This paper uses Bacchi's "What’s the Problem" policy analysis tool to examine the problem representations reflected in the 1996 US welfare reform as it was enacted and the implications of that representation in the development and implementation

1. Julie A Graber
DVST-9031
9-Jun-13 | 1
What’s the Problem Analysis
Part A: Gender Analysis of 1996 US Welfare Reform
When US President Bill Clinton signed The Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) into law in 1996, he made good
on a campaign promise to “end welfare as we know it” (Vobejda, 1996). Heralded
by many, then and now, as an historic, bipartisan achievement, the new law ended
decades of welfare as a federal entitlement, transferring the programs to the states,
with significant restructuring of the program’s resources and eligibility standards.
The purpose of this paper is to utilize the What’s the Problem gender
analysis tool to examine the problem representations reflected in the PRWORA as it
was enacted and the implications of that representation in the development and
implementation.
Personal
Responsibility
and
Work
Opportunity
Reconciliation
Act
The reform of the US welfare system in 1996 brought to an end sixty years
of federally-administered programs, including Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC), the Jobs Opportunities and Basic Skills JOBS, the Emergency
Assistance Program and their related administrative programs. In their place, the
federal government created two state block grant programs: Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) and the Child Care and Development Block Grant
(CCDBG).
The new, state-administered programs differed from their predecessors in a
number of significant ways (in addition to the shift of their administration to the
states):
• TANF, as indicated in its name, was intended to be temporary assistance to
needy families, and now came with a lifetime maximum benefit of five years for
adults (unless qualifying for specific exemptions).

2. Julie A Graber
DVST-9031
9-Jun-13 | 2
• In order to remain eligible for TANF & CCDBG benefits, adults in welfare
families had to participate in work and work-preparation activities, such as job-
readiness programs, job search support and to a limited extent, job skills
training. Those not working had to participate in community service
employment (thus the “work-first” and “welfare-to-work” monikers associated
with the reform).
In addition, in an effort to stem the rising number of “out-of-wedlock” births,
which the framers held responsible for “increasing welfare use and long-term
dependency,” (U.S. Government, 1996, p. 18) the act gave the states funds and the
flexibility to deny payments to teen parents who have children outside of marriage,
and to establish “family caps” that would result in limited or no increase in benefits
for mothers/families that had additional children while receiving welfare. States
were required to track their progress in reducing the illegitimacy ratio and were
given access to funding to promote abstinence through education.
What’s
the
Problem
Representation?
Concern
Cause
Welfare had become an entitlement
program – a way of living – and
recipients developed a dependency on
the program.
The lack of any incentive for welfare
recipients to secure employment and be
self-sufficient.
Welfare was fueling the growth of out-
of-wedlock/illegitimate births, especially
among African Americans and inner-city
single moms.
Readily available welfare benefits, with
no limitations, provided an incentive for
single mothers to have children without
the support of a husband/the father.
Presumptions
and
Assumptions
The PRWORA assumed a number of things in its problem representations:
• at its simplest, the problem representation assumed that the growth in the
number of families served by welfare was a problem – a social problem in need
of reform.

3. Julie A Graber
DVST-9031
9-Jun-13 | 3
• that most welfare recipients, with proper motivation, could secure and sustain
employment, and exit the welfare system permanently. Related to this was the
assumption that most welfare recipients were not currently working and were
not working because it wasn’t a requirement to receive welfare benefits.
• that any job would be a good job – there is no evidence that the authors did
any of the math related to the current minimum wage and its inability to
provide a family-sustaining income.
• that the government should play a role in reducing out of wedlock births
• that rewards and sanctions built into the new framework were the tools needed
to reduce the number of individuals and families on welfare.
What
Effect?
How
are
the
Subjects
Constituted?
The PRWORA reflected a major shift in US thinking about the typical
welfare recipient and what should be expected of her (yes, even pronouns in the
law are predominantly female).
The origins of AFDC and JOBS are traced back to 1935, during the
administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the implementation of the New Deal.
The intent of those original programs was to provide support for white, middle-
class mothers in situations where the father/breadwinner was dead or disabled,
with a goal of allowing the mother to stay at home and continue to care for her
children (Hays, 2003).
By 1996, welfare recipients had been reconstituted, thanks in part to Ronald
Reagan’s infamous description of a “welfare queen” as a unmarried woman living
on Chicago’s south side (where the population is primarily African American) with
multiple identities, an outrageous number of children, scamming the system, with
an income of $150,000 a year (Blake, 2012). This newly defined subject with its
gendered and racially implications was expected to work outside of the home to
help support her family, as had been the case throughout U.S. history (labor force
participation rates among African-American women have always outpaced that of
white women).

4. Julie A Graber
DVST-9031
9-Jun-13 | 4
The results of this reconceptualization of the typical welfare recipient was a
new policy rife with punitive measures: a five-year limit on benefits, along with
sanctions or total loss of benefits for failing to find and sustain employment, having
children outside of marriage, becoming pregnant as a teen, and for drug use.
Left
unproblematic
and
the
effects
The problem representation, assumptions and constitution of the subjects
reflected in the 1996 welfare reform policies leave unproblematic a number of
issues and concerns, at least for anyone who hoped that the policy changes would
lead to better lives for the families they affected.
• The policy itself reflects very little concern for the living conditions of poor
families and makes only limited mention of reducing levels of poverty in the US
through its implementation. This policy was about reducing welfare caseloads
and driving down the number of births outside of marriage.
• Related to the above, the policy reflects little understanding for the relationship
between the wages available to jobs welfare recipients were most likely to
secure and the inability of those wages, even at fulltime hours, to support a
family. The poverty threshold for a family of three was $12,516 in 1996,
approximately 30% higher than the $9690 that the minimum wage of $4.75 an
hour would generate with fulltime work (US Census and Department of Labor).
• The policy’s “work-first” requirement did not take into account the time
required to pursue additional education and skills development to secure long-
term, family-sustaining employment. Work preparation activities, including
education and training were limited to six months and did not cover the time
needed to complete a post-secondary degree (Associate, Bachelor’s or other).
As a result of these unexplored considerations, the 1996 reform of U.S.
welfare policy has achieved one goal: to reduce the welfare caseloads. By 2011,
the number of families receiving TANF benefits had declined from 3.94 million to
1.95 million (58%) (Loprest, 2012).

5. Julie A Graber
DVST-9031
9-Jun-13 | 5
At the same time, however, the poverty rates in the US, which reflect the
percentage of families whose cash income is insufficient to support its minimal
needs, have fluctuated from a high of 15% in 1993 to 11.4% in 2000 (National
Poverty Center), to over 16% at the end of 2012 (CBSDC). The percentage of
families eligible for TANF benefits who are actually receiving benefits has dropped
from 79% in 1996 to 36% in 2007 and the percentage of poor children receiving
benefits has dropped from 80% to 20% (Loprest, 2012).
And in spite of a preponderance of research showing that educational status
relates positively to the economic status of both married and single mothers,
welfare reform and its subsequent revisions have led to a decline in the educational
attainment of low-income mothers (Kim, Pandey & Zhan, 2006). Corman, Dave &
Reichman found that welfare reform had decreased the probability of college
enrollment in low-educated unmarried mothers by at least 20%, leading them to
conclude that “increasing employment and reducing caseloads have come at a cost
– lower educational attainment among women at risk of relying on welfare” (2008).
Different
response
A different problem representation and set of assumptions surrounding the
state of the US welfare system might have resulted in a different set of reforms.
• Rather that focusing on decreasing welfare caseloads as its primary goal,
welfare reform in 1996 could have addressed the plight of low-income families
and the challenges and barriers they face in working their way out of poverty.
Reforms could have been targeted at assisting families in overcoming those
barriers based on a thorough analysis of those conditions vs. the assumptions
surrounding them based on political rhetoric.
• A goal of reducing poverty might have resulted in policy reforms aimed at
addressing US minimum wage laws and the structures of minimum-wage jobs.
A separate agreement led to an increase in the federal minimum wage in 1996
and 1997, but failed to tie the minimum wage rate to inflation, as is the case in
some US states. In addition, the tipped minimum wage (for workers who

6. Julie A Graber
DVST-9031
9-Jun-13 | 6
receive a significant portion of their pay in tips, such as restaurant workers) has
remained at the same level since 1991: $2.13.
• And finally, a goal of reducing poverty might have resulted in policy reforms
that encouraged post-secondary education as a permanent pathway to a job
with a family-sustaining wage. Even with a work-first mentality in place, the
reforms could have provided the flexibility to pursue post-secondary education
or the training that would lead to a job with good pay and benefits.
Part
B
–
Reflection
on
the
Application
of
What’s
the
Problem
Analysis
Tool
to
1996
US
Welfare
Reform
As a post-modern feminist, the social construction approach to policy
formation and analysis is consistent with the analytical frameworks I use frequently
in my work, and I find myself drawn to the “What’s the Problem” gender analysis
tool. It seems particularly useful in deconstructing policy recommendations and
isolating the representations and assumptions embedded in any policy framework.
Its application to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 reveals the extent to which the policy was a reaction to the growing
number of out-of-wedlock births in the U.S. and the gendered and racial
assumptions about welfare recipients that drove welfare reform in the first place
(the first three pages of the law’s text – the “findings” upon which the policy is
based - are dedicated to documenting the growing rate of out-of-wedlock
pregnancy in the US and its negative impact on marriage, which the law describes
as “the foundation of a successful society”) (US Government Printing Office, 1996).
With the benefit of hindsight, it is evident that the problem representation in
the 1996 welfare reform, while allowing some flexibility in the face of worsening
economic conditions, gave limited thought to the impact of an economic downturn
such as we have experienced since 2008. Poverty rates and unemployment have
soared, especially among single female-headed households, and average
unemployed worker now experiences 40 weeks of joblessness. Bacchi points out

7. Julie A Graber
DVST-9031
9-Jun-13 | 7
the importance of grounding any What’s the Problem analysis of policy in the
context of broader social, political and economic trends and demographic shifts in
the relevant time period (although the process could perhaps use a more explicit
reminder to include them in the identification of presumptions and assumptions).
And while the final two steps in the What’s the Problem analysis provide
the opportunity to elaborate on the representations of the problem reflected in a
specific policy and to identify policy alternatives, the process stops short of how to
use the analysis to effect change. Bacchi notes that this approach is designed to
reinforce the constructivist nature of social problems, but it’s difficult to imagine
being successful in shifting the problem representations (and therefore policy
direction) of the authors of the 1996 welfare reform. Even more challenging would
be for an individual to apply the process to a set of previously formed beliefs about
problems and solutions (but very enlightening).
It would also be interesting to see how this process functions real time - in a
policy discussion with shifting definitions and priorities. Its dependence on the
articulation of policy as a starting point for analysis would seem to require renewed
analysis of the problem representation as policies are drafted and negotiated. I
expect to gain experience with its implementation under these circumstances as my
organization puts it to work in policy advocacy initiatives in my community.
I also hope to implement the WPR analysis in conjunction with the planning
framework I use in my consulting work. Some of the questions in the WPR frame
are similar to steps in the strategic planning process, and I can see ways to use the
two together to generate advocacy plans aimed at generating change.
Strategic
Planning
What’s
the
Problem
Gender
Analysis
Visioning and mission development Identification of the problem
representations reflected in the policy –
what are the concerns, causes, imagined
future
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Assumptions, subject definition

8. Julie A Graber
DVST-9031
9-Jun-13 | 8
Challenges
Issue Identification Identification of what is left
undefined/unproblematic
Strategy Development Policy Alternatives
Action Planning Advocacy Planning
Conclusion
The 1996 reform of welfare in the United States may have been sold to the
American public in a variety of ways, yet the application of Bacchi’s What’s the
Problem gender analysis makes it clear that its primary concern was the growth of
out-of-wedlock births among poor African American women and inner-city
families. The work requirements, limits to the length of time an adult could receive
benefits, and the goals, sanctions and penalties required of the states were in many
ways designed to rehabilitate the imagined welfare recipient, reflected in the idea
of the welfare queen, and not in a realistic understanding of welfare recipients and
the conditions that contributed to their low-income status (Spatz, 2012). The
results have been a decline in the welfare caseloads, but not in the number of
Americans living in poverty.
And what about those out-of-wedlock births that fueled much of the push
for reform? Those birth rates have continued to climb in the U.S., from 10.7% in
1970 to 29.5% in 1991 to 41% of live births in 2009 (Health Indicators
Warehouse, 2013). Not exactly the outcome the authors of welfare reform had in
mind.

9. Julie A Graber
DVST-9031
9-Jun-13 | 9
References
Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy
problems. SAGE Publications, London. Retrieved on 2013-May-18 at:
http://reader.eblib.com.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/(S(ikeeuiyar1iyctvkg0xsrtmr))
/Reader.aspx?p=483363&o=478&u=M6ipFuPaboT0Vyk87TbzSQ%3d%3d&
t=1370809008&h=3BE55A47ADFA51B4186793CFA9B5F74FA125921C&s
=17471894&ut=1451&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n
Blake, J. (2012-Jan-23). Return of the ‘welfare queen.’ CNN.com.
Retrieved on 2013-Jun-04 at:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/weflare-queen
CBSDC. (2012-Nov-15). Census: US poverty rate spikes; nearly 50 million
Americans affected. Retrieved on 2013-Jun-06 at:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/15/census-u-s-poverty-rate-spikes-
nearly-50-million-americans-affected/
Corman, H., Dave, D., & Reichman, N. (2008). Effects of welfare reform on
educational acquisition of young adult women. National Bureau of
Economic Research NBER Working Paper Series. (On file).
DeParle, J. (2012-Apr-7). Welfare limits left poor adrift as recession hit. The New
York Times. Retrieved on 2013-Jun-9 at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/welfare-limits-left-poor-adrift-as-
recession-hit.html?pagewanted=all
Hays, S. (2003). Flat broke with children: Women in the age of welfare reform.
Oxford University Press: NY.
Health Indicators Warehouse. (2013). Births: unmarried women 18-54 years
(percent). National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. Retrieved on 2013-Jun-09 at:
http://www.healthindicators.gov/Indicators/Births-unmarried-women-18-54-
years---percent_99/Profile/ClassicData

10. Julie A Graber
DVST-9031
9-Jun-13 | 10
Loprest, P. (2012-Mar). How has the TANF caseload changed over time? The
Urban Institute, Brief #08. Retrieved on 2013-Jun-02 at:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/change_time_1.pdf
Kim , Y., Pandey, S. & Zhan, M. (2006). Bachelor’s degree for women with
children: A promising pathway to poverty reduction. Equal Opportunities
International, Vol. 26, No. 7 (pg 488-505).
National Poverty Center. (No date). Poverty in the United States: Frequently asked
questions. The University of Michigan Gerald R. Ford School of Public
Policy. Retrieved on 2013-Jun-09 at: http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
Pavetti, L. & Trisi, D. (2012-Mar-13). TANF weakening as safety net for poor
families. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved on 2013-Jun-08
at: http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-13-12tanf.pdf
Spatz, D. (2011-Dec-14). The end of welfare as I knew it. The Nation. Retrieved
on 2013-Jun-01 at: http://www.thenation.com/article/165163/end-welfare-i-
knew-it
U.S. Census Bureau (No date). Poverty thresholds 1996. Retrieved on 2013-Jun-09
at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh96.html
U.S. Department of Labor. (No date). History of changes to the minimum wage
law. Wage and Hour Division. Retrieved on 2013-Jun-09 at:
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/coverage.htm
U.S. Government. (1996). Summary of Welfare Reforms Made by Public Law 104-
193: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
and Associated Legislation, US Government Printing Office (DC). Retrieved
on 2013-Jun-07 at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-
104WPRT27305/pdf/CPRT-104WPRT27305.pdf
U.S. Government Printing Office. (1996). Public Law 104-193, Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Retrieved on
2013-May-30 at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-
104publ193/content-detail.html

11. Julie A Graber
DVST-9031
9-Jun-13 | 11
Vobejda, B. (1996-Aug-23). Clinton signs welfare bill amid division. Washington
Post, (pg A01). Retrieved 2013-Jun-07 at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/politics/special/welfare/stories/wf082
396.htm