Public Assistance
2 views of policy failure:
conservative criticisms
liberal criticisms
-fraud
-excessive bureaucracy
-costs
-work disincentives
-breakup of family
-centralized control
-inadequate benefits
-red tape
-punitive features
-work disincentives
-breakup of family
-state control
Another way of looking at the perceived failure of
public assistance programs:
cultural perceptions
Program Design/Management
-fraud
-work disincentives
-breakup of family
-fraud
-work disincentives
-breakup of family
-red tape
-excessive bureaucracy
-inadequate benefits
-costs
-programs too centralized
-too much state-to-state
variation
-punitive features
Evaluating Public Assistance
Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC)
• Goals - Title IV of 1935 Social Security Act
established the “Federal-State” program for aid to dependent
children and authorized annual appropriations from the
general revenues....”for the purposes of encouraging the care
of dependent children in their own homes or in the homes of
relatives by enabling each state to furnish financial assistance
and rehabilitation and other services as far as practicable
under the conditions in each state to needy children and their
parents or relatives with whom they are living to help maintain
and strengthen family life and to help parents or relatives
attain or retain capability for self-support and personal
independence consistent with the maintenance of continuing
parental care and protection....and to maintain a reasonable
level of subsistence.”
Evaluating Public Assistance
• History of Caring for Needy Dependent Children in
America
-the colonial period through early national period - indentured
servitude
-the 19th century - almshouses
-early 20th century - Mothers’ Pensions Laws [states]
-1909 - President’s Conference on the Care of Dependent
Children
-1935 - passage of the Social Security Act
Implementation of Welfare Policies in the U.S.
National programs:
National/State programs:
Old Age, Survivors, and
Disability Insurance
Medicare
Supplemental Security Income
Veterans’ Benefits
Medicaid
AFDC
Food Stamps
Women, Infants, and Children
Unemployment Compensation
Why are some welfare programs “nationalized” while others are
“partnerships” between national and state governments?
Categorical grants have been the predominant mechanism for
implementing public assistance (poverty-relief) programs in the
United States. WHY?
Public Assistance as a Joint National-State Effort
A number of explanations have been suggested for the
predominance of categorical grants in public assistance:
• minimal national standards
• preserves policy-making integrity of the States
• States know local conditions “best”
• members of Congress represent localities (State delegations)
• allow state/local political objectives to be served
Implications of using categorical grants to implement public
assistance programs:
• States have control over implementation of important program
elements [eligibility standards, needs standards, levels of
benefits]
• States determine goals of programs within its own jurisdiction
Facts About AFDC Recipients
• Almost 79% of all AFDC families are headed by one parent;
in 7% of AFDC families two parents are present; 93% of
AFDC children live with their mothers; only 13% live with
their fathers; in 41% of cases, the father cannot be located;
in only 2% the mother cannot be located
• the average AFDC family has 2 children; almost 74% of
AFDC families have 1 or 2 children; only 8% have 5 or more
• over 14% of all AFDC mothers are working full or part-time;
39% of AFDC fathers do not work because of mental or
physical disability
• 54% of AFDC mothers are under the age of 30; 8% are
teenagers
Facts About AFDC Recipients
• 50% of AFDC cases are closed in two years or less; 76%
are closed in five years or less; only 24% of AFDC families
are dependent on the program longer than five years
• over 35% of children receiving AFDC are under the age of
five
• only 74% of AFDC families receive Food Stamps even
though they are automatically eligible
• over 38% of AFDC recipients are white; 40% are black;
16% are Hispanic; 3% are Asian