Bouapha 1

Natalie Bouapha
Many Vongse
Professor Carol Sieverts
ENGL 1010-080
13 April 2016
Government Programs Create a Cycle of Poverty
For numerous years, poverty has affected individuals and families throughout the nation.
Poverty has been around for centuries and still is a big problem to this day. The number of people
in poverty has been steadily increasing in the United States.
Very many people believe that poverty is caused due to peoples own laziness and poor
work ethic. What if we were to tell you that that isnt entirely true? And what if we were to also
tell you that the government holds a majority of the responsibility for the increasing number of
people in poverty in the nation? Some people may claim this to be a ridiculous statement, but
through extensive research we have found that some welfare programs, in general, contradict the
very things they hope to accomplish.
Welfare Programs
There are a total of eighty-three welfare programs installed in the United States as of
2011 (United States Budget Committee). Even though there are so many different types of
welfare programs there are usually a few that come to mind when we hear the words poverty
and welfare in the same sentence. The majority of us would probably think of Medicaid,
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (the food stamps program), the public housing
programs, or something along these lines.
In David Reicherts, chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Ways of Means
Committee Subcommette on Human Resources, opening statement: Hearing on More Spending,

Bouapha 2
Less Real Help: Reviewing How Todays Fragmented Welfare System Has Failed to Lift Up
Poor Families he gets people to think about how well these programs work. He starts of by
stating a couple of facts to open the hearing:
Fact #1: We are spending more than ever to assist low-income individuals
and families. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, last year
the Federal government spent about $600 billion on just the 10 largest programs,
which is over 10 times the $55 billion we spent in 1972, when half of these
programs didnt even exist.
Fact #2: Despite all that spending, its not clear that these programs are
offering real help. For example, despite record spending, this is the slowest
economic recovery in recorded history, with far too many families unemployed
and living in poverty. (Reichert)
A major programs of the eighty-three welfare programs were established in around 1966.
Since then the poverty rate of the United States have fluxuated up and down over the past years.
In the chart below you can see that the poverty rate and the near-poverty rate are close to the
same with when the welfare programs were first installed to 2011 (Hokayem).

Bouapha 3

At a glance this might seem like a good thing to some people. The percentage of people
in poverty hasnt dramatically increased by much, so many would assume that these programs
are doing their job.
On the other hand if you were to take the
populations of each time period and did a simple
math equation to figure out how many people
exactly were in poverty in 1966 compared to 2011
you would see that there is a big difference. With
just about 100 million people difference in the population and a one percent increase in

the

poverty rate you have almost doubled the

amount of people in poverty. Which makes

you

wonder if these programs are really doing their

job.

The Beginning of a Ripple Effect

Although true the welfare programs were well-intended their results seem to contradict
the very reason they were instituted. These contradictions have had a negative ripple effect on
the lives of those who use these programs whether they know it or not. This negative effect has

Bouapha 4
made it harder for those in poverty to come out and it then creates a cycle of dependability to
these programs.
One of the programs that we see contradicts itself would be the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Public Housing Programs. Ann Owens, an Assistant
Professor in the Sociology department of the University of Southern California, explains that the
purpose of the assisted housing programs that were introduced in the 1960s were to reduce
poverty concentration in certain areas of the United States (Owen 327). Through Owens
research experiment she found out that, despite all the policy reformations of these programs,
assisted housing has had opposite results (Owen 342).
Ron Smith, APHSAs (American Public Human Services Association) director of
legislative affairs, agrees with Owens point. Though the idea of the assisted housing policies are
well-intended it has created poor economic infrastructure within certain communities (Smith 38).
This seems to be true if you take a look at the surrounding areas of where these assisted housing
units are. By segregating low-income individuals and families all in a specific area you cause a
series of ripple effects with the end resulting in the creation of a ghetto area.
Child Development
With the poor infrastructure of these poverty stricken neighborhood you see that the
employment rate becomes lower. Lower employment rate becomes a big deal for families that
are in poverty.
One factor that has contributed to the high number of children in poverty is lack of
employment. Lack of employment to the parents affects the children directly because it means
that the parents cant afford to feed their children well or provide for some of the basic needs

Bouapha 5
such as clothing items. Therefore, unemployment faced by parents affects the children directly,
leading to an increased number of children in poverty (ProQuest LLC).
As of 2014 the percentage of children 18 and under that were in poverty came out to
21.1% This however is 7.6% higher than adults, ages 18-64, who are in poverty and 11.1%
higher than senior citizens ages 65 and older. With such a high number of children in poverty it
isnt a surprise why the number of people in poverty in the United States is steadily increasing.
With the parents struggling to get better employment and having to depend on these programs to
make ends meet; it is like teaching the children that being dependent on these programs is okay.
And they become caught in that cycle of dependency.
Fighting the Stereotypes
As poverty continues throughout the states, it is true that the government is taking money
out of non-poor peoples pocket as they work hard for what they need and want to support those
on welfare. This begins to create stereotypes of those who are in poverty, like everybody who is
in these programs are lazy and If they worked harder they wouldnt be in the situation they are
in. Sometimes you get some that have to do with family situations like, absent fathers or
single mothers are the problem.
Stephanie Mencimer argues that these stereotypes arent entirely
true in her article, What if Everything You Knew About Poverty was
Wrong? In this article she interviews Kathryn Edin, a sociologist from
Johns Hopkins University, on a research project she has done. In this
project Edin moved into a poverty stricken neighborhood in New Jersey
to become more close to the residents and get more honest answers for
her research.

At every turn an
unmarried man who seeks
to be a father, not just a
daddy, is rebuffed by a
system that pushes him
aside with one hand while
reaching into his pocket
with the other.
-

Kathryn Edin
(Mencimer)

Bouapha 6
Joe White was one of the people that Edin kept tabs on for her research project. Through
many multiple interviews with White, Edin found that the welfare system saw unmarried fathers
as a pay check and not a as a co-parent. White was considered a bad father because when he had
lost his job as truck driver the mother of his son had applied for financial help from welfare
programs. Which not too long after, the state began demanding child support from White. This
made it extremely harder for White to get back on his feet, but despite the odds he did and is now
well off.
Through Edins research we can break some of these stereotypes of people in poverty.
Although it is true not all people in poverty are hard-working like White, but we should not
classify all of the people in poverty as lazy people. It just wouldnt be fair to the majority of
those who do work hard to barely make ends meet and provide for their family.
As we have said before though well intended the welfare programs instituted will usually
result in the opposite of what they were trying to accomplish. This has caused a series of ripple
effects that affect people in poverty in many ways like poor infrastructure, bad living
environments, and a cycle of dependency of welfare programs.

Bouapha 7
Work Cited
Hokayem, Charles, and Heggeness, Misty L. Living in Near Poverty in the United States: 19662012. May. 2014. US Bureau of Census. Web. 5 Apr. 2016.
Mencimer, Stephanie. "What If Everything You Knew About Poverty Was Wrong?." Mother
Jones 39.2 (2014): 42-61. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.
Owens, Ann. "Housing Policy and Urban Inequality: Did the Transformation of Assisted
Housing Reduce Poverty Concentration?." Social Forces 94.1 (2015): 325-348.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Mar. 2016
ProQuest LLC. Chapter 21: Poverty. What Citizens Need to Know About Government. 2009:
n.pag. SIRS Interactive Citizenship. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.
Smith, Ron. "Preventing Poverty." Policy & Practice (19426828) 71.4 (2013): 6-38. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
United States Senate Budget Committee. Congressional Research Service. CRS Report: Welfare
Spending the Largest Item in the Federal Budget. n.d. Congressional Research Service.
Web. 5 Apr. 2016.