Aid to Families with Dependent Children

src: slideplayer.com

Help for Families with Dependent Children ( AFDC ) is a federal assistance program valid from 1935 to 1996 made by Social Security Act (SSA) and administered by the US Department of State The Health and Human Services Society provides financial assistance to children whose families are low-income or non-income.

The program grew from a small part of the social security system to a state-run, significant federal welfare system. However, it is criticized for offering incentives for women to have children, and to provide disincentives for women to join the workforce. In 1996, AFDC was replaced by a tighter Provisional Assistance for Families (TANF) program.

Video Aid to Families with Dependent Children

Histori

This program was created under the name Help for dependent Children ( ADC ) by the Social Security Act of 1935 as part of the New Deal. It was created as a means to examine the right that subsidizes the family income in which the father "dies, is absent, or can not work". It provides direct payouts of $ 18 per month for one child, and $ 12 for a second child.

The federal government needs contributions from individual countries, and the competent authority of the state to determine who receives the aid and what amount. ADC is primarily created for single white mothers who are expected to not work. Black mothers who are always in the workforce are not considered eligible to receive benefits. In 1961, changes in legislation allowed states to extend benefits to families in which the father was unemployed, a measure with 25 countries finally adopted. The words "family with" were added to the name in 1962, partly because of fears that the program's rules were discouraged by marriage.

The Civil Rights Movement and the efforts of the National Welfare Organization in 1960 extended the scope of welfare rights to include black women. The welfare of rotating racial demographics changed drastically. The majority of welfare recipients still remain white and most recipients of black women continue to work. Beginning in 1962, the Department of Health and Human Services allows state-specific exceptions during the change "in the spirit of AFDC" to allow for some experiments. By expenditure in 1996 it was $ 24 billion per year. When adjusted for inflation, the highest expenditure in 1976, which exceeded expenditure in 1996 was about 8%. In 1967 the federal government began requiring states to set fathers of children eligible for the program, and to benefit "unemployed male parents with a history of work".

Man-in-the-house Rules

A number of countries endorse the so-called "man-in-the-house" rule, which disqualifies families if there are adult males present in the household at all. As Williams and Hardisty put it:

The state has a wide discretion to determine eligibility and many countries condition acceptance of welfare in the mother's sexual morality, using the rules of "appropriate home" and "home men" to disqualify many single African American mothers.

The "man-in-the-house" rule was struck in 1968 by the US Supreme Court at King v. Smith. After that, families with men in the household are entitled to benefits if they are not considered actual parents or substitutes. Although the financial contribution to the male portion of the family is still considered part of the total family income. In 1981, the Supreme Court further required states to consider the income earned by the stepfather.

Thirty and third rules

The year 1967 saw the formation of thirty and third rules, allowing families to retain their first $ 30 earned together with one-third of their earnings after income after the first $ 30 without changes that affected their eligibility to benefit. These and other factors led to a substantial increase in enrollment. For example, case loads rose 24% from 1960 to 1965, but up 126% in the period 1965-1970.

Maps Aid to Families with Dependent Children

Criticism

At the beginning of the program, there are concerns about whether it encourages mothers to be unmarried mothers. Some supporters complain that the rule has the effect of dividing marriage and promoting matriarchy:

[T] he AFDC program tends to treat households with kebo men who are not the natural father of children much lighter than those who have a husband or father of children. This feature creates a clear disincentive for marriage and also a clear incentive for divorce, as married women face a reduction or loss of their AFDC benefits.

In 1984, libertarian author Charles Murray suggested that prosperity caused dependence. He argues that as welfare benefits increase, the number of beneficiaries also increases; This behavior, he says, is rational: there is little reason to work if someone can receive benefits in the long term without having to work. His later works and Richard J. Herrnstein and others suggested the feasible possibilities for the theory of dysgenic effects, however, the data are not entirely clear.

An economist can not find convincing evidence that welfare programs have a strong effect on marital dissolution. But true or false, this argument lies between a stepping stone toward the AFDC modification to TANF.

src: slideplayer.com

Reform

In 1996, President Bill Clinton negotiated with the Republican-controlled Congress to pass Personal Responsibility and Employment Opportunities that drastically restructured the program. Among other changes, a five-year lifetime limit applies to beneficiaries, and the limited new nature of the replacement program is strengthened by calling the AFDC successor While Aid for Families in Need (TANF). Many Americans continue to refer to TANF as "welfare" or AFDC.

TANF remains controversial. In 2003, LaShawn Y. Warren, an ACLU Legislative Counsel, said that TANF provides incentives to countries "to deny the benefits to those most in need." The solution to getting people out of the poverty cycle is not to kick them from the start of prosperity. many have been unfairly denied aid, creating a false impression that the number of people in need has fallen. "In 2006, The New Republic's editorial wrote," A broad consensus now states that welfare reform is certainly not disaster - and perhaps, in fact, has worked as the designers had hoped. "

src: images.slideplayer.com

See also

• Administration for Children and Families
• Goldberg v. Kelly

src: slideplayer.com

Note

src: assets.bwbx.io

References

src: www.brookings.edu

Further reading

src: iwpr.org

External links

• Family Help with Children Depends on HHS
• The Future of Children , Executive Summary, Children's Future Center, David Foundation and Lucile Packard, at Princeton University website

Source of the article : Wikipedia