The Goal of Policy Evaluation
The goal of policy evaluation is to discover and evaluate alternative policies and programs that are created with the intention of addressing social, physical, or economic issues. There are a total of five steps in the rational policy evaluation model, according to DiNitto and Johnson (2015) in their book Social Welfare Politics and Public Policy. Below is a discussion of the steps.
Step 1: Outlining and Clarifying the Issue
The first phase entails outlining, clarifying, and validating the specifics of the issue (policy) that needs to be handled. Most people skip over this stage, which causes misconceptions. Most rational policy evaluation processes are group-based. This calls for the need to have a common understanding of the issue at hand. Failure to properly identify and define the problem may result in different definitions among different members of the group. The first step of the model ensures that the definition of the problem is the same among all the group members. This facilitates the effective evaluation of the rational policy. After the problem is identified, an initial solution is defined, and primary analysis of the problem is started (DiNitto & Johnson, 2015).
Step 2: Identify Alternative Policies
The second step entails coming up with solutions to the identified problem. In this case, solutions will be alternative policies. It is important for the policymakers to have a good understanding of the problem at hand. Therefore, rational policy evaluation should be perceived as an incrementalism practice. Some of the possible alternatives include the status quo, also known as the "do nothing approach", and any other that can serve to improve the situation at hand. Policymakers can also combine existing policies with new ones to derive better solutions that have not been thought of before. Past experiences and past policy evaluation practices can be used to gain a better understanding and to conduct a thorough and rational policy evaluation. Policymakers should refrain from settling on options prematurely; several alternatives must be considered to arrive at the most suitable one. Some of the strategies that policymakers can leverage to achieve an optimal solution include research, brainstorming, experiments, concept mapping, or coming up with scenarios (DiNitto & Johnson, 2015).
Step 3: Evaluate Alternative Policies
The next step after identifying alternative policies is evaluating the alternative policies. This helps to identify the right policy to implement by evaluating how each possible alternative can benefit the previously established criteria. More data should be collected at this step for the purpose of analyzing the different levels of influence, which include the economic, social, and political dimensions of the problem. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis methods are employed to determine the benefits and costs of each alternative. Policymakers should use this step to take into consideration the possible success and failure of every alternative (DiNitto & Johnson, 2015).
Step 4: Implement Policies
After the evaluation of the alternatives, the next step is implementing the most suitable policy. The policymakers need to take into consideration the possible implementation strategies and how they will affect the success of the chosen alternative. Combining two or more alternatives, either existing or new ones, is a good strategy for ensuring that the best policy is adopted and implemented (DiNitto & Johnson, 2015).
Step 5: Monitor Effects of the Policies
This step is aimed at determining the effectiveness of the implemented policy. Even after an alternative is selected and implemented, there may still exist doubts of whether the problem has been solved, or whether implementation of the new policy was carried out appropriately. This step helps the policymakers to determine whether the chosen policy was the right one and if the intended objectives have been achieved. In case the implemented policy does not have the intended impact, it can either be modified or terminated (DiNitto & Johnson, 2015).
Influence of Early Relief Efforts on Modern Welfare Programs in the United States
The current structure of the United States social welfare programs has been shaped by changes in social and economic conditions, and long-standing traditions in the country. In the early history of the United States, the country was rapidly expanding, thanks to the vibrant predominant agricultural economy. According to Ehrenreich (2014), more than half of the population by the year 1870 was made up of farmers. In the years that followed, industrialization took over, resulting in specialization and urbanization. The economy was transformed from an agricultural to an economy with rising numbers of employees. These employees depended on the continual flow of money as income to support themselves and their families. Although local villages and towns aided the needy, the practice was carried out through poor relief systems involving workhouses and alms-houses. With the rapidly growing economy, there was a need to adopt measures to offer aid on a more organized basis.
The measures that were adopted saw the awarding of cash allowances to the poor and the introduction of mother pension laws. The mother pension laws made it possible for children without fatherly support to live with their mothers, rather than in foster homes or institutions. Some states in the United States also started offering old-age assistance and aiding the blind. Both the States and the Federal government realized that certain risks in the economy could be mitigated through social insurance. Social insurance programs would ensure that everyone contributed and everyone received the benefits, as opposed to initial programs, where only those in need benefit. Social insurance in the country was kick-started with workers' compensation. By the year 1929, all but four states in the country had adopted and implemented social insurance programs. Laws were established to ensure that the industry compensated the workers or their beneficiaries in case of injury or death in the line of work.
Some of the earliest public welfare programs to be implemented by the United States government include retirement programs for certain employees employed by the government. For instance, police officers, teachers, and firefighters were among the first groups to benefit from the program. This was followed by retirement plans for police officers and firefighters in most states. The Federal government also provided benefits for individuals who served in the Armed Forces.
Social welfare programs in the United States have been highly influenced by the early relief efforts that took place in the country. Currently, these programs have developed to become very effective and widely acceptable by the society. Change proposals are formulated targeting specific problems that arise in the society. The welfare programs in the United States have also developed to be highly decentralized. Some of the programs depend on the Federal government for administration, financing, or both. Also, the private sector plays an important role in the decentralization of welfare programs in the United States. This has been achieved through the provision of health and medical insurance, and other programs such as group life insurance, and employment-related pensions, among others (Ehrenreich, 2014).
Difficulties in Measuring Poverty in the United States
In the United States, the official measure of poverty has been identified to have several distinct characteristics. For instance, it measures income poverty with the aim of identifying families that do not have enough money to meet their annual needs. The official measure considers the household's annual cash and compares it to the level of income that a household of the sort requires reaching what is judged as the minimum consumption level. According to Haveman and Mullikin (1999), the measure does not take into account other potential sources of welfare, such as security tax credits, food stamps, and social inclusion. The official measure also serves as an absolute measure of poverty. In this case, the measure compares cash income to income requirements. These official poverty measures are flawed and are a major cause of the problems researchers face while trying to measure poverty levels in the country. The nature of these poverty measures does not show the effects of policies implemented with the aim of improving the economic well-being of the households.
Some of the criticisms and difficulties that researchers encounter when measuring poverty include a low threshold. The living standards and costs have been changing since the 1960s. Currently, food encompasses just a seventh of the average expenditures by a typical family. The poverty line back in the 1960s represented almost 50 percent of median income for families with up to four members. Currently, the poverty line only represents about 28 percent. This indicates that poverty levels among families have been continuously dropping.
Another criticism and possible difficulty that researchers are bound to face in the United States involve rules used in counting resources. The resources may at times be understated or overstated. The rules, in this case, do not show the effects of policies such as subsidized housing assistance, refundable tax credits, among others, have on a household's disposable income. The resource-counting rules also do not take into account the impacts of household budgets of work expenses, tax liabilities, or costs of healthcare.
Another criticism facing the United States measure of poverty is the failure of the database holding the poverty measure to capture cash income accurately. The annual March Current Population Survey conducted by the United States Bureau of the Census is used to hold the official poverty measure. The database fails to specifically capture income coming in from assets and illegal activities, among others.
Ethical Implications of Policies Requiring Mothers to Return to Work or Risk Losing Their Welfare Benefits
The United States has recently made some reforms in the welfare system, which is made up of a wide range of state programs that advocate for the stability of families, the offering of time-limited financial assistance, and full employment for recipients. Several welfare programs under The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) were removed. Among the removed programs are the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Emergency Assistance (EA), and The Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) programs. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) was created under PRWORA to replace the removed programs. The main purpose of the program is to offer block grants to the states, to provide financial assistance to needy families. The reforms also touched other government benefits that are designed for low-income families. The programs that have been removed or modified offered benefits for health care, childcare, people living with disabilities, food stamps, child welfare, and child-support enforcement. Under the new reforms, most immigrants will have no access to welfare-related benefits (Hildebrandt & Stevens, 2009).
The new TANF rules will force more low-income adults into getting full employment through several regulations. The current beneficiaries will be required to get employment or take part in training-related activities. A five-year lifetime limit has been imposed on financial assistance. All the benefits of an individual will be terminated if the rules are not obeyed. Finally, the number of families that will be exempt from work has been reduced. The TANF guidelines will only exempt parents with children who are one year of age or less. In some states, more strict guidelines have been implemented, which require mothers to resume work when the child is six months or less.
The aim of the government when implementing the TANF guidelines was to get women to start low by getting low-paying jobs, move to better-paying jobs, and eventually become financially independent within a five-year time frame. However, this is unrealistic as the notion would only apply to young women. It is extremely hard for an older woman with kids and limited education to progress and get better-paying jobs within five years. Also, it becomes extremely hard for single mothers to focus on their work when the needs of her family overlap with the directives and demands of her employer. The mother will always be conflicted between keeping the job to pay for food and shelter and attending to the health, safety, and education needs of her children.
According to research carried out by Hildebrandt and Stevens (2009) on women who have been beneficiaries of TANF for multiple years, women who have been engaging in the welfare program for more than two years have been identified as disadvantaged over the long-term. The objective of the TANF welfare program is to have women, especially single mothers at a better state in five years. Research carried out by Hildebrandt and Stevens (2009) shows that most of the women who left the program were still working at low-paying jobs that offered no benefits. The women were faced with poor health, lack of transportation, economic hardships, and domestic violence, among other problems. Some were found to rely on family and friends for support, those who could not bear it resulted in substance abuse.
Women who fail to secure well-paying jobs through the TANF program within the five-year period fall among the most vulnerable individuals in the United States today. Others who get sanctioned from the program or fail to qualify due to immigration status are also at great danger. The government should intervene by extending the time limits or offer sustainable welfare exits to help the women maintain their socioeconomic stability. The government should ensure that every woman exiting the program has an established solid plan and hope of making their lives and those of their loved ones better. Failure to do this, the government may just be condemning them and their children to a hazardous life that will only negatively affect their health and wellbeing.
References
DiNitto, D. M., & Johnson, D. H. (2015). Social welfare: Politics and public policy. Pearson.
Ehrenreich, J. H. (2014). The altruistic imagination: A history of social work and social policy in the United States. Cornell University Press.
Haveman, R., & Mullikin, M. (1999, April). Alternatives to the official poverty measure: perspectives and assessment. In Conference on Poverty: Improving the Definition after (Vol. 30).
Hildebrandt, E., & Stevens, P. (2009). Impoverished women with children and no welfare benefits: The urgency of researching failures of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. American Journal of Public Health, 99(5), 793-801.
