The problem of poverty remains complex, multifaceted, contradictory, and intractable. The U.S. ranks first among industrialized nations, members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in terms of the proportion of the poor population and the level of inequality between the rich and the poor (Atkinson, 2019). Thus, it is essential to establish the incidence of poverty and policies to combat poverty in the United States.
Poverty
Poverty means that a person is in a difficult financial situation. In the United States, poverty became a mass phenomenon in the early 1960s (Desmond & Western, 2018, p. 305). About 40 million U.S. citizens currently receive wages and salaries below the cost of living (Desmond & Western, 2018, p. 305). The incomes of 18.5 million Americans are half the cost of living. U.S. society assumes that the rich are hardworking patriots, the main driving force behind the economy (Desmond & Western, 2018, p. 305). On the other hand, people who are poor are considered unsuccessful and addicted, persons who do not want to work hard. Reality is different from this view because the wealthiest Americans tend to pay less tax, transfer funds offshore, and profit from speculation rather than hard work.
Poverty creates additional problems and many Americans face declining health. A collaborative study by Angus Deaton and Princeton University economics professor Anne Case indicates this problem most often affects white Americans with high school education. In their midst, so-called suicide, alcohol, and drug-related deaths are on the rise (Desmond & Western, 2018). The study’s authors propose that the growth in “desperate deaths” is related to the deteriorating economic and social situation of citizens, primarily members of the white working class. Remarkably, at the end of 2015, deaths exceeded those of African Americans by 30 percent (Desmond & Western, 2018, p. 307). Therefore, this study and statistics confirm the need to address poverty in the United States.
The Policy
Poverty remains a relevant problem in the U.S., and the historical context has determined policies to address it. Until the 1930s, socio-economic policy in the U.S. was dominated by the principle of “ruthless individualism” (Marris & Rein, 2018, p. 120). In order to avoid a revolutionary situation in the country, the governing class was forced to adopt nationwide measures to regulate the economy and social relations. This was embodied in the “New Deal” of the Democratic Party and the policy of its President, F. Roosevelt (Marris & Rein, 2018). State regulation in the social sphere developed at the same time as economic regulation and was one of the primary tools for ensuring social stability. In the 1980s, the U.S. government attempted to limit government activities in the social sector significantly (Huang et al, 2021). However, the U.S. public opposed these restrictions, which is why they only partially succeeded in limiting social spending.
A crucial step in the formation of the current anti-poverty strategy was Bill Clinton’s enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. According to estimates by the U.S. federal government in 1995, about 26 million Americans were poor, which was more than 12 percent of the population. The country has the most significant social programs in the world, with more than $500 billion in expenditures (Marris & Rein, 2018, p. 89). In contrast, the number of poor people exceeded the populations of California and Florida in 2003 (Marris & Rein, 2018, p. 91). In the twentieth century, many citizens refused to understand that poverty could occur due to structural failures. The understanding of poverty as a structural problem explains why the U.S. has a higher poverty rate than other developed countries.
This level is explained by the lack of economic opportunities and social support for the entire population compared to European countries. Economists suggest that the recession was one of the reasons for the rise in the number of poor people. Based on the liberal model of the “welfare state,” Americans have always been traditionally conservative about the role of government in fighting poverty (Marris & Rein, 2018). Therefore, U.S. programs to assist the poor were created relatively recently compared to European ones. Thus, in 1996, through The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the government attempted to balance conservative American values with strengthening social policy mechanisms (Marris & Rein, 2018, p. 92). In fact, the passage of PRWORA is one of the most comprehensive, pivotal government reforms in recent American history.
The Population and Programs
It is essential to note that the policy applies to the entire territory of the United States. The purpose of this social program changed, and instead of monetary aid, PRWORA assists its recipients or potential beneficiaries in becoming valuable members of society. The leadership of the new reform was delegated to the states. As a result, their governments gained extensive powers to create systems to help the poor obtain jobs (Spencer & Diller, 2005). Other critical situations, such as child care, health care, transportation support, work-study loans, and education, are supported too. PRWORA provides states funds to expand kindergarten, school-day programs, and other services for children from poor and almost-poor families. PRWORA aids in reducing the reproduction of a generation of the poor by funding contraceptive programs among young people (Spencer & Diller, 2005). Accordingly, the policy applies to those living below the poverty line in the United States.
The new reform process is complex, which is why individual states were encouraged to develop and implement PRWORA. By 1998, all states had implemented this reform, although they approached it with various levels of state involvement (Atkinson, 2019, p. 71). Other federal initiatives to promote PRWORA have been proposed; for example, the Welfare to Work Partnership, a state anti-poverty policy mechanism, was created in 1997 to help corporations hire people living on welfare (Atkinson, 2019, p. 73). One of the most successful implementations of PRWORA occurred in Wisconsin. The new program resulted in an 82 percent decrease in welfare recipients from 1994 to 2001 (Atkinson, 2019, p. 73). The information and success of PRWORA adoption in Wisconsin have influenced the debate about welfare plans in other states.
In Practice
Social workers play an essential role in the program’s success and provide various kinds of help and services to the community. They offer people a list of jobs and assistance in adaptation. In order for the policy to function appropriately, social workers check applications for assistance and coordinate the people who contact them (Singh & Chudasama, 2020). An analysis of PRWORA reform indicates that it can be enhanced further to support the poor in becoming more financially independent. It is significant to observe that the policy is meeting its goals, as evidenced by the positive aspects of PRWORA. This is characterized by an emphasis on employment assistance instead of welfare payments (Singh & Chudasama, 2020). There is also support for both parents of children and efforts to reduce the number of underage pregnancies, which is a concern of the innovations.
However, the PRWORA program has some negative aspects in practice. For example, there is insufficient income to rise above the poverty line and an inability to find suitable jobs for former welfare recipients. Insufficient attention to human factor management and institutional weaknesses were detected too (Singh & Chudasama, 2020). Meanwhile, the program’s inaccuracies across states and the program’s inflexibility with all variables of the capitalist economy were identified.
Social Change
Since the adoption of the law, there have been favorable changes in American society, indicating social justice. For example, people started to ask for social assistance less (Spencer & Diller, 2005). This is because the program has provided individuals with a place to work and has reduced poverty. Accordingly, providing jobs and medical care helped close the social gap between the population. At the same time, there is a positive trend of poverty reduction among single mothers, who now receive support from the state. Accordingly, their children will receive the same benefits as the kids in their full families. Consequently, there is a problem when a worker does not work full time, which brings them insufficient wages (Spencer & Diller, 2005). Therefore, it is essential to reconsider the possibility of providing jobs with an average salary or still paying social assistance. In this case, social assistance will compensate for the difference between the employee’s earnings and the money needed for a decent living.
Conclusion
Hence, the problem of poverty in the U.S. is now serious, but the government is applying policies designed to reduce poverty. PRWORA intends to change the principle of providing social assistance to citizens and replace welfare payments with socialization in the community. In this way, the government assists in ensuring poverty reduction by supporting people and providing them with income-generating opportunities. The negative aspect of this policy is the imperfection of institutions and the insufficient network of places for employment of citizens.
References
Atkinson, A. B. (2019). Measuring poverty around the world. Princeton University Press.
Desmond, M., & Western, B. (2018). Poverty in America: New directions and debates. Annual Review of Sociology, 44(1), 305-318.
Huang, X., Kaushal, N., & Wang, J. S. H. (2021). What explains the gap in welfare use among immigrants and natives?. Population Research and Policy Review, 40(4), 819-860. Web.
Marris, P., & Rein, M. (2018). Dilemmas of social reform: Poverty and community action in the United States (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Singh, P. K., & Chudasama, H. (2020). Evaluating poverty alleviation strategies in a developing country. PloS ONE, 15(1), e0227176. Web.
Spencer, M. B., & Diller, J. V. (2005). Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Journal of Community Practice, 13, 4.