couple Thought on the policy side. 

Mわ的re R帥m

BACKGROし宴ND

Enacted in 1996, the Personality Responsi-

bility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

dramatica11y changed瓜e way血e federal gov-

errment provides financial assistance to needy

families. This act created Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families (TANF), Which limited assis-

tance to 60 months and required recipients to

WOrk. However, TANF failed to contain appro-

Priate provisions for education and job train-

ing. There were strong work requirements′ a

Performance bonus to reward states for mov-

ing welfare recipients into jobs, State mainte-

nance of effort requirements′ COmPrehensive

Child support enforcement′ and some supports

for families in moving them from welfare to

WOrk, including increased funding for child

Care and guaranteed medical coverage (U・S.

Department of Health and Human Services,

2005). Major provisions of the act indude the

following :

喜　Welfare recipients will be required to work

after two years.

喜　Cash payments will be provided for no

more than five years during recipients′ 1ives.

漢　Unwed mothers under 18 years of age are

ineligible for assistance unless they live in the

home of an adult relative or in another adult-

SuPerVised arrangement.

喜　States wi11 be allowed to deny cash pay-

ments to children bom into families already

recelVmg aSSistance.

喜　State must comply with mandated work

Participation rates to maintain block grants

(Ozawa & Kirk, 1996).

Although welfare rolls declined by 60 per-

Cent between August 1996 and September 2006,

from 4.41 mi11ion to l.76 million families, the

Cyde of poverty and permanent self-Sufficiency

Were nOt OutCOmeS for the many single mo血-

ers and poor families. According to血e U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services

(2007), ‘′Only 32 percent of TANF families wi血

an adult participated for enough hours to count

and almost three-fifths of TANF adults had no

reported hours in work activities, neVertheless

using up their time-1imited benefits’’(p. 2).

Changes in the law that mandated states to

engage TANF families in productive work ac-

tivities that would facilitate self-Sufficiency m-

Cluded the following:

獲　First,血e law changed血e base year of the

calculation of the caseload reduction credit

from FY 1995 to FY 2005. The caseload reduction

Credit had inadvertently undermined TANF

WOrk requirements・

鵜　The law included in血e work participation

rates families in separate state programs, Which

Were PreViously excluded from the rates. Under

Prior law and rules, SOme StateS mOVed fami-

1ies to programs essentially identical to瓜eir

TANF programs but funded wi血state money

used toward the maintenance-Of-effort (MOE)

re qulrement.

喜　The law eliminated provisions for the High

Performance Bonus and血e Illegitimacy Reduc-

tion Bonus and replaced瓜em wi瓜a $150 mil-

1ion-a-year reSearCh′ demonstration’and techni-

Cal assistance fund. This fund is for competitive

grants to streng血en family formation, PrOmOte

hea皿y mamageS′ SuPPOrt reSPOnSible fa血er-

hood′ and improve coordination between tribal

TANF and child welfare services.

3ユ6　SOC王AL WORK SP号AK5

“　The DRA expanded a state’s abilfty to meet

its MOE requirement. States may now count

expenditures血at provide pro-family benefits

and services to anyone′ Wi血out regard to finan-

Cial need or family composition’if the expendi-

ture is to prevent and reduce the incidence of

out-Of-Wedlock births (TANF purpose 3), Or

encourage血e formation and maintenance of

two-Parent married families (TANF purpose 4).

0 It increased federal child care funding by

$200 million per year, $1 billion over five years・

With血e inclusion of state matching funds

required to draw down these additional dol-

lars, neW funding for child care totals $1.8 bil-

1ion over five years (U・S. Department of Hea皿

and Human Services, 2007).

Because of the drastic increase in families

working wi血out a sighificant increase in eam-

ings′ WOrking poverty has replaced welfare. Ac-

cording to Camevale and Reich (2000), a皿ough

血e overa11 rate of poverty has declined, POOr

PeOPle are poorer and more working families

are living in poverty. Because educational ac-

CeSS is inextricably linked to economic security,

poor single women and families must have ac-

cess to educa丘on and job training to achieve per-

manent self-Su飴ciency and economic security.

Education and training programs must not be

Seen aS SeParate entities from work but as part

of a continuum of activities that result in work.

A major facet of welfare reform is supporting

healthy marriages and responsible fa血erhood.

Congress stipulated in瓜e Welfare Reform Law

of 1996血at three of血e four purposes of血e

block grant to states should be related to pro-

moting hea皿y marrlageS; When the Deficit

Reduction Act of 2005 was signed in 2006 to

reauthorize welfare reform, $150 mi11ion was

included for support of programs designed to

help couples form and sustain healthy mar-

riages (Dion, 2006).

ISS耽S場4場巳M号NT

The social work profession is keenly aware

血at poverty serves as an impediment to pro-

moting血e general welfare of society from血e

local and global levels. It is an impediment to

the development of people′血eir communities′

and血eir social envirorments. Recent policy

efforts directed at offering a political decision to

addI:ess a complex issue has not been effective

at moving individuals from living in poverty to

Self-Sufficiency. SeZfsl雛Ciency can be de丘ned as

able to provide for your own needs wi瓜out

help from o血ers. It is an ideal・ Social workers

realize that for some, true Self-Sufficiency lS

not attainable to all members of society. There

are members of our communities who because

of disabilities and limitations carmot achieve

this ideal.

The work requlrementS Of TANF and o血er

barriers forced many single-Parent reCipients to

leave school to maintain their welfare payments

(Price, 2005). During 1995-1996, mOre血an

650′000 welfare recipients were enro11ed in edu-

cation beyond high school・ By 1999 this number

decreased by almost one half (U・S. Department

of Education, 1999). Many jobs in today’s job

market requlre Credentials′ Skills′ and cognitive

tasks. Welfare recipients with low ski11s and

educational levels are faring poorly in血e labor

market. The most successful welfare programs

use more than one approach, Only job search for

some and for o血ers, Career development′ Short-

tem training′ and education血at are fooused on

obtaining specific jobs. Even血ough eamings

have been shown to increase with these mixed

Strategies′ reCipients still remain in poverty

(Gueron & Hamilton, 2002). More attention

needs to be placed on poverty reduction strate-

gies血at lead to career development・ Research

demonstrates that mothers′ successful educa-

tional outcomes significantly affect their chil-

dren′s cognitive abilities and educational ac-

hievements (Kates, 2001).

In addressing血e effects of poverty′ SOCial

workers need to acknowledge that poverty

imposes an enormous cost on society at large.

The lost potential of children reared in poor

households, the lower productivity and eam-

ings of poor adults′血e poor health′ increased

Crime, and broken neighborhoods all serve as

COunterPrOductive to moving individuals′ fam-

ilies, and communities toward self-Sufficiency.

It is now the responsibility of organizations

such as NASW to engage in血is policy-making

PrOCeSS by campaigning to change voters’

StereOtyPeS about poor people′ Offering a

W号LFAR号RE干ORM　3ユ7

humane and efficacious approach to income

assistance programs, and working to modify

the impact of血e 1996 legislation on poor peo-

Ple and families. As stated earlier′血is legisla-

tion rests on血e assumption血at the economy

and the job market can provide sufficient em-

PIoyment to produce血e necessary income for

those who are now recelVmg Welfare benefits.

POLJCY S軍A場軌傭NT

NASW affirms血e value and importance of

WOrk in a血ee market economy. We acknowl-

edge the importance of wea皿building for all

Citizens, While being clear血at our economic

SyStem has struc山ral inequities血at keep some

individuals and families poor. We reject the per-

SPeCtive that views failure to develop wealth as

a personal failure wi血out reference to血ese

StruC山ral inequities. As Ozawa and Kirk (1996)

noted, ′′the economic system and血e wage

StruCture are … Changing rapidly. Under血ese

Circumstances of social change, it is inevitable

that some mothers and their children will be

economically dependent. Blaming them for

their economic predicament and for other social

PrOblems is not only simplistic, it is a cruel

hoax.’’(p. 195)

Key principles include血e following:

書　出e restoration of a safety net血at protects

the most vulnerable individuals while support-

ing their efforts to become economica11y self-

suffi cient.

喜　universal social weIfare system血at does not

Stigmatize′ CategOrize′ Or Pa血oIogize people.

鵜　entitlement of all people to be treated with

dignity, reSPeCt, and well-being regardless of

their economic status.

NASW supports

S COmPrehensive child support for all single

CuStOdial parents.

1　universal health care.

喜　meaningful empIoyment training (both

POStSeCOndary education and skill building) for

availあle empIoyment oppor山nities・

喜　higher education for people on weIfare血at

Will provide opportunities for economic security.

喜　aSSistance in obtaining empIoyment at a liv-

1ng Wage′ including par血erships wi心血e pri-

Vate SeCtOr; hea皿y, Safe working conditions;

Child care; and unempIoyment insurance.

漢increase in EITC (eamed income tax credit)

Participation in all states.

喜’ adequate services to address domestic vio-

lence, SeXual abuse, mental health needs, Sub-

StanCe abuse, and literacy problems.

0　血e need to address problems that contribute

to poverty, Such as substance abuse, domestic

violence, mental i11ness, i皿eracy, and o瓜ers.

漢　POlicies to encourage job creation and cam-

Paigns to expand definitions of job training and

efforts to unionize low-Wage jobs.

暮　SOCial work rede丘ning itself regarding in-

COme maintenance services.

S an eCOnOmic system that ensures every per-

SOn has a job at a livable wage and safe and

humane working conditions.

喜　血e recognition of the economic value of

Child rearing and careglVlng.

喜　POlicies on the administration of welfare

benefits and prograns that promote national

Standards and policies for the delivery of ben-

efits and programs血at serve as a safety net for

all people・

喜　advocacy at the state level for血e develop-

ment and improvement of state welfare poli-

Cies in the various state legisla山res and wi瓜

Iocal officials.

0　COllaborative public-Private efforts to move

Welfare recipients into work experiences瓜at

Offer a living wage, aPPrOPriate levels of train-

mg, adequate heal血bene卸s, and an inten-

tional effort to provide opportur止ties for eco-

nomic advancement.

喜　POlicies血at protect血e entitlement status of

Medicaid and food stanps for all who meet e虹

gibility criteria, including immigrants, refugees,

and noncitizeus.

書　出e integration and expansion of profes-

Sional social work persomel into the delivery

3ユ8　SOCIAL WORK SP号AKS

Of public and private social services for welfare

recipients.

0　advocacy efforts for legislation and fund-

ing for research activities that track recipients

Who are dropped from welfare programs・ Data

collection also is essential to document the sub-

Sequent POlicy impact on child development′

empIoyment′ and increases in child abuse and

termination of parental rights. In addition,

research must investigate the long-term effects

Of welfare reform on poverty.

喜　the integration of welfare policies wi血

housing′ Child welfare′ eCOnOmic′ and mental

health policies so瓜ere is a holistic approach to

reducing and eliminating poverty.

0　POlicies that allow people to receive bene-

fits for as Iong as they need them and eliminate

Punitive measures such as full family sanctions

and family caps′ including sanctions imposed

during the time period that health′ domestic

Violence′ family′ and addiction problems are

being addressed.

書　冊e promotion of strategies that enable wel-

fare recipients to build personal and financial

assets, Such as individual development accounts.

喜　PrOmOtion of intensive work supports for

low-income families with children, including

Child care subsidies, Medicaid and expansion

Of SCHエP, food stamp program promotion, and

EITC availability.

音　吐e promotion and support of intensive

CaSe management SerVices to welfare teenagers′

elimination of血e living-arrangement rule, and

relaxation of school a壮endance requirements as

Per individual circumstances.

R王FER王NC王S

Camevale, A. P., & Reich, K. (2000). A piece qfthe

puzzle: Hozt, StateS Can uSe education fo make
u0γk pa力やγ Zt,e物γe γeCipients. Princeton, NJ:

Education Testing Services.

Dion, M. R. (2006, December). The Oklahoma

Maγγiage肋iatiz’e: An o?e訪ez可fhe Zongest-

γ〃ming state枕,ide mrγZage jnitiatiz’e in #ze

u.S. [ASPE Research Brief]. Washington,
DC: U・S. Department of Health and Human

Services, 0飴ce of血e Assistant Secretary

for Planning and Evaluation′ Office of

Human Services Policy.

Gueron, J. M., & Hamilton, G. (2002). The γOie

q声功cation and fγaining ;n z‘,e物γe γ4bγm・

Brookings Institution・

Kates, E. (2001, Summer). Welfare reform and

access to education: Penalizing mo血ers and

Children. CYD Jouγml, 2(3).

Ozawa, M. N., & Kirk, S. A. (1996). Welfare
reform [Editorial]. Social Wo枕Research, 20,

194-195.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193, 110

Stat. 2105.

Price, C. (2005, September). Reforming welfare

refom postsecondary education policy: Two

State CaSe Studies in political culture, Orga-

hizing, and advocacy車urml qf SocioZog雄nd

Social l偽物γe, 32(3)・

U.S. Department of Hea皿and Human Ser-

vices. (2005). I996 PeγSOml Respons謝ity and

l偽γk a廟orfmiiy Reconciliation Act・ Washing-

ton, DC: Au血or.

U.S. Department of Hea皿and Human Ser-

Vices. (2007). The 71eXt Phase qf柳e物re γ帥γm

(pp. 1-7). Washington, DC‥ Au血or.

PoZicy statement岬pγOZ’ed bU fhe NASW De転ate Assemb功August 2008・ This policy statement supeγSedes fhe policy s掘ement on

Temporary Assistance /bγ Needy Famiiies; We陶e R4vr㌢?pprOひed裾he Delegate AssemZ,ly jn 1999 ”nd γ4諦ed Z,y fhe 2005

Delegate Assembl車o脇e 2008 Delegate Assembl妨γ γeZ’ZS‘On, the policy statement on Aid fo Families zt,紡Dependent C脇dγen

R4bγm岬prOt’ed by fhe Delegate Assembly jn I990, an桁he policu state77宅ent On We物γe R4vγm appγOZ’ed叫脇e Delegate Assem均

in I987. Foγ巧‘γtheγ iγかmation, COntaC朝e Natioml Association qf Social Wo沃eγS, 750 FiγSt S士γeet′ NE′ Snite 700′脇shington′

DC 20002-4241. Telephone: 202-408-8600 oγ 800-638-8799; e-mail: PγeSS@mszt,dc.0γg

W苫LFAR王R且FORM　3ヱ9

Ⅵわmen in the Sociai

Wb確Pr昨ssion

JSS耽S軍AT巳M号NT

The history of social work is a ′′herstory′′ of

female reformers′ Suffragists′ and charity work-

ers (Vandiver, 1980). A partial list of female

SOCial work pioneers includes such prestigious

names as Grace Abbott, Jane Addams, Sophon-

isba Breckiuridge′ Dorothy I. Height′ FIorence

Kelley, Julia Lathrop, Li11ian Wald, Mary即en

Richmond′ Bertha C. Reynolds′ and Frances

Perkins. Other trailblazers in social work in-

Cluded many women of coIor doing bo血′′racial

uplift′′ and traditional social work tasks′ SuCh

as Barbara SoIomon, Victoria Wamer, Mary

Church Terrell, Ida B. We11s-Bamett, and Nan-

nie Helen Burroughs (Carlton-LaNey, 1999;

Peebles-Wilkins & Francis, 1990; Perkins, 1997;

Vakalahi, Starks, & Hendricks, 2007). The lat-

est chapter in women in social work history

includes recognizing that same-SeX intimate

relationships were central to血e lives of many

female social work pioneers′ tO PreVent the era-

Sure Of sexual identity from social work history

(Fredriksen-Goldsen, Lindhorst, Kemp, & Wal-
ters, 2009).

Although women were prominent during

the newly developing profession of social

WOrk′ men Often held managerial positions

and directed the frontline′ and predominately

female, WOrkforce. As early as 1880, WOmen

noted and protested this uneven representa-

tion (see Vandiver, 1980). Although social

WOrk frequently has been referred to as a
′′female-dominated profession′′′ that supposi-

tion has been challenged over血e years (Meyer,

1982). For instance, McPhail (2004) contended

that a more accurate characterization of social

WOrk is that it is a ′′female majority, male-

dominated’’profession.

Today, WOmen COntinue to make important

COntributions to the social work profession and

COmPrise the numerical majority of social

WOrkers. A 2004 national study of licensed

SOCial workers provided a help血I demographic

POrtrait of women in social work (NASW, Cen-
ter for Workforce Studies [CFWS], 2006a).

Eighty-One PerCent Of licensed social workers

are female. The racial and ethnic breakdown of

WOmen in social work is not representative of

ei血er血e U.S. national population or血e dients

they serve: 86 percent of female social workers

are white′ 8 percent are African American′

3 percent are Latinas, and 3 percent identify as
’′o瓜er.’’The majority of female social workers

have an MSW degree (83 percent), and 2 per-

Cent hold a doctoral degree. Thirty-eight per-

Cent have between one and five years of prac-

tice experience, 37 percent are empIoyed in瓜e

Private not-for-PrOfit empIoyment sector, and
the largest primary practice area is mental

health (33 percent). Female social workers on

average remain with the same empIoyer for

eight years, Plan to remain with their current

job for the next two years, and cited salary as
血e most important factor瓜at could influence

a job change (CFWS, 2006a). Female social

WOrkers were found in many practice settings′

With women comprising 90 percent of social

WOrkers in the field of aging, 79 percent in

behavioral health, 83 percent in children and

families, and 87 percent in health care venues

(CFWS, 2005).
Women in social work, 1ike血eir male coun-

terparts, demonstrate a range of professional

Skills, including assisting people in overcom王ng

SOme Of life′s most di組cult challenges′ SuCh as

POVerty, discrimination, abuse, and addiction

(NASW, n.d.), aCting in a variety of roles such
as academics, Clinical practitioners, aCtivists,

educators, 1egislators, and policy analysts;

320　SOCIAL WORK SP王AKS