The Era of Meanness: Welfare Reform and Barriers to a College Degree

Abstract

In response to the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and the accompanying block grant, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, broad-based advocacy coalitions formed in many states to lobby for meaningful college programs for welfare recipients. State by state, these coalitions wrestled with creating programs that would allow welfare recipients to remain in 4-year colleges, but only a few states managed to develop such programs. This article compares the advocacy coalitions in two states, Maine and New York, where welfare advocates struggled to achieve progressive state welfare higher educational policies and, in some instances, succeeded in keeping welfare recipients in 4-year colleges.

Economic Empowerment of Impoverished IPV Survivors

“…For IPV survivors who relied on the public welfare benefits, advocacy services would be provided by in-house advocates who have a good level of understanding of and experience with IPV survivors. VAWA would create funding for the program, since the state government’s use of TANF money to create local programs often is negatively influenced by state politics (Price, 2005; Weikart, 2005). More specifically, the task of advocates would include the following: If they are in-house advocates in the welfare office, they will provide information on the services and programs for IPV survivors in welfare systems, such as work requirement and child support waiver, and refer them to necessary IPV services in the communities, such as shelter, health, legal, and court advocacy services. They will develop or refer IPV survivors to financial literacy programs and assist IPV survivors to create savings accounts.…”

“…For IPV survivors who relied on the public welfare benefits, advocacy services would be provided by in-house advocates who have a good level of understanding of and experience with IPV survivors. VAWA would create funding for the program, since the state government's use of TANF money to create local programs often is negatively influenced by state politics (Price, 2005;Weikart, 2005). More specifically, the task of advocates would include the following:…”

The importance of engaging students on public assistance: New insights and recommendations for practice

“…John Jay’s CUNY EDGE Program, honed over five years of theory-to-practice application, takes the University’s model further by focusing on student engagement as a tool for student success (Astin, 1984), connecting on-campus employment to mentorship and success outcomes for students on welfare (Christopher, 2005), bridging the divide with faculty and seeing faculty as partners in the success outcomes of each student (Simpkins, 2016), and an understanding of the barriers frequently facing low-income students (Strom, 2014; Weikart, 2005). These aspects have added to the framework provided by CUNY and created a unique program configuration at John Jay College that has proven in one year to produce incredible outcomes for our students and their families.…”

“…As time went on, some states, including New York, began to expand allowance of educational activities for public assistance eligibility. Still, many of these expansions focused on vocational training or two-year community college degrees, with a meager 15 states allowing pursuit of bachelor level education by 2003 (Weikart, 2005). In 2014, the New York City Human Resource Administration extended welfare policy to make up to 12 months of work toward a four-year degree program an allowable activity to maintain eligibility for benefits.…”

The New Welfare Trap

“…However, analysts agree that in the existing climate, current legislators and welfare office administrators have been less likely to develop postsecondary educational options (Price 2005;Shaw et al 2006;Weikart 2005). Recent changes to TANF policy overtly reveal a reluctance to support postsecondary education.…”