alaska and arizona welfare benefits

Alaska and Arizona have welfare benefits that achieve the same goal but differ in several ways. These disparities are due to the two states' separate reforms, rules, and amendments enacted by Congress. This legislation and amendments had an effect on how these services are administered in the two nations. Similarly, the social environment facets of culture and government vary across nations. As a result, the implementation, branding, and management of welfare services in Alaska and Arizona vary because there are no shared institutional aspects. The commonality of the two states is the beneficiaries of these programs are the less fortunate and the unemployed in the society. This paper will illustrate on Alaska state benefits and give a comparison to Arizona welfare benefits. It will provide a conclusion how the benefits are related to the two states and the differences in conditions and limitations to access them.
Introduction
The American Congress has passed several welfare reform laws that vary from state to state. Therefore, the state of Alaska has put in place measures to ensure that its citizens live healthy and comfortable lives. The state’s government has come up with many elaborative benefit plans including Medicare, kid care, food stamp program, head start program, special milk program, unemployment assistance, weatherization assistance, and heating assistance programs. Likewise, the state of Arizona provides similar benefits, but it has enriched them in some way to ensure that the needs of its population are served appropriately (Amundson, Zajicek & Hunt, 2014). For example, programs like Medicare-related programs, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Weatherization Assistance Program and other temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) associated plans have a slightly higher impact in terms of beneficiaries and helping transform people’s lives. Therefore, the benefits realized from the programs in each state differ in different aspects that involve formalization, application, and societal impact. This article will identify and compare the welfare benefits offered by the two states.
Alaska State Welfare Befits
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in Alaska takes care of the needs of families with higher incomes that do not qualify for Medicaid. The incomes have to be insufficient to afford medication in private hospitals and medical facilities. The program covers routine check-ups, doctor visits, emergency services, prescriptions, inpatient and outpatient care, and immunizations. It serves the medical needs of children who lack insurance up to the age of nineteen years. For the child to qualify for this program, he or she has to come from a family that has an income too high to qualify for Medicaid, a national US citizen, permanent resident, or legal alien (Wu, Cancian & Wallace, 2014). The requirements specified help in preventing undeserving beneficiaries from benefiting, and it aims at empowering the populace of Alaska to become self-reliant.
Families or individuals with low incomes and with children aged below nineteen years have received considerable assistance fostered by CHIP. The Children’s Health Insurance Program operates as a grant to the less fortunate in the American society. Those underemployed, unemployed or likely to become jobless get considered to receive benefits from this scheme (Heen, 2015). The above-mentioned individuals belong to the low-income earners in the society. Their living standards qualify them to receive the benefits unless otherwise they are provided well-paid jobs that will lift their living standards.
Moreover, the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) is meant to assist the low income earning families in paying off utility costs and expenses. It targets people with disability, those with children as well as the elderly. Individuals who receive the Supplemental Security Income are eligible to receive the Weatherization Assistance Program. Since most of the people in Alaska live in poverty and are unable to meet their utility expenses, therefore the government has to come to their assistance. Additionally, the state carries out a National Energy Audit so as to determine the cost or amount of money that households spend on energy (Wu, Cancian & Wallace, 2014). This audit reduces cases of venality and enhances fair and equitable distribution of the resource benefits of the program.
Apart from the (Weatherization Assistance Program) WAP initiative, the Alaska government supplements the federal unemployment insurance program. Through the plan, unemployment benefits get extended to qualifying employees who remain unemployed not out of their fault. Beneficiaries have to meet certain eligibility issues including the applicant has to be unemployed by not a fault of his or her own. One has to have been working in Alaska for the past twelve to eighteen months before he makes an application for consideration. Whoever qualifies for the benefits must be available to work each week and collect his or her benefits. The scheme’s primary objective is to provide temporary cushioning to the unemployed workforce as long as they conform to the Alaska laid down guidelines (Cousins, 2015). The objective is established though following different requirement procedures to establish the facts of an individual before being included in the program.
Comparison to Welfare Benefits in Arizona
Just like Alaska, Arizona also gives assistance to its low-income populace to help them come out of poverty. Most welfare programs in Arizona focus empowering individuals to be self-reliant and independent. They include Cash Assistance Program (CAP) which is considered to be the most profound social benefits scheme in Arizona. It extends temporary assistance to the needy families in the state. The local government receives grants and donations that it utilizes to give the low-income earners some relief until they become self-reliant at some point. The program is one of the subsidiary plans put forward by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF’s purpose is to ensure that needy families are given support so that children receive care while in their homes, the youth and unemployed become prepared for job opportunities, avoid marriage conflicts, and work to reduce the dependency of low-income earning parents. This feature identifies the program to be like the weathering program in Alaska. The difference is that the intervention in Arizona targets cases of unwanted pregnancies out of wedlock with the aim of reducing uncontrolled population growth. One has to be a US citizen, legal alien or national as well as a permanent resident with little income to benefit from the plan (Amundson, Zajicek & Hunt, 2014). This requirement is provided in the guidelines of the program and also recognized by the state and federal laws of US.
Like Alaska, the state of Arizona offers Child Health Insurance Program for families with too high incomes that cannot qualify for Medicaid and even afford medication in private medical facilities. However, the plan includes pregnant women, as well as parents as it closely works with the Medicaid, with the intent to ensure that the quality of life for Arizona citizens improves. Several families in the state have low incomes which could be insufficient in seeking for quality health care for both the pregnant women and the children. It also covers emergency cases, routine checkups, immunizations, and prescriptions as well as dental and vision care for children who have not exceeded the age limit of 19 years (Cousins, 2015). The age requirement of 19 is in conjunction with the recognized age limit of a person referred to as a child as provided by the state laws. Also, as the name of the program suggests, the program aims at establishing children health, and therefore one has to meet the qualification of being a child to receive the benefits of the program
Arizona has taken up partnerships with the federal government, for instance, the Women, Infants and Children Program to help children from low-income families to develop emotionally and socially and also enhance their cognitive abilities. The Alaska state does this program with Head Start in which the children are offered a conducive and appropriate environment to learn. Various areas of child development such as literacy and language are given priority as the program emphasizes on the function of the guardian or parent as the first teacher to the child. Within the scheme, infants between zero and five years of age, families with low incomes, and pregnant women get covered as long they stay below the federal poverty level.
The Arizona state administration has hence adopted a similar model to include parents, pregnant women, children, elderly, and the disabled who happen to fall below a prescribed income level. Many American citizens who fall below a certain degree of revenue have benefited from the Medicaid scheme by the federal government. Even though the state provides the program, the federal laws and regulations still apply (Heen, 2015). For instance, for one to benefit he or she has to be identified to fall within the defined limit of income. Heen (2015) also states that the condition that only US citizens, permanent residents, legal aliens who reside within Arizona are to benefit from Arizona Medicaid will still hold despite the circumstances.
In the state of Arizona pupils and children in childcare institutions and schools who do not benefit from other meal, interventions are eligible to get free milk. This program is not incorporated and well defined in Alaska State. In Arizona, schools enrolled for the National School Lunch also participate in the making of the special milk program a success which is not the case in Alaska. The provision that only Arizona residents are eligible to benefit from the program is also applied in Alaska welfare programs. Arizona Beneficiaries of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) automatically get enrolled to gain from Special Milk Program. Similar welfares including the School Breakfast Program offer some economic subsistence to entities and organizations that do not have the aim of making a profit so that they can provide breakfast to schools and institutions indulging in childcare. Several other schemes such as the Women, Infants and Children Program, Arizona Summer Food Service perform the same function of ensuring that the needs of low-income families get relief from the burdensome treacheries of life (Heen, 2015). This function identifies the program as a welfare beneficiary to Arizona residents.
Conclusion
There is a clear, distinct measure that differentiates the benefits in the two states in different aspects despite being identified as welfare befits. Each state has a different way of applying for the programs and delivering the services required by the program to its citizens. Despite the differences, the common benefits realized from the programs are similar in both states. The way of applying for this programs, naming and administration procedures differ because of different, dissimilar characteristics identified in the two states.
Moreover, the social setting and the cultural differences between the two state localities may impact on the programs thus resulting in the similarity and differences that are realized in the application of the programs. This social setting aspect defines the limitation and conditions of state residents in the two states to receive the benefits of the programs (Amundson, Zajicek & Hunt, 2014).For instance, in Arizona, Cash assistant program is dominant. The program is comparatively similar to weathering program in Alaska State. The way of administration of these programs are different, but they end up resulting in the same benefits in the society. Moreover, individuals assisted by the two programs almost share feature commonalities. Such features include low-income earners, unemployed or underemployed.
References
Amundson, K., Zajicek, A. M., & Hunt, V. H. (2014). Pathologies of the poor: What do the war on drugs and welfare reform have in common? J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare, 41, 5.
Cousins, M. (2015). Equal protection: Immigrants' access to healthcare and welfare benefits. Hastings Race & Poverty LJ, 12, 21.
Heen, M. L. (2015). Welfare reform, child care costs, and taxes: Delivering increased work- related child care benefits to low-income families. Yale Law & Policy Review, 13(2), 3.
Wu, C. F., Cancian, M., & Wallace, G. (2014). The effect of welfare sanctions on TANF exits and employment. Children and Youth Services Review, 36, 1-14.