The Effects of Means-Tested Social ProgramsWhat is welfare? When you hear the word welfare, do you picture images of individ

7

Fighting Poverty Temporary Assistance to Needy F a m i l i e s

C H A P T

Crilical Thinking

Diuersily in Practice

H i s t o r i c a l A n a l y s i s 121 Recent Welfare Reform Efforts

S o c i a l A n a l y s i s 127 Problem Description Population Relevant Research Values and Welfare Reform

E c o n o m i c A n a l y s i s 138 Macroeconomic Issues Microeconomic A n a l y s i s

E v a l u a t i o n 144 Is T A N F Succeeding?

C o n c l u s i o n 152 A m e r i c a n Values Related to Welfare Have

Permanently Changed

Human Riglits

& Justice

Welfare is Not the Problem; Poverty is the Problem

Public Assistance is a Social Condition, Not a Social Problem

S e l e c t e d W e b s i t e s o n W e l f a r e R e f o r m 154

Administration for C h i l d r e n and Families A m e r i c a n Public H u m a n Services

Association Electronic Policy Network Urban Institute Welfare Watch

P r a c t i c e T e s t 155

C O N N E C T I N G C O R E C O M P E T E N C I E S in this chapter

Professional Identity

Ethical Practice

Critical Thinking

Diversity in Practice

Human Rights

& Justice

Research Based

Practice

Human Behavior

Policy Practice

Practice Engage Contexts Assess

Intervene Evaluate

118

6 C H A P T E R R E V I E W

S u c c e e d with Li U social Log onto www.mysocialworklab.com and select the 1. Watch the Sue Dowling interview, focusing on ques- Career Exploration videos from the left-hand menu. Answer the following questions. (If you did not receive an access code to MySocialWorkLab with this text and wish to purchase access onUne, please visit www.mvsocialworklab.com.')

tion 9, "What are your biggest challenges?" What does her answer say about the importance of social work practitioners understanding the politics of social welfare policy?

P R A C T I C E T E S T

Diversity in Practice

1. The political context of policy is first seen in: a. Who gets the most money to address a problem b. Who gets the contract to evaluate a policy c. The politics of problem definition d. Which social welfare problems become campaign

issues

2 . A central component of politics is: a. Power b. Compassion c. Regulation d. Campaigning

3. Stakeholders are; a. Players or backers of players in a poker game b. Contractors or developers of a public works project c. Funders of a social services program d. Anyone affected by a policy

4 . Power is: a. Always in the hands of a few b. About who gets what, when, and how e. Something that can be multiplied when shared d. b. and c.

I 5. Illegal immigrants cannot vote or take an active part in the policy process. Why, then, are strong policies to keep them out not easily implemented? a. b. c. d.

Ituman Rights

8, Justice

I 6.

Farmers and businesses need their labor Social workers oppose immigration restrictions The Border Patrol is underfunded Coyotes (immigrant smugglers) make large contributions to key members of Congress

Which of the following is NOT an assumption of the pluralist model of policy making? a. Interest groups have relatively equal power b. There is a wide variety of organized interests in

the political system

c. Some groups can set the public agenda before debate begins

d. All interest groups must compete in the market place of ideas

7. The main idea of the incremental approach is: a. Groups with large amounts of power almost

always get their way b. All groups are represented in the policy process c. Most people are either apathetic or mislead d. Change occurs through a series of small steps

8. According to the elitist model of policy-making, policy is made by: a. Corporate executives, military leaders, and other

high power groups b. Intellectuals c. Republicans d. Academics

9. The final stage of policy making is: a. Assessment b. Diagnosis c. Implementation d. Assigning blame

10. Implementation of a policy is often disappointing because: a. All of the attention is given to finding a solution to

a problem and little is left for how the solution is going to work

b. Agencies assigned to implement the policy may not have the capacity to do it

c. Those implementing the policy can introduce their own biases

d. All of the above

Log onto MySocialWorkLab once you have completed the Practice Test above to take your Chapter Exam and demonstrate your knowledge of this material.

Answers

P (01 3 (6 e (8 p (Z 3 (9 B (g P (t' P (e B (2 o ( i

Chapter / ; Fighting Poverty: Temporary Assistance to Needy FcmdUes 119

Welfare reform, a l w a y s a hot-button i s s u e , has been center stage i n the p o l i t i – c a l arena since B i l l C l i n t o n , as a candidate, p r o m i s e d to " e n d w e l f a r e as w e k n o w i t . " W h e n the R e p u b l i c a n s seized control of the 104th Congress, they made the reform of w e l f a r e a kej^ p l a n k i n their Contract w i t h A m e r i c a . A f t e r a protracted fight that i n c l u d e d one p r e s i d e n t i a l veto of a w e l f a r e reform b i l l , P r e s i d e n t C l i n t o n , o n A u g u s t 22, 1996, signed H . R . 3734, the P e r s o n a l R e s p o n – s i b i l i t y a n d W o r k O p p o r t u n i t y R e c o n c i l i a t i o n A c t ( P R W O R A ) of 1996. T h i s act r e p l a c e d the basic architecture of the p u b l i c assistance system that h a d been i n place s i n c e the 1935 signing of the S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t by r e p l a c i n g the A i d to F a m i l i e s w i t h Dependent C h i l d r e n ( A F D C ) program w i t h a n e w program c a l l e d T e m p o r a r y A s s i s t a n c e to Needy F a m i l i e s ( T A N F ) . T h i s n e w act leaves us fac- ing a n u n c h a r t e d landscape i n p u b l i c assistance. A s P r e s i d e n t C l i n t o n noted w h e n he signed the act, " T h i s is not the end of w e l f a r e reform; this i s the begin- n i n g . We have to f i l l i n the blanks."^

A s w e have noted elsewhere, the t e r m welfare c o n c e p t u a l l y refers to a w i d e range of programs.^ I n c l u d e d i n the category are programs s u c h as S o c i a l S e c u – r i t y , Worker's C o m p e n s a t i o n , S u p p l e m e n t a l S e c u r i t y Income, a n d a n u m b e r of others. H o w e v e r , it i s clear that w h e n speaking of w e l f a r e , or w e l f a r e reform, o n l y one program is being referred t o — p u b l i c assistance, w h i c h u s e d to be the A F D C program a n d is n o w T A N F . P u b l i c assistance is the p u b l i c program designed to a i d the v e r y poorest members of our society. A l t h o u g h it is true that m e n a n d m a r r i e d couples c o u l d t e c h n i c a l l y q u a l i f y for A F D C a n d are eligible for T A N F , i n r e a l i t y beneficiaries of p u b l i c assistance have a l w a y s been, a n d w i l l continue to be, almost entirely w o m e n a n d their c h i l d r e n .

A l t h o u g h the trend throughout the t w e n t i e t h century w a s to move w e l f a r e programs to the federal l e v e l , programs for w o m e n a n d their c h i l d r e n h a v e r e m a i n e d u n d e r tight state control. A F D C w a s r u n through a joint federal-state p a r t n e r s h i p , w i t h the federal government p r o v i d i n g a set of regulations govern- i n g the operation of the program a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 75 percent of the f u n d i n g . T h e i n d i v i d u a l states p r o v i d e d the a d d i t i o n a l 25 percent of f u n d i n g a n d set their o w n e l i g i b i l i t y a n d benefit l e v e l s . U n d e r the T A N F program, the states h a v e even more control of the program, w i t h the federal government p r o v i d i n g o n l y the most general g u i d e l i n e s . States are a l l o w e d to use T A N F f u n d i n g i n a n y m a n n e r "reasonably c a l c u l a t e d to a c c o m p l i s h the purposes of T A N F . " T h i s s i t u a t i o n has r e s u l t e d i n w i d e v a r i a t i o n s i n the program, w i t h m a x i m u m m o n t h l y benefits for a f a m i l y of three ranging f r o m a l o w of $170 i n M i s s i s s i p p i to a h i g h of $923 i n A l a s k a . T h i s l a c k of u n i f o r m i t y between states w a s c o n s i d – ered a w e a k n e s s of the A F D C program. U n d e r T A N F i t is defined as a strength, because the theory i s that each state w i l l e x p e r i m e n t w i t h different approaches, i n c r e a s i n g the l i k e l i h o o d that some effective i n n o v a t i o n s w i l l be f o u n d .

To q u a l i f y for p u b l i c assistance, a person m u s t be v e r y poor. U n d e r A F D C , total l i q u i d assets for a f a m i l y c o u l d not exceed $1,000; i f the f a m i l y o w n e d a car, its market v a l u e w a s l i m i t e d to $4,000. U n d e r T A N F these figures v a r y f r o m state to state, w i t h most a l l o w i n g $1,000 to $1,500 i n c a s h a n d some i n c r e a s i n g the v a l u e of a car a n a p p l i c a n t c a n o w n . I f a f a m i l y ' s assets exceed state g u i d e l i n e s , they are r e q u i r e d to spend their assets before q u a l i f y i n g for a i d . G e n e r a l l y , benefits come i n a package that i n c l u d e s food stamps a n d M e d – i c a i d . T h e s e a d d i t i o n a l benefits theoretically p r o v i d e a f a m i l y w i t h s u f f i c i e n t resources to s u r v i v e . Benefits u n d e r T A N F are e v e n stingier t h a n under A F D C because the federal regulations require only that states s p e n d a n amount equal to at least 75 percent of their h i s t o r i c spending l e v e l ( c a l l e d m a i n t e n a n c e of effort, or M O E ) a n d p r o v i d e options for the a d d i t i o n a l 25 percent to be spent for purposes other t h a n direct assistance.

120 Part III: The Framework AppMed

A n u m b e r of scholars have observed that a major thrust of w e l f a r e reform d u r i n g the latter h a l f of the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y w a s a n effort to separate pro- grams b e l i e v e d to be for the " d e s e r v i n g p o o r " out of the w e l f a r e category a n d to define t h e m as s o c i a l i n s u r a n c e , a n o n s t i g m a t i z i n g category. D o n a l d N o r r i s a n d L u k e T h o m p s o n note;

F i r s t many elderly were covered under Social Security. Later the number of elderly w h o were covered was expanded. Subsequently, many people w i t h disabilities were given aid through the vocational rehabilitation acts, and later, through Supplementary Security Income. Many of the unemployed were covered under systems of unemployment compensation, either through companies or through state governments. Gradually, these groups of "deserving poor" recipients became isolated from A F D C recipients.'^

F e m i n i s t scholars s u c h as L i n d a G o r d o n a n d T h e r e s a F u n i c i e l l o have argued that w e have s y s t e m a t i c a l l y separated programs u s e d by m e n a n d w h i t e s out f r o m programs u s e d largely by w o m e n a n d m i n o r i t i e s a n d defined the former as s o c i a l i n s u r a n c e , a category w i t h little stigma, a n d the latter as w e l f a r e , a h i g h l y stigmatized category a n d one a l w a y s c o n s i d e r e d i n n e e d of reform."* T h e T A N F program reinforces this stigmatization process through its i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the idea that r e m a i n i n g home to rear c h i l d r e n is not a legitimate s o c i a l role for poor w o m e n .

W i t h the passage of the P e r s o n a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d W o r k O p p o r t u n i t y R e c o n c i l i a t i o n A c t of 1996, w e began a n e w era i n p u b l i c assistance p o l i c y . F o r the p r i o r s i x t y years, the receipt of f i n a n c i a l assistance b y the needy w a s con- sidered a right of c i t i z e n s h i p ; the federal government cast i t s e l f i n the role of leading the states t o w a r d more progressive a n d h u m a n e s o c i a l p o l i c i e s ; staying home a n d parenting c h i l d r e n w a s d e f i n e d as a legitimate s o c i a l role for the mothers of s m a l l c h i l d r e n ; a n d the r e a l i t y that w o r k w a s not available for a l l people w a s at least i m p l i c i t l y accepted. T h i s has n o w a l l changed. F i n a n c i a l assistance i s n o w to be granted o n l y o n a temporary basis; the federal govern- ment has abdicated its l e a d e r s h i p role a n d n o w seeks only to get out of the w a y of the states; w o m e n are expected to be i n the labor market; a n d it i s a s s u m e d that jobs are available for a l l people i f they w i l l j u s t look h a r d enough a n d accept w h a t e v e r comes along. I n the f o l l o w i n g sections, w e look at the factors that have l e d to the current s i t u a t i o n , attempt to make some sense of the s i t u – ation, a n d make some projections about w h e r e the n a t i o n w i l l go f r o m here.

M u c h of the study of p u b l i c assistance relies on h i s t o r i c a l data. T h e most important questions i n v o l v e trends i n numbers of recipients, length of time on assistance, number of recipients w h o become employed, number w h o leave the w e l f a r e r o l l s a n d stay off, and number w h o leave but then return. T h e P R W O R A passed i n 1996 a n d i m p l e m e n t e d i n 1997 makes this a n a l y s i s d i f f i c u l t for two reasons. F i r s t , the federal government has changed the data-collecting proce- dures a n d this makes c o m p a r i s o n s to data p r i o r to 1997 d i f f i c u l t . S e c o n d , because the l a w has been i n effect for fewer t h a n thirteen years, trends w i t h i n the program are harder to d i s c e r n . T h e fact that the years s i n c e passage of the l a w have been ones of e x t r a o r d i n a r y economic g r o w t h makes assessment of the effects of the n e w program even harder to calculate. N o w that the economy' has entered a recession, perhaps w e w i l l get a better i d e a of the true i m p a c t of the T A N F program. A s a r e s u l t of these factors, some of the data i n this chapter refer to the n o w – d e f u n c t A F D C program. A l t h o u g h w e m a y not be c o m p a r i n g apples a n d oranges, w e r e a l i z e that w e are c o m p a r i n g tangerines a n d oranges— s i m i l a r things, but not r e a l l y a n exact c o m p a r i s o n . T h i s i s not the most desir- able p o l i c y a n a l y s i s s i t u a t i o n , but it i s , unfortunately, u n a v o i d a b l e .

Chapter /: Fighting Poverty: Temporari^ Assistance to Needy Families 121

H I S T O R I C A L A N A L Y S I S

There are still people, for example Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ron Paul, who believe that the government should not be involved in providing financial assistance to the poor, that this should be an entirely voluntary activity

T h e idea of pubhc assistance, defined as the obligation of the government to pro- v i d e a n economic safety net for people, and of people's right to expect s u c h a safety net based s i m p l y on citizenship, has a very short history i n the U n i t e d States. A s recently as the end of the nineteenth century, this idea w a s considered absurd a n d offensive by most people. T h e great p h i l a n t h r o p i c leader of the nineteenth century, Josephine S h a w L o w e l l , stated the o p i n i o n of m a n y people i n v o l v e d i n the early development of social w o r k i n this country w h e n , at the 1890 National Conference of Charities and Correction, she said:

E v e r y dollar raised by taxation comes out of the pocket of some i n d i v i d – u a l , u s u a l l y a poor i n d i v i d u a l , and makes h i m so m u c h the poorer, and therefore the question is between the m a n w h o earned the dollar by h a r d w o r k , and the m a n w h o , however w o r t h y and suffering, d i d not earn it, but wants i t to be given to h i m to buy h i m s e l f and his f a m i l y a day's food. If the m a n w h o earned it w i s h e s to divide it w i t h the other man, it is u s u – a l l y a desirable thing that he s h o u l d do so, and at any rate it is more or less h i s o w n business, but that the l a w , by the h a n d of a p u b l i c officer, s h o u l d take i t from h i m and h a n d it over to the other m a n , seems to be an act of gross tyranny and injustice. . . . T h e less that is given [of p u b l i c assistance] the better for everyone, the giver and the receiver.^

B a s e d o n this belief that government h a d no right to l e v y taxes i n order to p r o v i d e f i n a n c i a l assistance to people, there w a s r e a l l y no s u c h thing as a large p u b l i c assistance s y s t e m u n t i l the t w e n t i e t h century. T h r o u g h o u t the n i n e – teenth a n d the early years of the t w e n t i e t h century, poverty a n d related s o c i a l

problems w e r e dealt w i t h p r i m a r i l y through l o c a l v o l u n t a r y organizations, w i t h gifts f r o m w e a l t h y donors ( s u c h as M r s . L o w e l l ) p r o v i d – i n g most of the f i n a n c i a l support. T h e little p u b l i c support p r o v i d e d w a s m o s t l y through a means k n o w n as indoor relief. T h i s meant that a s s i s t a n c e w a s p r o v i d e d to p e o p l e o n l y t h r o u g h i n s t i t u t i o n s s u c h as p o o r h o u s e s , orphanages, m e n t a l h o s p i t a l s , schools for the

. ^m^^^mk^mm^mm deaf a n d b l i n d , a n d so forth. T h e p r o v i s i o n of ^^^^|HB|^^^H d i r e c t c a s h benefits to people, a p r a c t i c e

' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H h k n o w n as outdoor relief, w a s f r o w n e d on ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ F ^ because it w a s b e l i e v e d to encourage i n d o –

* • lence a n d dependency. I f direct c a s h r e l i e f w a s p r o v i d e d , i t w a s thought that i t s h o u l d not come from tax revenues a n d that o n l y a v o l u n – tary organization w a s capable of the l e v e l of s c r u t i n y a n d s u p e r v i s i o n of recipients that prudence r e q u i r e d .

A s the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y d a w n e d , the r a p i d g r o w t h of l u b a n i z a t i o n , i n d u s t r i a l i z a – tion, a n d i m m i g r a t i o n resulted i n a l e v e l of p o v e r t y a n d r e l a t e d s o c i a l p r o b l e m s that threatened to s w a m p private c h a r i t i e s . M a n y people w e r e becoming c o n c e r n e d w i t h the n u m b e r of c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e r e s i d i n g i n

122 Part III: The Framework AppL'ed

orphanages due not to parental desertion or death but to parental poverty. T h e s e w e r e generally the c h i l d r e n of w i d o w s w h o c o u l d not earn enough money to support their c h i l d r e n a n d so p l a c e d t h e m i n orphanages because it w a s the mother's only option. I n response to this problem, developments early i n the century began to reestablish f i n a n c i a l assistance as a p u b l i c r e s p o n s i b i l – ity. T h e first development w a s the establishment i n a n u m b e r of c i t i e s , K a n s a s C i t y being the first i n 1908, of boards of p u b l i c w e l f a r e to c a r r y out " d u t i e s of the c i t y t o w a r d a l l the poor, the delinquent, the u n e m p l o y e d , a n d the deserted a n d unfortunate classes i n the c o m m u n i t y , a n d to s u p e r v i s e the private agen- cies w h i c h s o l i c i t e d money f r o m the p u b l i c for these purposes."° T h e second development w a s the 1909 W h i t e House Conference on C h i l d r e n c o n v e n e d by President Theodore Roosevelt. A major r e c o m m e n d a t i o n of this conference w a s that c h i l d r e n s h o u l d not be separated from their parents s i m p l y for reasons of poverty. A system of outdoor r e l i e f w a s strongly endorsed as being prefer- able to i n s t i t u t i o n a l placement.

F o l l o w i n g the W h i t e H o u s e Conference on C h i l d r e n , advocates for the poor began to lobby s u c c e s s f u l l y for state w e l f a r e l a w s that became k n o w n as " m o t h e r s ' p e n s i o n s . " T h i s rather strange t e r m w a s b o r r o w e d f r o m the p o w e r – f u l a n d p o p u l a r i n d u s t r i a l i n s u r a n c e m o v e m e n t , w h i c h w a s s u c c e s s f u l l y lob- b y i n g for w o r k e r ' s c o m p e n s a t i o n , u n e m p l o y m e n t i n s u r a n c e , a n d r e t i r e m e n t programs as m e a s u r e s to i n s u r e w o r k e r s against the r i s k s of i n d u s t r i a l e m p l o y m e n t . T h e p e r s p e c t i v e i m p l i e d i n the n a m e " m o t h e r s ' p e n s i o n " w a s that w o m e n w i t h c h i l d r e n w e r e p r o d u c t i v e w o r k e r s of a sort a n d h a d a r i g h t to i n s u r a n c e against w i d o w h o o d , the p r i m a r y threat to t h e i r l i v e l i h o o d , j u s t as m e n h a d a right to i n s u r a n c e against i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t . T h e f i r s t m o t h – e r s ' p e n s i o n l a w s w e r e p a s s e d i n M i s s o u r i a n d I l l i n o i s i n 1 9 1 1 . W i t h i n t w o y e a r s , s i m i l a r l a w s w e r e p a s s e d i n seventeen a d d i t i o n a l states, a n d by 1919 t h i r t y – n i n e states h a d m o t h e r s ' p e n s i o n s programs.

T h e r e are two aspects of the mothers' p e n s i o n m o v e m e n t that are p a r t i c u – l a r l y important for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the history of p u b l i c assistance. T h e first is that these programs w e r e a i m e d , to quote President Theodore Roosevelt, at " c h i l d r e n of parents of w o r t h y character."^ T h i s meant w o m e n w h o w e r e w i d – o w e d or w h o h a d d i s a b l e d h u s b a n d s . A s m a l l percentage of r e c i p i e n t s w e r e d i v o r c e d mothers, but these w e r e considered w o r t h y o n l y i f it c o u l d be demon- strated that the divorce w a s no fault of the w o m e n , p r i m a r i l y instances i n w h i c h the h u s b a n d h a d deserted the f a m i l y . T h e programs w e r e never ^ i n t e n d e d for the c h i l d r e n of u n w e d mothers, a n d v e r y few s u c h c h i l d r e n r e c e i v e d a i d . T h e second important aspect of these l a w s i s that they w e r e based o n a t r a d i t i o n a l m o d e l of the f a m i l y i n w h i c h the mother w a s expected to stay home a n d care for her c h i l d r e n . T h e v e r y name " m o t h e r s ' p e n s i o n s " i m p l i e d that being a w i f e a n d mother w a s analogous to a career a n d w i d o w s w e r e enti- t l e d to support w h e n this career w a s d i s r u p t e d . T h e r e w e r e no w o r k p r o v i – sions, or even expectations, contained i n these l a w s .

A l t h o u g h mothers' p e n s i o n programs established an important precedent i n the development of p u b l i c assistance, it w a s not u n t i l the Great D e p r e s s i o n of the 1930s that state a n d federal government a c t u a l l y began to p l a y a major role. M o t h e r s ' p e n s i o n s programs w e r e a l w a y s quite s m a l l ; i n 1930, for e x a m – p l e , fewer t h a n 3 percent of female-headed households r e c e i v e d benefits u n d e r these programs.^ P r i v a t e agencies, w i t h substantial l o c a l government support, c o n t i n u e d to p r o v i d e the b u l k of f i n a n c i a l relief. T h e central role of p r i v a t e agencies w a s strongly endorsed by s o c i a l w o r k e r s a n d leaders i n p h i l a n t h r o p y , w h o questioned the m o r a l i t y of government p r o v i d i n g assistance a n d doubted the a b i l i t y of government to p r o v i d e efficient a n d effective professional s o c i a l

Chapter 7: Fighting Poverty: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 123

s e r v i c e s . T h i s s i t u a t i o n began to change r a p i d l y w i t h the onset of the Depres- s i o n i n 1929 a n d its i n c r e a s i n g severity into the 1930s.

T h e Depression shocked the nation i n general, a n d social workers i n partic- ular, into the realization that l o c a l programs supplemented by private relief agen- cies w e r e not adequate for dealing w i t h the massive economic problems of a n urban i n d u s t r i a l societ}'. W h e n the Depression h i t , private agencies almost immediately r a n out of money a n d began to rely to a m u c h greater extent than p r e v i o u s l y on state and l o c a l governments for assistance. T h e state a n d l o c a l gov- ernments i n t u r n got into f i n a n c i a l p e r i l a n d turned to the federal government for assistance. T h e realization that private agencies a n d state and l o c a l governments c o u l d not cope w i t h the economic c r i s i s , along w i t h the fear that i f something dramatic w a s not done r e v o l u t i o n might w e l l occur, resulted i n the passage of the S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t i n 1935. T h i s act w a s the first national framework for a social welfare system. T h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t , as it f i n a l l y emerged after m a n y com- promises, w a s designed to alleviate f i n a n c i a l dependency through two l i n e s of defense: contributory s o c i a l insurance a n d p u b l i c assistance. One of the p u b l i c assistance programs w a s A i d to Dependent C h i l d r e n ( A D C ) , a program estab- l i s h e d to serve single mothers w i t h s m a l l c h i l d r e n , b a s i c a l l y the same group tar- geted by state mothers' pension l a w s . T h i s is the program that later w a s c a l l e d A i d to F a m i l i e s w i t h Dependent C h i l d r e n ( A F D C ) i n recognition of the fact that mothers as w e l l as their c h i l d r e n w e r e receiving assistance.

It is not s u r p r i s i n g that A F D C became more a n d more controversial over the years, because evidence indicates that its designers d i d not r e a l l y u n d e r s t a n d w h a t they were passing a n d certainly c o u l d not predict w h a t the program w o u l d e v e n t u a l l y become. Scholars often romanticize N e w D e a l programs a n d characterize their designers as h u m a n i s t s a n d liberals w i t h a far-reaching v i s i o n of a just society a n d a r e a l i s t i c p l a n for a c h i e v i n g it.^ However, the evidence indicates that the designers of the A F D C program supported it only because they b e l i e v e d that the program w a s temporary a n d w o u l d w i t h e r a w a y as s o c i a l i n s u r a n c e came into effect. Further, the designers of A F D C never i m a g i n e d that the program w o u l d support the c h i l d r e n of u n w e d mothers. F r a n k l i n Roosevelt characterized w e l f a r e as " a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the h u m a n s p i r i t " a n d argued that federal job creation w a s far preferable to welfare.^" E d i t h Abbott, a s o c i a l w o r k e r a n d prominent s o c i a l reformer, advocated for A F D C w i t h the assurance that it w o u l d support only " n i c e " f a m i l i e s . S o c i a l w o r k e r a n d Sec- retary of Labor Frances P e r k i n s supported the program u n d e r the m i s u n d e r – standing that the term dependent mother referred o n l y to w o m e n w h o w e r e w i d o w s , m a r r i e d to disabled w o r k e r s , or d i v o r c e d due to no fault of their o w n . It never occurred to her that u n w e d mothers w o u l d be i n c l u d e d i n the d e f i n i – tion of dependent}^ H i s t o r i a n L i n d a Gordon states.

T h e authors of the New Deal welfare programs, often thought of as s p i r i – tual allies of contemporary liberals, w o u l d severely disapprove of w h a t the N e w Deal programs have subsequently become w i t h liberal encour- agement: a source of more-or-less permanent support for single mothers w h o , i n m a n y instances, are not w h i t e and "not nice."^^

B y the 1950s, policymakers began to realize that the A F D C program w a s not going to wither a w a y and w a s i n fact providing benefits to a number of people considered " u n d e s i r a b l e . " T h e fact that the program d i d not w i t h e r but instead grew, often at a n alarming rate, l e d to calls for welfare reform. Reform strategies can be l u m p e d into two large categories. T h e first category is attempts to l i m i t the number of people eligible for the program. These policies have taken the form of "suitable h o m e " and " m a n i n the house" rules and residency requirements. T h e

124 Part HI: The Framework AppHed

suitable home and m a n i n the house rules stated that a i d w o u l d not be given to c h i l d r e n w h o were l i v i n g i n i m m o r a l environments, generally defined as home situations i n w h i c h it appeared that the mother w a s having a s e x u a l relationship w i t h a m a n to w h o m she w a s not married. These rules were struck d o w n by the Supreme Court i n 1968 i n King v. Smith. Residency requirements denied assis- tance to any person w h o h a d not resided i n a locale for a certain period of time, sometimes as long as five years. These requirements were declared unconstitu- tional by the Supreme Court i n the case of Shapiro v. Thompson i n 1969.

T h e second group of reform strategies has i n c l u d e d efforts to m o v e people off w e l f a r e a n d onto s e l f – s u f f i c i e n c y through r e h a b i l i t a t i n g the r e c i p i e n t or else r e m o v i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l barriers. T h e r e has been a series of these efforts, beginning i n the m i d – 1 9 5 0 s a n d c o n t i n u i n g to current reform efforts. T h e one element that u n i t e s a l l these efforts is their u n i f o r m l a c k of effectiveness. Major strategies h a v e been:

Social Service Strategies

Amendments to the S o c i a l Security A c t i n 1956 and again i n 1962 f a c i l i – tated the p r o v i s i o n of social services to welfare recipients. T h e idea was that social workers w o u l d help recipients solve the problems that were preventing them from being self-supporting. T h i s approach lost c r e d i b i l – ity w h e n welfare rolls d i d not decline but actually increased at a r a p i d rate f o l l o w i n g f u l l implementation of the strategy i n the 1960s.

Institutional Strategies

F i r s t tried i n the 1960s as part of L y n d o n Johnson's War on Poverty, these attempted to empower i n d i v i d u a l s and neighborhoods. These programs were based on a "blocked opportunity" thesis that attributed poverty to environmental variables. These programs r a p i d l y r a n into p o l i t i c a l prob- lems, welfare r o l l s d i d not decline, and they were discontinued after a very short life. I n the 1980s, a few institutional strategies were i m p l e – mented, namely enterprise zones and p u b l i c housing " o w n e r s h

Who We Are

We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.

Do you handle any type of coursework?

Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.

Is it hard to Place an Order?

1. Click on the “Place order tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.

2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.

3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.

4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.

5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.

Need this assignment or any other paper?

Click here and claim 25% off
Discount code SAVE25