User:Cchou19/sandbox

Peer Review (Article Evaluation Plans):

I will be editing and hopefully contributing to the betterment of the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996: Wiki project, specifically focusing on the History section, which includes information regarding welfare reform from the 1930's to 2012. The current state of this section has many issues, particularly with the subsection 1.2 title Reasons for policy reversal. This section, which is mentioned in the talk page, has poor sourcing with mostly objective comments, therefore displaying a strong issue with POV (point of view). The section itself should be omitted or retitled/restructured as it doesn't offer factual information surrounding the timeline.

I have decided to omit the section and restructure the table of contents as displayed below:

1	History

1.1	1930s to 1970s

XX 1.2	Reasons for policy reversal

XX1.2.1	Attitudes towards women's roles

XX1.2.2	Concern about dependency

1.2	1980s and 1990s

1.3	2012

After getting rid of these sections, I will add to the history sections with more sources, specifically to (1930s to 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, 2012) and perhaps add more current information closer in time (2012-present) as there is no section that exists with more current information. Below I offer some small edits, sometimes changing vocabulary or grammar, as well as the addition of other sources. I have found more issues with writing style in the 1930s to 1970s section because the author has added sentences that contribute to POV issues in the article itself. I have either tried to re-write these sentences or take them out entirely.

starting changes to sections of Personal responsibility and work opportunity act wiki page:

1930s to 1970s[edit]
AFDC caseloads increased dramatically from the 1930s to the 1960s as restrictions on the availability of cash support to poor families (especially single-parent, female-headed households) wasere reduced.[3] Under the Social Security Act of 1935, federal funds only covered part of relief costs, providing an incentive for localities to make welfare difficult to obtain.[3]

Encouraged in the 1960s and then required officially in 1967, all states implemented a program providing employment, training, and supportive service to AFDC clients. The program, called the Work Inceptive Program (WIN), didn’t require mothers to take work training or jobs, but was the first program to change the concept of welfare to workfare.(Nathan & Gais)

WIN assumed that (1) there would be plenty of jobs accessible to those wanting a job, (2) that the lack of skills, attitudes towards working could be fixed through training services offered by the program, and (3) welfare recipients would voluntarily respond to the program’s resources.

During this time all able-bodied adults without children and two-parent families were originally disqualified from obtaining AFDC funds. Court rulings during the Civil Rights Movement struck down many of these regulations, creating new categories of people eligible for relief.

Additionally, community organizations, such as the National Welfare Rights Organization, also distributed packets informing citizens of their ability to receive government assistance.[3] Between 1936 and 1969, the number of families receiving support increased from 162,000 to 1,875,000.[4]

After 1970, however, federal funding for the program lagged behind inflation.

1980s and 1990s[edit]
In the 1980s, AFDC came under increasing bipartisan criticism for the program's alleged ineffectiveness. While acknowledging the need for a social safety net, Democrats often invoked the culture of poverty argument.[7] Proponents of the bill argued that welfare recipients were "trapped in a cycle of poverty".[8] Highlighting instances of welfare fraud, conservatives often referred to the system as a "welfare trap" and pledged to "dismantle the welfare state". In the 1980s, the Reagan administration emphasized strengthening the work requirement provisions to make welfare less attractive than working.Ronald Reagan's oft-repeated story of a welfare queen from Chicago's South Side became part of a larger discourse on welfare reform.[9]

Republican governor Tommy Thompson began instituting welfare reform in Wisconsin during his governorship in the late-1980s and early-1990s. In lobbying the federal government to grant states wider latitude for implementing welfare, Thompson wanted a system where "pregnant teen-aged girls from Milwaukee, no matter what their background is or where they live, can pursue careers and chase their dreams."[10] His solution was workfare, whereby poor individuals, typically single-mothers with children, had to work to receive assistance. Thompson later served as Health and Human Services Secretary under President George W. Bush.

During this period of welfare reform, the Passage of PRWORA, which focused on addressing the flaws and successes of the AFDC, was passed. The political atmosphere at the time of PRWORA's passage included a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and Senate (defined by their Contract with America) and a Democratic president (defined by Bill Clinton's promise to "end welfare as we know it").

2012[edit]
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, but only if states were also able to find credible ways to increase employment by 20%.[11] 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.[12] The Obama administration stated that the change was made in order to allow more flexibility in how individual states operate their welfare programs.[13] 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.[14]

The change has been questioned by Republicans including Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and Orrin Hatch, who requested further details from HHS over concerns that the memo would remove the main focus of PRWORA.[12] Mitt Romney attacked the measure, saying that Obama was "gutting welfare reform". However, PolitiFact stated that Romney's claim was "not accurate" and "inflames old resentments", giving it a "Pants on Fire" rating.[15] CNN also reported that assertions that Obama was "taking the work requirement off the table" was false.[16] In response to Republican criticism, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said that states, including some with Republican governors, had previously asked Congress to allow waivers.[17]