blog 10

One of the most significant pieces of legislation that affected working low income or poor mothers was passed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, which was the Welfare Reform, known as well as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 . The program no longer consisted in just getting help those that inquire the help had work or start working after the two years of help.There was a set of limit put as well of 5 years for federally paid benefits. Although the intentions were in a way good there was not a looking telescope to see beyond the struggles that would bring these recipients. The lack of planning in my opinion from the government put a larger strain in the poverty percentage in the United States.

Chanudry's book states that mothers had to adapt to the new "rules".Women had to accept these rules and not only accept these rules but also find ways to adapt to them. Chaundry discusses that “mother spend and inordinate amount of time locating affordable and accessible child care..” Mothers also spend time trying to manage the home, and finding ways of transportation. Chaundry says that the way mother that were in welfare,their image, has changed. “Mothers adapted their changing strategies to the changing context of their work” (Chaundry,179) Al l of the cases explored had a relation with child care and the struggles that work came with. Many mother had struggles to either give more importance to something such as child care or work.

I often have to do the same. I have to choose the days that I can work because I know my husband can take care of my son. If I had no one then it would really difficult. The Reform Act seems as if is a legislation to see how the strongest fish in the water is. When it is suppose to provide more support and assistance. I understand the cost must be high of having a welfare program with out reformation, but then another issue arises. What really is causing poverty? There are greater issues to worry about than the cost to help women or men that are raising children in poverty. It seems as we are giving more value to the economic interests than to the humanitarian causes and interest. It is why is so important to reflect on the recommendations that Chaundry critiques and recommends that the Government should increase funding for children's programs and some sort of change in policy which takes into account single mothers in today's working world. Chaundry insistently makes a calling to society to help break barrier and the cycle of poverty which make cycles by making an easier way to cut these cycles by making things a less bit complicated not just for those receiving assistance but for those passing policy by coordinating ways in which anyone can come across programs that will help children. President Clinton tried but now after years have passed by and poverty increasing it is wise to say that there is a need not for a reform but for more programs that are to benefit not only working poor women but the community. It is necessary to also teach the community of these issues because if no one talks about them there might be lost. Someone in the community might be helpful and beneficial towards the betterment of society and the poor.

There is doubt that in order for mothers to work and be independent they need help not just financially but the major role being child care. “all eligible income families should be served equally without the added complications…”There really no need to complicate the lifes of those that need help in the first place. It is hard enough for some of them to ask for assistance but there are other that this reform has been a wakeup call to change their ways and become more responsible. Either way there is a need of a more sustainable type of care for the working poor. Chaundry in a way challenges the norm of just looking at the defects of the poor but actually making a call to do something about it because we are all responsible