IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v18y2001i2p1-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy For The‘Deserving,’But Politically Weak: The 1996 Welfare Reform Act And Battered Women

Author

Listed:
  • Sharon A. Chanley
  • Nicholas O. Alozie

Abstract

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law #104–193) is perhaps the most visible national legislation since the sweeping Civil Rights laws of the 1960s. For social policy so well entrenched into the American social fabric, the rapidity with which reforms swept through the welfare system was unprecedented and confound conventional theoretical pronouncements on bureaucracy and policy change. The swiftness of reform, and the political rhetoric that surrounded the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, have prompted criticism that reformers responded more to the social construction of welfare recipients than they did to the dictates of sound public policy (Magusson and Dunham, 1996). This article discusses the ramifications of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act for battered women and concludes that battered women's social construction as deserving of public assistance, but politically weak, precipitated welfare reform policy, targeted to battered women, that has been largely rhetorical rather than substantive.

Suggested Citation

  • Sharon A. Chanley & Nicholas O. Alozie, 2001. "Policy For The‘Deserving,’But Politically Weak: The 1996 Welfare Reform Act And Battered Women," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 18(2), pages 1-25, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:18:y:2001:i:2:p:1-25
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2001.tb00183.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2001.tb00183.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2001.tb00183.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:18:y:2001:i:2:p:1-25. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.