Social Policy and Program Evaluation

/

Current Issues and Programs in Social Welfare in: 1970s and Beyond (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/category/eras/1970s-and-beyond/), Recollections (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/category/recollections/), The 1980s and Beyond (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/category/eras/1980s-beyond/)

Current Issues and Programs in Social Welfare

by Dr. Jerry Marx (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/biography/marx- jerry-d-ph-d/), Social Work Department, University of New Hampshire

Note: This entry is the first in a two-part series about current issues and programs in

social welfare. Dr. Marx’s companion piece is titled, “Current Issues and Programs in

Social Welfare: From George W. Bush to Donald J. Trump.”

(http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/recollections/current-issues-programs-social-

welfare-2001-2017/)

A version of this essay may be found in Dr. Marx’s (2004) book, Social Welfare: The

American Partnership (https://www.worldcat.org/title/social-welfare-the-american-

partnership/oclc/51653237?referer=di&ht=edition). It is reprinted here with

permission of the author.

(https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu) Search … M E N U

/

Social Insurance Programs

Social Security

American social welfare, thanks to Franklin Delano Roosevelt (/people/roosevelt-

franklin-delano/) and the Social Security Act (/uncategorized/social-security-act-of-

1935/) of 1935, is furthered currently by two major categories of cash support programs:

social insurances and public assistance.1 Social insurances are based on the prior

earnings and payroll contributions of an individual, while public assistance, commonly

known as “welfare,” is based on the financial need of an individual. The primary social

insurance programs today in America are Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance,

Unemployment Insurance, and Workers Compensation.

Let’s begin with ((Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance)), commonly referred to

as “social security.” Social security, like other social insurances, is an example of a

“universal” program, because American citizens are entitled to participate in the

program as a social right.2 In other words, program participation in not based on

financial need. Social security constituted one-fifth of all federal government spending

in 1995.3 In that year, a total of $332.6 billion was spent on the program. Funding for

social security actually comes from a payroll tax, which is shared in an equal proportion

by the employer and employee. A practice begun during the Nixon Administration,

social security benefits are adjusted when the cost of living increases.4

To receive benefits, a person must contribute payroll taxes during their working years.5

Those individuals contributing payroll taxes for a minimum of 10 years (i.e., 40 quarters

in social security eligibility terms) are covered permanently under the program.

Individual benefit levels are determined by the level of covered earnings (i.e., how much

money paid in) and the age of retirement.

The “disability insurance” part of social security assists adults between the ages of 18

and 64 who are unable to engage in substantial employment.6 When the individual

turns 65 years of age, “disability benefits” automatically become “old-age” benefits. To

receive disability benefits, an individual must show medical proof of a disability and

proof that the disability prevents “gainful employment.” “Survivors insurance” covers

children under 18 years of age, dependent parents, and dependent widowers or widows.

These categories of recipients receive benefits when an insured worker dies.

/

A fundamental point to remember is that social security is a very effective anti-poverty

program! Most recipients are raised above the poverty line by social security. In 1992,

only 14% of people aged 65 or older lived in poverty in the United States – thanks in

large part to social security benefits!7

Unemployment Insurance

Unemployment insurance is a second major social insurance program. Like social

security, unemployment insurance is an effective poverty prevention program, although

it is a temporary aid.8 That is, unemployment benefits normally last a maximum of 26

weeks. In 1994, a total of $22.7 billion was spent in the United States on unemployment

insurance. Although governed by federal standards, individual states determine

eligibility for unemployment benefits, the amount and duration of the benefits, and the

amount that employers must contribute. In addition to state administered programs,

there are three federal unemployment insurance programs. These three federal

programs cover veterans, railroad workers, and federal employees, respectively.

Funding for unemployment insurance is derived from an employer payroll tax.

About 85% of the total American labor force is covered by unemployment insurance.

Farmers, domestic workers, and self-employed workers are not eligible for

unemployment benefits. In addition, few of the poor receive unemployment insurance.

To illustrate, in 1995, only 36% of unemployed workers actually received unemployment

benefits. The poor can be excluded from benefits for several reasons. For example, a

poor individual can be excluded if that person worked less than two of four quarters in

the qualifying year or if the person earned less than a minimum level of dollars.

Depending on the state, this minimum level of income can range from $130 to $5,400.

A poor person can also be excluded from unemployment benefits if the individual was

terminated from a job for misconduct or quit voluntarily. Furthermore, in most states,

time spent in job training can prevent an individual from qualifying for unemployment

benefits, because the individual is not immediately available and looking for work.

Workers’ Compensation

The third major social insurance program in the United States is workers compensation.

In fact, it is the oldest major social insurance program in the nation, dating back to the

Progressive Era at the beginning of the 1900s.9 Spending on workers’ compensation (in

1988 dollar values) grew from 2 billion in 1950 to about 25 billion in 1993.10 Each state

/

oversees its own workers’ compensation program (with no federal standards). The

program provides victims of work-related injuries with cash, medical care, and to a

limited extent, rehabilitation services. It also compensates survivors if an injury is fatal.

Like unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation does not cover all workers. Farm

and domestic workers are not covered in many states. That said, worker’s compensation

does reach about 87% of wage and salary workers in the United States. State laws

generally specify a payment rate of two-thirds of the injured worker’s previous pay. In

contrast to injuries, coverage for occupational illnesses is a weak part of workers’

compensation. Most states only pay benefits for illnesses that appear within “several”

years after the worker leaves a company. In other words, the worker has a relatively

short amount of time to prove their case.

Contributions of American Business to Retirement Planning

Employers, as previously stated, contribute to the current U. S. public social security

system. However, many older Americans rely on both social security and private

pension plans after they retire. To illustrate, in 1988, over half of wage and salaried

workers over age 24 took part in a pension plan.11 In that year, about three-quarters of

workers in corporations employing over a thousand people were covered by such plans,

while almost 80 percent of unionized workers participated in private pension plans.

Many corporations (and other employers) offer “401(k) retirement plans” where

employees typically contribute a small percentage of their before-tax income to their

401(k) fund. These plans often include an employer contribution as well.12 In addition,

“profit-sharing plans” are frequently offered to employees in major American

corporations. In 1984, there were close to a half-million profit-sharing programs in the

American business sector.13

Another retirement-related corporate benefit is the “employee stock ownership plan.”14

The number of these plans in the American business sector grew dramatically starting

in the mid-1970s. By 2000, there were 11,500 such plans, covering 8.5 million

employees. In an employee stock ownership plan, the employee invests some of their

wages or salary in their company’s stock and receives dividends regularly like other

company investors. Upon retirement, the employee can either take the company stock

from the fund or sell the shares back to the corporation.

/

The American government sector has played an important role in the development of

these private plans. They are not just a good idea promoted by the business sector alone.

Both the federal government and state governments have passed legislation to

encourage business to offer these plans. For instance, between 1974 and 1985, Congress

passed sixteen pieces of legislation encouraging the development of employee stock

ownership plans, while thirteen states passed similar laws.15

The American government has also encouraged the use of another private retirement

option, “individual retirement accounts” (IRAs). Tax legislation passed during the

Clinton Administration greatly increased opportunities for Americans to use IRAs.16

The 1997 Tax Act, by increasing the income limits of those eligible to make tax

deductible IRA contributions, will increase the number of individuals and couples using

traditional IRAs. The law also created a new nondeductible IRA that accumulates

income tax-free. In addition, the 1997 law facilitates the use of IRAs to pay for higher

education expenses and first-time homes.

Critical Analysis: What About Enron?

In 2002, Americans were shocked by the news of several major cases of corporate

accounting fraud.17 Corporations such as Enron, a major energy company, and Worla

long distance and data systems company, purposely misled investors and employees to

appear more profitable than they actually were. When such companies file for

bankruptcy, employees can lose all or most of their retirement savings. Can

corporations be trusted as a major source of retirement savings? Are Enron and

WorldCom exceptions in the corporate world or are they indicative of widespread

corporate corruption? Are they clear examples of why some government regulation of

the business sector is needed?

Current Issues in Social Insurance: The Viability of Social Security

The American social security system is considered by many observers to be seriously

flawed. Some of the key issues include sustainability, the influence of the system on

economic growth, and the equity of the system for various participants.18 With respect

to the sustainability issue, the U.S. social security system is a “pay-as-you-go” system,

meaning that payroll taxes on today’s workers and employers pay for the current social

security benefits of former workers (i.e., retired workers). The sustainability of the

/

system can become an issue when the ratio of retirees to workers becomes too large to

finance.19 In 1950, there were 0.14 retirees per worker in the United States. By 2020,

with the aging of the “baby boomer” generation, there are projected to be 0.29 retirees

per worker in the U.S., and by 2040, 0.39 retirees per worker are expected. Thus,

policymakers are concerned about the long-term financial viability of the currently

structured social security system. As discussed earlier in this book, the Reagan

Administration raised the age for receiving social security retirement benefits to 67.20

Policy alternatives considered in 2001 by President George W. Bush to address the

sustainability of social security include raising payroll taxes, lowering social security

benefits, tying future retirement benefits to inflation instead of wage growth, and

privately-managed retirement savings accounts (also called “private-investment

accounts).21

The last option, the private-investment accounts, would establish personal retirement

accounts, managed by private pension and investment companies, with part of the

social security tax currently paid by workers.22 Private-investment accounts would

make America’s social security system more of a “public-private partnership” than it is

today. Proponents of this policy option state the potential for a higher rate of return on

retirement savings, thereby addressing the sustainability issue. Opponents of this policy

proposal warn of the market risks and relatively high administrative costs of private-

investment accounts.23

Public Assistance Programs

The second major category of American cash support programs is called “public

assistance.” Public assistance programs are “selective” programs in that benefits are

based on individual need. Need is determined by a test of income – that is, a “means

test.”24 The three primary public assistance programs in the United States are

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, and General

Assistance.

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families

The 1996 welfare reform enacted by the Clinton Administration ended Aid to Families

with Dependent Children (AFDC) as an entitlement and replaced the program with a

block grant, called “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).25 To receive

federal funds in the AFDC program, states had to provide matching funds. With TANF,

/

states do not provide matching funds, but they do need to meet a “maintenance of

effort” requirement. That is, states must maintain spending equal to at least 75 percent

of their Fiscal Year 1994 spending on AFDC and related services (such as child care and

emergency assistance). TANF gives states some flexibility in administering federal

funds. For example, states can transfer up to thirty percent of their TANF block grant

funding to either their Child Care Development Block Grant or their Social Service

Block Grant.

The fundamental difference between the new TANF and former AFDC programs is that,

under TANF, no individual or family is “entitled” to welfare.26 As a general rule,

individuals must participate in work activity within two years of receiving assistance

and families are limited to a total of five years assistance in a lifetime. If a program

participant refuses work requirements, states have the option to reduce or eliminate

assistance to the whole family. This could include the loss of Medicaid. The exception to

this provision is when the participant refuses work because they cannot find or afford

child care (/programs/child-care/) for a child under six years old. Yet, unlike the former

AFDC services, TANF does not guarantee that this needed child care will be provided to

the participant.

Another important feature of TANF concerns minor parents.27 That is, minors who are

parents cannot receive TANF assistance unless they are living at home with their

parents or in another adult-supervised setting. In addition, these minors must attend

high school or an alternative educational or training program as soon as their child is

twelve weeks old.

Supplemental Security Income

The Supplemental Security Income program, better known as “SSI,” was established

during the Nixon Administration.28 It was essentially a restructuring of the Social

Security Act’s public assistance programs for blind and older Americans. The program

assists poor people aged 65 or older as well as blind people and people with

disabilities.29 SSI recipients have grown from 4 million in 1974 to 6.5 million in 1995. A

total of $27.2 million was spent on SSI benefits in 1995. Of this amount, the federal

government provided $23.5 million.

/

People with disabilities are the largest group of SSI clients, representing 77% of total

recipients in 1995. “Disability” is defined under SSI guidelines as a “physical or mental

impairment that prevents substantial employment activity and has lasted or probably

will last for at least a year or may result in death.”30 Those who are mentally ill or

mentally retarded constitute about fifty percent of working-age people with disabilities.

General Assistance

The third major public assistance program in the United States is called “general

assistance.”31 It is a program for the needy who do not qualify for previously described

federal assistance. Forty-one states and the District of Columbia offer general

assistance, although in some states, only certain counties provide assistance. As its

name suggests, the program provides general “safety net” help to the poor. Benefits

include cash and/or in-kind payments. Similar to TANF, twenty-one states require

“employable” adults to work or enter job training in order to maintain eligibility for

general assistance benefits. Some states also impose time limits on all or certain

categories of their general assistance caseload.

Current Issues in Public Assistance: A Critical Analysis of Welfare Reform

There are many issues of concern to the social work profession regarding the Temporary

Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program.32 The 1996 Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Act, which established TANF, contained no explicit requirement that

poor families get cash assistance. That is, under this welfare reform legislation, states

can opt to limit aid to vouchers or services. These features of the new approach to public

assistance present a threat to the social work principle of self-determination, because

they provide less flexibility to caseworkers and clients in the use of welfare assistance.

The provision of the law allowing states to reduce spending on welfare to 75% of Fiscal

Year 1994 state spending and the ability to transfer TANF funds to child care or social

service block grants does give states some flexibility. However, there are potential

negative ramifications to this aspect of the law as well. TANF funds spent on other

services could result in less basic subsistence support to poor families. Such transfers of

public assistance may “rob Peter to pay Paul.”

Other issues concerning TANF involve the potential use of private organizations to

deliver “public” assistance and the right of clients to appeal TANF decisions. Under the

1996 legislation, TANF can be administered and distributed by private nonprofit or for-

/

profit entities. What are the possible outcomes if this takes place in certain states? On

the positive side, competition for TANF contracts may reduce costs to states. In

addition, service delivery by less bureaucratic organizations (than government) may

improve service quality. Yet, on the negative side of the debate, the introduction of the

profit-motive into public assistance may reduce service access and quality to highly

needy, and therefore, “costly” clients. The former federal law regarding public assistance

was very specific in guaranteeing clients the right to appeal decisions against them. The

1996 legislation, however, is more general on this issue. States must submit their own

plans, which may vary considerably in the protection of client rights.

A final issue regards the ability of states to deny cash assistance and Medicaid to adults

who do not meet work requirements. In such cases, which sectors of society are

responsible for providing the safety net? Will we revert to the colonial system of church-

administered relief? Are today’s church organizations willing and able to offer

substantially increased services? Even if such organizations are funded under the

“charitable choice” clause of the 1996 welfare reform, are these religious organizations

the best qualified service providers?

Did You Know?

Welfare reform got its major push from city and state government.33 These levels of the

public sector began experiencing severe budget crises during the 1970s and 80s. A

primary example was New York City. New York experienced a fiscal crisis in 1975.

Public assistance, among other things, was blamed for the city’s fiscal problems,

precipitating a movement to reform city welfare. During the 1980s, other cities followed

New York’s example. At the same time, state governments around the country began

asking for “waivers” of federal regulations concerning public assistance. As a result,

many features of TANF, including time limits and teen parent restrictions, had already

been implemented at the state level when the 1996 federal legislation was enacted.

Health Services

Medicare and Medicaid

The federal government supports a number of health services for the poor, including

services for war veterans, Native Americans, women and children.34 It also supports a

national network of community health centers, meant to supplement the services of

/

private physicians, particularly in low-income communities. Medicare and Medicaid,

however, are the two major public health care programs in the United States.

Established during the Johnson Administration and the “Great Society,” both programs

are “in-kind” services, meaning no cash support is given directly to the individual.35

Medicare covers most hospital and medical costs for people aged 65 and over as well as

for those on social security disability.36 Medicare is provided without regard to the

individual’s income. Social security recipients, railroad retirees, federal and state

government employees, in addition to some people with kidney disease or a permanent

disability are eligible for Medicare. Medicare is the second largest domestic program,

second only to the social security program. In 1996, Medicare benefits totaled $186

billion. The program is funded by a payroll tax paid by employers and employees.

There are two parts to the Medicare program: Part A and Part B. Part A is basic hospital

insurance. It covers most costs of hospitalization, post-hospital extended care, and

home health services. Part B is an optional supplementary medical insurance. It assists

in covering the costs of physicians’ fees, diagnostic tests, medical supplies, and

prescription drugs.

The second major public health program, Medicaid, is basically a federal grant to

states.37 Medicaid helps to finance health care for the poor. About 74% of Medicaid

recipients are on public assistance. In 1996, the federal government paid 57% of the

total costs of Medicaid, while the states funded the remaining portion. In 1996, the

federal government’s budget for Medicaid was $86 billion. Federal regulations specify

the basic health services that must be offered under Medicaid. Yet, services are

primarily administered by individual states including decisions regarding the duration

of services and optional services. Medicaid is a “vendor system.” That is, payments are

made directly to the service provider. Most recipients of Medicaid are TANF families.

However, the most Medicaid dollars go to people who are blind or have other

disabilities. Furthermore, most Medicaid spending on older Americans is for nursing

home care.

Private Insurance and the Managed Care System

Millions of Americans, of course, obtain private health insurance through their

employer. To better control the rising costs of health care, employers in the United

States have increasingly utilized “managed care.” Although forms of managed care have

/

existed on the West Coast and in the Northeast since the 1930s and 40s, respectively,

“health maintenance organizations” or “HMOs” were introduced nationally in the

1970s.38 Health care consumers under managed care select a “primary care physician”

from a network of health care providers. Unless they are experiencing an emergency,

those needing medical attention usually see their primary care physician first. If needed,

the primary care physician will then make a referral for more specialized services. Thus,

the primary care physician serves as a gatekeeper in managing health care services and

costs.39

In most managed care models, health care is provided to a defined number of enrollees

in the health care plan.40 Under “capitation-based” plans, all revenue for participating

service providers is earned upfront through a contractual agreement between the

employer and managed care organization. The HMO or other managed care entity,

therefore, receives a fixed dollar amount per enrollee per month. Consequently, the

services of physicians and hospitals participating in the managed care system become

cost-centers that need to be managed to stay within the contracted budget. The aim is to

create an incentive to keep people well (i.e., prevention) and to serve clients in the most

cost-effective manner when they do need health care.

Current Issues in Managed Care

The fundamental problem with managed health care is the conflict between the goals of

high quality and low costs.41 More specifically, managed care becomes a problem for

health care consumers when minimizing costs takes priority over patient needs and

quality health care. Since the emergence of managed care, many issues related to this

fundamental problem have come to the attention of consumers, social workers, and

policymakers.42 The downgrading of personnel qualifications to save money was an

immediate concern. In addition, patients were faced with predetermined service cut-off

dates. Women giving birth, for example, were given hospital stay limits based on cost

considerations. Patients also perceived policies regarding the use of specialists to be

arbitrary and not necessarily based on patient need.

A more recent issue is the effect that managed care might have on urban community

service systems – including public hospitals and public health clinics frequently used by

Medicaid patients.43 The number of states implementing mandatory managed care

plans for Medicaid recipients is growing. To illustrate, from 1993 to1994, Medicaid

/

managed care enrollment in the U.S. jumped from 4.8 million to 7.8 million. That

represented an increase of 63%. Underlying this trend is the assumption that

competition for managed care contracts will increase the supply of health care providers

in low-income communities. Without generous capitation payments, this may never

happen.

Furthermore, managed care companies may leave out certain community-based

organizations that serve the poor from their service provider networks. These

organizations often are in poor financial condition, have outdated management

information systems, and utilize decaying facilities and equipment. In short, they are

relatively costly to a managed care organization. More fundamentally, traditional

community-based health and human services adhere to value systems that conflict with

“cost-centered” systems. These organizations historically have provided service with an

emphasis on individual need in contrast to other criteria such as ability-to-pay or profit.

In any case, they are inexperienced in competing for clients in a managed care system.

For these traditional service providers, the emergence of managed care may result in

significant losses of revenue and ability to serve uninsured clients. Added to all of this is

the prospect of state government contracting with managed care organizations to

administer SSI and TANF programs.44 Hence, this type of partnership between

business and government appears to be gaining momentum. Yet, it is a trend with many

key issues to be addressed by policy planners, social workers, and other health and

human service providers.

Food and Shelter Programs

Food Stamps

The federal government provides food to poor Americans through a variety of programs.

Public, private nonprofit, and private for-profit organizations all cooperate in the

provision of these programs. For example, child nutrition programs (including the

school lunch program) reach out to poor children in schools, childcare centers, and

summer camps. The largest federal food program, representing almost three out of

every four federal dollars in the food assistance category, is the “food stamp”

program.45 In 1996, $22.7 billion was spent on food stamp benefits. These benefits are

adjusted yearly in accordance with changes in food prices generally. Although states

administer their food stamp programs, the federal government pays for the direct costs

/

of food stamps and a portion of state administrative expenses. With very few exceptions,

all recipients of public assistance are eligible for food stamps. (Exceptions include most

postsecondary school students!) A little over 50% of food stamp recipients in 1996 were

children.

People participating in the food stamp program receive a monthly allotment of stamps.

These stamps can then be used to purchase food at most retail stores. Stamps can not be

used to purchase alcohol or tobacco products. Further, they can’t be used for hot, ready-

to-eat foods. In recent years, consistent with the push for welfare reform in general,

work requirements have been attached to food stamps. The 1996 welfare reform

legislation passed by the Clinton Administration limits able-bodied recipients between

the ages of 18 and 50 (without children) to three months of food stamps in a three-year

period unless the person is working or engaged in a workfare program for 20 or more

hours per week.46

Public Housing and Section 8 Housing Assistance

The federal government assists many middle- and upper-income families with housing

through its tax policies and loan programs. Our national government also collaborates

with local public and private entities to provide housing assistance to low-income

individuals and families. In 1992, the federal government spent over $22 billion on such

assistance.47 Most of this support is provided through the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development in two major programs: the “public housing” program and the

“Section 8” program.

The public housing program, dating back to the New Deal era, provides federal

subsidies for construction costs on housing units built by local public housing

authorities.48 These local housing authorities subsequently own and operate the units.

As part of the program, the federal government offers rent subsidies to cover the

difference between the operating cost of individual housing units and 30% of the

tenant’s household income.

During the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administrations, federal funding for public

housing was cut drastically. One reason for this diminishing support is the tendency of

public housing projects to concentrate multi-problem families into low-income

neighborhoods. Increasingly, this approach has witnessed a high incidence of crime and

vandalism, resulting in relatively high operating costs for local public housing

/

authorities and high social costs for victimized families. These problems, along with

rising construction costs, compelled policy planners to look for alternative low-income

housing proposals.

The Section 8 program (referring to Section 8 of the Housing and Community

Development Act) emerged in the 1980s as the major alternative to public housing.49

During that decade, it became the largest federal housing assistance program for the

poor. To illustrate, in 1996, the U.S. federal government spent $15.8 billion on Section 8

assistance, while the public housing program received $4.5 billion. Section 8 is

essentially a rent supplement program. Tenants typically pay 30% of their (adjusted)

income on rent; the federal government pays the difference between the tenant

contribution and the market rate for the apartment. In contrast to public housing,

tenants have a choice of using their subsidy in publicly or privately owned housing

where available in their community. (The 1990 Housing Act, passed by the George H.W.

Bush Administration, sought to increase the supply of low-income rental housing

through block grants to state and local government.) More recently, major cities such as

Chicago, Boston, and Atlanta have begun destroying their old high-rise public housing

units and moving tenants into new low-rise public housing units or private housing. In

either case, the aim is to better integrate poor tenants with other socioeconomic groups

around the city.

Contributions of Business and the Voluntary Sector to Housing

The federal government encourages business investment in low-income housing

through the “low-income rental housing tax credit.”50 The tax credit was established as

part of the Reagan Administration’s Tax Reform Act of 1986. Between 1990 and 1994,

this tax incentive added about a quarter million low-income housing units to the

housing supply. Developers qualify for the tax credit if they set aside specified

percentages of their rental units for low-income tenants.

Habitat for Humanity International is probably the most well-known voluntary housing

development program. Between 1976 and 2000, this nonprofit nondenominational

Christian organization, using donated material and voluntary labor, produced about

30,000 affordable houses in the United States.51 The program refers to recipients of the

houses as “partners” because the partner family helps build their house. Upon

completion, Habitat for Humanity sells the home to the partner at no profit, while

/

ensuring the partner a no-interest mortgage. The average sales price for a Habitat home

built in the United States in 2000 was about $46,600. Although Habitat for Humanity,

by itself, is not capable of solving the shelter problem in America, it is a valuable part of

the collaborative effort to address the problem.

Current Shelter Issues: the Homeless

Despite various public and private efforts to provide decent low-income housing and

temporary shelter, including the 1987 Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act,

the National Coalition for the Homeless believes the number of homeless people in

American continues to grow.52 Estimates of homelessness vary, in part, because the

definition of what constitutes “homelessness” varies. The National Coalition for the

Homeless uses a broad definition, claiming that people who live in unstable housing

arrangements and lack a permanent place to stay are, in fact, experiencing

homelessness. Although the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty

estimates that as many as 2 million people experience homelessness during a given year

in the United States, the National Coalition for the Homeless, because of the difficulty in

counting the homeless, chooses to cite the shortage of available services for the

homeless. According to the coalition, in 1998, 26% of requests for emergency shelter in

30 U.S. cities went unmet due to a lack of resources. What is more, another study

showed that in 50 cities around the United States, the individual city’s official estimated

number of homeless typically exceeded that city’s available number of shelter and

transitional housing spaces. Rural areas of the U.S. generally have even fewer resources

for the homeless. Thus, in a nation that has never adequately housed all of its people,

homelessness continues to be a serious policy issue.

Other Publicly-Funded Programs in American Social Welfare

A wide range of other publicly-funded programs contribute to American social welfare.

Many of these services are funded by government but delivered by private

organizations. Hence, they are part of an interdependent network of public and private

efforts to further social welfare. These services include child welfare programs such as

child abuse and neglect prevention, foster care, adoption, shelter, and outreach

services.53 Other programs benefiting children include publicly-funded child care,

education, and family planning services.54 Head Start (the preschool program) and

student loan programs are part of the education category. In addition, the U.S.

/

government supports employment and training programs for those seeking

employment.55 Furthermore, the American public sector supports many state and local

health and human services through the Social Service Block Grant to individual states.

Other Voluntary Services in the Nonprofit Sector

The United Way System

One of the major voluntary efforts in the advancement of American social welfare is the

United Way, formerly known as the “Community Chest,” and for a time, the “United

Fund.” Over one hundred years old, the United Way is primarily a partnership in

community problem-solving among private organizations – private for-profit and

private nonprofit organizations.56 For the most part, businesses raise the funds for

services, while nonprofit organizations deliver the services.

The United Way network, itself, is comprised of a national umbrella organization called

United Way of America and about 1,400 local United Way organizations, each

independently incorporated as private nonprofit entities serving their respective

communities. Each local United Way organizes an annual fund-raising campaign among

business and professional groups in its community. Subsequently, the local United Way,

with direction from donors and volunteers, allocates the donated funds to a variety of

nonprofit health and human services in the community. In the 2000/2001 fiscal year,

United Way campaigns around the nation raised a total of $3.91 billion for health and

human services.

Perhaps the most important partner in the United Way system is the business

community. Without the support of community business leaders, United Way would be

much less effective in its fund-raising role, and therefore, much less valuable to

community health and human service providers. Business leaders help organize and

conduct the individual United Way fund-raising campaigns in each community.

Through the use of payroll deduction, businesses enable their employees to make

annual donations to their local United Way in an efficient and financially “pain-free”

manner. As a result, employees of local business typically comprise the largest source of

United Way donations.

With these donations, each United Way funds a broad range of health and human

services. Many of these services also receive public funding; some do not. In any case,

the mix of health and human services funded by each United Way varies from

/

community to community. To illustrate the diversity of services funded at any one

United Way, however, consider the list of agencies affiliated with the United Way of

Massachusetts Bay in 2001.57 This list included the American Cancer Society-New

England Division, the American Red Cross (/organizations/american-red-cross/) of

Massachusetts Bay, the Asian Task Force Against Domestic Violence, the Boys and Girls

Club? of Lynn, the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, Catholic Charities?, Combined

Jewish Philanthropies?, Community Legal Services? & Counseling Center, the Disability

Law Center, the Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation, the Salvation

Army?, the Chinese Progressive Association, the Massachusetts Coalition for the

Homeless, The Home for Little Wanderers, the Hispanic Office of Planning &

Evaluation (HOPE), the John F. Kennedy Family Service Center, and YWCA

(/organizations/young-womens-christian-association/) Boston.

This diversity in services and service populations is not unique to the United Way of

Massachusetts Bay. As a second illustration, let’s examine the Mile High United Way in

Denver, Colorado. Its agency list in 2001 included the Jefferson Center for Mental

Health, the Jewish Family Service of Colorado, the Asian Pacific Development Center,

the Latin American Research and Service Agency, the Lutheran Family Services of

Colorado, the Mi Casa Resource Center for Women, the Colorado AIDS Project, the

Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Mile High Council on Alcoholism

and Drug Abuse, Senior Support Services, and the Northeast Denver Housing Center. In

short, a strength of the United Way is the community empowerment that comes from

volunteers organizing resources to meet specific and diverse community needs.

Current Issues in the United Way System

United Way continues to be the major “federated fund-raising” campaign in the United

States. Over the years, the American business community has viewed United Way as an

alternative to higher taxes and bigger government in promoting social welfare. Business

and professional leaders value the community needs assessment, community

organizing, and community problem-solving roles that their local United Way

organizations perform.

That said, United Way has its share of critics.58 Recent issues include the United Way

tradition of funding a relatively exclusive set of member nonprofit agencies. At times,

organizations not affiliated with United Way have felt left out and hampered in their

/

fund-raising efforts. More radical critics have contended that United Way is too

conservative, funding primarily status quo services, not offensive to the business

community. Still others point out the virtual monopoly that United Way enjoyed for

years in its access to corporate employee fund-raising campaigns and payroll deduction.

In the 1970s and 80s, competing federated campaigns began to emerge as an alternative

to United Way. These competing federations included ((Children’s Charities of

America)), The Combined Federal Campaign (focused on federal employees), Earth

Share (involving agencies such as the National Audubon Society and the African

Wildlife Foundation), and The National Black United Federation. Yet, the vast majority

of federated campaign giving still goes to United Way.

More recently, especially with an incident of administrative corruption at United Way of

America in the early 1990s, United Way has faced the issue of increased donor

accountability.59 Donors to United Way increasingly desire more control in

determining which health and human services receive their gift. Furthermore, donors

want to know if their donations to United Way actually make a difference in addressing

various social problems. United Way, as it has throughout its history, continues to

change in an effort to address emerging issues.60 The diversity in the agencies affiliated

with the United Way of Massachusetts Bay indicates an effort by some local United Way

organizations, at least, to be more inclusive in their funding. In addition, United Way

has instituted a “donor choice” option by which donors can indicated specific health and

human service recipients of their gift. Furthermore, United Way, serving as an

accountability mechanism for donors, has begun a push for program outcome

measurement among its affiliated service providers.

The ((Three Notable African American Women In Child Welfare, 1888-1930)) League of America: A Public-Private Partnership in Child Welfare

The Child Welfare League of America (/organizations/child-welfare-league-of-

america/) (CWLA), founded in 1920, is a voluntary association of over 1,100 public and

private nonprofit organizations that serve at-risk children and their families.61 The

organization traces its roots to the 1909 White House Conference on the Care of

Dependent Children, which recommended the creation of the ((U.S. Children’s Bureau))

and other child welfare organizations. Member organizations are involved with services

such as child abuse and neglect prevention, foster care, adoption, residential group care,

child care, and various youth development programs, among other services.

/

The CWLA offers many services to its members, including legislative advocacy, practice

consultation, conferences, training sessions, child welfare publications, and financial

support for accreditation. According to 2001 agency information, the CWLA has a

budget of about $16 million. It raises its funding from public and private sources,

including member dues, foundation grants, publication sales, investment income,

consultation fees, as well as corporate and individual donations. The CWLA is truly a

cooperative effort in the advancement of American child welfare!

Personal Profile: Marian Wright Edelman

One of the outstanding contemporary social advocates is Marian Wright Edelman.62

After graduating from Spelman College and Yale Law School, she became the first

African American woman admitted to the Mississippi Bar. In Mississippi during the

1960s, she headed the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Later, in 1968, she

moved to Washington D.C. to serve as counsel for the Poor People’s March, which

Martin Luther King was organizing before his assassination.

Edelman in 1973 founded the ((Children’s Defense Fund)), a private nonprofit

organization that has become one of the strongest children’s advocates in the nation.

Based in Washington D.C., the Children’s Defense Fund regularly documents the needs

of America’s children, focusing particularly on the needs of children from poor families,

children of color, and children with disabilities. Its legislative advocacy emphasizes

preventative investments in child welfare. As President of the Children’s Defense Fund,

Edelman continues to serve as a policy leader and national voice for millions of

vulnerable children in America. In 2000, in recognition for her social advocacy, she was

awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the country’s highest civilian award.

The Challenge for Professional Social Work

There are many other social problems, issues, and services not mentioned here. The aim

here is to provide the reader with an understanding of some of the major programs and

issues in American social welfare, especially those involving health and human services.

This is because the fundamental challenge for current social workers is to make

important contributions to the development of policies and programs that will better

address major social problems and issues in the United States.

/

Notes 1. Bruce S. Jansson, The Reluctant Welfare State: American Social Welfare Policies-

Past, Present, and Future, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2001),

pp. 194, 199; Sar A. Levitan, Garth L. Mangum, and Stephen L. Mangum, Programs in

Aid of the Poor (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), p. 58.

2. Neil Gilbert, Harry Specht, and Paul Terrell, Dimensions Of Social Policy, 3rd ed.

(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993), pp. 71-72.

3. Levitan et al., pp. 58-63.

4. Jansson, p. 282.

5. Levitan et al., p. 61.

6. Levitan et al., p. 61; Linda P. Anderson, Paul A. Sundet, and Irma Harrington, The

Social Welfare System in the United States: A Social Worker’s Guide To Public Benefits

Programs (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000), p. 27.

7. Levitan et al., pp. 63-64.

8. Ibid., pp. 93-95.

9. Theda Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins Of Social

Policy In The United States (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University), pp.290-293.

10. Levitan, pp. 96-98.

11. Ibid., p. 68.

12. Amanda Paulson, “The 401(K): Who’s Contributing What?” Christian Science

Monitor, 22 October 2001, 93(229), p. 14.

13. William C. Frederick, Keith Davis, James E. Post, Business And Society: Corporate

Strategy, Public Policy, Ethics, 6th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988), p. 301.

14. James E. Post, Anne T. Lawrence, and James Weber, Business And Society:

Corporate Strategy, Public Policy, Ethics, 10th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), p.

343.

15. Frederick et al., p. 256.

16. Deloitte and Touche, “Promises Kept: The 1997 Tax Law,” Tax News & Views, 2000.

17. Fred Kaplan, “Bush takes on ‘corporate abusers,’” Boston Globe, 10 July 2002, p. A1;

Associated Press, “WorldCom offers not to sell assets: Seeks to delay creditors’ suit,”

Boston Globe, 18 July 2002, p. E4.

18. Estelle James, “Reforming Social Security in the U.S.: An International Perspective,”

Business Economics: 34 (January 2001).

/

19. Thomas I. Palley, “The economics of Social Security: an old Keynesian perspective,”

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 21(1): 94 (Fall 1998).

20. Jansson, p. 322.

21. Jane Bryant Quinn, “Star Wars And Social Security,” Newsweek, 3 September 2001,

37; Leigh Strope, “Social Security panel shifts purpose,” Boston Globe, 7 November

2001, p. A9.

22. James, p. 33, 36, 38.

23. Quinn, p. 37; Palley, p. 104.

24. Gilbert et al., 1993, pp. 71-72.

25. Children’s Defense Fund, “Summary of the New Welfare Legislation,” Retrieved

from the World Wide Web on August 27, 1997:

http://www.childrensdefensefund.org/welfarelaw.html.

(http://www.childrensdefensefund.org/welfarelaw.html.)

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. Jansson, p. 279; Walter I. Trattner, From Poor Law To Welfare State: A History Of

Social Welfare In America, 6th ed. (New York: The Free Press, 1999), p. 348.

29. Levitan et al., pp.85-87.

30. Ibid., p. 87.

31. Ibid., p. 88.

32. Children’s Defense Fund, “Summary of the New Welfare Legislation,” 1997.

33. Michael B. Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse, 10th ed. (New York: BasicBooks,

1996), pp. 290-292, 310.

34. Levitan et al., pp. 109-118.

35. Jansson, pp. 250-251.

36. Levitan et al., pp. 110-111.

37. Ibid., pp. 111-112.

38. Tim Davidson, Jeanette R. Davidson, and Sharon M. Keigher, “Managed Care:

Satisfaction Guaranteed…Not! Health & Social Work 24(3): 164 (1999).

39. Jane Kolodinsky, “Consumer Satisfaction with a Managed Health Care Plan,”

Journal of Consumer Affairs 99(33): 223 (1999).

40. Janet D. Perloff, “Medicaid Managed Care And Urban Poor People: Implications for

Social Work,” Health & Social Work 21(3): 189-190 (1996).

41. Cynthia J. Rocha and Liz England Kalbaka, “A Comparison Study Of Access To

Health Care Under A Medicaid Managed Care Program,” Health & Social Work 24(3):

/

170 (1999).

42. Robert Sunley, “Advocacy in the New World of Managed Care,” Families in Society,

Jan/Feb: 88-90(1997).

43. Rocha and Kalbaka, pp.169-172; Perloff, pp. 191-192.

44. Davidson, Davidson, and Keigher, p. 164.

45. Levitan, pp. 131-133.

46. Children’s Defense Fund, “Summary of the New Welfare Legislation,” 1997.

47. Levitan, p. 121.

48. Jansson, pp. 210-211; Levitan, pp. 122-124.

49. Levitan, pp. 125-127; David Thigpen, “The Long Way Home,” Time, 5 August 2002,

42.

50. Ibid., p. 126.

51. Habitat for Humanity International, “A Brief Introduction to Habitat for Humanity

International,” Retrieved from the World Wide Web on November 14, 2001:

http://www.habitat.org/how/tour/1.html;

(http://www.habitat.org/how/historytext.aspx) Habitat for Humanity International,

“Habitat for Humanity Fact Sheet,” Retrieved from the World Wide Web on November

14, 2001: http://www.habitat.org/how/factsheet.html.

(http://www.habitat.org/how/myths.aspx)

52. National Coalition for the Homeless, “How Many People Experience Homelessness?

NCH Fact Sheet #2,” Retrieved from the World Wide Web on November 15, 2001:

http://www.nationalhomeless.org. (http://www.nationalhomeless.org./)

53. Levitan, pp. 171-172.

54. Ibid., pp. 154-156; 161-170; 150-151.

55. Ibid., pp. 176-177; 137.

56. Eleanor Brilliant, Dilemmas of Organized Charity (New York: Columbia University,

1990), p. 19; United Way of America, “Basic Facts About United Way,” Retrieved from

the World Wide Web on November 21, 2001: http://national.unitedway.org/bfact.cfm.

(https://www.unitedway.org/)

57. United Way of Massachusetts Bay, “Community Links – United Way Affiliated

Agencies,” Retrieved from the World Wide Web on November 21, 2001:

http://www.uwmb.org/aboutus/agencies.htm.;

(http://unitedwaymassbay.org/about/partner-agencies/) Mile High United Way, “Our

Family of Agencies,” Retrieved from the World Wide Web on November 27, 2001:

http://www.unitedwaydenver.org/home/html/agency.html.

/

(http://www.unitedwaydenver.org/home/html/agency.html.)

58. Marjorie Cotton, “Yes, I Would Like A Choice Where My Contribution Goes!” Fund

Raising Management: 36-37, 48 (December 1991); W. Olcott, “United Way Growth

Stagnant.” Fund Raising Management: 15 (June 1994); Jerry D. Marx, “Federated

fundraising,” The International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration, vol.

2, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 877-881; Jerry D. Marx, “ Corporate

philanthropy and United Way: Challenges for the year 2000,” Nonprofit Management &

Leadership, 8(1): 20 (1997).

59. Ibid.

60. Marx, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, p. 20; Olcott, p. 15; United Way of

America, 2001.

61. ((Three Notable African American Women In Child Welfare, 1888-1930)) League of America, “More about CWLA,” Retrieved from the World Wide Web on

November 18, 2001: http://www.cwla.org/whowhat/more.htm)

(http://www.cwla.org/)

62. Children’s Defense Fund, “Marian Wright Edelman’s Public Life,” Retrieved from

the World Wide Web on April 25, 2001: http://www.childrensdefense.org/about/

(http://www.childrensdefense.org/about/); Children’s Defense Fund, “About Us,”

Retrieved from the World Wide Web on November 18,

2001: http://www.childrensdefense.org/about/leadership/marian-wright-edelman/

(http://www.childrensdefense.org/about/leadership/marian-wright-edelman/)

How to Cite this Article (APA Format): Marx, J. (2010). Current issues and programs in social welfare. Retrieved [date accessed] from http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/recollections/current-issues-and- programs-in-social-welfare/

21 Replies to “Current Issues and Programs in Social Welfare”

Cameron Bruce says: April 10, 2019 at 3:36 pm (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-307290)

My post is in regards to the tanf program. One of the continued issues with the program is: 1.

Adults in the home must spend 30 hours/adult actively looking for employment. 2. Any requests

for paying certain bills or needed items to continue the benefits must have quotes from multiple

/

sources, and documents stating why the funds are needed (many have to pay cash for getting the

document). 3. If funds are approved it would take 7 to 10 business days for the cash to be

allocated to pay that request (in some cases the bill or needed item is paid or needed item

purchased too late) causing cancellations of services and other penalties. Finally their cash system

doesn’t reimburse the family if they use the cash assistance recieved, to cover the expense of a a

bill that assistance was asked for to keep the services active until they pay. Leaving the family

without funds to cover the money used to job search, or keep phone service active to receive calls

from employment opportunities. Another thing their free cell phones only work in certain areas,

only 1 is allowed per family, the phone is so cheap that if stolen police will not even file a report.

Making the family unable to get another one.

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=307290#respond)

Richie says: October 26, 2017 at 6:43 pm (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-275343)

Hello, can you give me the APA citation for the title Public Housing and Section 8 Housing

Assistance. Thank you so much in advance.

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=275343#respond)

ACampbell says: October 30, 2017 at 11:13 am (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-275523)

You should be able to find the answers you need at The Purdue OWL

(https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/10/) (Online Writing Lab).

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=275523#respond)

donna zachery says: August 7, 2016 at 12:55 am (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-242310)

Hi Mr. Jack Hansan,

Thank for all your information on this site, I am currently working on a child welfare paper in Eng

215, your cited resources helped me a lot. Keep all the great work!!!!!!!!!

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=242310#respond)

sr. marieta v. calderon says:

/

January 25, 2016 at 6:23 am (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-237782)

thanks for all the responses.

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=237782#respond)

Tiffany says: January 19, 2016 at 7:25 pm (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-237644)

Does anyone else have any other helpful resources I can relate to for a paper that I am writing

using the topic of Food assistance programs being a social welfare issue? this site was very helpful

thank you.

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=237644#respond)

admin says: January 22, 2016 at 6:05 pm (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-237724)

In response to your question, I recommend you Google “food stamps” and “free lunches” as

national examples of food assistance programs. Best wishes, Jack Hansan

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=237724#respond)

admin says: November 8, 2015 at 4:19 pm (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-234806)

Thanks for the comment. Please return frequently! Jack Hansan

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=234806#respond)

Melanie Mason says: September 22, 2014 at 12:20 am (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s- beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-218445)

Same request as someone asked earlier. Is there a publication date for this particular article? I’m

using the information for a class and want to cite correctly.

Current Issues and Programs in Social Welfare

By: Dr. Jerry Marx, Chair, Social Work Department, University of New Hampshire

/

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=218445#respond)

Kate Agnelli says: September 22, 2014 at 1:44 pm (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s- beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-218482)

Hi Melanie,

We are in the process of adding this information to all of our posts. In the mean time, here is an

APA formatted citation for this article.

Marx, J. (2010). Current issues and programs in social welfare. Retrieved [date accessed] from

http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/recollections/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-

welfare/ (http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/recollections/current-issues-and-programs-in-

social-welfare/).

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=218482#respond)

jhansan says: September 13, 2014 at 5:48 pm (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s- beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-217990)

There are numerous sources for additional information if you Google the areas of interest. Good

luck. Jack Hansan

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=217990#respond)

jhansan says: September 13, 2014 at 5:47 pm (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s- beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-217989)

Thank you. Jack Hansan

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=217989#respond)

admin says: August 25, 2014 at 1:42 pm (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-216598)

Thanks for the comment. JEH

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=216598#respond)

/

Brit Buchhave says: June 2, 2014 at 8:33 am (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-211169)

Could you please send me the publication year for the article ‘Current Issues and Programs in

Social Welfare’ as well? Thanks!

The article is written by Dr. Jerry Marx, Chair, Social Work Department, University of New

Hampshire

Kind regards

Brit Buchhave

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=211169#respond)

jhansan says: June 2, 2014 at 2:19 pm (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-211184)

Mr. Buchave: It would be best if you contacted Dr. Jerry Marx directly for that information.

Thank you, Jack Hansan

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=211184#respond)

Ericka Carreon says: April 11, 2014 at 7:05 am (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-207549)

I am using the information you provided in one of my papers that discusses social welfare. I

cannot however find a publication date for your work. Can you please provide one, even a year

would be sufficient.

Kind Regards,

Ericka

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=207549#respond)

jhansan says: April 11, 2014 at 2:30 pm (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-207564)

Ms. Carreon: If you send me the title(s) of the entries you are using I can locate the date. Thanks,

Jack Hansan

/

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=207564#respond)

Ericka Carreon says: April 12, 2014 at 4:23 am (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/1980s-beyond/current- issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/#comment-207606)

Current Issues and Programs in Social Welfare

By: Dr. Jerry Marx, Chair, Social Work Department, University of New Hampshire

thank you

Reply (/eras/1980s-beyond/current-issues-and-programs-in-social-welfare/? replytocom=207606#respond)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Post Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed

(https://akismet.com/privacy/).

/

More

Explore historical materials related to the history of social reform at VCU Libraries’

Image Portal.

(http://images.socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/)

(https://library.vcu.edu/)

Last modified: October 30, 2017

Contact us: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

Subscribe for Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new updates by email.

Email Address

Subscribe

Editor Login (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/wp-admin/)

Virginia Commonwealth University (http://vcu.edu) VCU Libraries (https://library.vcu.edu)

Accessibility (https://www.library.vcu.edu/services/accessibility/) View text-only version (http://www.ts.vcu.edu/cgi-bin/posh.pl?

posh_referer=https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu) VCU Libraries Copyright and Privacy (https://www.library.vcu.edu/about/guidelines/copyright-

privacy/)

/