User:Aso4530/sandbox

= Wikipedia Assignment = [Below is a compilation of the final expansions, edits, and changes I have added to the article "Personal Responsibility and Work Act".]

Provisions
According to the House Ways and Means Committee, "The major goal of Public Law 104–193 [PRWORA] is to reduce the length of welfare spells by attacking dependency while simultaneously preserving the function of welfare as a safety net for families experiencing temporary financial '''problems". ''' A major prong in this effort was to improve child support collection rates in an effort to move single parent families off of the welfare rolls, and keep them off. According to the conference report, "It is the sense of the Senate that — (a) States should diligently continue their efforts to enforce child support payments by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent, regardless of the employment status or location of the non-custodial parent".

The reformed child support program attacks this problem by pursuing five major goals: automating many child support enforcement procedures; establishing uniform tracking procedures; strengthening interstate child support enforcement; requiring States to adopt stronger measures to establish paternity; and creating new and stronger enforcement tools to increase actual child support collections. The law envisions a child support system in which all States have similar child support laws, all States share information through the Federal child support office, mass processing of information is routine, and interstate cases are handled expeditiously. Section III (Child Support), Subtitle G (Enforcement of Child Support) contains 14 enforcement measures to improve the collection of child support, including potential denial or revocation of passports. One provision required the State Department to refuse or revoke passports for anyone who owed more than $5,000 in child support. Those provisions were upheld in Weinstein v. Albright (2001), Eunique v. Powell (2002), In re James K. Walker (2002), Dept of Revenue v. Nesbitt (2008), Risenhoover v. Washington (2008), Borracchini v. Jones (2009), and Dewald v. United States (E.D. MI 2009).

Ban on food stamps for drug felons
One component of the PRWORA was a lifetime ban on the use of food stamps through TANF for people convicted of drug felonies. It disallowed those with federal or state felony drug convictions from receiving benefits from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and TANF for life. Although it applied to all 50 states by default, states were also given the option to opt out of the ban.[34] As of May 2019, '''only two states (South Carolina and West Virginia) have a lifetime ban for drug felons. The change is part of criminal justice reforms lawmakers have passed in aiming to prevent recidivism or the tendency for convicted criminals to reoffend.'''

Immigrant Welfare
Another provision of PRWORA made some immigrants entering the United States ineligible for federal public benefits during the first five years after securing “qualified” immigrant status. Qualified immigrants include:


 * Lawful permanent residents (people with green cards)
 * Refugees
 * Immigrants granted asylum or those with conditional entrants
 * Immigrants granted parole by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for at least one year
 * Immigrants whose deportations are being withheld
 * Cuban/Haitian entrants
 * Battered immigrant spouses, battered immigrant children, immigrant parents of battered children, and immigrant children of battered parents
 * Survivors of a severe form of trafficking

'''All other immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, temporary residents, and those who are lawfully present in the U.S., are considered “not qualified”. With a few exceptions, PRWORA excluded people in both categories from eligibility for many benefits: TANF, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).'''

'''PRWORA enforced new citizenship requirements for federal public benefits. The involvement of immigrants in public benefits programs greatly decreased after the enactment of 1996 welfare reform laws.''' In light of the restrictions to federal funding under the law, states were allowed to grant aid out of their own funds to address the welfare needs of immigrants.

Benefit Programs
Two of the key policies under PRWORA are the inclusion of immigrants in TANF and Medicaid. In 2009, 22 states had extended TANF benefits and Medicaid to immigrants.[27] Five states (California, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, and Washington) provide assistance to some nonqualified immigrants. Oftentimes, these policies have had discriminatory effects towards minorities. For instance, race has a strong negative correlation for TANF assistance granted to immigrants, as states with large African American populations were more likely to correspond with excluding lawful permanent residents from the program. In addition, states with large immigrant populations were more likely to correspond with people participating in Medicaid, '''as the program was designed to incentivize high-poverty states to include more people. In fact, high-poverty states acquire higher federal funding rates for each individual they cover through Medicaid'''.[28]

Original excerpts before editing
According to the House Ways and Means Committee, "The major goal of Public Law 104–193 is to reduce the length of welfare spells by attacking dependency while simultaneously preserving the function of welfare as a safety net for families experiencing temporary financial problems." A major prong in this effort was to improve child support collection rates in an effort to move single parent families off of the welfare rolls, and keep them off. According to the Conference Report. "It is the sense of the Senate that — (a) States should diligently continue their efforts to enforce child support payments by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent, regardless of the employment status or location of the non-custodial parent".

The reformed child support program attacks this problem by pursuing five major goals: automating many child support enforcement procedures; establishing uniform tracking procedures; strengthening interstate child support enforcement; requiring States to adopt stronger measures to establish paternity; and creating new and stronger enforcement tools to increase actual child support collections. The law envisions a child support system in which all States have similar child support laws, all States share information through the Federal child support office, mass processing of information is routine, and interstate cases are handled expeditiously. Section III (Child Support), Subtitle G (Enforcement of Child Support) contains 14 enforcement measures to improve the collection of child support, including potential denial or revocation of passports. One provision required the State Department to refuse or revoke passports for anyone who owed more than $5,000 in child support. Those provisions were upheld in Weinstein v. Albright (2001), Eunique v Powell (2002), In re James K. Walker (2002), Dept of Revenue v Nesbitt (2008), Risenhoover v. Washington (2008), Borracchini v. Jones (2009), and Dewald v. United States (E.D. MI 2009).

Immigrant welfare
A lesser known provision of PRWORA made immigrants entering the United States ineligible for federal welfare funds for five years after arriving in the United States. In light of the restrictions to federal funding under the law, states were allowed to grant aid out of their own funds to address the welfare needs of immigrants.

Benefit programs
Two of the key policies under PRWORA are the inclusion of immigrants in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid. In 2009, 22 states had extended TANF benefits and Medicaid to immigrants.[26] Five states, California, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, and Washington, provide assistance to some non qualified immigrants. Oftentimes, these policies have had discriminatory effects towards minorities. Race has a strong negative correlation for TANF assistance granted to immigrants. In addition, the immigrant population has a positive correlation with the inclusion of Medicaid coverage considering the positive correlation between higher poverty and inclusion.[27]

Ban on food stamps for drug felons
One component of the PRWORA was a lifetime ban on the use of food stamps through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for people convicted of drug felonies. Although it applied to all 50 states by default, states were also given the option to opt out of the ban.[33] As of 2014, 40 states had opted out of this policy, while ten had not.[34]

= Peer Review Assignment =

Assigned Article: "Personal Responsibility and Work Act"
[Summary of Plan for Editing]:


 * I will be making edits and adding more information to the Wikipedia article "Personal Responsibility and Work Act," particularly paying attention to the Provisions section. Some parts in this section are potentially confusing to the reader. Because there is no citation in the first paragraph, I will be adding citation(s) and double-checking the information through multiple sources in order to ensure accuracy. If possible, I will add more information regarding immigrant welfare, specifically on the conditions of welfare ineligibility, to give a better introduction to how immigrants may or may not be limited to federal welfare funds.
 * There are also a few problems under "Benefit programs". For instance, without more context, the following sentence is vague: "Oftentimes, these policies have had discriminatory effects towards minorities". I aim to conduct more research on the discriminatory effects towards immigrants and minorities, then add more details to the current paragraph to make sure content is not lacking. Additionally, I would like to clarify what "positive correlation" and "negative correlation" mean, in regards to TANF assistance. Are there specific numbers and statistics that could help show these relationships? What is "strong" correlation? The talk page suggests differentiating "Medicaid" as a "second key policy". However, I have yet to find evidence for this to be the case, especially since the current suggested phrasing could be biased.
 * In "Costs to Inclusion," I hope to find out about more effects on various minority groups for immigrant welfare, so as to take a more extensive look at different populations and how race might be an important factor. This could include information about food insecurity, social security insurance, and low-income households and families. Moreover, I will be copyediting the article throughout, beyond the Provisions section, especially for correcting grammar, such as with the following sentence: "Five states, California, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, and Washington, provide assistance to some non qualified immigrants".

Article Excerpts
[Below are the sections in which I plan to be making edits and/or adding more information for]:

Immigrant welfare
A lesser known provision of PRWORA made immigrants entering the United States ineligible for federal welfare funds for five years after arriving in the United States. In light of the restrictions to federal funding under the law, states were allowed to grant aid out of their own funds to address the welfare needs of immigrants.

Benefit programs
Two of the key policies under PRWORA are the inclusion of immigrants in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid. In 2009, 22 states had extended TANF benefits and Medicaid to immigrants.[27] Five states, California, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, and Washington, provide assistance to some non- qualified immigrants. Oftentimes, these policies have had discriminatory effects towards minorities. Race has a strong negative correlation for TANF assistance granted to immigrants. In addition, the immigrant population has a positive correlation with the inclusion of Medicaid coverage considering the positive correlation between higher poverty and inclusion.[28]

Costs to inclusion
A large body of research examines the way that racial composition, welfare structure, and immigrant population determine how states include immigrants in welfare. Research shows that a larger percentage of African-American recipients leads to stricter rules governing initial eligibility, less flexibility in welfare work requirements, and lower cash benefits to welfare recipients. There is also a negative relationship between cash benefit levels and percentage of welfare recipients.[29] In analyzing the effects of PRWORA, Hero and Preuhs find that the most inclusive states offer more assistance and welfare generosity to immigrants. These states, however, face challenges in allocating funds due to a larger minority population and cut individual benefit levels per recipient. Moreover, these states assess the costs for inclusion based on racial compositions in the state.[30] In terms of TANF benefits, the most inclusive states have had the largest decline in benefit levels. For example, California has seen a 22.6% decrease in TANF benefit levels for a family of three.[31]

Immigrant population density and states' immigrant Medicaid eligibility rules interactively shape the native-foreign born Medicaid coverage gap. States with lower immigrant populations have negative and significant marginal effects on the native-foreign inequality in Medicaid coverage. Additionally, immigrant eligibility is conditional on the annual changes of states' immigrant population density, ; where states with decreases in foreign-born population densities have negative effects on eligibility. Immigration brings states with exclusive Medicaid policies and a small immigrant population increases in the participation gap between native and foreign populations. In states with inclusive Medicaid policies and small immigrant population, immigration does not affect the participation gap. In states with a large immigrant population, immigration decreases social inequality regardless of the Medicaid policy.

= Wikipedia Training and Modules =

Wikipedia Training
Paragraph: Set the style of your text. For example, make a header or plain paragraph text. You can also use it to offset block quotes.

A : Highlight your text, then click here to format it with bold, italics, etc. The “More” options allows you to underline (U), cross-out text ( S ), add code snippets ( { } ), change language keyboards (Aあ), and clear all formatting ( ⃠ ).

Links: Highlight text and push this button to make it a link. The Visual Editor will automatically suggest related Wikipedia articles for that word or phrase. This is a great way to connect your article to more Wikipedia content. You only have to link important words once, usually during the first time they appear. If you want to link to pages outside of Wikipedia (for an “external links” section, for example) click on the “External link” tab.

Cite: The citation tool in the Visual Editor helps format your citations. You can simply paste a DOI or URL, and the Visual Editor will try to sort out all of the fields you need. Be sure to review it, however, and apply missing fields manually (if you know them). You can also add books, journals, news, and websites manually. That opens up a quick guide for inputting your citations. Once you've added a source, you can click the “re-use” tab to cite it again.

Bullets: To add bullet points or a numbered list, click here.

Insert: This tab lets you add media, images, or tables.

Ω: This tab allows you to add special characters, such as those found in non-English words, scientific notation, and a handful of language extensions.

Article Evaluation
Here is the link to the article being evaluated: "Human trafficking in the United States".

Evaluating content

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, information in the article is relevant to the article topic. However, there are parts that do seem to distract from the main topic. For instance, the article goes into detail about federal and local laws, but those topics may sometimes become overly niche for the article.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * From what I can see, there does not seem to be any information that is out of date. However, the article could benefit from adding a clearer definition for "human trafficking"; in particular, the article should explain how it is not synonymous with forced migration and smuggling, rather than simply stating this without any explanation.
 * What else could be improved?
 * The content could be re-organized to prevent the article from being contradictory when switching between "trafficking" and "sexual exploitation," since there should be a differentiation between the two.

Evaluating tone

 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, the article is neutral. When there is bias, those claims are clearly acknowledged as, for instance, criticism and/or someone else's point of view.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There seems to be a good variety of different viewpoints, including those from health professionals, human rights groups, the federal government, and national opposition organizations. I am wondering if there could be viewpoints from international groups as well.

Evaluating sources

 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes, to my best of my knowledge, all the links work, since they have been updated by other users as well. The sources support the claims in the article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * For the most part, each fact is referenced with an appropriate, reliable citation, and they are usually neutral sources. However, it would be important to consider improving the "Criticism" section, as there is a paragraph that is missing references and/or citations.

Checking the talk page
Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Most of the conversations revolve around official definitions of certain words, clarifications to content, and modifying external links.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This Wikipedia page is able to discuss the topic in a fairly accessible way for a wider audience, rather than from a merely academic standpoint as we may in class.

Optional activity
Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — ~.


 * My evaluation left on the article's Talk page:
 * Although the page should be focused on human trafficking in the United States, it might benefit the article to add more context as to how some of the federal/local laws may have consequences across national borders, especially when it comes to "international travel". This could be a new section of its own for further examination.

Add a citation

 * Text for added citation in the article "Human trafficking in the United States":
 * Trafficking is officially defined as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons by means of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, or abuse of power of a position of vulnerability for the purpose of exploitation. Human trafficking is not synonymous with forced migration or smuggling.

Copyedit an article

 * Made copyedits to the article "Feminism". Received feedback from Elysia (Wiki Ed) on how Wikipedia articles follow what's called "logical quotation style", which means that punctuation is usually on the outside of the end quotation mark.

Nominating your article to Did You Know
{{DYKsubpage|2={{DYK conditions}}
 * Link for nominating article: Template:Did you know nominations/2019 Asian Women’s Softball Championship
 * Added to Template talk:Did you know

2019 Asian Women’s Softball Championship

 * ... that the "2019 Asian Women’s Softball Championship was an international softball tournament which featured ten nations and was held from 1–7 May 2017 in Jakarta, Indonesia"?

Created by ASo4530 (talk). Nominated by Aso4530 (talk) at 11:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC).


 * |monthyear=May 2019|passed=}}