Jessica Mena

Professor Berghof

Writing 39C

11 December 2015

Combatting the Welfare Queen Stereotype

                Many African American women on welfare have been affected psychologically by the stereotype of “welfare queens” which has been continuously reinforced through the media. For example, the news has played a major role in instilling the idea that “food stamp recipients” abuse welfare by “taking millions of [people’s] tax dollars” and leaving people with the concern that welfare is not good (0:30-0:50).[1]

Plus the cases that they present in the news coverage like Lakeisha Porter’s case, just increases the association between African American women with the welfare queen stereotype (0:30-0:50). As a result, the effect of the stereotype has not only been limited to African American women but has extended to other people that have been exposed to the stereotype.  For example, in the study conducted by Gilliam in the “Welfare Queen Experiment” it proves how reinforcing the association between the welfare queen stereotype and welfare especially through “news media and television in particular” have been the “priming source for most Americans in shaping their views about political issues” because the study shows that out of the two groups of participants that were shown either a white American woman on welfare or an African American women on welfare, the group that remembered the women’s face about 80% of the time were the ones that had seen the African American women and the ones that were shown the white American women remembered seeing her 50% of the time (Gillman 3). That’s is why the primary concern about whether or not people on welfare, which are “disproportionately African American women,” are “welfare queens” abusing the program like they are portrayed to be. Therefore, directing women to better opportunities, such as jobs that provide them with high self-esteems and increase the longevity of work, will serve as an approach towards the solution of stereotyping African American women on welfare because they disconfirm the stereotype.

COMMENT:  Compared to my 3^rd draft, in my final draft I was able to add more support to the claim that reinforcing the stereotype in media has affect many people by adding the study of the welfare queen as an example. Adding the study helped me add data that proves that people that are exposed to the reinforcement of the welfare queen stereotype have associated African American women and welfare together.  As a result, it has created a negative stigma because when people think about welfare they think about African American women being the ones that primary receive it and when they think about African American women on welfare they think about the stereotype and how they might be abusing the system. The study that I added to the introductory paragraph was based on welfare and the views others have on welfare queens so it was similar to what the focus on my first paragraph was. Therefore, it made it easier to include the study.

           There has been a fairly recent attempt solution to decrease the stereotype of welfare queens with the bill “Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011” or also known as the “WIN for Children and Families Act” that prohibits welfare recipients to use welfare funds in certain areas. The bill “amends title IV of the Social Security Act to require States to implement policies to prevent assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program from being used in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores or at any retail establishments” (Congressional Record). If welfare recipients fail to meet these requirements the “secretary shall reduce, by an amount equal to 5 percent of the State family assistance grant” (Congressional Record). The bill tries to diminish the stereotype that all welfare recipients are misusing welfare money and are “welfare queens” by prohibiting spending of welfare funds in certain places that can lead to being labeled in the future as “welfare queens.” Therefore, if the act of misusing welfare money in certain places, which is associated with the stereotype, is illegal there will be less negative stigma regarding African American mothers on welfare and generalizing them as “welfare queens.”[1] However, the bill instead perpetuates the welfare queen stereotype by taking into consideration places associated with welfare queens and it insinuates that most welfare recipients need to be stop from using their funds in places like casinos, liquors, and retail establishments. Yet, in reality in California “over a 3 year period, only .04 percent of Electronic Benefit Transactions occurred at gaming establishments and only .001 percent at adult entertainment establishments” and “in Florida, over a two year period, only .03 percent of Electronic Benefit Transactions occurred at stores with liquor licenses and .06 percent at casinos or pari-mutuel betting locations” (Congressional Record). This data proves that “how the media highlights issues can lead readers and viewers to make judgments about politicians and policies” (Gilman 1). That is why even though the bill focuses on trying to “solve” the problem of reducing the stereotype of African American women on welfare by preventing certain actions associates with the stereotype it just reinforces the idea that the stereotype is “true.” 

          The bill should instead switch its focus regarding the “small percentage of low-income people [that] use TANF cards” in “certain establishments” to a more important issue. If the bill really wants to solve the stereotyping of African American women than the answer does not lie in these places because very few people use TANF cards there. The main focus of the bill should be on welfare mothers and how they can help them increase the possibilities for them to obtain high self-esteem jobs in order for them to move out of welfare. The bill just continues to reinforce the welfare queen stereotype and it keeps hurting African American recipients psychologically. The more they are exposed to laws that focus on stereotypes, the more their self-esteem lowers because society shows that it accepts the stereotype to be a problem by implementing laws that plan to address it in the first place. What is need to be done is to propose a new legislation similar to President Bill Clinton’s Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996[1] which focused on “providing assistance to needy families so that children could be cared for in their own homes, ending the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage, preventing and reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two parent-families” (Lopreset, Schmidt, Witte 158). However, instead of focusing on vocational training like it was focused on PRWORA, this new legislation should focus on professional development which will lead them to a high self-esteem longevity work that provides them with higher pay and more possibilities for women to move out of welfare successfully instead of receiving vocational training that only limits welfare mothers to low paying jobs.

COMMENT: In the paragraph above I was able to finally address specific ways in which a new law can have better results than the WIN for children and families Act by stating how there should be a new law created that has a similar focus/goal as PRWORA. However, in this paragraph I was also able to be a bit more specific by adding which part of PRWORA should not be taking into consideration when creating the new legislation. I specifically said that the new laws should focus on moving welfare mothers into independency just like PRWORA tried doing but to promote education rather than job training. Being more specific on what should be done in what the preexisting law can focus on or what can be created also helped me think about the solutions that I already had proposed in my advocacy drafts and how they take part in this new “law” I’m trying to propose.

          In addition, Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011 also fails to take into account African American women’s social environment such as the lack of high quality job opportunities opened and exposed to them. In the video “Rep. Gwen Moore Opposes the Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011,” Rep Gwen focus on the idea that the Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011 tries to “impose more barriers on families”  who are “trying to access benefits” (0:20-0:40).

She firmly states that the WIN for Children and Families Act does not help welfare recipients obtain “self-sufficiency” like PRWORA aimed families to achieve but rather the bill is just “more mean spirited berating of low income people who are eligible for these benefits” just like the “mythical welfare queen” (0:45-1:05). The “Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011” raises a new “issue of universal access” because it limits the welfare recipients where they spend the funds not taking into consideration that as a person, one might have reasons to go to a prohibited place like the liquor store (1:20- 1:25). Overall, the Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011 succeeds in “hindering” low income people but does not provide a successful solution in moving welfare recipients out of welfare to better employment because they do not take into consideration the low paying jobs opportunities that welfare recipients are exposed to which prohibits them from moving out of welfare.

          For example, according to the study that was analyzed in “Coping with poverty,” it highlights the issue of how the low income “work [that welfare mothers are exposed to] do not pay from an economic perspective” (Kalil, Schweingruber, Echols, Breen 220). Welfare mothers have to “negotiate trade-offs between welfare, work and parenting, and many mothers resorted to sacrificing themselves in order to meet the need of their children” (Kalil, Schweingruber, Echols Breen 220). Table 2 indicates the participants that took part in the study which were diverse type of mothers.

The first row were Teen Parents, the second were welfare recipients with some type job training and the last were welfare mothers that were part time students. All welfare recipients described a similar frustration in regard “how lack of money made them feel as parents, mothers were often most frustrated when unable to purchase extra things for their children” such as “birthday and holiday gifts, “goodies” that food stamps did not pay for, etc. (Kalil, Scwingruber, Echols 209). All participants were receiving welfare but even though the “training program group” had jobs their jobs did not offer more than low wage which is not enough for all expenses. Thus, they still felt their “financial security diminish their self-esteem and foster self-doubts regarding their adequacy as mother” (Halil, Scwingruber, Echols 210).

          As a result, that is why Representative Gwen proposes that a new legislations should focus on exposing and preparing welfare recipients to better job opportunities. Which Rebecca Vallas also agrees with and states how there should be “ways to boost family economy security not weaken it” by having laws that might jeopardize them from losing funds (1:35-1:40).[1]Therefore, it is “important that there are jobs available and that they are high quality jobs that pay a living wage” (2:40-2:55).

Which those jobs can also offer welfare recipients a boost in their self-esteem because they will have the opportunity to become independent, able to support their family economically without any outside help, and will not be surrounded by the negative welfare stigma. However, even before exposing them to better job opportunities there should be a focus on how the stereotype of “welfare queen” used in the WIN for Children and Families Act has continued to create a negative stigma that has affect African American women psychologically.

          In the study conducted by Goodban in the article “Stereotypes and Stigma: What’s changed for welfare mothers” the negative stigma associated with welfare has caused an internal conflict with African American mothers which makes them feel “ashamed of being on welfare and believed that their reasons for going on welfare initially were of a temporary nature and beyond their own control” (Davis, Hagen 322). They also start to believe the stereotype and that their economic status of being “poor” was [caused] because “they are lazy and irresponsible about work” (Davis, Hagen 322). The welfare queen stereotype makes African American women feel “trap, unable to break out of the system, guilty and ashamed because they cannot seem to succeed no matter how hard they tried, and stigmatized by a society that devalues the poor, and especially those on welfare” (Davis, Hagen 322). As a result, the negative stereotype of the welfare queen “has led to a sense of helplessness and low self-esteem. (Davis, Hagen 323). Low self-esteem that keeps growing among African American women and was not addressed as one of the problems in the Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011 that has prohibited them to move out of welfare and towards employment. The more African American women “fear being stereotype [and the stereotype is reinforced] the [more they] are apt to suffer dramatic decrements in self-esteem” which decreases their motivation to obtain “marriage, income, education, and employment;” hence, not being able to move towards independency (Cohen, Steele 307) (Kunz, Kalil 220) since it is serves as a prime motivator.

          As a result there have been attempts in developing a solution against stereotypes. Psychologist Galen Bodenhausen and C. Neil Macrae have created a “theory of stereotyping and behavior that emphasizes potential inhibitory as well as activating process” which requires people to think “of a person, [African American women], as a member of one category [in order to] inhibit the activation of stereotypes associated with another category” such as being welfare queens (Blasi 1253). However, this possible solution is not beneficial because it creates a “rebound effect, in which the active suppression of stereotypes leads to increased stereotyping at the next opportunity” (Blasi 1253) hurting African American women on welfare even more. So instead of trying to solve the issue of stereotypes or preventing stereotyping the rebound effect makes stereotyping even more likely because people are more prone to stereotype one another. Hence, the problem worsens because more people such as African American women continue to suffer because of stereotypes. Reasoning being is that if they are stereotyped as welfare queens they are stereotyped by another generalization.

           That is why providing adequate counseling for welfare mothers that not only focuses on helping them overcome personal/emotional difficulties but also provide them with more job resources might be a better potential psychological solution because it has more chances of improving their self-esteem and helping them to work towards obtaining better job opportunities. Counseling can provide welfare mothers with emotional support because it “reduces the feeling of isolation and depression” within African American mothers being stereotyped due to the bond that they create with their counselor (Mc Donald 329). In addition, having counseling sessions can help mothers change the way they see themselves because a counselor can “suggest certain discussion topics including identifying personal strengths and interests” that can help them think about the good qualities that they have but have not thought about since they are only reminded of their “bad” qualities. Therefore, discussing their strengths will help welfare mothers feel good about themselves, leading to an increasing in their self-esteem. On the other hand, counseling sessions can offer African American women with more opportunities regarding jobs. With the sessions they will be able to “explore more career information,” “learn new skills such as job searching, interviewing, effective communication skills, and time management” which are important skills and information that most of them are not aware of (Mc Donald 328). Even though there are beneficial aspects of counseling, it also has its limits. For example, one of the major obstacles that counseling faces is trust issues. For some potential clients it might be hard for them to trust their counselors because “of negative experiences with other human service programs (Mc Donald 329). Also forming trust between the client and the counselor “can be a slow process that might involve numerous phone calls or letters” (Mc Donald 329). A specific obstacle that clients might encounter in counseling is the “attending counseling sessions which are often problematic” because clients might have personal reasons for not being able to attend such as “ill children, other family member needing help, not having a babysitter or just simply missing the bus” (Mc Donald329). However, the obstacles that counselors encounter are different. Counselors experience frustration because “helping clients handle multiple barriers successfully can feel overwhelming to them” therefore, they need to “practice stress management” as well as teach it (McDonald 329). However, developing counseling programs for welfare recipients does not completely solve the issue of ending African American women from being stereotyped as welfare queens but there needs to be a focus on leading them towards job opportunities that focuses on social capital and education which rewards them with high levels of self-esteem and disconfirm the existing stereotype of the welfare queen.

COMMENT: The paragraph dealing with counseling was one of my favorite paragraphs to add to my final draft of my Advocacy because I wanted to address counseling as a possible psychological solution but was unsure of where it adding the paragraph was going to be the most effective. With them comments that Professor Berghof gave me it pushed me to do more research on the solution of counseling. Therefore, for the paragraph above I was able to state how counseling was beneficial when trying to deal with both psychological issue such as feeling ashamed and sad, having a low self-esteem, etc., and an economic issues as not having a job. In addition, in this paragraph I was a able to really analyze the solution that I proposed which was counseling by stating how it can have benefits but also stating the limits it has.

           Social capital is “the role of social networks and connectivity” which can provide African American women with positive psychological effects if it can be increased[1] (Johnson and Honnold 11). The more social capital African American women have the more chances they have on having close friendships and relationships that can bring them emotional support as well as motivation. The motivation that social capital provides is essential to African American women because it can built up the lack of self-esteem that they have due to the negative stereotype they are exposed to. There has been empirical research that indicates that “people who have close friends, confidants and supportive coworkers are less likely to experience sadness, loneliness, low self-esteem” (Helliwell, Putnam 1437). Hence, the more networking welfare recipients do and the more close friends that they create will increase their emotional support and motivation that they need to increase how they view themselves. In addition, “advocates of the social capital lenses have reported robust correlations in various countries between vibrant social networks and important outcomes like moving out of child welfare” (Helliwell, Putnam 1437). Overall, researchers found that social capital “is related to indices of psychological well-being such as self-esteem” which can be used as an attempt to solve the psychological damage African American women experience (Steinfield, Ellison, Lampe 436). However, investing in social capital is not limited to an attempt to a psychological solution but can also expose African American women to new job opportunities and marriage because the more chances they get to expand their social capital by interacting with people from different backgrounds, places, knowledge, etc., the more benefits such as new and helpful information they will be able to receive from their networks.

          According to Sociologist Johnson and Honnold, they discovered how important it is for a welfare recipient to have a diverse social capital, an aspect that should be taken into consideration when approaching a potential solution. Social capital are networks formed with other people that “facilitates certain actions and makes possible certain achievements that in the absence of social capital would not be possible” because “family, friends and neighbors provide access to information, such as what businesses are hiring workers, what free daycare programs are opening and which agencies are providing the best training job placement service” (Johnson and Honnold 12). More specifically, social capital is broken down into two types which are “social support and social leverage.” Social support brings “people together of similar location” and offers emotional support and any other necessary support to welfare mothers. For example, the welfare recipients who had social support were able to maintain a stable employment because they are able to form a “bonding social capital” which provides them with “emotional support, rides to work, babysitting, and monetary loans” (Johnson and Honnold 12). On the other hand, social leverages helps “people get ahead by providing a more diverse array of social contacts outside one’s inner circle, promising access to more information and diverse resource (Johnson Honnold 12). Which as a result shows that “social capital is a predictor of work and marriage” (Johnson and Honnold 25). Women that were able to obtain a stable employment in a study had a high level of a social leverage that allowed them to have more reliable connections and were exposed to different resources that helped them “acquire employment and their expand economic capital” (Johnson and Honnold 14). Therefore, they were able to successfully move out of welfare to employment. However; the rest of welfare recipients were not able to do so because they had a less diverse social capital/ leverage social that limited them to local “emergency support, which logically would be drawn from close contacts (Johnson and Honnold 26). In addition, their “emergency support” is the most available social capital they have which “particularly limits African American women’s” choices when it comes to marriage because “there are few economically stable men in their social network” (Johnson and Honnold 227); therefore, having social leverage will expose them to a more diverse group of people which makes it more likely for them to marry.

Comment: In most of the questions that I received from my classmates from my oral presentation and even in the comments that I received from Professor Berghof they advised me to be a bit more clear on what I mean with social capital. That is why for this draft tired to be more specific of what social capital is and what type of social capital I was addressing. When I was revising the paragraph above I tried to specify the difference between two different type of social capital which were social support and social leverages and how describe how they can be helpful. After I was able to state the different social capitals I was writing about I think it made my easy a bit less confusing/broad when I mentioned social capital.

           Welfare laws should take into account the importance social capital and expanding African American mother’s social capital in both social support and especially social leverage because it opens new doors to better job opportunities outside of their communities. Creating welfare programs that would provide workshops and will bring together other welfare mothers from different communities will encourage the social support part of social capital. Since welfare mothers will be surrounded by other welfare mothers understanding of one another’s situation and relating to one another will be easier. Therefore, exposing African American women to new potential friends and supporters can help them feel less lonely and depress, can provide each other with motivation and it will be easier for them to create a supportive bond with one another. In addition, part of the workshop should focus on bring multiple guest speakers that can inform them about new job opportunities, training, internships, providing them with help to continue their education, and other useful activities for welfare mothers. The more guest speakers and the stronger bonds created between them and welfare mothers the more welfare mothers’ social leverage will expand. Creating new forms to expose African American welfare mothers to expand their social capital can possibly lead them to potential jobs that will reward welfare mothers with higher self-esteems.

           For example, in the article “Impact of Social Capital on Employment and Marriage among Low Income Single Mothers,” the study conducted “using longitudinal data” in which low income mothers who received welfare assistance were interviewed about their employment stability and marriage at three separate times in their children’s life time, at the “beginning after the birth of the child,” to when they were a year old and lastly when they were 3 years old, showed some positive effect with the group of women that had the most expansive social capital (Johnson and Honnold 17). However, findings overall indicate the unsuccessful attempt of moving welfare mothers to work and marriage because of lack of social capital. In table 2 it shows that most women (84.5%) remained unmarried during all three interviews; while only 7.6% of the women interviewed were able to remain married in both year 1 and year 3.

As for employment stability, the table indicates that most women (39.1%) did not have a stable employment during all three years; hence they were not able to fulfill the goal of moving towards being independent. However, the percentage of women that do acquire employment stability the last two years is higher (22.9%) than marital status percentage. Yet, the percentage of women that do have a stable job during the first 2 interviews and do not have a stable employment during the last interview are highly similar to the percentage of the women who do have stable employment the last two interviews. Which indicates overall that most women were not able to move from welfare to the working system successfully and to marriage. Therefore, focusing on developing social capital might not be as successful to increase longevity of work but focusing on expanding their knowledge and working towards helping welfare mother’s develop themselves professionally will result more rewarding in longer lasting and higher paying job opportunities.

           Therefore, a combination of solutions that leads welfare recipients to continue their postsecondary education in order to combat self-esteem problems they have from the welfare queen stereotype, will result more beneficial because higher education addresses one of the barriers that African American mothers face that has prohibited them to leave the welfare cycle. Since most welfare recipients [have] “limited education, training, and work experience they find themselves on a “carousel” of low wage, temporary and unstable jobs with little chance of promotion to self- supporting employment” (Kalil, Schweingruber, Echols, Breen 201). That is why the jobs that they are expose to does not help them move out of welfare and reach self-sufficiency but instead it limits and obligates women “to take low-paying jobs” which “increases women’s economic vulnerability due to the hidden expenses of work, such as increase cost in child care, medical care, transportation, housing and suitable work clothing” (Gueron 80) (Kalil, Schweingruber, Echols, Breen 201). Thus, “education is an empowering tool for the African American female welfare recipient and this component is key to eliminating poverty and gaining self­-sufficiency” (Buster 7).  Research shows “that there is strong evidence that enrollment in post-secondary education leads to improved outcomes for welfare recipients” (London 4). For example, welfare mothers who “graduate from college have lower rates of post welfare poverty than those who do not graduate” (London 5). Also having “higher education is associated with short welfare spells, increased post program employment and earnings, and overall improved outcomes over a longer period of time” (London 6). Along with these benefits, there are more profound positive psychological outcomes from the new environment that they are exposed to “from their college attendance, including increased feelings of self-concept, self-esteem, independence, and increased ability to meet goals and set new one” (London 7). However, the actual professions they obtain themselves with the help of post-secondary education helps them raise their self-esteem because they are able to support their family economically which makes them feel accomplished and removes the negative stigma associated with the welfare queen stereotype.  In addition, with higher education, African American women are opened to professions instead of vocational jobs.  As a result, as the “amount of post-secondary increases, workforce participation increases and the likelihood of being unemployed decreases’” (Pasarella, Terenzini 536). They are able to maintain longer lasting employment compared to welfare mothers that do not have post-secondary education.

Comment: Since in in this draft I wanted to focus more on the positive results coming from the education solution that leads African American women to better jobs/professions I decided to add more information and data to support the idea that this solution has better and long lasting out comes. In the second half of this paragraph I was able to include sources that focused on how higher education makes it less likely to return to welfare and how higher education has more benefits since it decreases the chances of being unemployed and leads to better/higher paying jobs. I like that the source that I included at the end also touches on how attending college can also result with positive psychological outcomes since I was trying to advocate a solution that focused on increasing self-esteem and other psychological issues that African American mothers have as well.

              However, before helping welfare mother continue their post-secondary education there needs to be more focus on programs that provide high school education opportunities to them because there are many mothers that were not able to graduate high school.[1] For example, the Family Support act enacted in 1988 had programs that “required the government to provide education, employment, and support services to adults receiving cash welfare assistance” (Hamilton 11). The legislation’s main goal was to move welfare recipients to employment by directing them towards education. For example, it “emphasized first enrolling people in education or training primarily basic or remedial education or GED preparation (not college) before steering them toward the labor market” (Hamilton 13). A study regarding the legislation’s program’s effects reveals that making initial investments in building people's skills “enables them especially those without a high school diploma or with other employment barriers to get better and more stable jobs, increase their income, and become less likely to return to welfare.” (Hamilton 10). However, if there are more programs that help welfare mothers obtain a high school diploma or GED there would be more women getting their diplomas and receiving more job opportunities and more chances for them to continue their post-secondary education. For instance, the chart below severs as supportive evidence on how programs that focus on perusing a high school diploma or GED actually do lead more women to obtain the diplomas. The chart shows two groups, the control group which were welfare recipients that were not under any of the 1988 Family Support programs and the other group that consisted of mothers that were under the programs.

It can be seen that even though there was not a major difference between the program and the control group of people that obtain a high school diploma or a GED there was still a 9% increase with the help of the program. However, now that “recipients have at least one of these credentials, [a high school diploma or a GED], they are considered to face fewer barriers to getting jobs” compared to other welfare recipients that do not have a GED or high school diploma (Hamilton 23).  

          As a result getting a high school diploma or a GED is a stepping stone into moving out of welfare which also brings positive psychological outcomes with the employment that they manage to obtain. Research indicates that employment has a positive outcome among African American mothers. African American women that are employed “commented on the improvement of their own self-image and mental status when they were working” (Kalil, Schweungruber Echols, Breen 207). They are able to regain their self-esteem that the welfare queen stereotype has lowered because most women report “feeling more confident and had higher self-esteem when they obtained employment” (Kalil, Schweugruber, Echols, Breen 207). For example, a mother stated “I enjoy working and getting out a meeting new people and growing. I feel like there was something that I could do for myself one day, and live better” (Kalil, Schweugruber, Echols, Breen 207).  However, creating programs that just help welfare mother obtain high school diploma or GED does not provide long lasting work nor long lasting psychological effects. One of the reasoning being is that economically, having a profession compare to just working vocational jobs differs since a “bachelor’s degree provides a net occupational status advantage over a high school diploma about .95 of a standard deviation” (Passarella and Terenzini 536). As a result, welfare mothers have better chances in obtaining stable employment that offer higher living wages rather than working vocational jobs that offer low wages and make African American women constantly worried about possibly returning to welfare and being stereotyped as a welfare queen again. 

          Ultimately, there are many attempt solutions to reduce African American women’s exposure of the welfare queen stereotype by focusing on the individual and providing women with programs that can lead them towards self-sufficiency and counseling programs that can help them psychologically. Very similarly to President Bill Clinton’s PRWORA 1996, the main goal of new legislations that need to be created shall be moving welfare mothers towards self-sufficiency by providing them with adequate help to guide them towards higher education. Where they will be able to receive long lasting and high paying professions which will also help them combat their self-esteem problems. Like higher education, social capital shows to be effective but not as effective as focusing on higher education because even though having a diverse social capital gives women a bit more advantage to help them obtain a job, those jobs that are available to them are not long-lasting nor high paid. That is why investing in welfare mothers’ education will be more rewarding. However, guiding women to higher education can be limited if there is not attention in creating programs that can help welfare mothers continue and finish their high school education in order to proceed to higher education. Therefore, in order to approach this issue there needs to be multiple solutions taken into consideration.

COMMENT: For my final draft I tried to restate the solutions that I mentioned throughout my advocacy paper but tried to emphasize the importance of the solution that prepares African American women to obtain professional jobs instead of vocational jobs. That’s is why I compared the social capital solution with the education solution so it can become clear why focusing on education will result better than trying to expand a person’s social capital.  

Bibliography

1.Blasi, Gary. "Advocacy against the stereotype: Lessons from cognitive social psychology." UCLA L. Rev. 49 (2001): 1241.

2.Cohen, Geoffrey L., and Claude M. Steele. "A barrier of mistrust: How negative stereotypes affect cross-race mentoring." Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (2002): 303-327.

3. Schram, Sanford F. "Contextualizing racial disparities in American welfare reform: Toward a new poverty research." Perspectives on Politics 3.02 (2005): 253-268.
4. Kunz, James, and Ariel Kalil. "Self-esteem, self-efficacy, and welfare use." Social Work Research 23.2 (1999): 119-126.
5. Davis, Liane V., and Jan L. Hagen. "Stereotypes and stigma: What's changed for welfare mothers." Affilia 11.3 (1996): 319-337.
6. Weaver, R. Kent.Ending welfare as we know it. Brookings Institution Press, 2000.
7. Love, David A. "The Image That Destroys the Black "Welfare Queen" Myth." LA Progressive. N.p., 16 Feb. 2015. Web. 03 Nov. 2015.
8. Loprest, Pamela, Stefanie Schmidt, and Ann Dryden Witte. "Welfare Reform under PRWORA: Aid to Children with Working Families?."Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 14. MIT Press, 2000. 157-203.
9. Gilliam Jr, Franklin D. "The welfare queen experiment."Nieman Reports53.2 (1999): 49.
10. 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
11. Rep. Gwen Moore. “Rep. Gwen Moore Opposes the Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011” Online Video Clip. YouTube. YouTube. 8 February 2012. Web 6 November 2015
12. 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.
13. 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
14. Gueron, Judith M. "Work and welfare: Lessons on employment programs."The Journal of Economic Perspectives(1990): 79-98.
15. Hamilton, Gayle. "Moving People from Welfare to Work: Lessons from the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies." (2002).
16. McClure, Kirk. "Section 8 and movement to job opportunity: Experience after welfare reform in Kansas City."Housing Policy Debate15.1 (2004): 99-131.
17. Castro, Julian. “Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing” U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development.
18. Inboxnews. “Billion Dollar Food Stamp Fraud.” Online Video Clip. Youtube. Youtube. 15 May 2012. Web. 16 November 2015
19. MTPAmerica. “Welfare Queen Law: California Pushes To Repeal Policy- Fox & Friends.” Online Video Clip. Youtube. Youtube. 27 February 2015. Web 16 November 2015
20. Helliwell, John F., and Robert D. Putnam. "The social context of well-being." Philosophical transactions-royal society of London series B biological sciences (2004): 1435-1446.
21. Steinfield, Charles, Nicole B. Ellison, and Cliff Lampe. "Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis." Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29.6 (2008): 434-445.
22. McDonald, Donna L. "Career Counseling Strategies To Facilitate The Welfare-To-Work Transition: The Case Of Jeanetta." Career Development Quarterly 50.4 (2002): 326-330. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
23. London, Rebecca A. "The role of postsecondary education in welfare recipients' paths to self-sufficiency." Journal of Higher Education (2006): 472-496.
24. Pascarella, Ernest T., and Patrick T. Terenzini. How college affects students. Ed. Kenneth A. Feldman. Vol. 2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
25.   Fine, Ben. Social capital versus social theory. Routledge, 2002.
26. Seccombe, Karen, Delores James, and Kimberly Battle Walters. "" They think you ain't much of nothing": The social construction of the welfare mother." Journal of Marriage and the Family (1998): 849-865.
27. Cast, Alicia D., and Peter J. Burke. "A theory of self-esteem." Social forces 80.3 (2002): 1041-1068.
28. Schram, Sanford. After welfare: The culture of postindustrial social policy. NYU Press, 2000.
29. Morgen, Sandra, and Jeff Maskovsky. "The anthropology of welfare" reform": new perspectives on US urban poverty in the post-welfare Era." Annual Review of Anthropology (2003): 315-338.
30. Möller, Stephanie. "Work, welfare and the breadwinning mother: incorporating gender into structural vulnerability theory." Journal of Poverty 3.4 (1999): 19-35.
31. Johnson, Jennifer A., Julie A. Honnold, and Perry Threlfall. "Impact of social capital on employment and marriage among low income single mothers." J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare 38 (2011): 9.