Welfare To Work Pros And Cons

Since former President Bill Clinton introduced the “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, there have been pros and cons against this reform bill, while some politicians believe its a disaster, other politicians see it as a way to reform their states’ welfare program. Listed below are four areas as a public administrator or public servant needs to focus on shaping their Welfare to Work program, since this reform bill provides the states the flexibility to reform their systems.

1) Poverty is the root to Welfare. States need to find the cause of poverty and find a solution to cure it. When Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty back in the 1960s, he intended it to strike “at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty”(Marshall & Rector). In addition, not only to relieve the system of poverty, but to cure it and above all, to prevent it” (Marshall & Rector). Welfare to Work is
Since welfare to work is about putting recipients to work, states need to focus on investing in quality education, job skills training and education is related to productive workforce placement. Such recommendations as working with job training personnel of colleges, cooperation’s, industries, and local businesses to make sure higher education is identified when it come to work activities. States legislators should make sure that their caseworker explains the different work requirements options about post secondary education that’s available to their clients. We also recommend that states “should fight to change the law to permit education and training opportunities for women on public assistance for at least 4 years to complete associate and bachelor’s degrees necessary to obtain meaningful jobs that pay a family wage and ensure long-term self-sufficiency” (www.apa.org). This recommendation is a motivation factor that will increase self-esteem, self-worth self-growth and the determination to stay off of