R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
Do you think the 1996 Welfare Reform was counterproductive because the work requirement excluded college education? I read an article critiquing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act because “workfare” ended up pushing mothers into dead-end jobs rather than encouraging them to complete the education needed to attain middle class employment. Even worse, it mentioned that recipients were encouraged to leave college for menial labor.
The article mentions other points that may be worthy of mention in another thread, especially the connections and problems between welfare reform and domestic but for this thread I’d like to focus on the points relating to education.
Please answer both charitably and civilly, but candor is still very much appreciated.
“Any job is a good job” was the slogan emblazoned on the walls of county welfare agencies across the country, as tens of thousands of low-income mothers were made to quit college to do up to thirty-five hours per week of unpaid “workfare”: sweeping streets, picking up trash in parks and cleaning public restrooms in exchange for benefits as low as $240 a month.
“…Work wasn’t the problem; it was the nature of the work—low-wage, dead-end jobs with no benefits and little chance for advancement—that kept families like mine on the welfare rolls.”
Do you think an effective education component is necessary for a successful welfare program? Or should welfare be focused on alleviating the needs of those struggling in poverty?
The article mentions other points that may be worthy of mention in another thread, especially the connections and problems between welfare reform and domestic but for this thread I’d like to focus on the points relating to education.
Please answer both charitably and civilly, but candor is still very much appreciated.