Snitch Line Research Paper

Does the Welfare “Snitch Line” work? In 1995, a welfare “Snitch Line” was created to crack down on welfare fraud in order for governments and taxpayers to save millions of dollars. “During the 1980’s and 1990’s the public perception was that welfare fraud was a serious and costly expense well beyond reality” (Reitsma-street & Keck, 1996 ..). The Snitch Hotline and Fraud prevention team promised taxpayers a saving of over 100 mil in the first year. This estimated savings did not including police, legal, social and prison costs associated with charging recipients with fraud. Although the purpose of the hotline seemed, and was expressed, as extremely positive reality of its contribution was different. Reality is that the number of cases found
within the welfare system of fraud was only 1% of recipients. Therefore, the amount of money spent on the snitch line and the prevention team totaled more than the amount saved by finding the 1% of recipients committing fraud. According to Reitsma-Street and Keck (1996) in 1 year there was a cost of 204, 000 for all complaints, in which only 44 613 was recovered. Also for every case where a recipient was charged with fraud was a 2000 cost of legal aid with no guaranteed conviction. One also must be aware that at this time a majority of welfare recipients were single mothers but challenged the status qou of nuclear families. Along with all the financial loss the Hotline created, there was opposition against the fraud task force, which had also been implemented. Opposition accused the activities of the task force as being further defective because it attacked those most vulnerable. Women recipients were denied self-autonomy and experience extreme intrusiveness. Scrutiny resulted in individuals becoming hurt through false accusations. Ultimately resulting in destroyed trust in communities and pitting neighbor against neighbor. This created paranoia in the communities. Despite expressed concerns, the hotline and task force remained open. With large amounts of persistence from opposition on February 16 1995, the District of Sudbury Social Services Administration Board said arguments for a review had reached them for that reason a staff directed report and review where implemented into the agenda. By March 16 1995, a motion authorizing discontinuation of investigation line was released stating the hotline had served its purpose and was no longer needed (Reitsma-Street & Keck, 1996). When you summarize the effectiveness of the hotline “serving it purpose” one can debate if that purpose really was a success or failure. Was a loss of large amounts of money, or discrimination and victimization of women the outlined purpose of implementing these social policies? If it was then we can classify this policy as successful. However if it was not, did society allow a social policy to harm their communities more than help them because it was supported by the elite. How does the snitch line contribute to our fear and dislike of the poor, poor women in particular?
The notion that poor and poor women particularly need should be disliked and feared was an elite ideology.
Single mothers challenge the norm ideology of a nuclear family. A nuclear family viewed as having full responsibility of their own well-being. Historically, the men were the head of the household and were financially responsibility for all needs of the nuclear family. Single mother families challenged this ideology and were seen as deviant and problematic. Because single mothers have no male, the question was then who is financially responsible for her and the children. To address who was financially responsible the elite categorized single mothers into two categories deserving and undeserving. Only single mothers who gained status by widowed were deserving of welfare called Mothers Allowance. Single mothers who gained status out of wedlock or abandonment were undeserving and did not receive welfare. Eventually, all women who cared for children and had no other form of income became eligible for welfare. However, with assistance and the implementation of the snitch line, fraud task force their lives became scrutinized and policed to determine if they were deserving of assistance. Questioning their sexuality and if truly were single was a key part of labeling their eligibility. Extreme measures of the scrutiny included termination of benefits if any male belongings were in the home (Reitsma- Street & Keck, 1996). The fear caused by the task force and their intrusiveness towards recipients into their home, but as well their personal autonomy was highly experienced and was a continuation of the idealization of nuclear family. “Sex outside of marriage—outside of family—rendered one undeserving of government support” (Welfare and the Ontario “Snitch Line, NA). Within society, the effect of this ideology shifted perception and depiction of single mothers from helpless to bad, creating greater public fear of their effect on society. Governments retreated
from their responsibility in caring for children and left the responsibility to those who choose to have them (Neuman, 2017). Welfare recipients became political scapegoats of fiscal restraint. The focus of the public now was on an issue that was only one of the greater problems within society. The fear of the poor taking from the deserving and harming society made it acceptable to chase people (single mothers) rather than fixing the system itself (Reitsma-Street & Keck, 1996). The snitch line and fraud task force fuelled resentment, feeding anti-poor ideologies of the righteous taxpayer’s verse freeloader and cheaters who were the poor.
What changes need to occur in social policy and public perception to change the experience of persons on social assistance?
Social workers can have a key role in the promotion of change toward systems, policy and structures. Without pressure and persistence toward changing these areas peoples experience on social assistance will continue to remain the same. Individual workers can provide a “better” experience to individual cases in which they work, but systemically social assistance is a support doused in stereotypes, judgment, criticism and stigmatization. To change experiences for all and not sole individuals the system must change as a whole. “A social worker shall identify, document, and advocate for elimination of discrimination” (code of ethics of the Canadian association of social worker section 10.1). Outlines in a social workers ethics is the notion to promote equality, which often the social assistance policies, and public perception does opposite. Many women are encouraged to return to abusive relationships rather than live in poverty (on assistance) showing the unequal perception about who deserves to live, compared to those who deserve to live safely. A notion that assistance recipients have chosen, and should choose to live in environments of fear and violence is one example of discrimination that needs to be addressed by policy reform. According to Reitsma-Street and Keck (1996) there are three steps relevant to social change. People who seek to change policy and public perception will see best success if appropriately following steps. Beginning with mobilizing the vision of change one has and taking action will help promote the change. Next those seeking change must being willing to enter into public debate. Here one opens concerns to public debate broadcasting contrary evidence. Stories that create embarrassment or dissonance with accreted facts may promote certainty. Further, the one must also redefine the problem by discussing the argument competing or contradicting status qou. Lastly and most importantly is the need to engage decision makers.
Stating the steps to promote, advocate, and demand social change is much easier than attempting to do so. Individuals, social workers, protest groups, and society as a whole must be aware that the path of fighting status qou can be one of grave difficulty. This is not to say fighting the discrimination, oppression, and all other systemic concerns is not worthy of the difficulty. I it’s a guidance that one must be aware of this difficulty, must prepare for self care, must prepare for blame or attack, and must find a support network that they can lean on in times of struggle. The status qou was fought to be put in place long before present generation existed, no wonder a strong battle will be needed to change the status qou for present and future societies.