Hands Up Assistance and Conceptual Frameworks for School Security

Hands Up Assistance and Conceptual Frameworks

The Hands Up Assistance (HUA) proposed by the Center for the Study of Social Policy reflects several overlapping conceptual frameworks of the social welfare system proposed by Marmor et al. (1990). The HUA initiative seeks to assist families by providing a one-time cash assistance to help with a variety of expenses, however only certain groups of people will be able to access this proposed social welfare program. This new proposal closely reflects the Residualist framework by providing minimal and short-term assistance to “deserving” families in need. Rather than ongoing support, HUA will provide up to $5000 as a safety net to those living near the poverty level.

The Center for the Study of Social policy acknowledges the increasing poverty rate and the many difficulties that families are experiencing in response to this increase. However, instead of addressing the larger systemic problems that may be influencing the rising poverty rate, as the Egalitarian Populist or Social Insurance framework might consider, the HUA will only provide a limited cash grant to help families fix their most immediate problems. Additionally, by excluding those who are unable to pass a drug test and undocumented immigrants, the Center for the Study of Social Policy is choosing who they consider as “deserving poor” as the Residualist framework suggests.

The idea of requiring a drug test to receive benefits also fits the Behaviorist conceptual framework. This requirement demonstrates the notion that “poor people made bad decisions,” particularly surrounding substance use in the case of the new HUA proposal. This initiative is attempting to change bad behavior by incentivizing sobriety. The proposal refuses to consider greater external factors that can contribute to drug use. For example, lower socio-economic status is a risk factor for substance use disorders. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Center reports that socio-economic factors are influential in contributing to drug use. Those who abuse or are dependent on substances are likely to be caught in a cycle of disadvantage and poverty, where lower socio-economic status influences drug use. The stigma associated with substance use then continues to contribute to further social exclusion with reduced access to employment, health services, or benefits, such as HUA. (NDARC, n.d).

Social Insurance Framework Initiative Proposal

Social insurance is another conceptual framework of the social welfare system from Marmour et al. (1990). This preventive framework views economic and structural insecurity to be the primary cause of social problems. Social Security is an example of a social welfare policy that reflects this framework and model. With Social Security, individuals put money in, through payroll taxes, and are able to access it later on in life as they need it and in their retirement (“Policy Basics: Understanding the Social Security Trust Funds,”n.d.). Though it does not assist with a larger systemic change and redistribution of wealth, it requires that everyone continuously contribute rather than waiting for catastrophe to hit (Hacker, 2008).

An alternative proposal to HUA that uses this framework could be a pay as you go structure. It would allow individuals to put money into a tax-free account on a monthly basis that would hold market weight value. When problems arise, such as a loss of a job that results in difficulty paying for rent or food, a medical emergency, or a spike in childcare costs, individuals could pull funds from this account as needed. Though it depends on what each family or individual is able to contribute, it is a preventative social welfare program that would not make it difficult for immigrants, drug users, or those deemed as “undeserving” poor to access it.

Hand Up Assistance and Social Welfare in US History

Throughout centuries, the United States has had many underlying core beliefs surrounding social welfare that are still present today, that can be seen in the HUA imitative. For example, the idea of the “undeserving poor,” victim blaming and the religious perspective that the poor are immoral, has been evident throughout US history and its approach to the social welfare system, and can be seen in the HUA proposal’s strict eligibility requirements. Beginning in the 15th century, religion controlled how the United States thought about inequalities, poverty, and social welfare. Religious thinking brought on the belief that social problems arise not from social arrangements, but from problematic and immoral human conditions. This reinforced and perpetuated the idea of victim blaming and the notion that the poor are lazy, immoral, and the cause of their own problems (Ryan, 1971). Social secular thinking and the role of the social welfare shifted away from the church to the government. However, foundational ideas of worthy or unworthy poor and faulting the victim persisted with the adoption of the English Poor Laws in the 1600s. Benjamin Franklin, in favor of adopting the English Poor Laws in the US, stated that “to relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures in concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide arrangement for laziness, and support for folly may we not be found fighting against the order of God by aid to the poor…”(Williams, 1944).

The indoor and outdoor relief further divided who the government believed to be deserving or undeserving of social welfare benefits, and aimed to correct the sinful behavior of the poor. Poorhouses also sought to fix morally incorrect behavior in those in poverty. Similarly, though not as extreme, the HUA initiative is attempting to correct bad behavior by requiring a drug test in order to access relief funds. This requirement perpetuates the idea that poor people are poor because of this bad behavior rather than take into account all of the other factors that go into systemic poverty. Continuing into the 19th century and the industrialization period, access to social benefits were often limited to White Americans by excluding the large influx of immigrants, perhaps influencing the HUA decision to also disqualify undocumented immigrants from aid. For example, the Naturalization Act of 1882 and the Chinese Exclusion act of 1882 discriminated immigrants by only allowing naturalization for Whites and people of African descent and prohibited immigration of Chinese laborers. The HUA proposal reflects these discriminatory values and policies by also excluding immigrants from applying for benefits.

Finally, in the progressive era and moving into the 20th century, despite massive changes in policy, these new policies were inherently racist and exclusionary towards immigrants and racial minorities. The women’s suffrage movement only aimed to give white women more rights. The labor laws mostly improved working conditions for white immigrants. And in the 20th century with Roosevelt’s Social Security Act, it excluded those who were unemployed and many minorities who were domestic workers or farmers (Katznelson, 2005). The HUA proposal follows a lot of these historical contexts and perspectives on how the US has decided to address need by blatantly refusing to give aid to undocumented immigrants.

Hand Up Assistance and Unintended Consequences

The HUA initiative’s strict eligibility requirements may affect families across many different demographics that were not fully taken into consideration. First, the policy to exclude immigrants from accessing this aid perpetuates the difficulties that immigrants experience in accessing any benefits. In Massachusetts, even as as a lawfully residing undocumented immigrant, they are customarily only able to access very limited health insurance that does not cover basic prescriptions and doctor’s appointments. (“MassHealth Health Plans,” n.d.). Denying immigrants this HUA benefit takes away a benefit that could be extremely useful to them when trying to afford the most basic of health needs.

Secondly, the one-time grant does not take into account families caring for an individual with disability or someone who requires on-going care. While up to $5000 could prove useful for a family that has experienced a one-time event, like a single medical emergency, for most families that experience ongoing hardships will not benefited from this grant. It is estimated that on average, it can cost $3628 per month for assisted living for one individual (“Costs of Care,”n.d.). Campbell (2014) tells the story of Marcella Wagner who was paralyzed from a car accident. Her long-term care cost the family hundreds of thousands of dollars and would not have been even remotely affected by the HUA grant.

Thirdly, the HUA may perpetuate the cycle of poverty by using a means-tested to the benefits. The proposal states that that it will provide “only to families who can demonstrate a financial need for such assistance.” If HUA is a mean’s tested assistance program, it can unintentionally make it incredibly difficult for families to meet financial eligibility requirements. These types of programs are typically designed for only the poor, which include assets and other resources. Campbell (2014) discusses in great depth the struggles Marcella and Dave had to endure in order to be eligible for mean’s tested assistance programs. The young family was forced to sell their properties and belongings to prove that their overall assets were near poverty.

In order to remain eligible for mean’s tested benefits, they were then forced to continue to live under these strict financial confinements with no opportunity to move into a low-middle class. The mean’s tested assistance and safety net programs forced the family into remaining at poverty level and did not allow them to save money for retirement, emergency funds, or for their child’s education. Programs like the HUA not only unintentionally exclude families who require additional support and benefits, but can perpetuate the cycle of poverty for those who depend on these kinds of benefits and programs.