Since 1971, central welfare legislation has insisted that a growing share of welfare recipients take part in some form of work aimed activities as a condition of getting full welfare benefits. Even without any special welfare-to-work program, though, many low-income individuals enroll in school, training, community college, or some other program to help them gain skills and get work (Garber & Seligman, 15). This intended activity may have a big payoff. Thus, asking about the worth of education and training as part of welfare reform has a particular meaning: does requiring education or training for people who may want to participate have the planned positive results relative to what people would have achieved on their own or to other approaches such as job search? This question is specifically applicable to mandatory basic education, since few welfare recipients suggest that they want to go back to school to study reading and math; they have had poor incidents in school in the past and favor to get specific skills training.
Psychosocial Benefits from College Turnout by Welfare Recipients
Admission in college is one pointer of potential future success, but graduation may be even better predictor (Garber & Seligman, 27) .Studies have reported psychosocial benefits from college turnout by welfare recipients. For example, research unearth that student recipients report dissimilar types of positive outcomes coming from their college attendance, including increased feelings of self-concept and independence, better job availability, and an amplified ability to meet goals and set new ones. Being admitted in a college-based targeted sustenance program for welfare recipients may raise students' chances of graduation as these programs normally provide remedial assistance, counseling or case management, and camaraderie. Recruitment in a supportive program may also improve post-program outcomes, including earnings (Abramson & Seligman, 56). Notably, welfare recipients who graduate from college cite financial aid as the primary form of assistance necessary to graduate.
Although findings from these studies provide redolent evidence that attending college leads to better outcomes for welfare recipients, they are expressive in nature and causal and after close of this type of education the receiver gains enough buoyancy to use what skills he has acquired in the institution at a place of work which gives him sort of financial freedom that motivates him to exit government assistance programs (Abramson & Seligman, 67). Studies of welfare recipients who attend college find that salary for graduates are generally superior to non-graduates, and that graduating from college is associated with higher rates of exit from welfare.
Baldwin (3) stipulates that one dispute used by opponents of allowing college education among welfare recipients is that it will falsely lengthen welfare spells as women stay on aid merely to complete their degrees. The research illustrate, though, that many of the welfare recipients do not use their time on welfare to graduate. Only 16 percent of student welfare recipients graduate from college while they are still getting aid or in the two months after exit. Twenty percent graduate during a period when they are not getting any welfare funds (Baldwin, 43).
Of those who graduate, welfare recipients are far more possible to obtain an Associates Degree than their non-welfare counterparts. Fifty nine percent of college/welfare students who graduate complete an Associates Degree, compared to 20 percent of non-welfare graduating college students. Study shows that welfare recipients who attend college while on aid had greater outcomes to their counterparts who did not attend college. Among those who did not attend college while on aid, 22.9 percent returned on the rolls within a year of exit. In comparison, just 14.4 percent of those who attended college came back to aid (Baldwin, 6). Those with high school diplomas who did not go to college returned to aid at a rate of 21.8 percent.
There are a number of causes to expect that welfare recipients who go to college while on aid would have better outcomes than their counterparts who don’t. In particular, higher levels of education have been attached to improved labor market and related outcomes among the population at large .Simply increasing their education level would lead to predictable gains in employment and income for welfare recipients, which would in turn lead to condensed return to aid and poverty rates (Baldwin, 8) An important thought is that welfare recipients who pursue advanced degrees may have certain distinctiveness, such as a high level of inspiration or a strong desire to pursue more education.
Inducements for Welfare Reforms' Success
The findings presented in this paper show that there may be great returns to allowing welfare recipients go to college while receiving aid (Bandura, 64). Data specify that attending and graduating from college are associated with better employment, poverty, and recidivism outcomes, predominantly in the five-year follow-up. However, graduation from college among this group is not the norm. Because graduation appears to be the key factor in significantly improving the lives of welfare recipients who attend school, states that allow for postsecondary education in their programs should stress on graduation as a goal. For many recipients, getting to this goal will need a number of supports in place.
The literature has recognized the most important of such supports as follows: child care, both during the courses and for additional activities such as job interviews, through nontraditional hours and on campus if likely; other helpful services, such as transportation, crisis intervention, ongoing case management, and career counselors; remediation for students who need to perk up basic skills; financial aid counseling and assistance; supplies, such as books and notebooks; and incentives for attending school and graduating. Studies have also suggested that partnerships between welfare agencies and colleges should be forged to create joint inducements to see these programs succeed.
Bandura (204) States that a number of models for this type of partnership have appeared over the past several years and research have indicated that integrating funds and co-locating services can be a wonderful asset to programs. Beyond this partnership, it may be necessary to tailor college programs to welfare recipients to allow them to finish their courses while still meeting their requirements and family needs and to focus their education concretely in areas where there are labor market needs. This study suggests that if put into place so as to support graduation, programs that emphasize college education for welfare recipients can be extremely successful in removing them from the welfare rolls and helping them to improve their family incomes.
The self-beliefs or dispositional variables that welfare recipients develop and hold to be true may be prevailing forces in their success or failure in educational or employment activities. Four dispositional variables are associated with determination. Attitudes toward school stem from past schooling experiences that helped shape adults’ views including beliefs about the effectiveness of attending school. Self-efficacy is the belief about one’s abilities: an estimation of one’s confidence for fruitfully accomplishing a particular task such as mathematics or reading. Pliability is the ability to manage or cope with adversity or stress in successful ways; pliant people bounce back from hardship. Attribution is the belief about the cause of one’s success or failure
The Adult Education Persistence Scale (AEPS) is a first step in assessing dispositional variables and the effect they have on perseverance for welfare recipients who enrolled in adult basic education classes. Follow up on the participants in this study can help resolve whether the AEPS predicts not only determination but also receipt of the General Educational Development (GED) (Bandura, 214). Future research might look at the relationship of other dispositional constructs with diligence and success in adult education. For instance, is there a basic level of self-esteem that participants must have upon getting into adult basic education classes to forecast persistence and success?
Though persistence of Families First participants in adult basic education is many-sided and complex, dispositional variables play a role. Because the eventual goal of welfare reform is to help adults who are dependent on welfare to become employed and achieve self-sufficiency, educational achievement holds the promise of growing earnings over time. Since those who persevere are likely to increase their basic skills or receive a GED, the AEPS is a valuable start in predicting persistence and identifying those self-beliefs that are agreeable to intervention. As a tool for practitioners, the AEPS provides defensive information that can be used to increase the likelihood of persistence for welfare recipients and, finally, achievement of their goals.
It is thus clear that most of the welfare recipients may be attached to the welfare due to certain constraints that may disable them being independent. Factors such as skill may be of great value to the individual to gain access into a well paying job that may enable them to gain financial sovereignty. By continuing education the individual gains enough skill of which he will have the confidence to look for a job that will enable him to detach from the dependency on the welfare. Being equipped with the necessary skill from an institution would increase the income of the recipient and make him relevant in the job market and by this the number of populace dependant Government Assistance programs will drastically reduce.