社会福利

维基百科,自由的百科全书
跳转至: 导航搜索
1945年12月宋庆龄在中国福利基金会的發放處

社會福利是一種差別待遇,指由某些人,特別是政府應向弱勢群體或經濟有困難者提供,以確保其生活質素、生存及發展機會等措施,以對社會整體有利。

世界人權宣言》主張:「人人生而自由,在尊嚴和權力上一律平等。」早期的社會福利觀念,主要是源於慈善助人的精神。《禮記‧禮運‧大同篇》:「故人不獨親其親,不獨子其子。使老有所終,壯有所用,幼有所長,矜寡孤獨廢疾者皆有所養。」這其實就是社會福利的觀念。

現代社会福利通常包括免費教育醫療、住屋保障、社会保障等。但對於這種政策,也有人認為從工作的公民手中拿走財富去幫助不工作的人、殘疾人和兒童,就等於偷竊別人的勞動,違犯了保護個人權利的原則。

社會福利理論[编辑]

福利的提供對象[编辑]

  • 選擇式(Selective)福利:以個人資產多寡為福利資格要件。

1.效果較好,集中在有需要的人身上。 2.成本較低,僅提供給有需要的人。

  • 普及式(Universal)福利:以需求的類屬、群體、地區做為提供服務的基礎。

1.較能適當回應不同人口群的基本需求 2.較能觀照個人尊嚴與社會凝聚 3.較能回應立即的需求。 4.全體人民皆能受益。 5.行政成本較低。 6.達到所得重分配的效果。

資格判斷[编辑]

  1. 資產調查需求:基於經濟指標來判定需求的個人配置。
  2. 診斷的差異:基於技術診斷需求的個人配置。
  3. 補償:基於恢復公平的規範性指標的群體取向配置。
  4. 屬性需求:基於規範性需求指標的群體取向配置。
  5. 普及的社會公民權:社會權→人人都可享有經濟安全、健康、教育等普及的權利賦予。

福利的提供者[编辑]

  1. 家庭主義模式:以家族為核心,提供經濟、情感支持、照顧等,多在傳統社會發展,近代逐漸式微。
  2. 社區主義模式:鄰里互相幫助的模式,早期如中國仕紳,近代的睦鄰運動等。隨著工業化從宗教或民間互助團體,轉型成NPO、志願組織的型態。
  3. 市場模式:由市場提供服務,服務成為商品被需求者購買。屬於自由放任而非福利國家的形式。
  4. 國家主義模式:國家負責照顧人民,給予普及性的權利賦予,包含經濟安全、社會服務、健康照顧、住宅、教育、就業等。
  5. 混合經濟福利模式:公私混合的社會救濟,由政府外包部分福利給志願或營利部門,再提供給人民。使當代社會福利提供走向混合經濟的福利或福利多元主義,志願部門、政府、企業、家庭,共同負責提供社會福利。但組成多元混雜,實施效果難掌握。

福利系統[编辑]

主要分為現金發給型與非現金發給型

在中華民國又分為七大類:兒童及少年福利、婦女福利、老人福利、身心障礙福利、保護服務、社會救助、社會保險

各國生育補助[编辑]

台灣各縣市生育補助[编辑]

一、北北基

縣市別 補助金額 備註
基隆市 每一胎次新生兒補助生育獎勵金新臺幣2萬元;雙胞胎補助4萬元  
台北市 每一胎次,新生兒補助生育獎勵金2萬元;雙胞胎4萬元;三胞胎6萬元;四胞胎以上類推之。  
新北市 每一胎次2萬元;雙胞胎4萬元;三胞胎6萬元;依此類推之。  

二、桃竹苗

縣市別 補助金額 備註
桃園市 每名新生兒發放新臺幣3萬元;為雙胞胎者,每名發放新臺幣3萬5,000元;為三胞胎以上者,每名發放新臺幣4萬5,000元。 申請書上需父母雙方簽名(即使其中一方未設籍於桃園市)
新竹縣 每生育一胎補助一萬元。 可與公所自辦加碼生育補助一同請領。
新竹市 1、第一胎15,000元,第二胎開始每胎增加5,000元(即20,000元),以此類推。

  2、雙胞胎5萬元,第二胎為雙胞胎10萬元。

  3、三胞胎以上10萬元。

1、可與鄉鎮市公所自辦生育補助同時請領。

2、新竹市生育津貼與低收入戶產婦及嬰兒營養費補助可同時領取。

苗栗縣 1、每一新生兒補助生育津貼新臺幣6,600元。

  2、設籍苗栗縣七個月以上之婦女懷胎滿二十週因死胎或自然流產,持有合法證明文件者,得於事實發生之日起六個月內申請發給新臺幣6,600元。

如申請人因離婚未取得對新生兒之權利義務之行使或負擔者,不得申請發給生育津貼。

三、中彰投

縣市別 補助金額 備註
台中市 1、單胞胎1萬元。

  2、雙胞胎3萬元。

  3、三胞胎以上,每胞胎2萬元。

於民國105年7月15日(含)以後出生新生兒之父或母,若同時符合【生育津貼】及【到宅坐月子服務津貼】,資格規定者,得擇一申請。  
彰化縣 每生育一名新生兒補助新臺幣三萬元整,補助金額以新生兒數計。 可與鄉鎮市自辦生育補助一同請領。
南投縣 1、第一胎1萬元。

  2、第二胎1萬5千元。

  3、第三胎以上2萬元。

  4、第一胎為多胞胎者,第一位獎勵1萬元,第二位獎勵1萬5千元,第三位(含)以上獎勵2萬元;如第二胎為多胞胎者,以第一位獎勵1萬5千元,第二位(含)以上獎勵2萬元計算。

可與鄉鎮自辦生育補助一同請領。

四、雲嘉南

縣市別 補助金額 備註
雲林縣 每胎8,000元。 可與鄉鎮自辦生育補助一同請領。
嘉義縣 每胎補助新台幣6,000元整,雙生以上者,補助費比例增給。 可與鄉鎮自辦生育補助一同請領。
嘉義市 1、每胎補助新台幣8,000元。

  2、雙胞胎1萬8,000元。

  3、三胞胎以上(含三胞胎)3萬元。

另每胎發給新生兒營養禮金6,000元。
台南市 生產第1名新生兒發給生育獎勵金6,000元;第2名以後之新生兒,每名發給12,000元。 若第1胎為雙胞胎發給18,000元(6,000+12,000);若第2胎為雙胞胎發給24,000元(12,000+12,000),依此類推。

五、高屏地區

縣市別 補助金額 備註
高雄市 1.同一父或母所生之前二名新生兒,每一新生兒發給生育津貼新臺幣6,000元。

  2.第三名以後之新生兒,每一新生兒發給生育津貼新臺幣4萬6千元。但收養之子女,不予計入。

 
屏東縣 低收入戶婦女每人補助10,000元。 可與鄉鎮市自辦生育補助一同請領。
中低收入戶婦女每人補助3,000元。 可與鄉鎮市自辦生育補助一同請領。

六、宜花東

縣市別 補助金額 備註
宜蘭縣 每名1萬元 可與鄉鎮市自辦生育補助一同請領。
花蓮縣 每胎1萬元,依胎數撥款 可與鄉鎮市自辦生育補助一同請領。
臺東縣 每胎補助5,000元,雙生以上者,補助費按胞胎數增給 可與鄉鎮市自辦生育補助一同請領。

 

七、離島地區

縣市別 補助金額 備註
澎湖縣 1、第一胎:3萬元整。 

  2、第二胎:5萬元整。 

  3、第三胎以上:7萬元整。   

  ※多胞胎者以該胎次補助金額倍數計算。

可與鄉鎮市自辦生育補助一同請領。
金門縣 1、單胞胎:2萬元。

  2、雙胞胎:共6萬元。

  3、三胞胎以上:每胞胎4萬元。

 
連江縣 1、第一胎新台幣2萬元。

  2、第二胎新台幣5萬元。

  3、第三胎(含以上)新台幣8萬元。如為多胞胎者,其補助金額以各胎之補助金額,依胎次計算之,最多以8萬元計算之。

 

澳洲[编辑]

Prior to 1900 in Australia, charitable assistance from benevolent societies, sometimes with financial contributions from the authorities, was the primary means of relief for people not able to support themselves.[1] The 1890s economic depression and the rise of the trade unions and the Labor parties during this period led to a movement for welfare reform.[2]

In 1900, the states of New South Wales and Victoria enacted legislation introducing non-contributory pensions for those aged 65 and over. Queensland legislated a similar system in 1907 before the Australian labor Commonwealth government led by Andrew Fisher introduced a national aged pension under the Invalid and Old-Aged Pensions Act 1908. A national invalid disability pension was started in 1910, and a national maternity allowance was introduced in 1912.[1][3]

During the Second World War, Australia under a labor government created a welfare state by enacting national schemes for: child endowment in 1941 (superseding the 1927 New South Wales scheme); a widows’ pension in 1942 (superseding the New South Wales 1926 scheme); a wife’s allowance in 1943; additional allowances for the children of pensioners in 1943; and unemployment, sickness, and special benefits in 1945 (superseding the Queensland 1923 scheme).[1][3]

加拿大[编辑]

Canada has a welfare state in the European tradition; however, it is not referred to as "welfare", but rather as "social programs". In Canada, "welfare" usually refers specifically to direct payments to poor individuals (as in the American usage) and not to healthcare and education spending (as in the European usage).[4]

The Canadian social safety net covers a broad spectrum of programs, and because Canada is a federation, many are run by the provinces. Canada has a wide range of government transfer payments to individuals, which totaled $145 billion in 2006.[5] Only social programs that direct funds to individuals are included in that cost; programs such as medicare and public education are additional costs.

Generally speaking, before the Great Depression, most social services were provided by religious charities and other private groups. Changing government policy between the 1930s and 1960s saw the emergence of a welfare state, similar to many Western European countries. Most programs from that era are still in use, although many were scaled back during the 1990s as government priorities shifted towards reducing debt and deficits.

丹麥[编辑]

Characteristics of the Danish welfare is that it is handled by the state through a series of policies (and the like) that seeks to provide welfare services to citizens, hence the term welfare state. This refers not only to social benefits, but also tax-funded education, public child care, medical care, etc. A number of these services are not provided by the state directly, but administered by municipalities, regions or private providers through outsourcing. This sometimes gives a source of tension between the state and municipalities, as there is not always consistency between the promises of welfare provided by the state (i.e. parliament) and local perception of what it would cost to fulfill these promises.

法國[编辑]

Solidarity is a strong value of the French Social Protection system. The first article of the French Code of Social Security describes the principle of solidarity. Solidarity is commonly comprehended in relations of similar work, shared responsibility and common risks. Existing solidarities in France caused the expansion of health and social security.[6]

德國[编辑]

The welfare state has a long tradition in Germany dating back to the industrial revolution. Due to the pressure of the workers' movement in the late 19th century, Reichskanzler Otto von Bismarck introduced the first rudimentary state social insurance scheme. Under Adolf Hitler, the National Socialist Program stated "We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare".[7] Today, the social protection of all its citizens is considered a central pillar of German national policy. 27.6 percent of Germany's GDP is channeled into an all-embracing system of health, pension, accident, longterm care and unemployment insurance, compared to 16.2 percent in the US. In addition, there are tax-financed services such as child benefits (Kindergeld, beginning at 184 per month for the first and second child, €190 for the third and €215 for each child thereafter, until they attain 25 years or receive their first professional qualification),[8] and basic provisions for those unable to work or anyone with an income below the poverty line.[9]

Since 2005, reception of full unemployment pay (60–67% of the previous net salary) has been restricted to 12 months in general and 18 months for those over 55. This is now followed by (usually much lower) Arbeitslosengeld II (ALG II) or Sozialhilfe, which is independent of previous employment (Hartz IV concept).

Under ALG II, a single person receives €391 per month plus the cost of 'adequate' housing and health insurance. ALG II can also be paid partially to supplement a low work income.

義大利[编辑]

The Italian welfare state's foundations were laid along the lines of the corporatist-conservative model, or of its Mediterranean variant.[來源請求] Later, in the 1960s and 1970s, increases in public spending and a major focus on universality brought it on the same path as social-democratic systems. In 1978, a universalistic welfare model was introduced in Italy, offering a number of universal and free services such as a National Health Fund.[10]

日本[编辑]

Social welfare, assistance for the ill or otherwise disabled and for the old, has long been provided in Japan by both the government and private companies. Beginning in the 1920s, the government enacted a series of welfare programs, based mainly on European models, to provide medical care and financial support. During the postwar period, a comprehensive system of social security was gradually established.[11][12]

拉丁美洲[编辑]

歷史[编辑]

The 1980s marked a change in the structure of Latin American social protection programs. Social protection embraces three major areas: social insurance, financed by workers and employers; social assistance to the population’s poorest, financed by the state; and labor market regulations to protect worker rights.[13] Although diverse, recent Latin American social policy has tended to concentrate on social assistance.

The 1980s had a significant effect on social protection policies. Prior to the 1980s, most Latin American countries focused on social insurance policies involving formal sector workers, assuming that the informal sector would disappear with economic development. The economic crisis of the 1980s and the liberalization of the labor market led to a growing informal sector and a rapid increase in poverty and inequality. Latin American countries did not have the institutions and funds to properly handle such a crisis, both due to the structure of the social security system, and to the previously implemented structural adjustment policies (SAPs) that had decreased the size of the state.

New Welfare programs have integrated the multidimensional, social risk management, and capabilities approaches into poverty alleviation. They focus on income transfers and service provisions while aiming to alleviate both long- and short-term poverty through, among other things, education, health, security, and housing. Unlike previous programs that targeted the working class, new programs have successfully focused on locating and targeting the very poorest.

The impacts of social assistance programs vary between countries, and many programs have yet to be fully evaluated. According to Barrientos and Santibanez, the programs have been more successful in increasing investment in human capital than in bringing households above the poverty line. Challenges still exist, including the extreme inequality levels and the mass scale of poverty; locating a financial basis for programs; and deciding on exit strategies or on the long-term establishment of programs.[13]

拉丁美洲最近的社會政策轉變[编辑]

The economic crisis of the 1980s led to a shift in social policies, as understandings of poverty and social programs evolved (24). New, mostly short-term programs emerged. These include:[14]

現行社會輔助計畫的主要觀點[编辑]
  • Conditional cash transfer (CCT) combined with service provisions. Transfer cash directly to households, most often through the women of the household, if certain conditions are met (e.g. children’s school attendance or doctor visits) (10). Providing free schooling or healthcare is often not sufficient, because there is an opportunity cost for the parents in, for example, sending children to school (lost labor power), or in paying for the transportation costs of getting to a health clinic.
  • Household. The household has been the focal point of social assistance programs.
  • Target the poorest. Recent programs have been more successful than past ones in targeting the poorest. Previous programs often targeted the working class.
  • Multidimensional. Programs have attempted to address many dimensions of poverty at once. Chile Solidario is the best example.

紐西蘭[编辑]

New Zealand is often regarded as having one of the first comprehensive welfare systems in the world. During the 1890s a Liberal government adopted many social programmes to help the poor who had suffered from a long economic depression in the 1880s. One of the most far reaching was the passing of tax legislation that made it difficult for wealthy sheep farmers to hold onto their large land holdings. This and the invention of refrigeration led to a farming revolution where many sheep farms were broken up and sold to become smaller dairy farms. This enabled thousands of new farmers to buy land and develop a new and vigorous industry that has become the backbone of New Zealand's economy to this day. This liberal tradition flourished with increased enfranchisement for indigenous Maori in the 1880s and women. Pensions for the elderly, the poor and war casualties followed, with State-run schools, hospitals and subsidized medical and dental care. By 1960 New Zealand was able to afford one of the best-developed and most comprehensive welfare systems in the world, supported by a well-developed and stable economy.

瑞典[编辑]

Social welfare in Sweden is made up of several organizations and systems dealing with welfare. It is mostly funded by taxes, and executed by the public sector on all levels of government as well as private organisations. It can be separated into three parts falling under three different ministries; social welfare, falling under the responsibility of Ministry of Health and Social Affairs; education, under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education and Research and labour market, under the responsibility of Ministry of Employment.[15]

Government pension payments are financed through an 18.5% pension tax on all taxed incomes in the country, which comes partly from a tax category called a public pension fee (7% on gross income), and 30% of a tax category called employer fees on salaries (which is 33% on a netted income). Since January 2001 the 18.5% is divided in two parts: 16% goes to current payments, and 2.5% goes into individual retirement accounts, which were introduced in 2001. Money saved and invested in government funds, and IRAs for future pension costs, are roughly 5 times annual government pension expenses (725/150).

英國[编辑]

UK Government welfare expenditure 2011–12

The United Kingdom has a long history of welfare, notably including the English Poor laws which date back to 1536. After various reforms to the program, which involved workhouses, it was eventually abolished and replaced with a modern system by laws such as National Assistance Act 1948.

In more recent times, comparing the first Cameron ministry's austerity measures with the Opposition's, the respected Financial Times commentator Martin Wolf commented that the "big shift from Labour ... is the cuts in welfare benefits."[17] The government's austerity programme, which involves reduction in government policy, has been linked to a rise in food banks. A study published in the British Medical Journal in 2015 found that each 1 percentage point increase in the rate of Jobseeker's Allowance claimants sanctioned was associated with a 0.09 percentage point rise in food bank use.[18] The austerity programme has faced opposition from disability rights groups for disproportionately affecting disabled people. The "bedroom tax" is an austerity measure that has attracted particular criticism, with activists arguing that two thirds of council houses affected by the policy are occupied with a person with a disability.[19]

美國[编辑]

President Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act, August 14, 1935.

In the United States, depending on the context, the term “welfare” can be used to refer to means-tested cash benefits, especially the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and its successor, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant, or it can be used to refer to all means-tested programs that help individuals or families meet basic needs, including, for example, health care through Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits and food and nutrition programs (SNAP). It can also include Social Insurance programs such as Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, and Medicare.

AFDC (originally called Aid to Dependent Children) was created during the Great Depression to alleviate the burden of poverty for families with children and allow widowed mothers to maintain their households. The New Deal employment program such as the Works Progress Administration primarily served men. Prior to the New Deal, anti-poverty programs were primarily operated by private charities or state or local governments; however, these programs were overwhelmed by the depth of need during the Depression.[20] The United States has no national program of cash assistance for non-disabled poor individuals who are not raising children.

Race is brought up constantly in policies as to categorize whether it is a Black or White issue and in welfare's history there's a switch in the way the public is educated through news media. Until early in the year of 1965, the news media was conveying only Whites as living in poverty however that perception had changed to Blacks.[21] Some of the influences in this shift could have been the civil rights movement and urban riots from the mid 60s. Welfare had then shifted from being a White issue to a Black issue and during this time frame the war on poverty had already begun.[21] Subsequently, news media portrayed stereotypes of Blacks as lazy, undeserving and welfare queens. These shifts in media don't necessarily establish the population living in poverty decreasing.[21]

A chart showing the overall decline of average monthly welfare benefits (AFDC then TANF) per recipient 1962–2006 (in 2006 dollars).[22]

In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act changed the structure of Welfare payments and added new criteria to states that received Welfare funding. After reforms, which President Clinton said would "end Welfare as we know it",[23] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.[24] Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of Welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[25][26] It encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals, and imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance.[23][25][27] In FY 2010, 31.8% of TANF families were white, 31.9% were African-American, and 30.0% were Hispanic.[26]

According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released September 13, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% (46.2 million) in 2010,[28] up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in relative poverty.[29]

In a 2011 op-ed in Forbes, Peter Ferrara stated that, "The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested Welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total Welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)".[30] California, with 12% of the U.S. population, has one-third of the nation's welfare recipients.[31]

In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, reached $927 billion per year. Roughly half of this welfare assistance, or $462 billion went to families with children, most of which are headed by single parents.[32]

The United States has also typically relied on charitable giving through non-profit agencies and fundraising instead of direct monetary assistance from the government itself. According to Giving USA, Americans gave $358.38 billion to charity in 2014. This is rewarded by the United States government through tax incentives for individuals and companies that are not typically seen in other countries.

参考文献[编辑]

引用[编辑]

  1. ^ 1.0 1.1 1.2 History of Pensions and Other Benefits in Australia. Year Book Australia, 1988. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1988 [23 December 2014]. (原始内容存档于23 December 2014). 
  2. ^ Garton, Stephen. Health and welfare. The Dictionary of Sydney. 2008 [23 December 2014]. (原始内容存档于15 August 2012). 
  3. ^ 3.0 3.1 Yeend, Peter. Welfare Review. Parliament of Australia. September 2000 [23 December 2014]. (原始内容存档于23 December 2014). 
  4. ^ Parl.gc.ca
  5. ^ Government transfer payments to persons, Statistics Canada, 8 November 2007, URL accessed 4 December 2007
  6. ^ Samuel Lézé, "France", in: Andrew Scull (ed.), Cultural Sociology of Mental Illness : an A-to-Z Guide , Sage, 2014, pp. 316–17
  7. ^ National Socialist Program
  8. ^ Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. bmfsfj.de. 
  9. ^ Tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de
  10. ^ http://www.pitt.edu/~heinisch/ca_ital.html
  11. ^ http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/wbi37202.pdf
  12. ^ http://www.jcer.or.jp/eng/pdf/Worawan.pdf
  13. ^ 13.0 13.1 Barrientos, A. and Claudio Santibanez. (2009). "New Forms of Social ,Assistance and the Evolution of Social Protection in Latin America". Journal of Latin American Studies. Cambridge University Press 41, 1–26
  14. ^ Barrientos, A. and Holmes, R. (2007) Social Assistance in Developing Countries database, version 3.0, available from http://www.chronicpoverty.org
  15. ^ Regeringskansliet med departementen. [2010-02-26] (Swedish). 
  16. ^ Rogers, Simon; Blight, Garry. Public spending by UK government department 2011–12: an interactive guide. The Guardian. 4 December 2012 [2 April 2013]. 
  17. ^ Martin Wolf. Britain has gone climbing without a rope. The Financial Times. 28 October 2011. 
  18. ^ Loopstra, Rachel. Austerity, sanctions, and the rise of food banks in the UK (PDF). BMJ. 2015: 2 [25 June 2015]. 
  19. ^ Ryan, Frances. 'Bedroom tax' puts added burden on disabled people. 16 July 2013 [25 June 2015]. 
  20. ^ Katz, Michael B. In the Shadow Of the Poorhouse: A Social History Of Welfare In America. New York: Basic Books. 1988. 
  21. ^ 21.0 21.1 21.2 Schram, ed. by Sanford F.; Soss,, Joe; Fording, Richard C. Race and the politics of welfare reform [Online-Ausg.]. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. of Michigan Press. 2003. ISBN 0472068318. 
  22. ^ 2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence Figure TANF 2.
  23. ^ 23.0 23.1 Deparle, Jason. Welfare Aid Isn't Growing as Economy Drops Off. The New York Times. 2009-02-02 [2009-02-12]. [失效連結]
  24. ^ Ending Welfare Reform as We Knew It. The National Review. 2009-02-12 [2009-02-12]. 
  25. ^ 25.0 25.1 Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New Welfare Spending. Heritage Foundation. 2009-02-11 [2009-02-12]. 
  26. ^ 26.0 26.1 "Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients – Fiscal Year 2010". United States Department of Health and Human Services.
  27. ^ Goodman, Peter S. From Welfare Shift in '96, a Reminder for Clinton. The New York Times. 2008-04-11 [2009-02-12]. 
  28. ^ "Revised govt formula shows new poverty high: 49.1M". Yahoo! News. November 7, 2011
  29. ^ "Poverty rate hits 15-year high". Reuters. September 17, 2010
  30. ^ Ferrara, Peter. America's Ever Expanding Welfare Empire. Forbes. 2011-04-22 [2012-04-10]. 
  31. ^ "California lawmakers again waging political warfare over welfare". Los Angeles Times. June 24, 2012
  32. ^ Dawn, Grants for Single Mother, Single Mother Guide, January 9, 2014 

書籍[编辑]

  • 林萬億:《當代社會工作—理論與方法》,五南圖書出版股份有限公司,2002年出版。ISBN 957-11-2795-7

參見[编辑]