Last Updated: July 2023 

The word “welfare” is not race-neutral. It is a dog whistle that cues up racial stereotypes — primarily, that Black Americans lack a work ethic, are undeserving, and make up the lion’s share of public assistance recipients. Public opinion research shows that a small shift in language may boost public support for anti-poverty programs—most Americans approve of “assistance to the poor” but oppose that spending if it is labeled as “welfare,” according to the 2019 General Social Survey. Race-neutral and alternative language is available; for example, advocates can say “economic security programs” or “basic needs programs” or “cash assistance” that help(s) people who are struggling to make ends meet and support their children. Avoiding “welfare” may make language less concise, but it would prevent advocates from perpetuating racial stereotypes.   

Key Resources: 

CBPP Memo on Replacing Welfare with More Race-Neutral Alternatives: This memo outlines themes within public opinion research that demonstrate the racialization of “welfare”—this includes a graph displaying the disparities in public support for “welfare” versus “assistance to the poor.” The memo also describes media and political rhetoric that contributes to anti-welfare sentiments. Finally, there is a table that proposes alternative language options to terms that utilize the word “welfare.” 

Gilens, Race Coding and White Opposition to Welfare: This study utilizes survey modelling techniques to assess the extent to which white Americans’ attitudes toward “welfare” is rooted in their attitudes towards Black Americans. Gilens ultimately found that racial attitudes were the single most important influence on white Americans’ views on “welfare”. These research findings help provide background information on the racial coding of “welfare”. 

Wetts and Willer, Privilege on Perceived Racial Status: This study aimed to test the theory that perceived threats to relative advantage to racial status hierarchy causes their whites to oppose “welfare” programs. The authors utilized American National Election Studies data and survey-embedded experiments, and their results ultimately aligned with the theory.