Jessica Mena

Professor Berghof

Writing 39C

3 November 2015

The Real Problem: African American Stereotypes as a “Welfare Queen”

          The stereotype of African American women being “Welfare Queens” has created a negative imagine that has had a profound impact on how they see themselves as well as how they are viewed by other Americans. The term “Welfare queen” has affected African American women psychologically because they are seen as nothing but lazy, greedy, black ghetto mothers” who only care about the amount of money they receive through the federal program (Alexander 49) and has also increased the concern on how welfare has damaged the economy.[1] Therefore, this negative stereotype has “provided a framework for interpreting the behavior” of African American women which makes them more prone to the “stereotype threat” and causes their “performance and aspirations” to be weakened but has also affected how others take the stereotype into consideration when making certain decisions (Davies, Steele, Spencer 277).[2]

          For example, the stereotype of “welfare queen” has affected African American women’s self-esteem which also affects their desire to come out of the welfare cycle. “Research [shows] that self-esteem plays an important role in an African American woman’s transition from welfare to work” because self-esteem “works as a motivator” (Buster 4). However, since they are exposed to negative generalizations about themselves their self-esteem and self-efficacy, “that inspires behavior and influences major life events such as college, marriage, and employment” lowers (Buster 3). They feel like they have no other alternative but to stay on welfare because they feel incapable of bettering themselves[3]. That is why African American women “report feeling “trapped” on public assistance” (Beattie 66).

          It can be seen throughout history the major increase of African American women depending on welfare. In 1965-1975 the concern of welfare and the “welfare queen” stereotype rose up when there was a triple increase from 2.2% to 6.4% of mostly African American families depending on AFDC (Gilens 106). Figure 5.1 shows that in 1936 there were less than 15% of African American women receiving AFDC income while in 1973 there was a great increase to about 45% after welfare was made available to African American women and since then the amount has not decreased (Gilens 106).

COMMENT: The introductory paragraphs were one of the parts of my essay I revise which was important to the organization of my essay. When reading the comments that Professor Berghof sent me I knew that I needed to establish the significance of the problem first and explain who it was affecting and why. Therefore, during my writing processes I reorganized some of my paragraphs differently. For example, I was able to use part of the paragraphs that focused on self-esteem and incorporated in my introductory paragraphs but then I had to conduct more researching in regard low self-esteem and the effects of that. I knew that after establishing the significance of the problem I was able to do a smoother transition between the explaining part of the history of African American women/families becoming dependent on welfare.

 As a result, the stereotype of “welfare queens” has not only affected African American women themselves but has also influenced many minds, such as policy makers when making decisions. Most importantly, research has uncovered that “how the media highlights an issue can lead readers and viewers to make judgments about politicians and polices (their so-called priming role)” (Gillman 1).

          For instance, in “Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011” the concern about the negative public views on welfare recipients, which are thought to be “welfare queens” misusing the money they receive, shaped the decision regarding “title IV of the Social Security Act” (Welfare Integrity Now for Children and families Act of 2011). Now it requires “states to implement polices to prevent the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program” to be used in “liquor stores, casinos gambling establishment or any retail establishment” (Welfare Integrity Now for Children and families Act of 2011). If for any reasons it is violated “the secretary should reduce, by an amount equal to 5 percent of the State Family Assistance grant” (Welfare Integrity Now for Children and families Act of 2011). Therefore, decisions made by policy makers are biased since the “welfare queen” stereotype has influenced them as well as it has affected welfare recipients by reducing the amount of their funding.

          In addition, the stereotyping of African American women on welfare took part of the “PRWORA debate” in the mid-90s which was used to “primarily [give] negative images [to] women of color” as ones who “cheated taxpayers” (Sparks172).[1] That is why many people, including politicians, thought the only way to obtain a “positive public role for recipients, [hence diminishing the stereotype], during this debate was to [move recipients from] welfare to work” (Sparks 172). However, according to “Self-esteem, Self-efficacy, and Welfare Use” it disagrees and shows that it is difficult for African American women to move out of welfare to the working system like politicians want them to if the negative stereotype of welfare has already caused psychological damages.[2] In Popkin’s study (1990), low income women who do not receive welfare and are not expose to the negative welfare stereotypes “scored significantly higher on measures of personal efficacy and self-satisfaction” compared to the “149 welfare mothers” from Chicago that showed that they “had a lower sense of personal efficacy (Kunz, Kalil 119).  The negative potrayal of “welfare queens” makes African American women have lower self-esteem and lower personal efficacy which leads them to be “less likely to report [work as an option if they were] asked to speculate about what they would do” if they stopped receiving welfare (Kunz, Kalil 119). On the contrast, African American mothers that had high level of efficacy mentioned not to need welfare “and that there would be no obstacls to finding work  in the future (Kunz, Kalil 119). The article does a well job in explaining why the transistion from welfare to work is very difficult for African American women but does not explain a possible solution to decreasing the psychological damges. To actully make a difference in decreasing damgae caused by the stereotype the article should have focused more on how to lower the exposure of the stereotype in order to prevent psychological damage in the first place. The article does add more credibility to the psychological effects African American women experience by including Popkin’s study but remians as part of the problem since there is awarness of the negative effects the “welfare queen” stereotype has but no possible solution to end it.

          While there are psychological effects due to the “welfare queen” stereotype, Mitt Romney’s political campaign ad “Right choice” in 2012 shows concern of the damage welfare has caused the economy by attacking Obama’s welfare reform (Gilman). He believed that president Obama was “loosening TANF’s work requirement” that was established by President Clinton in 1996 (Gilman 249) (sec 0:00-0:10).[3]

COMMENT: I added the paragraph where it says "In addition, the stereotyping of African American women . . ." in my final draft to include other causes of the welfare queen stereotype and a study to support it the cause. For example, this paragraph focused on how because of the stereotype women have experienced low self esteem which has caused them difficulty in transitioning from welfare to work. I thought that by adding a study something that I did not do in my previous drafts was going to help increase my credibility supporting it with data.  

He criticized President Obama’s Administration and indicated that if he was elected president, “he [was going to] put work back in welfare, and end the culture dependency and restore a culture of good, hard work” (Gilman250). “Many observers” believed that the generalization of African American women on welfare as “welfare queens” is hidden in Romney’s campaign ad because “they felt there was a racial subtext to Governor Romney’s ads designed to appeal to white voters given that welfare is linked to the public’s mind with African American” (Gilman 256). The impact of “welfare queens” in media has caused more concern to both the increase of welfare dependency and the increase of money given to federal programs. In contrast, “Return of the Welfare Queen” states that “a majority of Americans oppose welfare spending because they hold stereotypes of blacks as lazy and the media reinforces theses racial attitudes” (Gilman 257).[1] 

          Similar stereotypical images of “welfare queens” and the concern about the impact on the economy was presented in the 1980s by President Ronald Reagan in his presidential speeches. A speech that played an important role in creating the specific representation of a “welfare queen.” Since then the stereotype has not diminished but has extended to present day as African American women are still seen as lazy who misuse use welfare and many view high welfare dependency as a problem to our economy; problems that can be traced back to Reagan era and more recently in 2012’s presidential election. The generalization of “Welfare queens” served as one of the major themes for Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign, the issue of public welfare was greatly known through his retelling of the anecdote of the “Welfare Queen.” A women in Chicago who received welfare money through “80 [different] names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards, [and in addition was] collecting veterans’ benefits on 4 non-existing deceased husbands” (Mann & Zatz 129).[2] Although, President Reagan did not explicitly say the race of the women in the anecdote it “left little doubt about the implied racial identity of the abuser” (Mann & Zatz 129). In many occasions, President Reagan referred to “welfare queens” to be “abusers, [who] enjoy lives of leisure, whereas [other Americans] work harder than ever before” (Mann & Zatz 129). In the video, he firmly asserts that “if government planning and welfare had the answer” there would have been a decline of people needing help each year but instead, “the need grows greater, [and] the program grows greater” (0:19-0:21).[3]

The stereotype of “welfare queens” has increased concern on whether the amount of money that is being spend in welfare programs are actually necessary.

          In recent years, many have argued that “welfare spending has increased significantly under President George W. Bush” and has continue to increase even more under President Barack Obama (Tanner 1).[1] Since he has been in office he has increased welfare spending “by 41 percent, more than 193 billion per year” while the poverty rate “has risen to 15.1 percent (Tanner 1). According to “The American Welfare state: How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty- and fail” welfare is still not seen as the answer to resolve poverty but instead “throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient (Tanner 1).  Welfare’s spending over the years has “tripled from 2.19 percent of GDP to 6 percent” as it shown in Figure 5 from 1965- 2001 which has caused more controversy towards the problem of how more money is being invested on welfare when people on it seem to be abusing it (Tanner 6).

The article give a lot of evidence to support the claim that welfare spending has exploded and how poverty rate has not decrease as well; however, it does not consider other factors that has caused the people to remain on welfare, such as the increase in unemployment or the low income jobs that are available for welfare recipients. Also, the solutions that was proposed to stay out of poverty which were “1) finish school; (2) do not get pregnant outside marriage; and (3) get a job, any job, and stick with it” primarily focus on self-issues rather than focusing on the external issues that are dealt by many people (Tanner 10). Therefore; it quickly jumps to the conclusion that the problem of the increase of welfare is due to people’s poor decisions.

          In addition, a major factor that has also increased the concern about the damage that welfare is causing the economy has been the reinforcement of the “welfare queen” stereotype. In the video “O’Reilly Addresses Historic Growth in Federal Welfare,” Bill O’Reilly shows great concern in how there are “100 million Americans now receiving federal welfare” because “many of [them] feel [that they] are entitled to free stuff” (0:21).[1] The video projects how negative views of African American welfare recipients has affected his views on how he thinks that the amount of welfare spending is unnecessary. In another O’ Reilly video with John Stossel, “Bill O’Reilly: Lazy Welfare Queens Gaming the System” shows how the stereotype of welfare queen has also affected other people’s view on welfare recipients and their effect on the economy.[2]

COMMENT: I rearranged the paragraph that focused on the Bill O’Reilly multi-modal because I felt that it was going to make a stronger argument in depicting how the stereotype of the welfare queen has indeed affected other people’s perceptions after the paragraph that was about how the stereotype has "damaged the economy". For example, after that paragraph  I was able to choose a specific part of the video where John Stossel interviews a welfare worker. Adding that specific clip of the video served as an example of how the stereotype has affected the women’s perception in thinking that the people on welfare are actually abusing it and in order to stop that the funds given to welfare recipients should be reduced so the government is not cheated off.

In the beginning, John Stossel uses a short interview with a women that works for a welfare office to show how people are abusing welfare. The setting of the interview plays an important part in vividly depicting the lines of people, mostly African Americans, waiting outside a welfare office.  Stereotype of the welfare queen continue to be affirmed when the worker states that “a lot of them are not” looking for a job but instead greatly depend on welfare money (0:16-0:39).[1]This insinuates that people depending on welfare are lazy and it adds more support to how welfare queens “game the system” (0:50).

          However, there has been debates about the actual increase in welfare funds and whether they have been sufficient enough to assist people. According to “Federal TANF Funding Shrinking While Need Remains High,” it completely disagrees with Tanner and Bill O’ Reilly since “there are [actually] no additional TANF funds available from the federal government to help states respond to the large increase in the number of improvised families” (Pavetti 1).[2] However, just like the “Self-esteem, Self-efficacy, and Welfare Use” article it fails on focusing on a possible solution to the economic damage that it is causing welfare families. The need to assist people to find jobs should be more important and a greater concern to help welfare families not to be affected by TANF cuts since many “states had an average of 15 percent less federal TANF funding” by 2011 (Pavetti 1). Table 1 indicates the amount which TANF funding decreased from several states from 2009-2010 and the estimated decline in TANF in comparison to 2011 which shows that most states are getting cut about more than 5% of their income compared to the previous year because of “failure to extend the TANF Emergency Fund” and “legislation was enacted that essentially ended funding for fiscal year 2011 for the TANF Contingency Fund” (Pavetti 1).

As a result, there are more homeless families, “fewer low-wage works receiving help with child care expenses, and fewer families receiving preventive service” (Pavetti 1). Most importantly many recipients are not able to come out of poverty and of the welfare system since the amount of money they are receiving is not enough to sustain themselves economically. Yet, the stereotype of “welfare queen” continues to influence many people to think that African American recipients are ones that have “more children to increase the benefits they get from” welfare but in reality the mean size of the family of the ones on welfare “look similar to those who are” not on welfare, which on “average are about 3 people” (Covert 1). Also, “on average” African American mothers spend fewer “on somethings thought to be luxuries like eating out and entertaining” because they spend “77 percent of their budgets on [housing, transportation and groceries]” (Covert 1). That is why families that depend on TANF are greatly affected by the decrease of TANF funds and not enjoying the lives of a “welfare queen.”

COMMENT: The paragraph starting with "However there has been debates about. . ." was one of the paragraphs that I added to improve my essay because I was able to explain one of the causes that the stereotype has caused based on how it is continuously reinforced throughout politics. The cause was that the stereotype has affected welfare recipient and the amount of money they receive since in reality welfare is reducing the amount of funds usually given. In my previous draft I include how there was psychological effects that affected African American women directly but it wasn't until the final draft that I really went more into detail in how the stereotype has a negative economic effect. However, I believe that this paragraph was also one of my weakest paragraphs in my final draft because it did not provide a lot of evidence supporting its claim. If I would have added more scholarly sources or multi-modals like I did for the paragraph that focused on the opposing side it would have become a stronger paragraph.

           The issue of poverty has been the main target of the existence of the welfare program; however, there has been little concern about the actual impact poverty has over the lives of the many African American mothers on welfare being stereotyped. Instead the stereotype has remained in our society but the awareness of the continuous poverty that African American women face in their community has not increase. If more people become aware that many welfare mothers do face poverty and need welfare funds maybe the issue of the “welfare queen” stereotype will decrease the psychological and economical damage being experienced.

Bibliography

1. Mann, Coramae Richey, and Marjorie Sue Zatz. Images of Color, Images of Crime: Readings. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company, 2002. Print. Page 129
2. Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: New, 2012. Print. Page 49
3. Mironov, Phil. “Ronald Reagan Welfare” Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube, 24 Nov. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2015
4. Gilens, Martin. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1999. Print
5. USAhistorywriter. “Bill O’ Reilly: Lazy Welfare Queens Gaming the System.” Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube, 9 Oct. 2013. Web. 12 October 2015.
6. Hee-Soon, Juon, et. Al “Welfare Recipient Trajectories of African-American Women Followed for 30 Years.” Journal of Urban Health 87.1 (2010):76-94.Web 10 Oct. 2015
7. Beattie, Irenee R. “H.S and Women’s life Course: Curriculum Tracking, Race/Ethnicity, And Welfare Recipient” Journal of Poverty 15.1 (2011):65-87. Web 14 Oct. 2015
8. Gilman, Michelle Estrin. “Return of the Welfare Queen” American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law, Vol. 22, Issue 2 (2014),pp. 247-280. Web 17 Oct. 2015
9. Fisher, James C. "Research On Adult Literacy Education In The Welfare-To-Work Transition." New Directions For Adult & Continuing Education 1999.83 (1999): 29. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.
10. Buster, Belinda E. “Transition from Welfare to Work: Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy Influence on the Employment Outcome of African American Women.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 19.4 (2009):375-393. Web. 19 Oct. 2015
11. Danziger, Sheldon, and Ann Chih. Lin. Coping with Poverty: The Social Contexts of Neighborhood, Work, and Family in the African-American Community. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan, 2000. Print.

1. Covert, Bryce. "Your Assumptions About Welfare Recipients Are Wrong." ThinkProgress Your Assumptions About Welfare Recipients Are Wrong Comments. N.p., 18 Dec. 2013. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
2. Tanner, Michael. "The American Welfare State: How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty—and Fail." Cato Institute Policy Analysis 694 (2012).
3. Schott, Liz, and LaDonna Pavetti. "Federal TANF funding shrinking while need remains high." (2010): 1-13.
4. Schott, Liz, and L. Pavetti. "Many states cutting TANF benefits harshly despite high unemployment and unprecedented need." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2011).

1. Davies, Paul G., Steven J. Spencer, and Claude M. Steele. "Clearing the air: identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women's leadership aspirations." Journal of personality and social psychology 88.2 (2005): 276.
2. Gilliam Jr, Franklin D. "The welfare queen experiment." Nieman Reports 53.2 (1999): 49.

1. Kunz, James, and Ariel Kalil. "Self-esteem, self-efficacy, and welfare use."Social Work Research 23.2 (1999): 119-126.
2. House of Representative. “Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 201. Congressional Record. (Feb. 1, 2012) 112^th Congress, 2^nd session issue: vol. 158, no. 16. Available from: Congress.gov. Accessed: 11/1/15

1. Davies, Paul G., Steven J. Spencer, and Claude M. Steele. "Clearing the air: identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women's leadership aspirations." Journal of personality and social psychology 88.2 (2005): 276.
2. Sparks, Holloway. "Queens, teens, and model mothers." Race and the politics of welfare reform (2003): 171-95.
3. Mittromney’s Channel. “Right Choice” Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube. 7 August 2012. Web 1 November 2015
4. BudgetGOP. “O’Reilly Addresses Historic Growth in Federal Welfare” Online Video clip. Youtube. Youtube. 10 August 2012. Web 1 November 2015
5. Riemer, Frances J. Working at the Margins: Moving off Welfare in America. Albany: State U of New York, 2001. Print.
6. Kingfisher, Catherine Pélissier. Women in the American Welfare Trap. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania, 1996. Print.

Cabrera, Natasha J., Robert M. Hutchens, and Elizabeth Peters. From Welfare to Childcare: What Happens to Young Children When Mothers Exchange Welfare for Work? London: Routledge, 2013. Print.