The number of years for eligibility was decreased, and this led to more people being eligible for welfare. Employers were able to increase their labor demand, and the reforms made sure that the increased labor supply would be mandated, at least to a certain extent. (Bradshaw, 2003)
These were the overall objectives and aims of the welfare reforms, at a glance, in a hospital setup: to reduce the incapacity benefit claimants drastically, by about one million people, within a single decade, get 300,000 single parents back to work, and away from welfare, within a specific time period, and at the same time, increase by about one million, the number of people aged above fifty, into productive employment. It was also one of the main aims and objectives of welfare reforms that 'Employment and Support Allowance' would be able to effectively replace IB by the year 2008. Furthermore, all new claimants, according to the new reforms, would have to give 'work-focused interviews', and also at the same time, be capable of producing action plans and get involved in work related activities, unless they are either severely disabled, or if they are suffering from poor health and other related disorders, and they are therefore, physically incapable of working. If, for example, the able people were to ignore this criterion, then they would have to suffer from a payment loss, and these payments would resume, once the claimants gets back to work. (Welfare Reforms at a glance)
Meanwhile, all older people, that is, people aged above fifty and up to fifty-nine years of age, would be expected to seek out new an additional job seeking supports that are made available to them through the new welfare reforms, or the so called 'New Deal'. Physically handicapped persons or people suffering from poor health would be able to avail of newer benefits, and at higher rates, but at the same time, everyone would have to undergo 'assessment'. In other words, this would mean that even if, for example, an individual is certifiably 'blind' and must therefore be paid benefits; he would have to be assessed fist, for testing the severity of his condition, before he can put in his claims. In the same manner, the mental health capacity of the claimant would be assessed in line with the terms and conditions that are 'prevalent today'.
A special unit would be set up, in order to conduct 'periodic checks' on those patients who were claiming welfare, and wherever needed, updated medical advice would also be offered. For a lone parent, welfare reforms brought in certain terms, like for example, for a single parent whose child was at least eleven years old, interviews and assessments would be conducted, at least once every three months, and those parents who had been on welfare for more than a year, interviews would be conducted once every six months or so, with the added advantage of 'pilot schemes' for lone parents, who are in the time period of one year of claiming welfare, because this would help them a great deal in the 'adaptive' stage that they are in at this time. (Welfare Reforms at a glance)
What is the future of welfare reform, and how would it be handled? As mentioned earlier, the federal welfare reform law, or the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, better known, as the PRWORA would have to be re-organized at a later date sometime in the future. When the act was initially passed in the year 1996, journalists, researchers, politicians, and others termed it 'revolutionary', 'path breaking' and also described it in other glowing terms. At that time, however, not much was actually known about the impact that some of the provisions of the reforms would have in the future. One of the more significant of these reforms was the fact that a five-year life time limit would be imposed on the number of months federal funds could be used to pay a family's welfare benefits after they claimed it. This was in reality a completely daunting prospect; something wherein states involved would have to pay at least 50% of single-parent welfare recipients, which would come up to at the very least, a 90% of two-parent household heads, in 30 hours weekly work or related activities. (What works in Welfare Reform?)
These are generally considered to be extremely tough restrictions on the type and amount of education and job search activities that could constitute as successfully meeting the work participation requirement; and when incentives to reduce out-of-wedlock parenting and promote marriage were to be added to the already onerous burden, states found it a tough proposition indeed. Open-ended entitlements to benefits was abolished or changed to a great extent, and these were in turn replaced by a fixed dollar amount payable to each state. Although this meant that a state could now exercise great flexibility in the design and pattern of programs meant for the poor, and they could now use this flexibility in creative ways, as they...
In other words, that limit should be raised (or exemptions should be allowed) so that the person getting a job and experiencing the pride and increased self-esteem that goes with it, should not have to lose the other supportive components (like food stamps and health insurance for the children's needs) just because now she is making a bit over the limit that was set. Of course it would be
" (Barron et. al. 1994) third sociological explanation of individualist precepts is found in social learning theory: Social learning theory tells us that people adopt others (particularly influential persons) as models for their own behavior. Widespread corruption and lawbreaking by society's leaders may therefore have a profound disinhibiting effect on the rest of the population. According to this thesis, the prevalence of crime and corruption leads to further crime and corruption.
UK Welfare The following review of current literature is categorized by a number of variables. Statistics and Data initiate the report and is quickly followed up with Policy Literature. From there, an Academic Literature Review focusing on five articles (with corresponding studies and citations) takes place. After the Academic Review comes a Relevant Campaigning Review and a Media Review. Finally, a quick conclusion ties the literature together in a neat little
275). By conducting a peer led focus group the interaction between the participants allows for sharing of stories and experiences and opens up the lines for a deeper, more meaningful discussion. Instead of the participants directing their responses to questions and statements asked of the researcher to the researcher, participants will be able to converse with one another. The researcher will still be a part of the focus group, but
Indeed, the reference to "institutional sclerosis" concerns the fact that virtually every conceivable interest in contemporary society is protected by a variety of laws that provide for extensive advising, participation and appeal procedures, a process that further exacerbates the inability of public administrators to remain responsive to their constituents (Klijn & Koppenjan 241). These authors emphasize that, "This results, among other things, in the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)
propositions that pertain to the policy-making process. After that, these propositions are to be tested. The author of this response will offer these three propositions, and the rationale behind them, one by one. The first proposition is that policy-making should be based less on simply facets of compassions and "fairness" and more on the results that would be garnered. A lot of people, for example, say that welfare was
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now