Definition Essay on Poverty

In this paper, I will be discussing poverty and the policy of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). I am focusing on poverty because _____; and I am analyzing TANF because it is one of the primary ways in which the United States Federal government attempts to address poverty directly.

Overview of Poverty

Poverty is a large-scale global social problem that directly relates to the basic necessities of life and the consequent well-being of individuals. Among these needs are the rights mentioned in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which ascertains that every human being “has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family.” There are two ways to look at poverty, as absolute or relative. Absolute poverty is defined as “a measure of the minimal requirements necessary to afford the minimal standards of life-sustaining essentials- food, clothing, shelter, clean water, sanitation, education and access to health care” (Fay). Meanwhile, relative poverty is “a measurement of income inequality within a social context. It does not measure hardship or material deprivation, but rather the disparities of wealth among income groups” (Fay).

To determine the amount of people who are affected by poverty in the United States, it is necessary to first define poverty and how to measure it. The United States Census Bureau measures poverty by using poverty thresholds. These thresholds vary by the size of the household and the ages of those in the household. The Census Bureau does note that “Although the thresholds in some sense reflect a family’s need, they are intended for use as a statistical yardstick, not as a complete description of what people and families need to live.” Using poverty thresholds, the poverty rate in the United States is 10.5%, or roughly 34 million people (Semega, Kollar, Shrider, and Creamer 2019). The Census Bureau does update the threshold “annually for inflation” but using the threshold as a measure of poverty still has several limitations, including the fact that it does not take into account geographic location. (How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty). Furthermore, critics state that it “measures only monetary income... but does not include other sources of in-kind or non-cash gifts from public or private sources” (Fay).

People from many differing demographic backgrounds can be affected by poverty. However, according to the poverty threshold measure evaluated by Semenga, Kollar, Shrider, and Creamer (2019), in the United States, there are specific demographic groups that face higher poverty rates. Among these disadvantaged, marginalized groups are women (11.5%), people under 18 years of age (14.4%), individuals with disabilities (22.5%), people who are foreign born (12.6%), people who are not citizens of the United States (16.3%), those without a high school diploma (23.7%), Black people (18.8%), and Latinx people (15.7%). (How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty).

Poverty not only has extensive effects on individuals who are poor, but also on society as a whole. Its nature as a wicked problem connects it to a lack of access to many basic needs. Those who live in poverty are at risk of poor health due to increased stress, inadequate nutrition, food insecurity, and often lack of access to medical resources and healthcare. Children living in poverty often attend underfunded schools and face difficulties in obtaining an education. People living in poverty also face housing insecurity and the possibility of homelessness. They often receive lesser-quality of vital services, which can impact their well-being in many ways. High poverty rates can also have effects on communities by being a factor in rising crime rates.

There are two major perspectives on poverty in the United States. The first one, which is arguably the more dominant perspective, is that poverty is an individual failing. People in poverty are seen as not working hard enough or wanting the government to support them. The other perspective which views poverty as the failure of a capitalistic system is increasingly gaining support.

History of Poverty

Poverty was first identified as a social problem by churches and other religious institutions who saw it as a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. In policy, poverty was first identified as a problem with the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601. The history of poverty. The history of addressing the problem of poverty, especially the Poor Laws of 1601, greatly affects welfare policy approaches to poverty in the United States and is part of what drives policy to distinguish between the worthy and unworthy poor. Mary Richmond and the Charity Organization Services (COS) and Jane Adams and Settlement Houses were two social work approaches to poverty that took root in the United States during the 19th century, and they continue to influence different approaches to poverty today. The COS “emerged from a concern for making almsgiving scientific, efficient, and preventative” and their “guiding philosophy was that pauperism could be eliminated through investigating and studying the character of those seeking help by educating and developing the poor” (Franklin). Settlement Houses took a different approach and their founders “chose to live and work among the poor as neighbors, seeking to bring their education and goodwill to bear on the problems. They defined problems environmentally and engaged in social melioration' (Franklin).

Historically, poverty has been viewed through the religious lens as an individual moral failing.

Several human rights are impacted by the social problem of poverty. Articles 25 and 26 of the (UDHR) are impacted by this problem. Article 25 states that every individual

has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

The well-being of an individual is directly impacted by poverty because it is difficult for those in poverty to meet their basic needs and maintain their health without some type of assistance. Education is also another right stated in Article 26, “Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory” (UDHR). In the context of the United States due to the way in which school districts are zoned by the taxes paid locally, poverty directly affects the quality of education students receive. Students who live in zoned areas that are economically poorer attend schools that are less adequately funded, which impacts their accessibility to opportunity.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Different economic, political, and cultural values and interests have conjoinedly influenced the perception of poverty. American cultural values of individualism and interests have influenced the perception of poverty by putting the burden of poverty on the individual and attempting to ignore large-scale structural issues. Political values and interests have been influenced by economic values and lobbyists who “buy” politicians. Furthermore, the political ideology of neoliberalism also contributes to how we perceive poverty. Economic values, interests, and capitalism have influenced the perception of poverty by reducing individuals to their work output, making a distinction between the worthy poor (those who work) and the unworthy poor (those who do not work).

The perspectives on poverty continue to be varied, with some placing emphasis on the individual and others placing emphasis on the environment of that individual. However, in social work specifically, the perspective has changed from historically blaming those living in poverty for their poverty to an understanding of structural and institutionalized discrimination and oppression that makes it difficult for the poor to economically mobilize. Among the many possible ideas and events that may have caused or contributed to these changes are Jane Addams and Hull House, the development of core social work values, an emphasis on human rights within the profession, and the increasing income inequality within a capitalist system, especially within the United States.

Many different groups have been influential in the response to poverty. As seen with the Poor Laws and subsequent welfare laws and reform, government leaders do have a lot of power when it comes to responding to the social problem of poverty. Religious leaders and private religious organizations also contribute to the alleviation of poverty through services. The wealthy often become philanthropists and some feel a moral obligation to help the poor (yet others do it to get a tax deduction). Social work, in particular, has responded to poverty in several ways. As mentioned earlier, Jane Adams and Mary Richmond were two social workers who contributed greatly to the formation of two different approaches to poverty in social work. Today, both of their approaches are drawn upon, but modern social workers tend to favor Jane Addams's view of poverty as a result of the environment in which people live to embrace more of a strengths perspective instead of viewing poverty as an individual failing, as Mary Richmond does.

Analysis and Evaluation of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

TANF is a United States welfare policy whose function is to assist poor families. However, none of their four directly relate to addressing the problem of poverty. The first goal to “provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives” is the only goal that appears to put a focus on the families receiving assistance (What is TANF?). TANF’s three other goals are to “end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families” (What is TANF?) are aligned with the idea of having to give out less assistance, not to lift families out of poverty.

Because TANF is a federal block grant given to individual states, each state chooses its own eligibility requirements. However, there are some limits that the Federal government imposes including barring “most legal immigrants until they have been in the county for at least five years” as well as undocumented immigrants (Policy Basics). There are also time limits imposed and the states “cannot provide federal TANF funds for longer than 60 months to a family that includes an adult recipient; however, states can exceed the 60-month limit for up to 20 percent of their caseload based on hardship” (Policy Basics). There are also work requirements that are imposed on recipients.

Due to TANF’s lax goals, it can offer several different kinds of benefits, depending on specific state policies. These benefits often come in the form of cash benefits, but they can also include job training, childcare, transportation assistance, home energy, housing, and food (Government Benefits). Unfortunately, TANF benefits are not sufficient to meet people’s needs. In fact, “In almost every state, they [TANF benefit levels] leave a family of three below half of the poverty line” (Policy Basics). In “every state, benefits are at or below 60 percent of the poverty line and fail to cover rent for a modest two-bedroom apartment” and 33 states have “benefits levels at or below 30 percent of the poverty line” (Safawi and Floyd 2020). This lack of ability to ensure that basic needs are met is one of several gaps in the current policy. Other gaps include a lack of response to the intersections between the structural nature of racism, other forms of discrimination, and poverty. It distinguishes between the worthy and unworthy poor by immigration status and a work imperative. TANF limits the amount of time in which families can access these benefits, which can hurt many people and impact their ability to meet their needs. It simply seeks to throw people into jobs, instead of looking to place them in jobs where they can apply their strengths and grow. TANF also fails to empower people to economically mobilize.

TANF’s policy does not necessarily respond to the oppression of specific racialized groups such as Black and Latinx people. “Fifty-five percent of Black children live in states with benefits below 20 percent of the poverty line, compared to 40 percent of white children” (Policy Basics), and “Black children are also more likely than white children to live in states where benefits are the lowest” (Sawafi and Floyd). TANF also fails to respond to the needs of undocumented people and most immigrants who have been living in the United States for less than five years, which violates a human rights perspective.

The transfer from the entitlement program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), to TANF, a state block grant did have several unintended consequences. AFDC had unintended consequences of work and marriage disincentives (Bitler and Karoly), TANF was created, in part, as a response to these disincentives. However, TANF did not just combat these unintended consequences, but it also created more. The block-grant format of TANF empowers states to choose what to do with TANF funds, but many states have misused TANF funds, “creating potentially devastating long-term consequences for children growing up in families with little or no cash income to meet basic needs” (Schott, Pavetti, Floyd). Due to TANF’s work priority, job preparation programs and college are disincentivized, which limits future economic mobility for TANF recipients. The work priority also has the potential to disproportionately harm families with physical or mental disabilities. Time limits for TANF also have unintended consequences and they can prevent economic aid from reaching families (even though they are still in need of it), which impacts children’s well-being despite best efforts by their parents.

Overall, the economic and employment outcomes of TANF have been poorly measured but, “In recent years, Congressional leaders… have expressed interest in updating TANF to better capture information on how well... [it] supports employment outcomes for program participants” and the state work participation rate will be replaced with “an outcomes-based performance measurement system that would evaluate states on how well they did in assisting TANF recipients in achieving employment, earnings, and credential attainment goals” (Desjardins, Kaleba, and Wilson). The current way in which TANF functions does not support economic mobilization or long-term positive outcomes. However, the move towards

Shifting TANF to an outcomes-based accountability system- where states are rewarded based on how successfully they are assisting TANF participants in getting the skills and credentials necessary to compete in today’s labor market- would significantly improve TANF’s ability to reach its goal of promoting work (Desjardins, Kaleba, and Wilson). While TANF provides a basic safety net for many families, it does not rights-based perspective and its outcomes are not what they should be. This shift in policy towards a focus on outcomes-based functioning has the potential to change the actual outcomes of the TANF program. Child outcomes in TANF are not necessarily the best. One of the premises on which TANF is based is that higher incomes contribute to better child well-being, but a work requirement does not necessarily lead to higher income (Bitler and Karoly).

Overall, TANF is not effective in solving the specific social problem of poverty, and this is partly because its main goal is not to help people economically mobilize, but rather to lower the amount of assistance it has to dole out.