Disadvantaged Minority Groups in Social Welfare Reform

Welfare reform is the ‘collective name for changes to the benefit (social security) system’ (Anon, 2016). This benefits system is paid by the Government to help various social groups to have a fair amount of income so that they can attend to their own personal needs, or if necessary an additional income will be added to those who also need to tend to the needs of others. It is used as a way of support to help those who are less fortunate or disadvantaged, in the sense that they struggle financially or physically to make ends meet and therefore require some form of income to reduce this issue. This is evident in low-income families, for example, they may get Income support and Housing Benefits – two types of Welfare Reforms which are given to families with low income. Income support is used to help families who have low income and therefore need additional income to help them pay for essentials, whereas Housing Benefits is solely used to help low-income families pay their rent. There are other types of benefits low-income families can receive, they may also get additional income as they need to tend to themselves as well as the needs of their children, this is called Child tax credit.

In light of this, when changes are made to Welfare reforms by Government then this act also affects the well-being of the low-income families who are dependent on it as this could potentially be their main source of income. The quality of life of their lived experiences could in affect deteriorate in some respects, and other factors such as social exclusion and isolation can result from this. The benefit cap which was set up by the Government in 2013 to set a ‘limit on the total amount in benefits that most working-age people can claim’ (Foster, 2016) is highlighted by The Guardian to affect low income families the most; with ‘116,000 households with between one and four children’ (Foster, 2016). It reduces Housing benefits and therefore the reality of the low-income families lived experiences will continue to or begin to struggle to pay their rent due to as stated previously, this being their main source of income. Being unable to get this income from any other source means that they become dependent as this is the only way they are able to provide for themselves and their children with a sense of security and stability, which is why the reduction impacted families so harshly.

According to the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, the benefits which are paid to the low-income families in the UK have reduced. Before this it is highlighted that the benefits one would receive would be in accordance with their cost of living; this is the amount that they need in relation to their everyday necessities and items. In the present day however, regardless of the cost of living, the values of benefits will not rise like it once did (Anon, 2016). As a result, families on a low income would have had to alter and re-budget their necessities now that less income will be given to them. They may not be able to afford all that is needed and therefore struggle to fully provide for themselves and their children to a level which is deemed as socially acceptable.

In general, the stigma attached to Welfare reforms is to mostly negative. This is due to the media, families who accept benefits are generalised as rather incapable or victims of poverty, labels which can often affect the social lives of the service user. Poverty is a subjective concept, although to put it in its simplest form it means when one does not have the basic human need essentials to survive. In terms of the media, this is evident through case study Marie Buchan more famously recognized by the wider population as ‘Octomum’. Buchan gained negative media popularity and publicity due to the belief that she was clearly abusing her rights for benefits and what she was spending it on. She states in an interview she had on a British television programme called ‘This Morning’ that she will be using the wages given to her for a boob job, and when asked why they are not being spent on her children she replied that she uses ‘child tax credit and working tax credits’ (Grills, 2016) for them. There was a public outrage, resulting in the wider population to generalize and judge all people on benefits and to label them as lazy and abusing their rights failing to recognize the struggle most endure. From this, a low-income family lived experience socially became increasingly poor as they too are being victimized and labelled which could result in them becoming socially withdrawn or excluded from society due to embarrassment or shame. Associations are made between being on benefits and poverty, and therefore low-income families may feel that they are being criticised due to the feeling that they are being looked down upon or treated differently by their peers.

The family's children may endure this concept of social exclusion more harshly, as the innocence of children on a whole and their lack of understanding can often lead to them being brutally honest and not taking into account the extent of the affects they can have on others. Their quality of life in regards to their lived experiences could be argued in the sense that due to their low family income and therefore having to be on benefits, they are enduring and experiencing what children and teenagers should of that age should not. This can be directly seen in Professor Green’s documentary ‘Living in Poverty’ when he was talking to ten year old Kelly Louise, she told him the personal affects of having to move from house to house has on her personally due to not having a lot of money and receiving such low benefits. She then goes on to say that she hates having to move around so much because she finds it hard to settle down without any friends and that ‘when I don’t have my friends with me I get really upset and really lonely’ (McLaughlin, 2017). This highlights the impact welfare reform reduction and low benefits on a whole has on the children in low income families in a social aspect. In Louise’s case such things such as the benefit cap means that the amount of income her mother initially received had been reduced, this meaning that the amount her mother got for her housing benefits in tune fell and therefore she was unable to pay for rent resulting in the continuous moving from house to house. Though the children may not fully understand the financial aspects of their current financial issue, they still to some extent have an understanding that they are not so fortunate. This conveys how their lived experiences are affected socially, and the emotional and social barriers they must overcome.

Furthermore, in the sense that children are affected due to not having the essentials or materialistic goods that most children or teenagers have at a certain age, according to an online article on the Daily Mail, ‘Over HALF of children under 10 have a mobile phone' (London, 2014).

However, those low-income families who do receive benefits may be unable to provide this to their children and therefore when at school, their children may experience being mocked or labelled which could affect them both mentally and emotionally. On the other hand, it could also be argued whether lacking these materialistic items does equal a poor living experience, or in actuality being a result of the media influencing this particular mindset. It is clear that the media is part of a child's secondary socialisation, meaning that it impacts their way of thought greatly. Therefore, families being unable to give their children who are under ten years old a mobile phone, in reality, is not gravely affecting their living experience as it is not necessary. However, both the ways in which modern day society works and the statistics show that such materialism does affect ones living experience due to societal norms and expectations.

Throughout it has been made clear that those who receive some form of welfare reform means that they are disadvantaged in some way, and could potentially lead to other forms of emotional or social problems. It was mentioned that the reduction of some welfare reforms means that families are impacted so harshly, that what they are receiving is insignificant in regards to what they actually ‘need’ to maintain a good quality of life. However, many fail to recognize that there are also other agencies, charities and organizations which are in fact deliberately put in place to counter poverty offering support. There are many of the obvious charities such as Oxfam, Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Child Poverty Action Group – all put in place to support and aid families. Some organizations even offer charitable grants such as the Baron Davenport’s Charity who highlight that they can give ‘emergency grants to single living ladies/ with their children’ (Anon, 2017). In this sense, in knowing that there are alternative sources families can get income or overall support from should tom some extent boost the quality of their lived experience.