The policy of workfare is not a new idea; it goes as far back as the 16th Century in England, when Elizabethan Poor Laws established workhouses for those living in poverty that were deemed able to work. The form of indoor relief required that destitute individuals enter an institution (or “workhouse”) in which they would work in exchange for money, food, and clothing. Outdoor relief was also in effect at the time, which involved similar assistance but without having to enter a workhouse. Indoor relief was similar to present-day workfare except that today workhouses are not used. However, then and now, individuals worked in order to receive government assistance.
The Workhouse Test Act of 1723 was passed by the British government to require persons wanting poor relief to enter workhouses. Therefore, the Workhouse Test Act enforced only indoor relief onto those living in poverty in order to get them to work for their social assistance. This is not to be mistaken with the workhouse test in Britain, a condition of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 which was the same idea of the Workhouse Test Act (that those wanting poor relief would have to enter workhouses) however the condition was never actually implemented, and outdoor relief was continued to be given.
Australia’s Work for the Dole program is another example of a federally-funded work-based welfare program. After a trial-run in 1997, Work for the Dole was permanently enacted in 1998, in both a part-time and full-time form in which the same idea of “mutual obligation” is maintained by working for welfare assistance. Work for the Dole is still in effect today. Welfare-to-Work was a similar program in effect in the United States, however Welfare-to-Work ended in 2004 due to mixed results as to the effectiveness of the program.
In 2005, Indian legislation enacted the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) to help seasonal labourers who only work for part of the year, due to crop growth patterns, avoid living in poverty. NREGA offers 100 days of paid employment per year to eligible workers to compensate for their time off work, rather than offering Western-model welfare assistance.
These are just a few examples of how world-wide, workfare has been and continues to be implemented in various forms. Workfare has been a controversial issue for many reasons, mainly because it assumes the position that unemployed and impoverished people seeking welfare are lazy and just looking for a free ride. Workfare has as one of its objectives the teaching of life skills by teaching people the “value” of work, but is under-paying individuals involved in workfare and leaving them worse-off after exiting the welfare system really teaching them the value of work?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Work for the Dole is still in effect today. Welfare-to-Work was a similar program in effect in the United States, however Welfare-to-Work ended in 2004 due to mixed results as to the effectiveness of the program." (4 Social Workers)
<
<
If you're talking about a specific program, it may have ended, but Workfare and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 enacted in 1996 still remains in effect throughout the United States...and with great success!
The final word on that sibject for most Americans came in 2000, "Welfare and poverty rates both declined during the late-1990s, leading many commentators to declare that the legislation was a success. An editorial in The New Republic opined, "A broad consensus now holds that welfare reform was certainly not a disaster - and that it may, in fact, have worked much as its designers had hoped."
In NYC alone, which once had over 1.2 MILLION people on welfare, welfare reform and workfare has resulted in there bieng UNDER 400,000 people on welfare TODAY.
The general consensus is that of that 800,000 person drop, appx. 60% (or nearly 500,000) were mostly "double dippers," people who collected welfare from multiple locations, now unable to do that with workfare.
Still, some 300,000 people were, in effect, given back their self-respect, by being able to actually earn their own livings without any government handouts.
A system that allows people to merely show up, prove some degree of poverty and reward such people with what amounts to a guaranteed income, subsidized food, clothing and housing is a poorly designed one that's ripe for abuse and NYC's was very much abused.
If nothing else the current workfare statutes make it impossible for people to "double dip."
I don't believe that there's any way to make a logical argument in favor of a guaranteed income absent work.
Ideally EVERYONE should contribute to society through productive/profitable pursuits....those who can't or won't need a little nudge...like wworkfare.
Thank you for your comments and the time you spent reading and responding to our blog posts. We hope that throughout the duration of our blogging, some of your comments and concerns will be addressed through more thorough examination of Workfare's pros and cons, as well as through the proposal of an alternative policy response that will address some of the shortcomings (in our opinions) of Workfare.
Post a Comment