NAME Short Answer Questions Answer 5 of 9 Questions (20 points each;

NAME

Short Answer Questions

Answer 5 of 9 Questions (20 points each; 100 pts total)

When you submit your answers BE SURE TO CLEARLY INDICATE WHICH QUESTIONS YOU ARE ANSWERING. Copy or paraphrase the question and question NUMBER into your answer document. Also: when submitting your essay answers, please use a WORD document, not a google (pages) document.

After the election of Bill Clinton (who famously promised to “end welfare as we know it”) in 1992, the welfare reform debate heated up: with conservatives and liberals taking different positions on how AFDC should be changed. Looking at Appendix C, identify and briefly describe ONE reform proposal associated with each of the two dominant political orientations in America and briefly (in a few sentences) explain why it reflects the political orientation to which you assigned it.

General Political Orientation

Policy Idea

(pick a label from App. C)

Why this idea fits with this political orientation

Liberals

Conservatives

In the Table in Appendix A, there is a category for “stringency of eligibility” (people sometimes also refer to this dimension of analysis as “accessibility” of a program). Address the following three questions about this category:

What does “stringency of eligibility” mean? (Just the basics, no need for long answers)

What sorts of things (aspects of a program’s design) does stringency of eligibility refer to?

Why do policy analysts and social workers care about stringency of eligibility?

Looking at the table in Appendix A: Medicare is currently funded exclusively by the Federal Government and is administered also at the Federal level. If one were to propose a policy that shifted both funding and administration of the program to the STATES, would liberals likely be pleased or displeased by such a move. Please explain why they would be pleased/displeased and what arguments they might make for/against such a change.

Again looking at the table in Appendix A: pick two programs to compare and contrast. One program should be a good model of a social insurance program; the other should be a good model of a public assistance program. Using at least three of the six dimensions of structural characteristics, explain how these programs differ from one another – and why you code one program a social insurance program and the other public assistance.

*Note: public assistance programs are generally thought to reflect the philosophical tenets of the Residual welfare state model, whereas Social Insurance programs are generally thought to reflect the philosophical tenets of the Institutional model.

Explain how the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (which ended AFDC and established TANF in its place) changed the old AFDC program. Give at least THREE examples of how this legislation changed AFDC. Pick ONE of these changes and explain how LIBERALS would have responded to it (favorably or unfavorably).

*note that you are rewarded for answers that appreciate the nuances of policy viewpoints. Oftentimes in policy, it’s not that one is automatically for or against a policy idea; it has to do with how a proposal is designed.

Let’s think back to the 1960’s Great Society, and think about the establishment of MEDICARE and MEDICAID, in particular. Summarize how each of the three primary political ideologies felt about these programs. How would you characterize each group’s reaction on a range from Favorable to Unfavorable? (appendix B might be helpful for this answer).

Be sure to summarize the reaction of EACH ideological group:

Conservatives:

Liberals:

Social Democrats:

Describe the main features and/or programs of the War on Poverty. What sort of perspective on poverty is reflected in these programs? How did these programs aim to reduce poverty in America?

Would you say America leans more in the direction of a RESIDUAL welfare state, or an INSTITUTIONAL welfare state? Explain your answer with at least three reasons or examples.

The primary accomplishment of the Roosevelt Administration’s “New Deal” legislative agenda was the enactment of the Social Security Act. From the perspective of Social Democrats who tend to prefer the establishment of an Institutional Welfare State, what element was missing? Why was that omission problematic in their eyes? Now think about the current political climate: what do you think the chances are that legislation creating this “missing pillar” of the welfare state will be enacted in the next 4 years? Explain your assessment.

Appendix A: Structural Characteristics of U.S. Federal Government Social Welfare Programs

Policies

Entitlement vs. Non-Entitlement

Categor-ical or Universal?

Benefit Type

Cash v. In-Kind

Stringency of Eligibility

Hi v. Medium v. Low

Funding Source

Fed v. State v. Shared

Admin-istration

Federal v. State/Local

Soc Insurance

OR Public Assistance?

AFDC

Med

Shared

TANF

Categorical

High

State (w min Fed guidelines)

SSI

OASDI

Federal

Unemployment Insurance

Cash

Shared

Medicaid

Medicare

Entitlement

Food Stamps (SNAP)

Categorical (Means tested)

Federal

PS: Yes, it is intentional that this table is partially filled out.

PPS: Two other things you might want to consider when comparing and contrasting programs is a) their BENEFIT LEVELS and b) whether or not the population associated with the program (by the general public) is deemed – whether fairly or not – to be “deserving” or “undeserving”.

Appendix B: Views on social policy and other “public issues” by conservative, liberal and social democratic political orientations

Views of…

General Political Orientations

Conservative

Liberal

Social Democratic

Social Justice

Individualistic

Redistributive

Solidaristic / Communal

The Welfare State

Keep it small and residual

Leans Institutional, but not like those crazy social democrats! They like government, but don’t want it too big.

Faith in Government

Low

High (unless gov’t itself is “captured’ by big business and the wealthy

Poverty & Inequality

Culture of Poverty

The general size and scope of social welfare programs

Should be reduced so that we move closer to the ideal of the “residual” welfare state.

More universal benefits: like health care and day care!

The Old AFDC welfare system

What should “welfare reform” do

Appendix C

Trade Adjustment or JOB RETRAINING

Day Care Subsidies

TEEN PARENT assistance In-home only

OLD FASHIONED Public Service Jobs

Personal Counseling and Family Therapy

Job Search and other “DIVERSION” assistance

JOB SEARCH

Parenting Skills Programs

Community Work Experience Jobs

Community Work Experience JobsIt’s a Smorgasbord of Policy ideas!

Medicaid Extension

Medicaid Extension(Mostly TANF oriented)

Raise Min Wage!

END ALL CASH ASSISTANCE

Transportation Assistance

Pro Labor Trade Policies

National Health Care

TIME LIMITS

Increased and Tougher Sanctions

“Marriage Incentives”

Family CAPS

Basic Work Training, OJT, for welfare recipients

BLOCK GRANTS!

Adult Education Grants (basic Ed)

HARD Work Requirement

Reduced Work Exemptions

Brief Details of Policy Proposals that were advanced during the “welfare reform” debates of mid-1990’s that eventually led to passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA) of 1996).

Proposals

Brief Description

Effect on Overall Program Budget

END all Federal Cash Assistance

End the Federal Grant; states may continue to fund their portion of cash grants. The objective: to cut benefit levels by at least 50% in most states. This policy would also effectively grant states complete control over welfare administration, meaning that conservative states would be able to reduce welfare benefits, make eligibility much more stringent and impose more conditions on recipients.

REDUCES A LOT!!!!

BLOCK GRANT!

Change AFDC from an open ended commitment to cover all eligible cases & give STATES a single once a year lump sum from the fed govt to fund their welfare programs

This entails…

End AFDC’s entitlement status

Cap the federal contribution to state cash welfare program at 1996 levels [$16B in 1996 dollars; that’s = to about $24B in 2014 dollars)

Allow States to spend Block Grant funds within BROAD guidelines – i.e. give them maximum administrative flexibility in how to spend federal funds, and how to design their own welfare programs.

MODERATE REDUCTION

No immediate savings but over time “cap” on spending = significant savings b/c Fed contribution doesn’t adjust for inflation.

Time Limits

Two versions: a tougher option (top) and less extreme version (bottom)

Hard Limit: Limit total time a family head can be on welfare to 5 years. After that ALL cash assistance to household stops.

MODERATE REDUCTION

lowers welfare expenditures over time (esp the hard limit version) as people hit their 5 yr lifetime limits.

Lite Limit: Limit amount of time on welfare that recipients can receive aide without working to no more than 2 years; after which family head must comply with work requirements (see above) or face sanctions – up to grant termination.

HARD Work Requirement: All welfare recipients will be required to engage in job search and job placement activities as a condition for receiving welfare

Force Welfare Applicants to undergo 2 mos of job search in first 2 mo on welfare – and to take a job if one is identified.

More funds to states to bulk up welfare office’s capacity to locate market based jobs, as well as businesses willing to create “supported” transitional jobs.

Most welfare recipients will be compelled to take any job that caseworkers can identify and place them into.

For some extreme cases, public “community service” jobs will be created and subsidized by the state. But! Only 20% of caseload can qualify for this option.

NO MAJOR EFFECT

Remember! We’re not creating a bunch of “training and education” programs. No Way! This is tough love! The only extra costs will be to hire social workers to arrange job slots w local private businesses and local govt for recipients

LITE Work Requirement

Community “work experience” Jobs

Proposals vary, but this one is requires some % of recipients to either take a job the state welfare office finds, or accept a 20hr/wk “community service” job, created by state. CS jobs are not “paid”; one simply is working for the same benefit grant they’d have normally gotten under old system. A sort of mini version of the “public jobs” proposals. These are short term “supported” jobs designed to teach basic work skills.

MODERATE TO HIGH INCREASE

Depends on % of recipients that each state mandates to work. And depends on what sort of Community Work Experience jobs the State creates.

Family Caps

If recipient has additional child(ren) while on welfare, welfare grant is not upwardly adjusted to new family size. If you enter welfare as a family of three, you only get benefits for 3 person household, it doesn’t go up if/when a recipient has an additional child while on welfare.

SMALL DECREASE

Saves small amount by not increasing grants (But this is rare anyway…)

Marriage Incentives

Allow recipients to get 6 mo transitional grant extension upon marriage. Promote state programs to encourage marriage (counseling etc)

VERY SMALL INCREASE

Teen Parent Restrictions

Teens must live at home to receive welfare check UNLESS they can demonstrate to a judge that their home is an abusive environment.

NEUTRAL

Parenting Skills programs

Incentives to states to focus more services on parenting classes, counseling on balancing work & family

VERY SMALL INCREASE

Increase Therapeutic Services

Additional funds for individual therapy

Additional funds for substance abuse treatment.

Additional funds for parenting classes, family treatment

MODERATE INCREASE

Transitional Assistance

Various supports to recipients who leave welfare for a job in private sector that help ease the transition (recall that under AFDC & other public assistance programs’ eligibility rules the “effective tax” on wages of first job was very high b/c with higher income folks often saw Medicaid get cut, housing subsidies cut, Food Stamps cut.

Extend Medicaid 2 yrs beyond leaving

Extend Food Stamps (now “SNAP”) 2 yrs after leaving

Give 1 yr of subsidized child care

Transportation assistance

SMALL to MODERATE INCREASE

Increase Training & education

Increased funding for Vocational Training

Increased funding for remedial education (GED, Associates Degree programs, ESL classes)

MODERATE INCREASE

Expand DAY CARE

Expand AFDC day care subsidies all the way to Universal Day Care

Increase AFDC expenditures for childcare for welfare recipients who take mandated work requirement jobs

MODERATE TO VERY LARGE INCREASE

(double the budget?)

Raise the Minimum Wage and / or increase the EITC

EITC = Earned Income Tax Credit

Both proposals are attempts to “make work pay” by increasing the effective wage of low wage jobs.

Neither proposal is specifically a change in the AFDC program itself, but they would affect the program by making work more attractive.

Both also have costs associated. EITC increases are direct expenditures by government

NEUTRAL

Raising min wage doesn’t affect the welfare budget at all. It’s a regulatory action by government.

Public Jobs

Create a system of public jobs (paying a bit above min wage) for welfare recipients (or their unemployed spouses or non-custodial parents) much akin to New Deal-era programs like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Target: about 50% of welfare family heads (2-3million)

LARGE INCREASE

Probably requires a whole new program outside of TANF

UNIVERSAL DAY CARE

Some version of universal or near-universal day care. Everyone who is working and has dependent children 5 yrs old and younger will have access to free (or at least very well subsidized) quality child care.

NEUTRAL

Because it would be entirely outside of TANF budget, but make no mistake it would cost taxpayers a LOT of $$$

UNIVERSAL CHILD ALLOWANCE

(..to substantially replace AFDC…)

Let’s be like Sweden! Instead of supporting only very poor single moms, US gov’t should establish a social security-type Universal Child Allowance that gives supporting parents roughly $5000/yr for ($400/mo) each child for their first 2 or first 5 years of life (depends on how many years you want the subsidy to last.

NEUTRAL

Because it would be entirely outside of TANF budget, but make no mistake it would cost taxpayers a LOT of $$$

NOTE: We are GREATLY simplifying proposals for the purpose of this exercise.

Order Plagiarism-Free Paper

Tags: Writing

PapersSpot

NAME Short Answer Questions Answer 5 of 9 Questions (20 points each;

Explore More topics

Order For an Original Customized Paper

Archives