Poverty and Welfare

Much is known about poverty in the U.S. and efforts to combat it.  Here is a brief summary based on Karen Seccombe’s 2007 book “Families in Poverty.”

Cash welfare programs begin with the “Mothers’ Pension” program starting in 1896.  This was aimed mostly at white widows; payments were in exchange for the service of motherhood.  Payments were low and there was emphasis on moral reform: women were monitored for drinking, poor housekeeping, and relationships with men.

ADC which dates from 1935 was part of Social Security.  Payments were intended to keep single mothers from depending on income from children and, with unemployment widespread, to keep women and children out of the workforce.  Mothers were not expected to work and raise children at the same time.  States had authority over eligibility and benefits and regulations varied between states.

ADC was amended in 1939 to move widows to a new program increasing the welfare stigma for the mostly never married or divorced women who remained.  Over time, ADC became increasingly expensive and unpopular with taxpayers and beneficiaries, and women’s labor was more and more wanted in the workforce.

The Kennedy administration saw ADC give way to AFDC, “Aid to Families with Dependent Children” which provided for training for useful work.  The Johnson administration added Head Start, Medicare, Medicaid, and Vista to help reduce poverty by making work pay.

By 1975 welfare was increasingly seen as discouraging work.  President Nixon proposed FAP, “Family Assistance Program,” to allow low income families to receive benefits while working.  FAP wasn’t enacted, and other programs to encourage work were seriously underfunded.

The Reagan Administration brought cuts to AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, school lunches, family planning, housing, legal aid.  Welfare payments were cut by 30%.

The Clinton administration under pressure from Republicans adopted the idea of welfare to work  with TANF, “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families,” in 1996.  Provisions for childcare and health care helped mothers with children to find and keep jobs.  Lifetime limits were imposed on benefits.  States retained control.  How has it worked:

  1. Poverty rates remain high
  2. Families leaving welfare often have health issues
  3. TANF fails to help many needy families
  4. Childcare assistance is commonly inadequate.

During times of full employment welfare to work programs may make sense, but when jobs are scarce they are cruel.  In good times or bad incomes must be sufficient to pay for health care, child care, transportation, and other family needs.  Pushing people off welfare to flounder in poverty makes no sense.

Cash welfare was never intended to end poverty and has not done so.  If we want to do that we need to try harder.  Programs must be designed not to raise families to the poverty level and abandon them there, but to raise them well above poverty as is the case in many countries in Europe where poverty has been substantially eliminated.

Reference: Karen Seccombe, “Families in Poverty,” Pearson: 2007

About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Congress, Economics, Political. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Poverty and Welfare

  1. Anne says:

    In a report from the ‘Journal of Poverty’ (2009) entitled “Toward Reconstructing
    Poverty Knowledge: Addressing Food Insecurity through Grassroots Research Design and Implementation,” the paper’s authors advocate an approach called Community-Based Participatory Research to reconstruct poverty knowledge based on the experiences of people who live it. CBPR can more accurately address social conditions of poverty (and disparities based on race, class, and gender) because it relies on lived experience to explore poverty’s causes and consequences. When I suggested on Rep Reed’s page that he begin by talking to poor people, I wasn’t kidding. Based on the other comments I see on his page, particularly on the subject of TANF and SNAP, it would seem that the specter of Reagan’s Cadillac-driving welfare queen is still, unfortunately, very much alive and with us and driving, in addition to her fancy car, the conversation about social safety nets today. I wonder if this hasn’t been another success story for the likes of Paul Ryan: convince people that the reason they don’t have enough is because the “takers” are out there robbing them of it before it’s in their own wallets. Sad.


  2. whungerford says:

    Thanks for bringing up Community-Based Participatory Research. It sounds like a good idea, but not one Rep. Reed is likely to act on. In all the pictures of himself that I recall seeing, he is shown talking to owners rather than workers, certainly not unemployed workers.


  3. Pingback: Poverty in the NY 23rd | New NY 23rd

  4. Pingback: How best to fight poverty | New NY 23rd

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.