King v. Smith
A Study in Poverty, Welfare, Families, and
Government Efforts to Regulate the Poor
Nicole Daniel
Liz Shepherd
Matt Towey
November 29, 2007
Introduction


In King v. Smith, the US Supreme Court briefly surveyed the
treatment of people living in poverty and governmental
responses. The Court ruled that welfare programs as they
existed in the mid-twentieth century were based upon
“considerably more sophisticated and enlightened”
attitudes toward the poor than in previous eras.
This case study reviews the changing attitudes toward the
poor, examines the legal arguments in this landmark welfare
case, and specifically considers regulations attached to
government assistance programs.
Attitudes Toward the Poor
(Part 1)
Source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUDpoverty.htm

Law passed by English Parliament in 1597: “Every
vagabond or beggar... shall be stripped naked from the
middle upwards and publicly whipped until his or her body
be bloody, and forth with sent to the parish where he was
born... If any vagabond or beggar return again, he shall suffer
death by hanging.”
Controlling the Behavior of People
Living in Poverty




The Statute of Labourers is thought of as the first legislation
regarding welfare; enacted in England in 1349
Established maximum wages to address labor shortage after
the Black Death
Mandated that able-bodied men and women work, and
imposed harsh penalties for those who remained idle.
Expressly forbade the giving of alms to able-bodied beggars.


By the 1830’s, both in England and the U.S.,
poorhouses were established in an effort to
reform destitute people by instilling the value
of labor.
The designers of the poorhouses believed
that “‘the condition of welfare recipients …
should be worse than the lowest paid selfsupporting laborer. While relief should not be
denied to the poor, life should be made so
miserable for them that they would rather
work than accept public aid.’”
Source: http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/poorlaw/whillus.htm
The Poorhouses
Direct Financial Assistance



As conditions in the poorhouses worsened,
advocates introduced the use of direct financial
assistance to people living in poverty as an
alternative.
Reformers still preferred private charity rather
than governmental involvement.
They believed that assistance should not be
considered to be a right, but instead should remain
uncertain and therefore not threaten recipients’
work ethic and initiative.
Attitudes Toward the Poor
(Part 2)

The Lovers of the Poor
arrive. The Ladies from the Ladies’
Betterment League
Arrive in the afternoon…
Their guild is giving money to the poor.
The worthy poor. The very very worthy
And beautiful poor. Perhaps just not too swarthy?
Perhaps just not too dirty nor too dim
Nor—passionate.
From The Lovers of the Poor by poet Gwendolyn Brooks
Efforts to Protect Children



The plight of poor children, as distinct from the poor
in general, received greater attention in the late
nineteenth century.
Children were removed from their families living in
the poorhouses and instead placed in orphanages.
Child advocates equated poverty with neglect, and
seized poor children from their homes and sent
them to institutions or farms.
Aid to Dependent Children


By the turn of the century,
however, some reformers realized
that they could support these
children by supporting their
mothers, rather than break up
their homes.
Based upon this premise, Aid to
Dependent Children (ADC)
programs began in 1911 with the
Illinois Fund to Parents Act and
spread to nearly every state by
1925.
Source: http://www.ssa.gov/history/afdc40.html
ADC Restrictions


The ADC programs had numerous restrictions, most notably
the disqualification of all intact families with two parents,
based upon the premise that financial assistance to families
with fathers would promote irresponsibility and idleness.
Additionally, all single mothers had to be “fit and proper.”
“In practice, ADC programs remained small. Relatively few
families were enrolled; recipients were almost exclusively
white widows … Excluded outright were most poor
mothers---those who were divorced, deserted, never married,
of color, or engaged in questionable behavior … They were
the undeserving poor.”


ADC became a federal
grant-in-aid program in
1935 as part of the
Social Security Act.
While the program was
federally funded, the
administration powers,
including the eligibility
rules and regulations,
remained with the state
and local governments.
Source: http://www.historicaldocuments.com/SocialSecurityActof1935Cont.htm
Federal Relief through the Social
Security Act
Fit and Proper Mothers


Mothers who did not meet the criteria of “fit and proper”
faced suspension of benefits, leaving their children without any
obvious means of support.
As noted by the Supreme Court in King v. Smith, suspension of
benefits often had unintended consequences: “disqualification
provisions undermined a mother's confidence and authority,
thereby promoting continued dependency; … they forced
destitute mothers into increased immorality as a means of
earning money; … they were habitually used to disguise
systematic racial discrimination; … [and] they senselessly
punished impoverished children on the basis of their mothers’
behavior, while inconsistently permitting them to remain in
the allegedly unsuitable homes.”
Unsuitable Homes



“Unsuitable homes” often referred to homes led by single mothers.
Incentives for marriage (or, conversely, disincentives for single
motherhood), like those addressed by the Court in King v. Smith,
were created to address this concern.
The “man in the house” rules became a common, with variations of
the substitute father regulations in at least eighteen states.
The regulations were typically justified “on the grounds that a man
living with a woman and her children would contribute financial
support-- a situation indistinguishable from a married couple who
would not qualify for AFDC. More commonly, the assumption was
simply that ‘immoral women’ were not entitled to aid.”
Attitudes Toward the Poor
(Part 3)


The Court in King v. Smith claimed that Aid for Families with
Dependent Children (“AFDC”) reforms in the 1960s
“corroborate that federal public welfare policy now
rests on a basis considerably more sophisticated and
enlightened than the ‘worthy-person’ concept of
earlier times.”
After the 1960’s, advocates argued that public welfare benefits
should not be considered charity, but instead should be
redefined as a property right created by eligibility criteria.
According to Donna Price Cofer, the “Social Security Act
of 1935 provided that all persons establishing
eligibility under its dictates are entitled to its
benefits.”



This rights-based argument was famously articulated in
the 1964 Yale Law Journal article The New Property by
Professor Charles Reich.
In the article, Reich describes the vastness of federal
government largess, including welfare benefits,
government employment, licenses, franchises, contracts,
subsidies, services, and the use of public resources.
As Reich noted, “hardly any citizen leads his life without
at least partial dependence on wealth flowing though the
giant government siphon. In many cases, dependency is
not voluntary. Valuables that flow from government are
often substitutes for, rather than supplements to, other
forms of wealth.”
Source: http://www.yale.edu/opa/v29.n4/story3.jpeg
Welfare as Property
Property as a Right



In addition to direct financial support from the government,
Reich explained that “more and more of our wealth takes the
form of rights or status rather than of tangible goods.”
According to Reich, however, property “is a legal institution
the essence of which is the creation and protection of certain
private rights in wealth of any kind.”
Entitlement, according to Reich, means “objective eligibility
safeguards against revocation or loss of benefits, and it means
that the individual’s rights, whatever they may be, should be
know to him and enforceable through law.”
Welfare as Property




Reich concluded that government largess must “begin to do the work of
property.” He wrote that “[e]ventually those forms of largess which are
closely linked to status must be deemed to be held as of right.
Like property, such largess could be governed by a system of regulation
plus civil or criminal sanctions, rather than a system based upon denial,
suspension and revocation.
Reich concluded that the concept of largess as a right is most important
for welfare programs that support the unemployed, the elderly, and those
living in poverty.
Recognizing that these benefits “represent part of the individual’s rightful
share in the commonwealth,” Reich insisted that welfare and other
benefits must be protected as a property right in order to maintain
individual well-being and dignity.
But the Courts were
not yet convinced …




At the time of King v. Smith, however, the courts had not adopted the
argument that welfare payments should be considered a property right.
In a case filed at the same time as King, a District of Columbia federal
court allowed “man in the house” substitute father regulations.
The court agreed with the defendant Board of Commissioners that
welfare benefits should be considered “grants or gratuities. Their
disbursement does not constitute payment of legal obligations that the
government owes.”
It was in this setting, with an ongoing debate regarding behavior
modification, the well-being of children, and the property-rights of welfare
benefits that King v. Smith was filed in federal court in late 1967.
Welfare and “The Man”

“The truth is that [AFDC] is like a supersexist marriage. You trade
in a man for the man. But you can’t divorce him if he treats you bad.
He can divorce you, of course, cut you off anytime he wants. But in
that case he keeps the kids, not you. The Man runs everything. In
ordinary marriage, sex is supposed to be for you and your husband.
On AFDC you’re not supposed to have any sex al all… You may
have to agree to get your tubes tied so you can never have more
children just to avoid being cut off welfare. The man, the welfare
system, controls your money. He tells you what to buy and what
not to buy, where to buy it, and how much things cost. If things-rent,
for instance- really cost more than says they do, it’s just too bad for
you.”
-Johnie Tillmon, first chair of the National Welfare Rights Organization,
1972 [source: Brutal Need by Martha F. Davis, pg. 6]
Poverty Law in the 1960’s



Public interest lawyers rose from 650 to 2,500
between 1963 and 1971
By 1967, 36 law schools offered courses in
poverty law
Between 1965 to 1974, 164 cases on poverty
issues were appealed to the Supreme Court,
accounting for 7% of cases heard by the
Supreme Court
[source: Brutal Need by Martha F. Davis, Pg. 10]
Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law


Leader of the welfare rights movement
Litigation began in the South because:



The situation was worse for recipients in the
South than in the North
More litigation successes for civil rights in the
South
Published Welfare Rights Handbooks in
Georgia and Mississippi and training for
lawyers across the South
Influential Cases

Georgia – Anderson v. Schaefer, 1968



Garbus drafted the King complaint based upon this case in Georgia
framed on racial discrimination arguments and strict scrutiny
“employable mothers” regulation – a mother must accept suitable
employment and show that suitable employment is not available to her



Part-time or irregular employment wages my be supplemented
Holding: discriminates between persons on the basis of their source of income
without any relation to their actual financial needs in that persons with income
from employment receive less in AFDC benefits than persons with the same
amount of income from other sources.
Washington D.C. – Smith v. Brd. Of Commissioners


use harsh, oppressive, illegal, and humiliating methods in making their
investigations as to the question whether a particular recipient of assistance is
worthy of that aid.
holding



no jurisdiction over the internal administration of this agency or any other
government department
administration of relief involves discretion on the part of the agency entrusted with
that duty
Motion to Dismiss entered
The Parties


Plaintiff: Mrs. Sylvester Smith
 Waitress, earning $20/week, Mother of four
 Brought on behalf of all mothers of needy children
 Willie E. Williams – “man-in-the-house”
Defendants: Reuben K. King, Commissioner of the State Dept. of Pensions
and Security and State of Alabama
 adopted the regulations designed to affect the policy and to exercise
the executive and administrative duties of the Alabama State
Department of Pensions and Security
 formulated a plan in order to receive federal funds under the program.
The plan to receive aid for dependent children was required to be
consistent with the provisions of the Social Security Act and the
Constitution of the United States
How the Case Came to Be




In 1966, Smith sent a letter to President Johnson complaining
about the inadequacy of her welfare grant and the letter was
forwarded to welfare officials in Alabama
Mrs. Smith received a notice of termination of AFDC
payments due to a violation of the substitute father regulation
(‘Child Ineligible if There Is a Father of Mother Substitute’ )
Mrs. Smith refused to provide evidence showing that she was
not “in relations” with Willie Williams, a married father of nine
Center for Social Welfare and Policy under co-director Martin
Garbus
Case Timeline
Smith v. King
277 F.Supp. 31
D.C.Ala. 1967
November 08, 1967
King v. Smith
390 U.S. 903, 88 S.Ct. 821 (Mem)
U.S.,1968
January 22, 1968
King v. Smith
392 U.S. 309, 88 S.Ct. 2128
U.S.Ala. 1968.
June 17, 1968
Smith v. King – District Court

Prepared a “Brandeis Brief”


Of the 184 cases where a violation of the substitute father regulation
occurred, 182 involved black families
Two arguments:



Ruling for Smith, the State appeals



“substitute father" regulation violated the Social Security Act and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the Act’s definition of
“parent” was inconsistent with the Social Security Act.
Alabama’s substitute father regulation was actually designed to discriminate against
African Americans.
Martin Garbus began working for the Roger Baldwin Foundation under the
ACLU
Substitute Father Regulation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th because it was an arbitrary and discriminatory classification
Alabama was ordered to reinstate ADC payments
Code of Alabama Language

Alabama requires defendants to provide Aid to Dependent Children
financial assistance ‘on behalf of any needy child who is a dependent child
as defined in the Federal Social Security Act or amendments thereto who
shall comply with the applicable requirements of this chapter, and who: (a)
Has not sufficient income and resources from all sources to provide a
reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health; (b) who meets
any one of the following residence requirements - (1) has resided within
the state for one year immediately preceding the application for aid, or (2)
was born within the state within one year immediately preceding the
application for aid, or whose parent or other near relative (as defined in
the Federal Social Security Act) with whom the child is living has resided in
the state for one year immediately preceding the birth of said child; (c) has
not directly or indirectly disposed of or deprived himself of any property
for the purpose of qualifying for the benefits of this chapter; and (d) is not
receiving any other type of public assistance for which federal matching is
available.
Main Question: Was the man having sex with the
child’s mother?


The Social Security Act defined a “dependent child” as an age-qualified
needy child who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason
of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental
incapacity of a parent, and who is living with his [family member], in a place
of residence maintained by one or more of such relatives as his or their
own home
Alabama’s definition of a “substitute father”: A man “who is able-bodied
man, married or single, is considered a substitute father of all the children
of the applicant mother in three different situations: (1) if he lives in the
home with the child's natural or adoptive mother for the purpose of
cohabitation; or (2) if he visits [the home] frequently for the purpose of
cohabiting with the child's natural or adoptive mother; or (3) if he does
not frequent the home but cohabits with the child's natural or adoptive
mother elsewhere

Whether the substitute father was actually the father of the child was
irrelevant or if he contributed to the child’s support
Case Timeline
Smith v. King
277 F.Supp. 31
D.C.Ala. 1967
November 08, 1967
King v. Smith
390 U.S. 903
U.S. 1968
January 22, 1968
King v. Smith
392 U.S. 309
U.S.Ala. 1968.
June 17, 1968
Smith’s Arguments




Center files an amicus brief alleging a violation of the Social Security Act, fearing
that Garbus’ brief would not be sufficient
Garbus argues that the Alabama regulation is directed at a dependent child or
children whose mother has non-marital sexual relationships with a man, or in
general, engages in what the State defines as immoral conduct, and thus will receive
no public assistance, therefore, it is a violation of the Social Security Act and the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Congress defined the term “parent” as an individual who owed to the child a stateimposed legal duty of support. Because AFDC assistance was denied, the state
breached its federal obligation to furnish aid to families with dependent children.
The intent of Congress was not for the children to be denied AFDC assistance
solely because their mother was cohabitating with a man.

Intent: the federal and state laws were to provide financial assistance to needy children
who were deprived of the support and care of one of their parents and was required to
conform with the equal protection clause
Alabama’s Arguments


The substitute father regulation only defines who a
non-absent parent is under the Social Security Act
and that this regulation gives them the ability to
allocate its recourse available through AFDC.
The regulation discourages illicit sexual relationships
and illegitimate births and it puts families in which
there is an informal marital relationship on par with
those in which there is an ordinary marital
relationship
Supreme Court Ruling


The Supreme Court refrained from determining if the regulation violated the Equal
Protection Clause. In regard to finding a violation the Social Security Act, the Court
stated “our conclusion makes unnecessary consideration of appellees' equalprotection claim, upon which we intimate no views.”
Intent of Congress



Children should receive the assistance regardless of their mother’s actions.
Congress intended AFDC to provide economic security for children whom it could not
reasonably expect would be provided for simply by securing employment for family
breadwinners
State’s interest of discouraging sexual relationships was not a legitimate justification
for AFDC qualifications



immorality and illegitimacy should be dealt with through rehabilitative measures, rather
than measure which punish dependent children
sexual conduct of the mother was wholly unrelated to any purpose of the assistance
statutes
Sexual partner of the mother has no obligation to the mother’s children
Time Magazine- ‘legendary, one of the best trial lawyers in the country”
Case repertoire:
Goldberg v. Kelly
Copyright infringement against Eminem
Class action employment discrimination case against President Bush
Flight attendants labor dispute against AA
Don Imus, Al Pacino, Lauren Bacall, Martin Lawrence, Sean Connery,
Michael Caine, Richard Gere, Robert Redford, Penny Marshall, Spike Lee,
Michael Moore
Source: http://www.dglaw.com/biographies/index3.html
Martin Garbus
Biography

Partner at David & Gilbert LLP






Trial practice at Yale Law School
Constitutional Law at Columbia
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York.
Director, Roger Baldwin Foundation
Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union
Associate Director, American Civil Liberties Union
Quotes


An admirable gesture: 20 percent of his cases are, he says, labors of
conscience rather than $400- to $1,000-per-hour cash machines
that pad the lifestyle and furnish the apartments in Midtown and
Beijing he shares with his wife, Sarina Tang, an art dealer with a
gallery in China. The New York Times, A Defender of Controversial,
and now of Imus, May 25, 2007
“Marty is a man of incredible integrity and a dynamic champion of
freedom of speech. In my mind, he is an American Hero.” – Harvey
Weinstein, Founder of Miramax Films in New York Super Lawyers
2006
Life after King v. Smith

Shapiro v.Thompson

One year residency requirement found unconstitutional

Equal protection denied by invidious discrimination

“Implicit in any such distinction is the notion that indigents
who enter a State with the hope of securing higher welfare
benefits are somehow less deserving than indigents who
do not take this consideration into effect.” Justice Brennan
Life after King v. Smith

Goldberg v. Kelly

Court determined that a pre-termination hearing
was required prior to suspending welfare
payments

Due Process argument

Welfare is a property right rather than a privilege
Welfare – Property or Privilege?

Following the preceding cases, the public’s perception
of welfare began to change:



Temporary assistance gave way to entrenched dependence
The recipients themselves changed from widows to never
married, single mothers
Society itself saw changes:


The Civil Rights Era – 1960s and 1970s
The “Me” Era – 1980s and 1990s
Attitudes Toward the Poor
(Part 4)




The Political Inception of the “Welfare Queen”
Political candidates began using welfare reform as a
tool in their campaigns
Welfare reform relied on the characterization of
welfare as a handout or charity
Programs instituted during this period focused on
poverty as an individual choice or consequence of
actions, rather than a national systemic problem.
Examples of rhetoric used to support
welfare reform:

"Welfare Promotes Intergenerational Dependence“

"Welfare Recipients Do Not Want To Work“

"Welfare Programs Are Very Costly“

"Welfare Parents Should Play by the Same Rules as Taxpayers“

"Welfare Families Are Larger than Non-Welfare Families“

"Welfare Mothers Intentionally Get Pregnant in Order To Get
an Increased Benefit"
The First Reported Welfare Queen



"She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security
cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four nonexisting deceased husbands. And she is collecting
Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid,
getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare
under each of her names."
This quote refers to a Chicago woman, later convicted of
welfare fraud.
It was said by Ronald Reagan in 1976.
Programs Aimed at Ending Welfare

Learnfare

Family Cap


Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996
Healthy Marriage Initiative

Wisconsin – 1987 –
now repealed


Monitored truancy in
teens; benefits could
be reduced by their
full amount
Over $3 million in
benefits withheld
Source: http://www.chesapeake.va.us/services/depart/humanser/learnfare.shtml
Learnfare
Family Caps


Denies additional benefits to children born to
mothers already receiving benefits
Similar to programs found unacceptable in the 1960s:


Punishes the child for the actions of the parent
Goes directly against the holding in King, finding that
otherwise eligible children could not be denied assistance
based on the actions of their parents
Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996

PRWORA lists as it’s purposes:

(1) provide assistance to needy families so that the children may be cared
for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
(2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by
promoting job preparation, work and marriage;
(3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and
establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence
of these pregnancies; and
(4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

PRWORA also created TANF, which replaced AFDC.



Temporary Aid to Needy Families




Block grants to states to
distribute at their
discretion
Five year maximum
eligibility
Welfare-to-Work
programs
Marriage promotion
programs
Source: http://www.clintonfoundation.org/082206-nr-cf-gn-edhow-we-ended-welfare-together.htm
The Marriage Solution

Although marriage promotion programs were included in the
original PRWORA passed in 1996 and subsequent legislation,
the “Healthy Marriage Initiative” introduced by George W.
Bush is far more encompassing:



Authorized a direct funding stream to marriage promotion
programs
Required that a portion of TANF funds be directed to
marriage promotion programs
Allowed for preferential funding to married couples
Have we come Full Circle?





Interview with Evelyn Brodkin from the University of
Chicago
“Nothing new under the sun,” as she described.
Welfare as property protected by due process vs.
Welfare as a tool to ensure democratic participation
http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=532
http://www.uq.edu.au/swahs/welfaretowork/Final/conf
erencepaperBrodkinfinal.pdf
Attitudes Toward the Poor
(Part 6): The Survey



The ten question on-line survey that the class participated in the last few
days was based upon a 2001survey by National Public Radio, the Kaiser
Family Foundation, and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of
Government.
The telephone survey was given to 1,952 people, representing different
political parties, races, sex and income levels.
The first nine of the questions (and the answer choices) were taken
directly from the survey; the full 2001 survey included an additional 60
questions. The full survey and the results can be found at:
http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/poverty/summary.html
1. In your opinion, which is the bigger cause of poverty today - that people are not
doing enough to help themselves out of poverty, or that circumstances beyond their
control cause them to be poor?
100%
Circumstances
Not Doing Enough
Don't Know
45%
0%
48%
0%
7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Our Class
General Public in 2001
80%
100%
3. From this list of possible causes of poverty, which one would you say is
the MOST important cause?
Drug Abuse
0%
Medical Bills
0%
13 %
6%
43%
Part Time or Low Wage Jobs
13 %
Too Many Single Parent Families
0%
Shortage of Jobs
0%
8%
6%
2 1%
The Welfare System
6%
Too Many Immigrants
0%
Poor People Lack Motivation
0%
Decline in Moral Values
0%
4%
11%
13 %
36%
Poor Quality of Schools
None of These
Don't Know
No Major Cause
16 %
0%
1%
0%
3%
Our Class
0%
2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
General
Public in
2001
4. In general, do you think poor people have higher, lower, or about the same moral
values as other Americans?
Higher
Lower
0%
8%
0%
21%
93%
Same
67%
7%
7%
Don't Know
0%
20%
40%
60%
Our Class
General Public in 2001
80%
100%
5. Do you think that poor people find it hard to get work, or do you think there are jobs available
for anyone who is willing to work?
69%
Hard to Get Work
27%
31%
Jobs Available
Don't Know
69%
0%
4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Our Class
General Public in 2001
80%
100%
6. Which of the following statements comes closer to your own views?
Poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything
in return, or poor people have hard lives because government benefits
don’t go far enough to help them live decently.
14%
Poor people today
have it easy
46%
Poor people have
86%
hard lives
Don't Know
43%
0%
11%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Our Class
General Public in 2001
80%
100%
7. Do you think government programs that try to improve the condition of poor people in this
country are generally making things better, are making things worse, or aren't having much impact
one way or another?
Making Things
57%
34%
Better
Making Things
14%
13%
Worse
14%
Not Much Impact
48%
14%
Don't Know
4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Our Class
General Public in 2001
80%
100%
8. Here is a list of things the government could do to directly help the poor in
America. Please tell me if you support or oppose each.
*Percentage supporting each reported below.
Increasing the Minimum
92%
Wage
86%
Increasing Tax Credits for
8 5%
Low Income Workers
80%
Increasin Cash Assistance for
69%
Families
54 %
Expanding Subsidized
8 5%
Daycare
8 5%
Spending more for Medical
77%
Care for Poor People
83%
Spending More for Housing
92%
Poor People
75%
Making Food Stamps More
92%
Available to Poor People
6 1%
Guaranteeing Everyone a
54 %
Minimum Income
Our Class
57%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
General
Public in
2001
9. Here is a list of things the government could do that some people say would
reduce poverty in America. Do you support or oppose the government doing each?
*Percentage supporting each reported below.
Requiring Schools to Teach
15%
Moral Values and Work
83%
Ethic
Expanding Public
92%
Employment Programs
82%
Epanding Job Training
92%
Programs
94%
Improving Public Schools in
10 0 %
Low Income Areas
94%
Making It Harder to Get
0%
Divorced
38%
Putting More Police in Low
46%
Income Areas
Our Class
72 %
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
General
Public in
2001
10. Please note: this final question is not from a pre-existing survey, and therefore
cannot be compared to the general public. Do you believe that welfare recipients
should be required to do the following as a condition of their payments?
17%
Develop Self-Sufficiency Plan
Abide by Five Year Limit
8%
Attend Job Training
8%
50 %
2 5%
17%
33%
50 %
17%
17%
Volunteer in the Community
50 %
17%
17%
Parenting Workshops
8%
Pay Child Support
8%
33%
33%
Avoid Criminal Activity
33%
0%
0%
Marriage/Relationship Workshops
17%
Report Household Size
Verify Income Annually
Agree
50 %
Somewhat
Agree
2 5%
50 %
2 5%
8%
Somewhat
Disagree
6 7%
2 5%
0%
0%
42%
Disagree
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Don't Know