Policy Analysis

1. What is the name of the policy?
2. How is it funded?
3. Is it federal, state, or local?
4. What social problem lead to the creation of the policy?
5. Who support and/or opposes the policy?
6. Is the policy effective?
7. If yes, then how?
8. If no, then how
9. Are there any unintended consequences of the policy?Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
Before 1935 social welfare provided financial assistance to children in low-income families began in the 1950s. …(this sentence does not make any sense to me)The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) programmed was expensive for the government and was believed to be ineffective in breaking the poverty cycle. The new Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 were simply designed to move many individuals into the workforce to be able to provide for their families. PRWORA was also a reform primarily to reduce the coverage of public assistance to individuals. There are numerous outcomes which occurred as a result of the PRWORA which includes: PRWORA made changes to Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) by extending this coverage to children and their families for up to one year after leaving welfare. PRWORA made eligibility for food stamps more restrictive. PRWORA also provided financial assistance to low-income individuals who have a disability which is known as SSI.
How is it funded?
PRWORA consolidated federal funding for child care under the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), and federal and state funding under CCDF…(again, I don’t understand this sentence! I’m not sure what you are saying here!) Legislature has transition from a federal to a state-led approach to funding the program. The federal block grant that was introduced meant that individual states had to consider their welfare spending habits carefully, as every additional dollar had to be paid for out of their own pockets. PRWORA was a radical departure from its predecessor, the federally-controlled and expansive Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. The 1996 reform block-granted federal funding for welfare to the states and placed certain conditions on the funding, such as a requirement that recipients would only be eligible for federal welfare funds for a maximum of five years.

Social problems
According to the text “Modern Labor Economics, pg. (198),. There are many social problems that lead to the creation of this policy which was aimed to encourage work, reducing poverty, and moving people off welfare. PRWORA also imposed additional limits on eligibility for Food Stamps and Supplemental Security Income (SSI, the cash assistance program to low-income aged and disabled individuals) among certain populations. The reform became a major goal of Bill Clinton during his 1992 presidential campaign, as he aimed “to end welfare as we know it.
PRWORA had a major effect on many individuals once their public assistance was taken away. Although PRWORA was developed to help individuals not depend on public assistance for help and to work for their needs/wants, most individuals who left welfare were struggling to maintain a healthy lifestyle and be able to provide for their families. The cause of this problem is from not making enough earnings from low-wage jobs. Majority of these individuals, mainly single-working mothers, continued to live in poverty even though they were making more than being on public assistance.
Legislators backed the reform because it was meant to achieve several objectives that would in their view improve family welfare (see also Clarity of Objectives): “Legislators articulated the following goals for reform: (1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families” (You have this in quotations but do not give any citation to where this quote comes from!)

Supports and Opposes
According to the PRWORA passed in 1990’s it was supported by a high degree of bipartisan, and by a large majority of politicians and the public….(how do you know this? Did you personally research this to collect the data? Or, did you find this information form somewhere else? If so, then a citation is needed here!) There were two Democrat Senators Moynihan, and Wellstone, who had vocally opposed and voted against the PRWORA….(citation needed!)
President Bill Clinton vetoed two versions of this bill and it remained controversial.
Despite these significant achievements and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many politicians—mostly Democrats—still refuse to acknowledge how successful welfare reform has been. Signed into law by President Bill Clinton, PRWORA transformed the United States’ welfare system, saving billions of dollars and helping millions of people move from government dependence to self-sufficiency…..(Again! How do you know this? Where are you getting this information? What is your source? You need citation here! Also, you could have expanded your discussion more in this section. A one paragraph statement seems incomplete!)
Policy Effectiveness
Based on my opinion the PRWORA is a very effective policy bringing the number from 12.6 million in 1996 to today only 2.8 million Americans remain in welfare—a 77% decline. …(Without giving a citation here, this sentence is plagiarized.) A 2017 study in the American Economic Review, examined the effects of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, found that public assistance eligibility for drug offenders reduces one-year recidivism rates by 10 percent. …(citation needed!)There appear to be many positive developments since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in August of 1996. Welfare caseloads have dropped substantially, from 5.5% of the total U.S. population in 1994 to 2.1% in June 2000. …(citation needed!)Many former welfare recipients have entered the workforce, and poverty has fallen among children overall from 1993 to 1999. ,,,(how do you know this? What is your source?) Welfare caseloads dropped substantially since the creation of PRWORA. As mentioned in the text, since the signing of PRWORA in 1996, the average AFDC caseloads was about 12.5 million individuals. In 1999, the TANF caseload had fallen to 7.3 million recipients. By 2004, fewer than 3 million Americans were served by TANF.

Former welfare recipients have entered the workforce since PRWORA was established. Between 40 and 70 percent of welfare recipients were granted jobs in order to decrease their chances of needing to depend on public assistance. More job opportunities were available to single-parents since the passing of the PRWORA.
Created Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), that provides block grants to the states and provide cash assistance to needy families.

Unintended consequences
There are unintended consequences of the policy; The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The TANF program implemented by PRWORA — and a series of state-level reforms instituted prior to 1996 known as state waivers — produced changes in the structure of welfare benefits, introduced time limits, strengthened requirements for mandatory participation in work-related activities, and changed various administrative procedures. To inform public debate on issues relating to the reauthorization of the TANF program in 2002 and to help states in refining the designs of their TANF programs, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) contracted with RAND to synthesize the current state of knowledge about the effects of the TANF legislation and the TANF programs of individual states. …(I don’t know what you are trying to say here. I don’t understand this sentence.)To this end, this document — the final report for the synthesis project — considers a range of outcomes, including the welfare caseload, employment and earnings, use of other government programs, fertility and marriage, household income and poverty, food security and housing, and child development. The primary focus of the synthesis is on the net effects of TANF, taking into account the effects of other factors such as the economy and other policy changes that may have affected the outcomes of interest. (This paragraph is unclear to me. I don’t understand it.)

It is widely believed that an unintended consequence of welfare reform was the loss of health insurance coverage among low-income families. This belief is based on several pieces of information: studies of welfare “leavers” find that a substantial proportion of former welfare recipients are uninsured in the year after leaving welfare; studies of the effect of welfare reform on Medicaid enrollment find a significant decline in Medicaid enrollment among low-income women and children after the implementation of welfare reform;4and there is evidence that administrative hurdles limit enrollment in Medicaid for low-income families not receiving public assistance.
Conclusion
Over the last 30 years, there have been many changes to the welfare reform policy. Welfare caseloads dropped substantially since the creation of PRWORA. As mentioned in the text, since the signing of PRWORA in 1996, the average AFDC caseloads was about 12.5 million individuals. In 1999, the TANF caseload had fallen to 7.3 million recipients. By 2004, fewer than 3 million Americans were served by TANF.
Former welfare recipients have entered the workforce since PRWORA was established. Between 40 and 70 percent of welfare recipients were granted jobs in order to decrease their chances of needing to depend on public assistance. More job opportunities were available to single-parents since the passing of the PRWORA.

Reference
Ehrenberg, Ronald G. Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public Policy, Ronald G. Ehrenberg, Robert S. Smith -11th Ed.
Jeffery Grogger and Lynn A. Karoly, Welfare Reform: Effects of a Decade of Changes (Cambridge; Mass.; Harvard University Press, 2005).
Rebecca M. Blank, Journal of Economic Literature
Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 2002), pp. 1105-1166
Acs, Gregory, and Pamela Loprest. 2001. Initial Synthesis Report of the Findings from ASPE’s “Leavers” Grants. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Administration for Children and Families, and Office of Planning Research and Evaluation. 2000. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program: Third Annual Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Ms. Fisher,
As presently presented, your entire paper is plagiarized. By not giving any citations in the body of your paper, you are claim that all the information presented is done by you and is your work and your research. This claim is fraudulent.
Here are some concerns I have about your paper: I. It does not follow that Policy Analysis questions that is required of the assignment. Some of the responses you gave does not seem to fit in the section of the analysis questions it is attempting to answer. Also, you have listed references on your reference page that are not listed in the body of your text. Some of the fonts in your paper are black and others are gray. All fonts should be in black. Here are the questions:
Policy Analysis Questions
1. What is the name of the policy?
2. How is it funded?
3. Is it federal, state, or local?
4. What social problem lead to the creation of the policy?
5. Who support and/or opposes the policy?
6. Is the policy effective?
7. If yes, then how?
8. If no, then how
9. Are there any unintended consequences of the policy?
10. If so, what are they?

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if my suggestions are not clear to you.
God bless!
Dr. Powell

10. If so, what are they?

Calculate Price


Price (USD)
$