed and should be eliminated.
Since 1965, the US has spent more than 3.5 trillion dollars trying to ease the plight on the poor and it still hasn?t worked. This is why I have to go with Tanners argument. Even though Mandell makes an opinionated statement that we are entitled to a guarantee that are basic needs will be met and we are entitled to have a voice in how our welfare state will be run, Tanner has the most reasonable argument.
He says it should go back to how it used to be. Individuals unable to support themselves should be forced to fall back on resources of family, church and community, or private charity. When it comes to charitable giving, Americans are the most generous people on earth. Every year they contribute 120,000,000,000 to charity.
Either way, believing some of the reforms are ridiculous intertwines these two articles. Mandell just feels like welfare should stay, it just needs a little help, while Tanner believes it is a total waste of the governments spending.
In brief, first, the global economy has brought with it high rates of unemployment and economic inactivity in much of Europe. It has also generated strong pressures to de-regulate and create flexible labour markets with sharp rises in wage dispersion, part-time, temporary and casual employment particularly in the UK and USA.
In the wake of these changes have come substantial increases in poverty and inequality of income and wealth in many countries – markedly in the UK. This has created two important challenges for the future development of welfare policy – the relationship between employment and income equality and the threat to the perception of shared risks which underpinned Beveridge’s social insurance scheme.
The role of welfare within our society has always been controversial. This problem emphasizes the need to understand the roles of variable factors when pertaining to the subject of welfare within our society. The proposed analysis will address the phenomenon of welfare assistance and several factors which may contribute to the increase or decrease of welfare assistance to the poor in 4 ways:
- by defining major concepts and any other concepts about which there is likely to be misunderstanding
- by further examining the past history pertaining to the subject of welfare assistance within the United States
- by developing the formulation of a hypothesis which will provide for an explanation of welfare, and finally
- determining whether or not the benefits of welfare assistance outweigh the cost.
Ultimately, the purpose of this research analysis is to investigate variable factors that may contribute to the increase or decrease of welfare assistance. This cost benefit analysis is an attempt to explain the tentative assumptions of others pertaining to the subject of welfare, in order to determine and explain the relationship of welfare to the economic cost and benefits.
Cost-Benefit Analysis before welfare assistance can be analyzed there is a need to define the terms that will be used. Policies like welfare assistance are worthwhile only if the benefits to society are greater than the costs. When choosing among a set of policies, the policy with the greatest net benefit (benefit over cost) should be chosen.
Hence, this is where the term cost-benefit analysis comes from. Cost-benefit analysis is a technique for determining the optimal level of an economic activity such as welfare. In general, an activity such as welfare assistance should be expanded as long as it leads to greater benefits than costs. In purely economic terms, does the benefit of welfare assistance justify the costs of welfare assistance? (Mishan 13) Why Use Cost-benefit Analysis?
Since 1981, government agencies have been required to perform cost-benefit analyses called Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIA’s) for all major regulations within the United States. Many statutes require that cost-benefit analysis be undertaken and the results be reported to Congress (Mishan 2).
Cost-benefit analysis can also be a good way to measure how effective a policy such as welfare assistance has been, or to find ways in which a program can be improved. But, regardless of how it is used, the preparation of a cost benefit analysis provides a useful framework for consideration of the possible effects of a proposed policy.
Past History of Welfare Assistance: One of the first welfare programs to provide income support to the poor was a federally backed plan called the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program. This legislation was introduced with the establishment of the Social Security program during the Great Depression. (Rowley, and Peacock 43)
The ADC program which had started nearly sixty years ago is now better known as the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which provided a federal entitlement to economic support for single parents with children younger than 18 who fell below a threshold of assets and income (Rowley, and Peacock 44). Federal guidelines allowed for each state to set its own predetermined needs standards for families of different sizes and living locations.
Both the federal government and the states supplied funding for the AFDC program (Rowley, and Peacock 50). In 1996 Congress adopted the Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program by enacting the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act that ultimately changed the structure of federal financial assistance to the states thereby abolishing the AFDC program.
Another social welfare program was the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Congress established the Supplemental Security Income program in 1972, with payments beginning in January 1974. It replaced the former Federal-State programs of Old-Age Assistance (OAA), Aid to the Blind (AB), and Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled (APTD)(Myles, and Pierson 9).
An individual may have qualified for payments on the basis of age, blindness, or disability. Any person aged 65 or older was also eligible. President Richard Nixon enacted the Supplemental Security Income program with the signing of the Supplemental Social Insurance Act. The benefits under this program were originally targeted to the elderly who did not qualify for social security and the blind and disabled whose income and assets fell below the specified thresholds.
A third major welfare assistance program is the Medicaid program. The Medicaid program is a health care support program targeted toward the poor. Medicaid was originally supposed to provide the same health care to the poor as privately insured Americans received with their health care programs.
The Medicaid program was originally set up so all families who qualified for AFDC or SSI were automatically entitled to Medicaid benefits. Today, Medicaid is the major mechanism for financing health and long-term care for the poor in the United States. As such, the Medicaid program covers the medical expenses for over 35 million Americans at a cost of more than $152 billion a year.
Explanations for Welfare: Although the United States is a country with an extensive amount of economic resources, problems still transpire. One such problem occurs with not the amount of resources but actually how those resources are distributed among its citizens. Because of this, some citizens live in squalor or complete poverty while others live in luxury.
This poverty dilemma in the United States is usually referred to as an income distribution problem or size distribution of income. (Schiller 734) For example, some citizens have an annual income of several billion dollars while other citizens have no income whatsoever. The incidence of poverty in the United States is usually referred to as the poverty rate. The figure below shows the trend in the poverty rate between 1960 and 1995. During the beginning of the 1960s, 22.2% of the population, or 39.9 million individuals, officially lived in poverty. During the 1970s the incidence of poverty fell to 12.6% of the population.
Since 1970, the poverty rate has steadily increased to 13.8% of the population in 1995, or 7.5 million families. The figures are even greater among certain family groupings such as single family households headed by females with children under the age of 18. In fact, the highest rates of poverty are found among this group living below the poverty threshold level. (Sharp, Register, and Grimes 202) Table 1 shows the poverty threshold levels in 1995.
Table 1, Poverty threshold levels in 1992 Family Size, Threshold Level 1- $7,763 2- 9,933 3- 12,158 4- 15,569 5- 18,408 6- 20,804 7- 23,552 8- 26,237 9 or more 31,280. Again, the poverty issue affects a large portion of the United States population. It is because of the reasons mentioned above that social welfare programs have been established to help alleviate the suffering of the poor within our society.
But, what causes poverty? At first, this would appear to be a simple question to answer. Lets first define what poverty is: Poverty or poor means not having enough income to provide the essentials of everyday living food, shelter, clothing, and other basic needs.
However, many factors are at play in determining the actual causes of poverty. They include low quality of resources, low market values on the services they provide in a market, low productivity, low pay of the poor due to low levels of education and training, misfortune, small or no inheritances, and discrimination. (Sharp, Register, and Grimes 206) Because of the many factors involved there is no one simple answer to what is the actual cause of poverty. Moreover, many would argue about just how much income is needed for the essentials of daily living. The debate goes on.
Does the Benefit of Welfare Assistance Outweigh the Cost? Now that there is a general understanding of the establishment of social welfare programs, the next question to answer should be does the benefit of welfare assistance outweigh the cost? Beginning with the introduction of the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, the United States has been at a turning point with social welfare programs. For example, during 1980 the expenditures for the old welfare program, AFDC, was $5.4 billion while the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC, also a social welfare program), was $2.0 billion.
The annual cost of the EITC grew from $2 billion to $12 billion between 1986 and 1992. By 1996, annual outlays reached $25 billion, almost double the level of federal expenditures on AFDC. While part of this growth is due to a rising demand, the main reasons for expansion have been sizable benefit increases and extensions of eligibility introduced in 1986, 1990, and 1993.
(Myles, and Pierson 6) Table 2 Federal Spending on EITC and AFDC, 1980-1996 ($ In billions) EITC (first) AFDC (second) 1980: 2.0, 5.4 – 1981: 1.9, 6.9-1982: 1.8, 6.9-1983: 1.8, 7.3-1984: 1.6, 7.7-1985: 2.1, 7.8-1986: 2.0, 8.2-1987: 3.9, 8.9-1988: 5.9, 9.1-1989: 6.6, 9.4-1990: 6.9, 10.1-1991: 10.6, 11.2-1992: 12.4, 12.3-1993: 13.2, 12.3-1994: 19.6, 12.4-1995: 22.8, 12.8-1996: 25.1, 13.2 Source: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Where Your Money Goes: The 1994-95 Green Book (Washington, DC: Brassey’s, 1994), 389, 700. Note: AFDC expenditures exclude state-level spending and Administrative costs.
Although the EITC expenditures have surpassed the old welfare program AFDC, cost-benefit analysis can help identify the optimal level of expenditures of welfare assistance programs, as long as estimates of the benefits and costs of welfare assistance are supplied. Once benefits and costs are estimated, cost-benefit analysis indicates that well being will be enhanced through an increase in welfare assistance programs so long as the benefit society derives from the increase is at least as great as the cost of the increased activities.
The Opportunity Cost: The costs or money expense of welfare assistance to society is ultimately supplied through some sort of tax revenue. The economic cost to society is the value of the goods and services that resources used for welfare assistance could have produced if they had not been used for welfare assistance.
This simple concept is also known as the opportunity cost principle which states that the true cost of producing an additional unit of a good or service is the value of other goods or services that must be given up to obtain it. (Schiller 10) The opportunity cost principle can be an effective means of identifying the actual costs of welfare assistance.
The Explicit Costs: Other types of cost pertaining to welfare assistance are explicit costs. Explicit costs are the cost incurred by the producer to buy or hire the resources required to accomplish its objective (Sharp, Register, and Grimes 69). Although welfare assistance is provided by the government and not a business it does have an objective and that objective is to provide for the poor.
The explicit costs of the services provided by the government be it state or federal are the costs of the resources that it buys and hires to provide such services. Such expenses include land, employees, buildings, equipment, and etc. Welfare assistance is provided in all 50 states with offices throughout each state and probably each county. The explicit costs alone to provide for welfare assistance are tremendous.
The Implicit Costs: Another type of cost is implicit cost. Implicit costs are the costs induced by the producer for the use of self-owned, self-employed resources (Sharp, Register, and Grimes 69). These costs are sometimes ignored or tend to be hidden costs. Such costs can also be identified by the opportunity cost principle. The cost to society of producing welfare assistance could exceed explicit costs.
By the government concentrating resources or providing for welfare assistance they reduce the amount of other goods or services, for example, military hardware available to society. By the government cutting back on military hardware, which could have been sold for a profit, it is able to provide more welfare assistance to the poor. These forgone earnings are implicit costs to the government and to society of the welfare assistance obtained by the poor.
Benefits: The poor, the government, and society all receive an abundance of benefits on account of social welfare assistance programs. The most obvious benefactor is the poor. Without welfare assistance some individuals might not make it in this world. Also, the poor benefit from other social programs such as job training, childcare, educational grants, medical expenses, and tax credits. If not for social welfare assistance programs, a large majority of these individuals would have a hard time obtaining such programs.
The poor aren’t the only people to benefit from welfare assistance; the government also benefits from such programs. If welfare assistance programs weren’t available to the poor eventually the poor would have to support themselves. There are only a couple of ways to support yourself and it’s legally or illegally. If a person can’t get a job because of scarce employment or no or little job skills that individual is going to try to “obtain” money some way to put food in his/her stomach.
Without a prospering economy and social welfare assistance programs the crime rate would probably skyrocket. Finally, society in general benefits from social welfare programs. Again, if welfare assistance programs didn’t exist the crime rate would probably be very high due to the lack of the equal distribution of resources. This unequal ownership pattern of resources gives rise to an unequal distribution of income in society (Smith, and Zietz 208).
Because of the higher crime rate, resources would have to be reallocated to try and put a stop to such problems. This wouldn’t be using resources efficiently due to the high expenditures of crime prevention compared to welfare assistance programs. Also, problems such as drug use, prostitution, and many other deviant behaviors associated with crime would become rampant in a society that got rid of social welfare assistance programs.
Conclusion To some extent, the results of analysis in relation to welfare reform are in a state of waiting. The predictions following the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 have yet to be assessed, in part because they demand more time or major events such as an economic recession for a full evaluation.
Nonetheless, a cost benefit analysis has shown that programs such as welfare assistance can be beneficial to a society but at the same time be somewhat costly at times. Then again, the recent welfare reform measures that are setting time limits and job training have proven to help alleviate and shrink the welfare rolls.
Welfare gives people an incentive to avoid work. Like many citizens have neglected the responsibility to work and put the burden on the taxpayers. She relies on the welfare for temporary assistance. They are relying on welfare and welfare is being used as political growth for the United States moving products services along.
Welfare out of wedlock, childbirth and marital breakup are supported by the current evidence. She benefits many people who have low income or no means of income. She, to rely on welfare to promotes out of wedlock childbirth for her children.
Everyone, on welfare contributes to out of wed-lock child birth. 68.9 percent of women making 10,000 year, gave birth out of wedlock. Another thing, young mother gave birth was not married to 20-24 years of age. Someone, in state and congress has tried to reform welfare; the continuing growth of welfare systems has not been corrected, to stop young girls from receiving welfare benefits.
Any, American taxpayer’s has seemed that welfare systems go for a long-term life span, instead of a short term to get young women off welfare. There, has been more welfare giving to younger women who have more kids out of wedlock. Everybody, often hear it said, the more generous the government is the more, welfare, instead of finding a job to take care of their family.
A welfare system is an established program aimed at assisting the needy people as well as their families meet their basic needs. A welfare system is a term used to indicate government programs created in order to offer support to the needy citizens. Various types of welfare programs that have been created for this purpose include social security, financial aid, corporate welfare, and welfare provisions.
The government provides assistance to the people through various programs such as housing assistance, unemployment compensation, health care, child care assistance, and food stamps. In the United States, the federal government offers grants to every state through a program referred to as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
The welfare system is usually aimed at providing a base level of income to people who are disabled, elderly, retired, or unemployed. It should be noted that the welfare system deals with an absolutely large number of people and, therefore, total commitment of the government is required. The government, according to O’Connor, has a social responsibility and a moral obligation to ensure that all activities carried out by various welfare organizations come to a successful completion.
Even though the work of the welfare system is beneficial, these programs together with the involvement of the government have in the recent past faced criticism from opponents who argue that the main intentions of these programs are totally different from what the public is made to believe. This article is going to look at some of the pros and cons of the welfare system and argue them out in order to develop a middle ground.
It is important to note that welfare systems are beneficial for a modern society. Despite the fact that members of modern communities are very productive, they are usually faced by a wide range of problems that may negatively impact on their normal lives. Welfare systems have been shown to come in handy and support individual members deal with these problems.
Even though welfare programs do not offer a life that is 100% free from challenges, it acts as a means through which vulnerable members of society can be cushioned from the possible adverse effects of poor health, unemployment, lack of housing, and poor education.
Opponents of this initiative argue that these programs are usually developed with the intent of promoting certain businesses for certain people. Welfare programs are also described as indirect support of the government to various business entities. Opponents argue that the government should not interfere with the free market as this may lead to the collapse of certain businesses.
They also point out that these programs do not offer lasting solutions to most of the problems that people may be facing. It has been argued that rather than the government providing unemployment compensation to millions of people, it should come up with a strategy to ensure that all people are incorporated either in the formal or in the informal employment sectors.
It is important to note that welfare programs are meant to assist people who may be going through difficult situations to get back on their feet. However, some people may use these programs as a way of escaping their responsibilities. Some people may neglect their duties and solely rely on welfare programs for help. These are the people who develop the mentality that there is no need for them to work for minimum wage when they can get a similar amount of money for actually doing nothing.
It has been revealed that some people have been living in social houses for decades without signs of vacating. Despite the fact that these people may have attained financial stability, most of them are not willing to vacate those buildings to help other needy citizens. This cycle continues as children grow up thinking that this is the only kind of life there is.
Welfare programs are beneficial to single parents who may have a child yet they do not have the means to rear that child. Single mothers, for instance, benefit greatly from these programs since they are provided with food, finances and shelter.
It is unfortunate that a large number of people abuse these programs by simply having many children; an aspect that guarantees them continued financial assistance from welfare programs (Sather 39). It has been argued out that the financial assistance single mothers obtain from welfare programs is not enough to cater for their families.
Opponents assert that beneficiaries cannot manage to purchase all household requirements from the checks they receive from welfare. As a result, they conclude that welfare cannot offer the much needed support at the time of need. It is, however, important to note that even though welfare programs do not offer a 100% financial support to beneficiaries, it is one of the best ways through which the needy citizens can be assisted to meet their basic needs.
Welfare programs, as stated by Sather, play a significant role in ensuring that social disparities and health problems do not advance to critical stages (57). They help people maintain a living standard that is almost similar to that of financially stable people. For instance, despite low income and unemployment, people are able to maintain their homes; thereby eliminating cases of homelessness.
It is also important to note that welfare programs have played a significant role in the health sector. The establishment of Medicare and Medicaid are referred to by many as God sent initiatives that have helped millions of financially unstable US citizens. These programs offer low-cost health care to people from poor backgrounds, and as a result the general wellbeing of society is maintained (Kildar and Kuhnle 70).
Opponents argue that welfare programs do not offer a lasting solution to major problems in the lives of the people and may create unnecessary dependence. It has been argued that instead of providing financial assistance to the unemployed, they should be provided with basic skills necessary for them to earn a living .
It has also been pointed out that continued assistance from welfare may lead to deterioration of a person’s basic skills and comprehension of proper workplace behavior. Economists also assert that welfare programs are a huge financial burden to the local government.
Regardless of the funding from the federal government, states still bear the financial burden of supporting the welfare programs. Opponents argue that rather than assisting people who are to a certain extent unproductive, the millions of dollars allocated to welfare programs should be channeled to other productive sectors. These programs are largely viewed as potential channels for fraudulent activities.
Kildar and Kuhnle make it clear that people may supply false information with intent of receiving financial benefits from welfare (71). Cases have been recorded whereby welfare beneficiaries find additional sources of income, but fail to notify welfare authorities for fear of losing financial support. Reports have also been made of people who earn thousands of dollars yearly yet they provide false information in order to benefit from Medicaid.
Nonetheless, the welfare system cannot be condemned basically on the activities of a few people who are driven by misguided principles. Welfare has assisted a large number of children who have done absolutely nothing to impact on their family’s financial status. It should be noted that in addition to all children having the right to access basic needs, they should not be punished for their parent’s actions. Welfare has, to a certain extent, contributed to crime reduction.
Even though this claim is hard to prove, the fact that welfare provides financial support for basic upkeep helps ensure that people who are financially unstable do not engage in criminal activities. Welfare system is established on the perception that those in need will rise and get back on track.
Welfare has been termed as an insignificant temporary assistance that cannot solve the people’s problems, but nevertheless it provides those in need with a means to exist, in addition to encouraging them to look for employment in order to have a stable life.
It can, therefore, be concluded that even though the welfare system has in the recent times faced criticism from opponents, the work carried out by these programs is undoubtedly beneficial.
Welfare has been termed as an insignificant temporary assistance that cannot solve the people’s problems, but nevertheless it provides those in need with a means to exist in addition to encouraging them to look for employment in order to have a stable life. Welfare programs play a significant role in ensuring that social disparities and health problems do not advance to critical stages.
In today’s modern society, the United States faces many public policy issues, whether those issues include social welfare, immigration or even environmental issues. Congress receives numerous issues on public polices every day, but they cannot handle and solve every issues that comes across their daily agenda, nor can they satisfy every person in this country.
Congress prioritizes on those issues that are more important and relevant to find a probable solution too. A growing issue we see that in today’s society are issues in the social welfare system. Social Welfare has so many issues within some of those issues include the food stamps, and even in the healthcare system. The matters in social welfare requires every individuals help to resolve, not just congress.
The second major public policy issue we face in American today are within the Public Assistance Programs. Those programs include the SNAP, SSI, and even the TANF program. A major issue within the Social Welfare system is with the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP). This issue is a continuing matter, and many states themselves have put limits on what a person may buy, or use their SNAP card for.
An online article stated that “Kansas families receiving government assistance will no longer be able to use those funds to visit swimming pools, see movies, go gambling or get tattoos on the state’s dime” (Gibson).
Example #7 – The Welfare Policies And Welfare Programs
The states are also given the responsibility of deciding who is eligible for welfare and for what amount of time, though federal funds can only be provided for five years of benefits over the lifetime of the recipient. Women currently have very few options when it comes to working and caring for their children.
The next section of this paper will discuss the welfare policies aimed at alleviating the struggle of women to care provide for themselves and their children. Welfare Programs and Eligibility There are several welfare programs that are available to women in need of assistance that can be very beneficial in helping get back on track financially and become stable.
Welfare programs are state regulated programs reserved for those who live under the minimum accepted income which is determined by each state government. Welfare benefits can fall under multiple different program umbrellas, all of which require certain elements of eligibility to maintain receiving benefits.
These programs may include but are not limited to cash assistance (TANF or TAFDC), the child support program, child care, energy or utility assistance, food assistance, WIC, and medical assistance. In order to receive any assistance, you must be a U.S. citizen or a legal immigrant, and meet income and asset limits. Women contribute to a large portion of those who receive assistance benefits.
Cite this page
This content was submitted by our community members and reviewed by Essayscollector Team. All content on this page is verified and owned by Essayscollector Team. All comments and user reviews are moderated by Essayscollector Team. In the case of any content-related problem, you can reach us through the report button.