Five studies were used to investigate the harmful effects of welfare reform and the status quo in the United States of America. By nature, welfare reform could be a racist topic. The studies chosen for this research article attempt to use objective tools to see the positive or negative effects of social resources such as TANF, SNAP, Medicaid, and SSI. I will explore different schools of thought regarding income equality, social policies, and whether this has exacerbated socioeconomic disparities between different racial groups. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"?Get an original essayOne of five articles titled "The Racial Structure of Inequality: Implications for Welfare Policy in the United States" explains how the impact on income inequality and government policies depend on racial structure. The reward for social resources could be biased against a minority group. There are many variables that explain why there is income inequality in the United States of America. One reason is that each state in the country may have different standards for how to allocate public resources to a low-income household. The article formulates the reasons why the redistribution of social assistance does not favor minority groups. The article proposed a theory called "group threat or racial threat." The majority group perceives the racial threat as the opposition does. Therefore, the majority group will impose a standard to which all minority groups must adhere. The majority group, or privileged group, entertained the idea of ​​a “paternalistic” precondition for poor households. Apparently, this measure aims to deprive the minority group of substantial assistance from the government. The majority group understands that a large portion of the minority group does not have a father figure in the home. As a result, a minority group will experience less or no social compensation. The motive for this policy is due to xenophobic attitudes towards the minority group. An additional theory proposed in the first article is called social affinity. Affinity can be defined as a spontaneous or natural liking or sympathy for someone. In other words, I call it subtle discrimination. This is yet another reason why there is inequality in America. Another word for social affinity is nepotism. Nepotism is a phenomenon experienced throughout our lives and can change the way we allocate social assistance to other racial groups on the spectrum. The second article, “The Economic Well-Being of Low-Income Single-Parent Families Following Welfare Reform in the United States,” outlines how a disparity has existed since welfare reform began in 1994. Data used was collected as part of the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the US Census Bureau. The study sample size included 5,327 mothers with low income or 200% below the U.S. poverty line, and the sample size for mothers with high income or 200% above of the poverty line illustrated a striking reality. There are several programs intended to treat the same socio-economic pathology. For example, there is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). A gapdistinctive from other studies is that they use different variables to characterize the income of single mothers since the welfare reform of 1994. In this study, we research the net disposable income of single mothers; that is, after reducing taxes, childcare costs, etc. Since the welfare reform, the number of beneficiaries has fallen from 5 million to 2.5 million, this event is attributed to the growth of new employment opportunities but has not led to an increase in income. The dataset we work with includes the years 1993, 1994, 1997, and 2002. Ages range from 18 to 54, and the sample size consists of 7,891 single mothers. The single mothers who are less than 200% below the poverty line include 48.1% white, 23.9% black, and 21.4% Hispanic. Additionally, single mothers above the 200% poverty line include 70.4% white, 13.7% black, and 12.3% Hispanic. The researchers said: "The overall total income of single-parent families with children increased after the 1996 welfare reform. However, a closer look at these results reveals that the average low-income family was worse off in 2002 than in 1993. Finally, net disposable income increased by 19 percent since the start of the 1996 reform. Low-income mothers did see a significant increase in employment, but this was undermined by child care costs and loss of benefits, which resulted in a drop in their net income. The researchers said: “These findings reveal that many single mothers moved from being welfare poor to working poor.” Unlike single mothers who are 200% above the poverty line, they experience an increase in their net disposable income and a decrease in tax expenditures. According to the study, low-income mothers spent 30.3 percent of their income on child care costs; their counterparts spent 8.1% on child care costs. The third article entitled “Help or harm? Food Stamp Receipt and Mortality Risk Before the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, the study attempts to assess the impact of the food stamp program on the mortality rate. The study was conducted before the welfare law of 1996. The food stamp program was administered based on national standards. One perceived shortcoming was that the food stamp program would deter participants who aspire to increase their income or achieve vertical social mobility. The food stamp program is responsible for allocating funds to administer to socioeconomically disadvantaged citizens. $23.7 billion will be redistributed to 27.5 million participants in 1994. Researchers used the Family Resources Supplement (FRS) with the National Health Survey for the years 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1994. criteria to be considered a participant or recipient of this assistance did not exceed a gross income of 130% of the federal poverty guidelines. Additionally, only adults aged 18 to 59 participated in the study. The dataset included 79,096 eligible individuals, 17,488 were participants and 61,608 were non-participants. The biopsychosocial relationship of the food stamp program has detrimental effects. Participants in the food stamp program would incentivize participants to work less or not work at all to continue receiving federal assistance. Participants are often stigmatized by receiving food stamps, falling.