History of
cash assistance, ADC (from Seccombe, chapter 2)
Seccombe summarizes:
Welfare has been
shaped by:
1. Views of human
nature
2. Views on importance of hard work, perils of idleness
3. Gender role expectations
4. (I'd add) proper role of government
One result: cash
assistance programs are designed to make conditions of assistance
less desirable than the lowest wage work
ADC history
Began with 'Mothers'
pension' program (in the late 1800s), targeting poor women, children,
and widows (white, mostly).
What were the goals of the program?
-
reduce
competition with men in job market (women's work is at home);
-
large
numbers of orphans;
-
delinquency
among unsupervised children;
-
keep
children out of the work force;
-
money
was to support motherhood, not unemployment/poverty
top
of page
Social control-the
welfare police
Women had to be
'worthy' of assistance, were monitored for:
-
sings
of drinking;
-
poor
housekeeping;
-
improper
childrearing;
-
relationships
with men ('midnight raids' in some states were used to deny some
women assistance-Alabama reduced welfare rolls 25% through these
practices in the 1950s)-have things changed? Check out the Florida
law and sex partners, for a classic example of social welfare
as a gendered institution (interestingly, the bill was co-sponsored
by a woman, so don't think this is a men vs women issue);
-
many
southern states restricted eligibility in ways that excluded blacks
from receiving aid;
-
states
had great latitude (wild variability in benefits-1939-$2.46 in AR
to $24.50 in NY)
Changes over
time (restrictions and amendments)
-
1939-widows
were moved to social insurance (OAI) program-this further stigmatized
recipients;
-
minority
widows couldn't qualify for OAI, and were left under ADC;
-
by
1950-1.6 million recipients (1/4 of single mothers-which ones do
you think didn't make the rolls?);
-
1950-60-costs
of ADC increased 90 %, despite economic growth taking place; the
reaction was to question moral character of recipients, complain
about cost;
-
adversarial
relationship developed between recipients and case workers (they
were advocates for the state, not the women-the welfare police strike
...);
-
labor
shortages in traditionally female occupations led to further restrictions,
stigmatization (women were used to fill lowest wage/security jobs);
-
by
the early 1960s-the poor get counted (allowing people to see what
progress is being made);
-
expanded
eligibility for AFDC (now focused on families) - some 2-parent families,
children between 18-21 who are still in school-increase of 50%;
-
more
questions about morality, gender roles: more women in the workforce.
Iis assistance to mothers staying home still legitimate, many ask?
-
Under
Reagan-decrease in welfare budget, from 57% to 48% of total government
spending (how did they do this?); wasn't just AFDC, but affected
cash assistance versus insurance programs more (food stamps, Medicaid,
school lunches, family planning, housing subsidies, legal aid, drug
abuse counseling);
-
focus
has moved from investing in human capital in the 1960s, to reducing
the rolls of welfare in the 1990s
Why welfare
reform?
By the time we're
finished with this, you should have thought about that question. What
is welfare reform, and who benefits from it?
What is cost of
welfare? Maybe $100 billion annually for the four major means tested
programs. Another $238 billion is spent on in-kind programs. Total
projected budget for the U.S. Government in 2003 is, well, difficult
to assess. Just try. The closest I could find was an estimate of $1.7
trillion, about $540 billion of which goes to human resources. This
particular website shows two different pie charts, one as we've
discussed, including the social security trust fund, the large one
excluding it. As we discussed earlier in class, the majority of spending
on welfare is for social insurance programs (from DiNitto, 2003):
Schiller distinguishes
between 'welfare' and 'social insurance' programs. Welfare programs
are 'means-tested'--only people below a certain level of income can
qualify, in most cases.
Precursors
to welfare reform
Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation act, 1981 (Reagan)
Gave states more
authority over welfare decisions, regulations, eligibility conditions,
work requirements. AFDC became more of a state-administered (but federally
funded) program, through block
grants. It was essential a 'devolution' of responsiblity from
the federal to the state level of government.
Family support
act of 1988 (again, a product of the Reagan era)
Three underlying
assumptions:
Individuals should take more responsibility for getting
off welfare;
Work requirements must complement incentives to get welfare recipients
into workforce;
Greater mix of services more likely to be effective.
Some of the provisions
included:
-
Strengthened
child support regulations, procedures for collecting;
-
States
must establish paternity for AFDC children (to get welfare, you
gots to give it up)
-
key
theme: Responsibility for parenthood
JOBS program
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
-
Educational/vocational
services;
-
Participation
mandatory for recipients with no children under three
-
Community
service requirements (for one parent of 2 p household, or not-yet-hired-but-trained
-
Welfare
is temporary, work is unavoidable
-
Funding
was always well below target levels
Work incentives
-- more reasons to leave welfare
-
Extended
Medicaid eligibility for one year after leaving welfare (only one
year-not indefinite) - otherwise, people wouldn't work above point
where Medicaid coverage disappears
-
Guaranteed
child care for JOBS participants or employed.
-
These
can be seen as investments in getting people back into the workforce
AFDC-UP
('unemployed parent')
-
Two-parent
families had to be included-the assumption was that excluding two-parent
families encouraged single-parent families;
-
Limits
on benefits, strict eligibility make it a small program
-
early
promotion of two-parent households (a prelude of things to come)
|