A basic lack of gainful employment opportunity through either lack of places of employment or lack of job skill.
A commitment to self-sufficiency is necessary before any potential recipient can begin to receive benefits. Heads of household must enter into an agreement they will become self-sufficient within a certain timeframe.
A commitment to cooperation must be signed by the heads of household that they will comply with and continue all regulations and requirements while receiving aid.
Dependant children must be living in the household. There are some very few exceptions, but generally all dependants must be within the home.
All minors must be attending school during school days.
All minors and dependants must be fully and appropriately immunized.
The recipient must be 18 years of age.
You must be a legal and permanent resident of the state to which you are applying.
You must be a citizen of the United States or a qualified non-citizen legal resident, (restrictions apply).
A commitment to complete accuracy and honesty during the program.
All monetary resources must be divulged. This includes cash within the home, in checking or savings accounts and items of value in possession such as jewelry or electronics.
A household financial budget must be created and adhered to.
Welfare Reform - Social Welfare Change
Welfare reform is generally described as a government's attempt to change the social welfare policy of the country. A main goal of these reforms is to reduce the number of individuals or families dependent on government assistance and to assist the recipients in their efforts to become self-sufficient. There is a common consensus that the initial welfare programs created in response to the economic conditions faced by the country during the Great Depression are actually counterproductive to the goals of welfare help. Many feel these outdated welfare programs not only propagate indigence but also fosters dependency on the government for financial assistance and services. Because welfare in the United States will never fully meet every need of every low income or underprivileged individual or family, reforms to the existing welfare programs are necessary.
In 1996, the Welfare Reform Act was passed into law with the promise by the leaders of the country to end welfare as it had existed since its inception. A new era of welfare benefits and provisions was on the horizon, and the Welfare Reform Act was the catalyst needed to begin these much needed changes. One of the reforms under this act was the Welfare-to-Work initiative, which required work in exchange for time limited financial assistance. Recipients of TANF, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, were required to work at least 20 hours per week, and the reform statute listed 12 authorized activities accepted to meet this requirement. According to reports, within 3 years of the reforms enactment, millions of Americans had moved from being dependent on welfare to being self-sufficient. In addition, agencies reported a reduction in the number of social welfare cases.
The welfare reform agenda of 2003 was passed by Congress, and the 2003 reform's goals were built on the foundation of the 1996 welfare reform act. Essentially, the goals of 2003 were to provide assistance to individuals and families in achieving financial independence from the government. Protecting children and strengthening families were important aspects of this reform measure, and state and local governments were asked to assist these individuals and families in gaining this independent status. It is vital to the health and economy of the nation for individuals to have the ability to support themselves and meet the needs of their family without economic assistance from the government. These reforms were an effort to make a way for this to happen. Unfortunately, in 2004, the Welfare-to-Work program ended, but during the time this program was active millions of Americans lives were changed for the better.
The first welfare initiatives began over 60 years ago, and welfare has changed as the country has grown and the needs of individuals and families have become more varied and diverse. In response to these changes, the leaders of the country have made reforms and reauthorized existing welfare legislation. Realizing what does and does not work and determining what the overall goal of welfare should be has directed welfare reform efforts. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program was reauthorized in 2005, and this social welfare program continues to help millions of struggling families. While Food Stamps, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income and TANF are still common social welfare services, Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC) are also being offered to low-income families to help create financial stability. To be eligible, certain requirements must be met by the individual or family.
The heart of social welfare in the United States is to help families who need assistance meeting financial obligations and obtaining healthcare and education. Over time, it has become apparent that improvements can be made to the initial plans and goal of welfare. Welfare reform attempts to accomplish these improvements.
The Guardian
How Britain's new welfare state was born in the USA
The main themes of David Cameron's 'big society' are becoming clear – as is the influence of Republican political thinking
Barack Obama at a charter school in Washington, DC. Britain appears to be basing some of its education reforms on the charter system. Photograph: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
The gathering was small and discreet and made no headlines at the time – but its significance for the future of our welfare state and for David Cameron's vision of a "big society" will become clear this week.
It was on a warm day in June that Professor Lawrence Mead, who inspired many of the US welfare reforms of the 1990s, strode into 10 Downing Street. The American guru had been invited by Steve Hilton, Cameron's chief strategist. Also present were senior Whitehall officials from the Treasury and other government departments. They were joined by Neil O'Brien, director of the rightwing thinktank Policy Exchange.
Mead was immediately struck by how eager the assembled team was to hear his ideas. "I was surprised how interested they were," he said.
Under detailed questioning, he told his inquisitors that attitudes to welfare in Britain had been characterised by a culture of "entitlement" for too long. The jobless knew they could get benefits while doing nothing in return, he warned.
In the US, attitudes had apparently moved on long ago and it was high time the UK followed suit. Welfare should no longer be seen as a "lifestyle" option. "Serious reform means ending entitlement by clearly imposing work as a requirement for aid," said Mead – and his words struck a chord. Even the disabled should be expected to work. In some cases benefits could be time-limited to help shunt people into jobs, he suggested.
"They really wanted to know how it could be done. It surprised me," Mead told the Observer.
This week, five months on from that meeting, the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, will publish a white paper on welfare reform. It will outline plans to make jobseekers take 30-hour a week job placements for periods of four weeks.
If they refuse or fail to complete the placements, their benefits will be stopped for three months. The buzz phrase of the new system will be "conditionality" – the idea of working for benefits under a contract with the state. Ways of talking about the unemployed are already changing even before the white paper is out. Yesterday the Department for Work and Pensions said the reforms aimed to "break the habit of worklessness". A few years ago such statements from Whitehall would have been unthinkable.
Such US-inspired policy changes on welfare will be far-reaching in themselves. But after six months of the coalition government, it is now clear that they do not exist in isolation. As one Labour MP who applauds some aspects of the coalition's thinking put it: "Something far bigger is going on. It is to do with redefining personal responsibility across the range. After all the talk of cuts in spending, we are starting to see what this lot are all about in philosophical terms."
That MP and policy experts are beginning to see a consistent theme driving government policy on everything from schools to higher education, policing, prisons and the health service. It is a process that – like it or loathe it – is finally beginning to give some shape and meaning to Cameron's hitherto ill-defined big society agenda.
For years the Tory leader struggled to explain what big society meant. In opposition he initially called it "social responsibility" and flogged the idea endlessly to unenthusiastic audiences. With the product failing to sell, it was then rebranded as "the big society" before the May general election. But again MPs found no enthusiasm on the doorsteps.
Nick Seddon, deputy director of the independent thinktank Reform, says the Tories promoted the idea before fixing the detailed narrative that would frame it. But now through a blizzard of policy announcements, the theme is emerging.
Just as the welfare reforms place a responsibility on the jobless to get into the "habit of work", so the coalition is promoting ideas of personal responsibility as a way to cure society's ills as a whole. At the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, Nick Herbert is impressed by US-style policing methods. Citizens who complain about too much crime and a lack of police on the street will be given a stake in the issue through a right to elect local police commissioners. Police chiefs will answer directly to the people. Power is to be pushed outwards.
Similarly Michael Gove, the education secretary, believes parents who moan about poor state schools should be given the power to establish new ones – drawing on models in Sweden and the charter schools of the US. And in the National Health Service, GPs will be entrusted by the health secretary Andrew Lansley with the power and responsibility to commission medical services themselves, freed from central control.
The overarching theme is that the coalition believes it can free people to find their own solutions by rolling back what it sees as an interfering, bureaucratic and stifling state. That state, it argues, can anyway no longer be sustained in its present form, at a time when the £155bn deficit must be slashed. So students will no longer be funded by the state but will have to take responsibility for paying back the cost of their education later in life.
Seddon says it is an agenda on which Tories and Lib Dems in the coalition have found themselves able to unite for different reasons – but ones that suit both parties' political visions. "For the Lib Dems, spinning power outwards has always been about devolution. For the Tories it is probably more about changing and reducing the role of the state and increasing the role of individuals and communities."
As the scope and pace of the change become clearer, the arguments are beginning to rage – not just between political parties but within them. The white paper will provoke huge controversy. Labour is keen not to be seen to be against benefit reform or personal responsibility – indeed some of the ideas about conditionality build on those being developed by the last government. But some forces on the left suspect a sinister agenda. They believe the big society is just a fig leaf for an ideological mission to shrink the state and dismantle the means to protect the most vulnerable.
The June emergency budget and last month's comprehensive spending review have already been widely criticised for hitting the poor hardest. As the Observer reports today, the government has abolished the social exclusion taskforce in the Cabinet Office – a unit established to stop people ending up on the margins of society. Government documents show it has been reborn as an office called "Big Society, Policy and Analysis".
In a taste of the arguments to come, Jon Trickett, a shadow minister with responsibility for social exclusion, describes the direction in which the coalition appears to be heading as "deeply disturbing". He added: "In no civilised society does the government wash its hands of our duty to the poorest. Yet this is what these changes signify. Both ministers and the backbenchers should hang their heads in shame."
Tim Horton, research director of the Fabian Society, likens Cameron's big society to George W Bush's "compassionate conservatism". He believes elements of the Tory right are under the influence of the anti-tax, anti-state Tea Party movement that had such a profound influence on the Republican surge in last week's US midterm elections. "Tax-funded public services are perhaps the best possible example of the big society," said Horton. "But the Tories simply can't see it that way."
Even some Tories are getting worried about the combined social consequences of drastic cuts and the drive to change attitudes towards personal responsibility. When mayor of London Boris Johnson said he would resist "Kosovo-style" social cleansing in relation to housing benefit cuts, he articulated in extreme language a residual fear among many Conservatives that the vulnerable could be left behind in the whole process. Mark Field, a London Tory MP, has also voiced his worries.
There is concern among his colleagues that state-backed projects for one-to-one tuition in schools that have helped underprivileged children will wither and die under coalition reforms. There is anger too among Conservative councillors across the country about the way local authorities are being stripped of responsibility for local education policy.
Last week MPs on the cross-party public accounts committee said the headlong drive for financial savings might be unrealistic and that as a result there was "serious risk" that ministers would end up slashing frontline services even more.
Observers see inconsistencies in the big society model. Professor Alan Deacon of Leeds University, an expert on welfare policy, says there is a big contradiction at the heart of Iain Duncan Smith's reforms, because the heavy hand of the state will be required to enforce the "on yer bike" approach to benefits. "At one level there is a tension between the authoritarianism of work enforcement through the work programme and the emphasis upon personal freedom and getting government off our backs," he says.
Others point out the contradiction at the heart of Gove's approach, with local authorities being stripped of responsibilities for schools policy while increased power to manage the parent-power revolution is being placed in the hands of the secretary of state. Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at the University of Buckingham, also points out that there are critics of the charter school system in America. They suggest that such schools thrive because they take children from motivated backgrounds, potentially weakening other schools in their areas. Some argue that free schools in Britain could have the same effect.
As for charities – placed by Cameron at the heart of his vision of a new energetic and civic society – they too are worried. Dr Peter Kyle, deputy chief executive of the ACEVO (the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations), said there were inconsistencies in the policy. He said the sector had doubled in size in 15 years partly because of greater delivery of public services. Public spending cuts will hit charities hard, along with the VAT increase to 20% and an expected fall in giving. The result, according to ACEVO, will be a £4.5bn funding black hole.
Kyle said the government urgently needs to remove obstacles facing voluntary organisations that wished to take on delivery of public services. "Otherwise when the transformation does occur, there will be no charitable sector to speak of able to rise to the challenge," he said.
In America there is still heated debate about whether the approach to welfare now being championed here really works. One of its supporters is Charles Murray, author of the controversial book The Bell Curve, and a leading voice at the highly influential conservative thinktank the American Enterprise Institute.
"In America we have got the underclass off the public agenda," he says of the impact of the welfare reforms. "Britain has a much worse time with crime, welfare dependency, single-parent mothers and men who are able but long-term unemployed. You are still in a much worse state than the US was in the 1980s and 1990s."
But there are other views. One US phenomenon that might serve as a warning is that of the so-called 99ers – people who lost their jobs and have been unable to find work for 99 weeks – the point at which their unemployment welfare is turned off. There are now upwards of 1.4 million 99ers in America facing a life with no benefits and few prospects for finding a job in a market in which companies are still not hiring.
In continental Europe, other countries are already marching in a different direction. Though time-limiting of benefits is used, providing security for individuals is seen as vital. Many have been inspired by an idea that has its root in Denmark, where the former social democrat prime minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, coined the phrase "flexicurity".
This was developed to respond to two competing pressures: the need for businesses to flexibly adapt to globalisation and new technologies, and the desire among workers for security. Flexicurity is about providing security for individuals, not jobs, and protects them as they move between employers. It works by encouraging regular training, tailored support for job seekers and equal opportunities for men and women.
Many politicians and academics in Europe believe that the principles that lie behind it are the ones we should all be following.
Back here, Horton argues that if the idea of the UK coalition government is to pare down services and the role of the state too much in the name of the big society, then it will not work. The British, he says, will not accept it.
"The Tories have long looked to the US Republicans for their inspiration. But they will struggle to import the same kind of politics to the UK. Britain was not founded on a tax revolt, and Brits are highly attached to their public services. That's why David Cameron spent the election campaign promising to protect frontline services."
Lessons from abroad
The American dream?
Politicians have not copied what they have witnessed in the US – but they have been inspired by it. Take welfare. George Osborne, the chancellor, has even borrowed language from his American counterparts. He has spoken of people thinking of benefits as a 'lifestyle choice'. Ideas in health and education also seem to have some roots in the US – although Scandinavia has also provided its models. Another source of inspiration has been Australia, where MPs have picked out ideas about payment by results.
Swedish schools
Much has been made of how the Conservative party has been inspired by Sweden in implementing its free-schools policy, which allows parents or other groups to set up schools. But many point to the US as well and its charter school revolution, particularly in the case of academies. Here - like there - the drive is to free up schools from government control. But a key difference is that in the US those running schools lose their contracts if they fail to make them successful.
The 99-ers
These are the people whose unemployment welfare has been turned off because they have been out of work for 99 weeks. There are upwards of 1.4m 99ers in America, perhaps driven by the fact that the country's jobless rate is lagging behind other signs of recovery. People face losing their homes and often build up huge debts as they turn to credit to survive. Many are lobbying for the Americans Want to Work Act to extend jobless benefits for a further 20 weeks.
Charter schools are primary or secondary schools that receive public money (and like other schools, may also receive private donations) but are not subject to some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school's charter.[1] Charter schools are opened and attended by choice.[2] While charter schools provide an alternative to other public schools, they are part of the public education system and are not allowed to charge tuition. Where enrollment in a charter school is oversubscribed, admission is frequently allocated by lottery-based admissions systems. However, the lottery is open to all students.[3] In a 2008 survey of charter schools, 59% of the schools reported that they had a waiting list, averaging 198 students.[4] Some charter schools provide a curriculum that specializes in a certain field — e.g., arts, mathematics, or vocational training. Others attempt to provide a better and more efficient general education than nearby public schools. Charter school students take state-mandated exams.[5]
Some charter schools are founded by teachers, parents, or activists who feel restricted by traditional public schools.[6] State-authorized charters (schools not chartered by local school districts) are often established by non-profit groups, universities, and some government entities.[7] Additionally, school districts sometimes permit corporations to manage chains of charter schools. The schools themselves are still non-profit, in the same way that public schools may be managed by a for-profit corporation. It does not change the status of the school. In the United States, though the percentage of students educated in charter schools varies by school district, only in the New Orleans Public Schools system are the majority of children educated within independent public charter schools.[