:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/welfare-57bc060f3df78c876392eeca.jpg)
line to apply for government assistance" width="1343" height="900" />line to apply for government assistance" width="1343" height="900" />
Robert Longley is a U.S. government and history expert with over 30 years of experience in municipal government and urban planning.
Updated on July 05, 2022Welfare reform is the term used to describe the U.S. federal government’s laws and policies intended to improve the nation’s social welfare programs. In general, the goal of welfare reform is to reduce the number of individuals or families that depend on government assistance programs like food stamps and TANF and help those recipients become self-sufficient.
From the Great Depression of the 1930s, until 1996, welfare in the United States consisted of little more than guaranteed cash payments to the poor. Monthly benefits -- uniform from state to state -- were paid to poor persons -- mainly mothers and children -- regardless of their ability to work, assets on hand or other personal circumstances. There were no time limits on the payments, and it was not unusual for people to remain on welfare for their entire lives.
In 1969, conservative Republican President Richard Nixon's administration proposed the 1969 Family Assistance Plan, which instituted a work requirement for all welfare recipients except mothers with children under age three. This requirement was removed in 1972 amidst criticism that the plan’s excessively stringent work requirements resulted in too little financial support. Ultimately, the Nixon Administration grudgingly presided over the continued expansion of major welfare programs.
In 1981, ultra-conservative Republican President Ronald Reagan cut Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) spending and allowed states to require welfare recipients to participate in “workfare” programs. In his 1984 book Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980, political scientist Charles Murray argued that the welfare state actually harms the poor, especially single-parent families, by making them increasingly dependent on the government, and discouraging them from working.
By the 1990's, public opinion had turned strongly against the old welfare system. Offering no incentive for recipients to seek employment, the welfare rolls were exploding, and the system was viewed as rewarding and actually perpetuating, rather than reducing poverty in the United States.
In his 1992 campaign, Democratic President Bill Clinton promised to “end welfare as we have come to know it.” In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA) was passed as a response to the perceived failings of Aid to Families with Dependent Children AFDC. Concerns about AFDC included that it caused family dysfunction among the poor, discouraged marriage, promoted single-motherhood, and discouraged poor women from seeking employment by encouraging dependency on government aid. Concerns about fraudulent welfare claims, dependency and misuse by recipients created the stereotypical trope of the “welfare queen.”
Eventually, AFDC was replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Most significantly, TANF ended individual entitlement for poor families to receive federal aid. This signified that no one could “make a legally enforceable claim for assistance just because they were poor.”
Under the Welfare Reform Act, the following rules apply:
Since enactment of the Welfare Reform Act, the role of the federal government in public assistance has become limited to overall goal-setting and setting performance rewards and penalties.
It is now up to states and counties to establish and administer welfare programs they believe will best serve their poor while operating within the broad federal guidelines. Funds for welfare programs are now given to the states in the form of block grants, and the states have much more latitude in deciding how the funds will be allocated among their various welfare programs.
State and county welfare caseworkers are now tasked with making difficult, often subjective decisions involving welfare recipients' qualifications to receive benefits and ability to work. As a result, the basic operation of the nations' welfare system can vary widely from state to state. Critics argue that this causes poor people who have no intention of ever getting off of welfare to "migrate" to states or counties in which the welfare system is less restrictive.
According to the independent Brookings Institute, the national welfare caseload declined about 60 percent between 1994 and 2004, and the percentage of U.S. children on welfare is now lower than it has been since at least 1970.
In addition, Census Bureau data show that between 1993 and 2000, the percentage of low-income, single mothers with a job grew from 58 percent to nearly 75 percent, an increase of almost 30 percent.
In summary, the Brookings Institute states, "Clearly, federal social policy requiring work backed by sanctions and time limits while granting states the flexibility to design their own work programs produced better results than the previous policy of providing welfare benefits while expecting little in return."
There are currently six major welfare programs in the United States. These are:
All of these programs are funded by the federal government and administered by the states. Some states provide additional funds. The level of federal funding for welfare programs is adjusted annually by Congress.
On April 10, 2018, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to review work requirements for the SNAP food stamp program. In most states, SNAP recipients must now find a job within three months or lose their benefits. They must work at least 80 hours a month or participate in a job training program.
In July 2019, the Trump Administration proposed a change to the rules governing who is eligible for food stamps. Under the proposed rule changes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated that more than three million people in the 39 states would lose benefits under the proposed change.
Critics say the proposed changes will be “detrimental to the health and well-being” of those affected, and “further exacerbate existing health disparities by forcing millions into food insecurity.”
