Introduction
The opportunity to better ones economic standing lies at the foundation of American society, as demonstrated by the widely held belief that one can ‘pull themselves up by their bootstraps.’ This logic assumes that everyone has equal opportunity to better themselves, and that by simply trying harder to find work one can attain a better standard of living. The economic depression of the 1930s demonstrated that this logic is faulty, and that there are forces outside of ones control that influence ones ability to raise oneself out of poverty.
Thus in 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act establishing, among other programs, the first national welfare system (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 1998). Over 50 years after the creation of Aid to Families with Dependant Children (AFDC), presidential candidate Bill Clinton vowed in 1992 to “end welfare as we know it,” (cited in Constitutional Rights Foundation, 1998) and within four years welfare reform became a reality with AFDC replaced by a new program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), aimed at moving people off welfare and into jobs. Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which abolished AFDC and cash grants to all eligible poor families, congress established TANF and determined that federal welfare block grants would be given to individual states as long as certain employment guidelines were met (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 1998).
In June of 2006, the Department of Health and Human Services announced interim final regulations for the TANF program, establishing standardized work participation requirements for states receiving federal welfare block grants, addressing what President Bush called “the unfinished business of welfare reform” (cited in United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). These new regulations set strict definitions of work related activities, and in particular, they no longer allow recipients to seek a post secondary education while receiving TANF. By narrowly defining work related activities, the Bush Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services creates a system of gender-based discrimination that disproportionately harms single mothers.
Gender
Discrimination and Welfare Reform
According to the United States Census Bureau, thirty five percent of single mother households with children under the age of eighteen were living below the poverty level in the year 2004 (2005). In 2005, according to Terzieff, over 85 percent of the 9.2 million single parent families receiving TANF were headed by single mothers (2006). Although intended to help these women and families, in reality TANF creates additional barriers for single mothers attempting to raise themselves and their families out of poverty.
TANF and the new employment guidelines recently established by the Department of Health and Human Services target recipients, and in particular single mothers, seeking to better their employment opportunities through education. The influence education has on a single mother’s employability, and in consequence her ability to provide for her family and move off welfare, is immense. According to Jones-DeWeever and Gault, a white woman earning a four-year degree “experiences an earning increase of 77 percent over her high school graduate counterpart,” (2006, p. 5) with Latinas and African American women experiencing increases of 88 and 92 percent respectively (Jones-DeWeever & Gault, 2006).
Under previous TANF guidelines, recipients had a lifetime limit of five years of cash benefits during which time they could to pursue a postsecondary education in order to better their ability to provide for their families. By removing higher education as an acceptable form of job preparation and placing increased pressure on states to reduce their welfare caseloads, the Department of Health and Human Services is forcing single mothers to accept low waged employment, often the most vulnerable to economic downturns, and join the ranks of the working poor.
Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services discriminates against single mothers by creating an atmosphere of resistance by the caseworker. The stress placed on caseworkers to move TANF recipients off welfare often leads them to interact with clients in an openly hostile manner. Thus, the system of interaction established then is one of jealousy and the provision of “incomplete information which ultimately [proves] counter to the needs of those already facing excessively difficult circumstances” (Jones-DeWeever & Gault, 2006, p. 15). According to one TANF recipient pursuing a postsecondary education, “I experienced… resistance and even… jealousy from the workers themselves. It’s like they have this attitude that well, I didn’t get that, so you shouldn’t get that” (anonymous cited in Jones-DeWeever & Gault, 2006, p. 15).
Thus, TANF and the new guidelines recently established by the Department of Health and Human Services discriminate against poor single mothers by denying them access to higher education through structural impediments as well as ideological bias.
Liberal
Feminist Theory and Gendered Welfare Discrimination
According
to
For example, TANF mandates that recipients seek employment through engaging in some form of state defined work activity or preparation, or risk loosing their cash benefits. Under the previous guidelines, single mothers were able to pursue a postsecondary education in order to access employment that would grant them a living wage. Thus through hard work and persistence, single mothers were rewarded based on merit and education. With the recently established guidelines, no longer is the pursuit of postsecondary education an option for single mothers. In actuality, it punishes single mothers that seek this form of education by forcing them to accept low waged employment and further entrenches the commonly held belief that single mothers are looking for a hand out and will do anything to avoid gainful employment.
Liberal feminist theory, with its focus on the states role in decreasing gender discrimination through education and legal reform as well as the concept of meritocracy, helps to elucidate the woeful inadequacies of welfare reform and its continued discrimination of poor single mothers.
Activism
The form of social activism I chose to perform was to write a letter to the chairperson, Rep. Delgado, for the Illinois General Assembly’s committee on Health and Human Services stating my concern over the new TANF regulations. I chose this form of activism because according to liberal feminist theory, education is one of the primary means of eradicating gender inequality and the role of the state is to institute programs that eradicate this form of inequality. Additionally, I chose this form of activism because I do not believe that other forms of activism, such as the circulation of a petition or picketing, would have been as effective due to the fact that TANF reform has already occurred and the new regulations are due to be implemented in October of 2006. If the states role is to create laws and policies that decrease gender inequality, it is only logical that writing those that make the laws and form the policies would have the greatest impact.
By
bringing to the
attention of Rep. Delgado the Department of Health and Human Services
new
regulations regarding work related activities, it is my hope that he
will be
able to institute policies within the state of
If
given the
chance to act differently, I would have written to Secretary Mike
Leavitt
directly prior to the announcement of the new interim regulations. I would have encouraged him to implement
rules that allow states to provide TANF recipients a chance to attain a
postsecondary education while receiving welfare. Additionally,
I would have encouraged my
elected officials (Senators Durbin and Obama and Congressman Shimkus)
to not
vote for the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 without the inclusion of
guidelines
that provide for the attainment of post secondary education by those
that
receive TANF.
Works cited
Constitutional
Rights Foundation (1998). Bill
of Rights in Action: Welfare.
Retrieved
Jones-DeWeever,
A. & Gault, B. (2006). Resilient
& reaching for more: Challenges and
benefits of higher education
for welfare participants and their children.
Terzieff,
J. (2006). Welfare
clock should stop for college
moms. [Electronic version]
Women’s
enews. Retrieved
United
States
Census Bureau (last updated
United
States
Department of Health and Human Services (2006).
Bush administration releases interim final regulation
implementing the
next phase of welfare reform.
[Electronic version] Retrieved