Talk:Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jsuar99, Cchou19, Aso4530, Deeceebake, Jmha2016, Mirandabck. Peer reviewers: Altaalt.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joseweymann.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

POV and Poorly Researched

This article clearly repeats political propaganda without critical evaluation.

The first error I found was actually in another article, Welfare_reform, which refers to this article. This article is also found directly by searching for "welfare reform." Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was just one act in a series that started during the Reagan era and continued during the Clinton era. The general trend and agenda had bipartisan support. This bipartisan effort is part of what created the deep divide between The People and The Political Class that has become so obvious. Welfare reform was never about any of the things politicians talked about. It wasn't about personal responsibility or cutting welfare dependency. The welfare budget increased dramatically as a result. Evidence such as that presented in the article, preserves the renaming hoax - i.e. things were renamed so that I decline could be shown if you just kept looking at the outcome under one specific program label, such as AFDC. But increases were being made in other areas, including benefits that previously did not exist; with a net result of increased benefits, particularly for divorced and never-married mothers. The time limits to entitlements were also fake. Projections on the effect seem impressive to someone who has insufficient knowledge, but it was simply designed to pretend that established statistically normal outflow from welfare programs are a result of reform. Those who don't fit the profile are exempted from the stated limits. In fact, the arrangement was designed to allow a worsened statistical result. But you're not supposed to know that, because the presentation does not provide an accurate before and after comparison - just the propaganda that uses the renaming hoax to give a false picture. Two parent families were not "encouraged." In fact, it's solidly established that these reforms were part of a very powerful attack on marriage and family that goes well beyond the increased benefits for divorced and never-married mothers. Child support enforcement was a fake - simply taking credit for payments by calling them "collections," and unnecessarily paying billions every year to private companies that basically don't do anything. The child support "collection" scam not only costs taxpayers billions every year (part of the increased cost of welfare) but it led directly to the abolition of marriage; i.e. that marriage no longer exists as a "sacred, private institution" with Constitutional protection against arbitrary government intrusion. It was reclassified by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in P.O.P.S. v Gardner to "social policy" (from its former proper classification as civil law) allowing federal intrusion and removing fundamental civil rights protections. The Court's purpose was to preserve excessive and unnecessary federal funding for states that was part of the purpose of the reforms; i.e. yes - pork-barrel spending.

POV

"last hired, first fired", in fact the whole line about case loads increasing really needs to be sourced.  I'd look into it, but I'm just reading this trying to find information for a paper due soon, and obviously this won't do for a source.  67.187.48.82 01:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Seems very POV

---

I feel like this page is very biased against welfare. Others viewing this should seek better references.

POV

Couple unsigned comments above address POV issues. I agree. There have been plenty of papers arguing that PRWORA was little more than a re-institution of workhouses. It's also cluttered and doesn't go nearly enough in depth. I'm no expert, but I'll contribute as much as I can. Njfuller (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

POV

I think it is biased in favor of welfare. The sources are sociologists, who are biased. I'll give you an example. Increasing the minimum wage from 4.20 to 5.15 proves that the minimum wage does not cause unemployment. That would also be true in the 90s. It might not be true today. please get an economist on this, not a sociologist. Or get both, or a mix. Not just one sociologist.Electricbassguy (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? I taught welfare-to-work classes, and while the women in my classes were not thrilled about getting up early in the morning, they were very happy indeed about the chance to get training for better jobs.

But what I really want to ask is, why is there a section under Controversy about the 99ers, who are a new phenomenon entirely unlinked to welfare reform afaik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.26.70 (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Free encyclopedic public domain source (CRS report)

I'm adding Congress's CRS reports to their relevant talk pages, since they're so thorough and you can just copy-and-cite the content ... here's yours:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_SHORT_HISTORY_OF_THE_1996_WELFARE_REFORM_LAW%2C_February_7%2C_2001

PS : if you can think of a better talk page for this, please copy it there

• PS : see my contribs page for a list of pages I've added CRS reports to Agradman ^talk/_contribs 08:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Help adding details of new waiver

The Department of Health and Human Services recently issued a memo making a key change to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, allowing states to apply for a waiver to the work requirement that was a large part of the welfare reform discussed in this article. This is an important change, affecting the long term impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. I've written a section that can be added to the end of the History detailing this change and the reaction to it. I've quoted the Heritage Foundation here, and because I work there, I'd appreciate if anyone reading this page can review and make sure this is neutral.

Draft version 1: 2012 developments

2012 developments

In July 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a memo notifying states that they are able to apply for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program. The waiver would allow states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program, which currently states that 50 percent of a state's TANF caseload must meet work requirements. The change has been criticized by Republicans including Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and Orrin Hatch, who stated they were concerned that the memo would remove the main focus of PRWORA. According to The Heritage Foundation, the requirement to work in order to receive welfare was an "underlying concept" of PRWORA and removing this requirement "guts" welfare reform.

References

If anyone can provide their input it would be great. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If I am following this correctly, it says Republicans have criticized it and gives the opinion of The Heritage Foundation, which is a conservative think-tank. It looks like we are missing the democratic viewpoint. On an issue like this, we need to present all majority and minority viewpoints. The content is good, but needs a liberal to balance it with the other side. If you look at some political articles, you might find a liberal editor interested in working with you, or even find another COI editor from an organization that represents the opposing viewpoint. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 16:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

King4057, thanks for your input. The media coverage has largely focused on Republican reactions, which influenced how I originally wrote the section. But I appreciate that both sides should be represented in a neutral account so I've looked for more sources to help here and worked on the draft some more. The below draft includes a few more sources and some new sentences on: the HHS reason for issuing the memo; the HHS Secretary's response to Republican criticism; and a liberal view from Peter Edelman. As Edelman's Wikipedia article says, he actually resigned in protest from the Clinton administration when the PRWORA was signed, believing the work (and other) restrictions actually led to increased poverty, so he represents a good opposition view here in terms of someone who supports the waivers.

Here's the draft with the new details:

{{request edit}}

Draft version 2: 2012 developments

2012 developments

In July 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a memo notifying states that they are able to apply for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program. The waiver would allow states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program, which currently states that 50 percent of a state's TANF caseload must meet work requirements. The Obama administration stated that the change was made in order to allow more flexibility in how individual states operate their welfare programs. The change has been criticized by Republicans including Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and Orrin Hatch, who stated they were concerned that the memo would remove the main focus of PRWORA. According to The Heritage Foundation, the requirement to work in order to receive welfare was an "underlying concept" of PRWORA and removing this requirement "guts" welfare reform. In response to Republican criticism, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services said that states, including some with Republican governors, have previously asked Congress to allow waivers. According to Peter Edelman, the director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy, the waivers would reduce restrictions that increase the difficulty for states in helping TANF applicants find jobs.

References

With the additions made, this represents all major viewpoints on the issue. I'm wary of adding in minority views in case that might introduce some bias. If someone more experienced with these kinds of nuanced details wants to, maybe they could expand the section later. Do you think the paragraph as it stands is ready to add into the article now? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. I was mostly just helping clear out the queue of some obvious ones, so I'll wait for another to decide whether to implement. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, King4057. Following your basically positive response and since there haven't been any other replies, I've been WP:BOLD and added the section. If anyone has any questions about the section in the future, I hope we can discuss it on the talk page. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Reasons for Policy Reversal Section

The section on reasons for policy reversal is mostly unsourced. I think that much of it could be sourced to expressed views of one side or the other of the debate, but right now these reasons are given as if they are objectively factual, rather than that they reflect opinions held by various factions in a debate. As an example, there is this sentence: "A distinction between the 'undeserving poor' and the 'deserving poor' became apparent." This suggests -- without sourcing -- that it is objectively true that the existence of "undeserving poor" required a change in policy. There are plenty of people who would disagree, especially in relation to the children of poor families. And of course, the word "undeserving" is conclusory -- it doesn't describe an objective difference between one kind of family and the other. The article addresses the fact that some families remained on welfare by choice. Some parents might have chosen to do so because work did not effectively replace the benefits provided by welfare; some parents might have simply preferred not to work. (The latter might be called "undeserving" but it is not the place of wikipedia to make such a declaration. Wikipedia can cite Reagan or Gingrich making the declaration.) There was debate about these facts (their existence, their significance), which is addressed to some degree in the article, and is certainly capable of being addressed with properly-sourced factual statements. "Reasons for Policy Reversal" is also a somewhat iffy section title. A comprehensive list of "reasons" would have to include political reasons, which for many players probably had nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the underlying legislation. David.thompson.esq (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Human Rights Abuse Category

Can anyone explain why this is in the Human Rights Abuses in US category? I don't see anything about human rights under Criticism. Fhqwgads (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Added 2 years ago without explanation. --Jeremyb (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The article has greatly improved over the last 6 years, and the newer Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act#Violation_of_universal_human_rights now justifies this category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Review Notes on section under Provisions dealing with effect on immigrants and welfare eligibility.

A good section to add, but a few notes for the contributor.

A citation for the first paragraph would be preferable. Explaining the meaning of TANF is unnecessary because it was done earlier in the article. The first sentence of the second paragraph is confusing, differentiate somehow that Medicaid is the "second key policy". The last sentence of the second paragraph could be more clear, (what percentage of welfare recipients? The percentage that are a minority? The percentage that are immigrants? The percentage of the population on welfare?). In the third paragraph the (e.g. California) is a bit confusing and could be considered "non-neutral". The last sentence in the third paragraph is confusing, explain "inclusion of Medicaid coverage", and how exactly the positive relationship is associated with higher poverty and inclusion. Last sentence has "between" repeated.

Hope this helps, please ask if you have any questions!MindMerchant (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticism Section Lacking

The Criticism section instead of including anecdotal examples about the major criticisms for the welfare reform bill, it should include the different analysis of statistics and trends that major research think tanks and policy advocacy groups such as the Center on Budget on Policy Priorities have created in terms of enrollment opposed in AFDC/TANF to child poverty, average family income and other macroeconomic trends that show the economic and financial health of Americans. --Joseweymann (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Joseweymann 13:52, November 4 (UTC).

The Graph about Welfare Caseloads on Provisions

while the lowering of welfare caseloads was a provision of the Welfare Reform act, the graph with the caseload trends should be moved to the consequences section of the article in order for the reader to reflect on the historical impact of the reform. The graph is also problematic because as the article mentions it is original research, when there are multiple quality analytical graphs about the AFDC/TANF enrollment levels, that even compare it to other macroeconomic trends such as how even though unemployment started and upwards trend in 2000, the trend for TANF enrollment followed a downwards trend. Creating a better picture for the consequences of this policy. This can also be done for other indicators. Joseweymann (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

EITC

The PRWOA led to the first trials of the Earned Income Tax Credit as a means of protecting workers from impoverished families but increase labor force participation, this article includes no discussion about this and it should as it would provide the reader a better picture of the impact of the PRWOA. Joseweymann (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender Welfare and Poverty

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sallyfried (article contribs). Peer reviewers: ENorth3, Msociallyaware17.

— Assignment last updated by Shakaigaku Obasan (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)